Micro 4/3 Holy Trinity

[Markb]

I'm just using

Panasonic 14/2.5
Panasonic 20/1.7
Olympus 45/1.8

I do have a few more but these three (far from holy) primes do nearly everything i could want. I don't even own a kit zoom but I may add a wide converter to the 14mm.

Hmm, reminds me of another small, capable system

 

[mf100]

I'd go for...
Olympus 12mm f2
Voitlander 25mm f0.95 (on a focus peaking camera like the EM1)
Olympus 45mm f1.8

If I were to go for a 4th it'd be the Panasonic 20mm purely because it's a pancake lens at gives you good portability options.

 

[darcius1]

I got a deal on a 12-40 that I couldn't refuse. But still think 12, 45, 75 is the go to combo.


Sent from my iPhone using Mu-43 mobile app

 

[Photodan1]

A lot of good suggestions, depending on your personal needs. Think over what focal lengths you gravitated to with your zooms. I currently have the 17 1.8 and 45. The 12, 14, 25 and 75 are all great lenses but I'm going to invest in either the Pany 12-35 or Oly 12-40. I may keep the 17 because I love the lens but probably won't use it much when I get a fast zoom.

 

[OldRadioGuy]

I just added the 12/2 to go with 20/1.7 and 45/1.8. Since I shoot macro, the 60/2.8 makes it four.

Bob

 

[slappy]

I've got the 12mm f/2, 25mm f/1.4 and 45mm f/1.8.

I'm tempted to swap them all for the 12-40mm pro as I find it a right faff changing them over as I tend to carry my camera around on a day-out, rather than plan a day with my camera. And get the 60mm macro too.


Sent from my iPhone using Mu-43 mobile app

 

[zensu]

I've got the 12mm f/2, 25mm f/1.4 and 45mm f/1.8.

I'm tempted to swap them all for the 12-40mm pro as I find it a right faff changing them over as I tend to carry my camera around on a day-out, rather than plan a day with my camera. And get the 60mm macro too.

Sent from my iPhone using Mu-43 mobile app

I did something similar and couldn't be happier. Checking my shots with the O. 9-18 zoom over 99% of my shots were 12mm or higher, so I sold it with the PL 25 added a few dollars and got the 12-40 zoom. At first I was a little taken aback by the size and weight but after a few weeks of shooting it doesn't bother me at all. I kept my O. 60 macro and O. 40-150 zoom but the 12-40 focuses so close I'm thinking twice about keeping the macro.

 

[alex66]

Looks like the new 17mm and ever favorite 20mm has made the 17/2.8 pancake obsolete , I don't have any trinity now, I mainly shoot with my 14-42 kit and 50/1.4 FDn with EPL1 but getting an EPM2 and following trinity. Probably a poor mans trinity

Oly 17/2.8
Sigma 30/2.8
Oly OM 50/1.8

I had the 17 2.8 it was an ok lens but if you can put up with a wider lens the Panasonic 14 2.5 seems to be a lot better. The 30mm Sigma is a really good lens, its quality is far higher than you would expect for the price and if you want a cheep normal its a no brainer. Until I get an Oly 45mm I use either a Jupiter 8 or Helios 58mm but I find them more a pain to use.

 

[Baimei]

Pana Leica 25/1.4
Pana Leica 45/2.8 macro
Oly 75/1.8

Rick

 

[laser8]

The PL25 for sure - you can make-do with this lens most of times. I love the PL45 for the looks of the pictures I take with it, bot macro and non. I'd say the O12 as a third lens, but it costs too close to the 2.8 zooms that both start at 12.

 

[alex66]

I would guess the ultimate trinities would be; MF the three Vightlanders and for AF the Oly 12mm Pan Leica 25mm and the Oly 75mm or when it arrives the PanLeica 42.5mm going on opinion that I have read that is, the one I will get eventually is the 25mm.

 

[bigboysdad]

For me it's primes only and in that regard I think it's the 12, 20 and 45. The way this thread is going, it's becoming more about why you'd leave certain lenses out, so in that regard, here's my explanations for leaving out the following prime lenses:

14/2.5 - Good quality lens imho and definitely a warranted purchase, but not as good as the albeit far more expensive 12. I realise that the cost may well make the 14/2.5 a better purchase, but cost isn't the criteria here.
17/1.8 - Faster yes, and a good lens, but not as sharp as the 20. The 20 is an established classic imho, the final rendering output is definitely better than the 17.
25/1.4 - Slightly nicer rendered colours you could say, definitely faster af and a badge to make you think you actually own a "Leica" (you don't really) but again, not as sharp as the 20 and a less useful focal length.
75/1.8 - This lens has no business being part of a "trinity", it's out there in its own world, the superstar of Micro 4/3.

