sad reflection after an adventure in Iceland

[silver92b]

You go on a trip to Iceland and take only the 14-42mm lens? I'd say you didn't put much thought into your trip. However, that lens alone should have met most of your needs shooting landscapes. In my many years of experience many people make the mistake thinking an ultra-wide lens is needed to shoot landscapes. About 99% of the time taking a few steps back can solve the FOV problems you may think you have. Not to mention the potential of stitching.

On the long end a 45-200 zoom would have done the rest of the work for you. And not a very expensive lens to boot.

With all due respect, I disagree about the ultra wide lens. The very wide angle lenses (even the fish eye lenses) are indeed very good for landscape photography. It is true that a long lens can also be quite effective for landscapes too, but sometimes one cannot step back far enough to get the composition you might want. Super wide angle lenses are not indispensable, but they sure are nice to have...

 

[Luke]

you could just get a superzoom and be done with it. A step down in IQ , but you' never need to worry about what lens to bring or buying more gear or switching lenses.

 

[Viktor1135]

I'm off to Iceland in January and will be taking both my 15mm F/1.7 and 14-140mm II along with my little GM1.

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

... I was struggling with my 14-42 not having enough wide and enough zoom.

You took the cheapest kit zoom, instead of buying what you wanted ;

You could have brought along the Oly 14-150.

What is wring with the Panasonic 14-140

It looks like Caolino is trolling to me.

 

[pellicle]

It looks like Caolino is trolling to me.

are you implying that I'm Caolino?

Perhaps its just great minds think alike?

best wishes

 

[Zee]

Workman / tools

Nuf said

Amen.

I've shot various trips with just a single focal length, never found it an issue. Learn to use what you have with you.

Z...

 

[zap]

I'm off to Iceland in January and will be taking both my 15mm F/1.7 and 14-140mm II along with my little GM1.

better take OP with you.

 

[scott2hot]

Just done a day at a theme park...and the 14-42 didnt cut the mustard there...so anyone travelling to such a diverse chance in a lifetime place as iceland..with a mediocre lens....is either A...Naive or B...really taking the P*$$....comments about the 18-270 kinda make me think naive.

 

[sammykhalifa]

Aww, I came into this thread hoping for a mirrorlike image in the side of a glacier.

 

[dornblaser]

Aww, I came into this thread hoping for a mirrorlike image in the side of a glacier.

Me, too. Sigh.

 

[Deleted member 16340]

Actually, so did I, Neil. I was expecting some artsy image(s) of forlorn faces in the ice.

 

[gugarci]

You go on a trip to Iceland and take only the 14-42mm lens? I'd say you didn't put much thought into your trip. However, that lens alone should have met most of your needs shooting landscapes.

I agree & you could of also brought the the Olympus 40-150. Which is an inexpensive good little lens. You would of been covered from 28-300mm.

 

[Narnian]

I cannot imagine that even the 14-42 could not take some very nice pictures of Iceland (or anywhere else for that matter). I probably take 80% of my photos with my 14, 20 and 45.

The problem is not with the equipment taken as much as the perception of the OP. There were undoubtedly lots of great pictures that were not taken between 14-42 because of obsessing over the lack of a longer zoom.

I would much rather have had the OM-10 and the 14-42 than the monster SLR the others had.

 

[gengo]

Perhaps off topic, perhaps just a tangent . . .

I entered the world of ILCs in late May / early June of this year. With the PM2 two lens kit (14-42 & 40-150). My next purchase was the P14 f2.5.

I then went on a 12 day trip to Japan (beginning in late June, lasting until early July), spread over many different locations and circumstances.

I'm still very much a novice at photography, but I never felt like that 3 lens set up was too heavy or bulky. And with the exception of some low light circumstances, I felt that the lenses performed admirably when outdoors during daylight.

While in Japan, I hiked Mt. Fuji and took only the 14-42 kit lens. Sure, I would have preferred it to have been a bit wider (and I haven't learned how to do panoramic or anything yet), but it worked just fine for my landscape needs.

 

[Swandy]

I have no issues with just taking a single lens or zoom lens on a trip. (We are leaving very shortly for a riverboat trip from Budapest to Prague along the Danube and my main lens will be the 14-42EZ. Though I will also take along the BCL Fisheye for some fun and the 17mm/1.8 for indoors/night - but that technically is covered in the focal length of the zoom. I also have the Stylus 1 but will basically be using that for those "castle shots" from the boat and unless the EM10 dies, will generally leave that camera on the boat.) But then don't complain that you can't take shots that require a longer focal length. I have the Olympus 40-150 and am leaving it home. I realize that while walking around I might miss some detail shots (assuming I am not happy with the digital zoom or cropped shots from the shorter lens), but that is my choice. If I was going somewhere where I expected to see/photograph animals/wildlife, I would certainly take a longer lens.

 

[yakky]

In threads like these, a picture is worth a thousand words....

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

And...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Caolino]

Thanks for all your comments and most probably you are right saying I'm not very experienced.. Most probably the Tammy is not very good quality wise but you should admit that would be great to have something similar for m43.
Anyway I'll look for some alternatives in my area and some buddy to discuss with..

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

. Most probably the Tammy is not very good quality wise but you should admit that would be great to have something similar for m43...

Which part of comprehension don't you understand?
There are already two lenses for m4/3rds that fit the bill : you have no excuse for creating this thread outside of trolling.

 

[demiro]

Which part of comprehension don't you understand?
There are already two lenses for m4/3rds that fit the bill : you have no excuse for creating this thread outside of trolling.

We really need to change your title from Hall of Famer to "Head of the welcoming committee".

 

[wjiang]

but you should admit that would be great to have something similar for m43.

As others have said, there are things similar for m4/3:
1) Panasonic 14-140mm (Mk2 is smaller and lighter than Mk1).
2) Olympus 14-150mm.
3) Tamron 14-150mm.

They are all approximately 18-200mm FoV for APS-C. Not quite the reach of the APS-C superzoom I know, but in the telephoto range the FoV difference gets smaller proportionally so it's not as different as you might otherwise think.

If you're looking for alternatives to fit in with your buddies and have a matching APS-C DSLR with 18-270mm single lens superzoom setup, go for it. No other system can truly match that, and that's intentional (it's where Canon, Nikon and Tamron make most of their money and heavily market/discount at). But if you're buying for yourself for weight and portability, do some more research and look at the size and weight of each individual element - camera, battery, lenses.

I recently hiked for more than 5 hours on the Great Wall in rural China with 5 lenses, spare batteries, a travel tripod, plus food and water, all in a normal backpack. That would have been totally impossible with an APS-C system.

Ask yourself if you'll ever buy other lenses - that's where the weight and size really adds up. If you won't use other lenses, a system camera might not be a good idea for you. If I was going for single lens superzoom solution for mostly good light use, I'd get an FZ1000 or something. Far more zoom reach than any DSLR superzoom.