I'm having a hard time wondering how the "Leica" 42.5 is going to be better than the oly 45 in real world use.

 

[orfeo]

I'm having a hard time wondering how the "Leica" 42.5 is going to be better than the oly 45 in real world use.

There just loads and loads of people who prefer the Canon 50mm f1.8 against the L 50mm f1.2, but there are lots (albeit much fewer than f1.8 owners) of happy L 1.2 users out there!

 

[mnr3]

75/1.8 - This lens has no business being part of a "trinity", it's out there in its own world, the superstar of Micro 4/3.

.

I'm curious about this answer, not because I disagree, but because I'm lusting after the 75 right now in spite of it not being a logical choice. I have the p20 and old 14-140, so there is alot of room for a fast zoom (or 2) or more normal primes, wide and long, but having the reach and speed of the 75 is beckoning. Sorry for thread drift, but did not want to start a new thread yet, and your answer intrigued me.

 

[bigboysdad]

Mnr3, the embarrassing truth if I'm being honest is that you don't really need it, it's focal length is a little illogical as you say, hence it not being in my trinity, but wow, what a glorious lens it is! Does that make a bit more sense?

 

[Neftun]

Personally I do not see why the 75 is characterised as illogical or any other "out of place" description I have come across. It is very close to a good ol 135 equivalent lens, which has as far as I know, long been pretty common. I find it near perfect for isolating a subject, if I see something interesting, I find it naturally fills the frame with the 75. DOF wise it is shallower than a 135f3,5, deeper than 135f2,8, but the quality of bokeh is hard to match, not to mention the complete absence of any optical and chromatic errors. I don't think you could show CA in this if you tried it has its own, designated pocket in my bag, along with the 25 and my new 12-40. Awesome trinity. What I can't shoot with this my legacy lenses can, but none are so versatile as these three.


Patrick K

 

[EMC]

Wondering If you have two bodies.....you can have more than one trinity?

If you end up too many lenses......then just buy more bodies......:tiphat:

 

[jnewell]

Yes, I agree. Back, way back, I used to shoot 135mm lenses a lot, both on Leica Ms and Nikon SLRs. It kind of got lost between the 90/105mm lenses and the 180mm lenses but it can be a very effective FL.

Personally I do not see why the 75 is characterised as illogical or any other "out of place" description I have come across. It is very close to a good ol 135 equivalent lens, which has as far as I know, long been pretty common. I find it near perfect for isolating a subject, if I see something interesting, I find it naturally fills the frame with the 75. DOF wise it is shallower than a 135f3,5, deeper than 135f2,8, but the quality of bokeh is hard to match, not to mention the complete absence of any optical and chromatic errors. I don't think you could show CA in this if you tried it has its own, designated pocket in my bag, along with the 25 and my new 12-40. Awesome trinity. What I can't shoot with this my legacy lenses can, but none are so versatile as these three.


Patrick K

 

[broody]

For me it's primes only and in that regard I think it's the 12, 20 and 45. The way this thread is going, it's becoming more about why you'd leave certain lenses out, so in that regard, here's my explanations for leaving out the following prime lenses:

14/2.5 - Good quality lens imho and definitely a warranted purchase, but not as good as the albeit far more expensive 12. I realise that the cost may well make the 14/2.5 a better purchase, but cost isn't the criteria here.
17/1.8 - Faster yes, and a good lens, but not as sharp as the 20. The 20 is an established classic imho, the final rendering output is definitely better than the 17.
25/1.4 - Slightly nicer rendered colours you could say, definitely faster af and a badge to make you think you actually own a "Leica" (you don't really) but again, not as sharp as the 20 and a less useful focal length.
75/1.8 - This lens has no business being part of a "trinity", it's out there in its own world, the superstar of Micro 4/3.

I'm having a hard time wondering how the "Leica" 42.5 is going to be better than the oly 45 in real world use.

Just noticed you can make a great trinity out of the lenses you left out. This is why I love M43!

 

[Sahib7]

The absolute holy trinity:

Voigtländer 17.5mm f0.95

Voigtländer 25mm f0.95 or PanaLeica 25mm f1.4 (I prefer the Voigtländer)

Olympus 75mm f1.8 or PanaLeica 42.5mm f1.2 or Voigtländer 42.5mm f0.95 (I only have the Oly but the other two are extremely promising)