Three Primes for your mFT

[bigbluebear]

Hello everyone!

I've been curious about the smaller format for some time now and am finally giving it a try. Since the format is new to me, I've been doing some research and thinking about what my options are in terms of a 3 prime lens setup.

There's so many great lenses! What three prime setup would you go with?

 

[Replytoken]

Three great lenses. Do you shoot video? If so, you may want to give the 20 a pass as it can be noisy when focusing. The 25 is a larger lens, but it is one of my favorites, and it is a pleasure to manually focus. Are you planning on purchasing any more primes? If so, then you may want to consider going wide (among the three) now with the 17, if that is suitable to your style of shooting.

Good luck,

--Ken

 

[madogvelkor]

If you want a pancake lens for a more compact option, go with the 20mm (or even the 14mm). If not either the 17 or the 25 are excellent -- it just depends if you want a wide angle prime or a normal prime.

 

[twokatmew]

I have the 14, 17, 45 and 60. I use the 14 when I want a pancake or am shooting cars. The 17/1.8 is my walkaround lens. I use the 45 mostly for indoor low-light portraits and the 60 for telephoto, macro and outdoor portaits where I have more room to move.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[littleMT]

I like the 14mm......

Just a little....

 

[rparmar]

They're all good lenses, right?

I would go with the 14mm to get the widest FOV at a reasonable price. Killer lens IMO.

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

weir, Shannon River by robinparmar, on Flickr

 

[speedandstyle]

The 14mm is a super lens especially considering it's low price. The 20mm is also a great lens although it sometimes has AF issues and noise. Although a little slower in max aperture the Sigma 30mm is nice. Since you have the 60mm already a nice trinity of primes would be the 14mm, 30mm and the 60mm. The 60mm is next on my list, maybe I will get one for my birthday later this month.

 

[bigbluebear]

any reason you are all recommending the 14 over the 12mm f/2, besides price? Personally I didn't consider the 14 since I'd rather go 12mm (i.e., wide w/ small aperture for wide and indoor work) or in the 17-25mm range (traditional prime).


I believe in the long run, I will probably end up with three primes which is a fairly common setup. Based on a first look without playing with the lenses, I am leaning towards the 12mm f/2, something in between 17-25 (which I can't decide!), and either the 45 or the 60. I know some will argue that there is a place for both the 45 and the 60 on one's shelf but based on my shooting style, I can survive with just one. I personally prefer shooting wide than long.

 

[bigbluebear]

Three great lenses. Do you shoot video? If so, you may want to give the 20 a pass as it can be noisy when focusing. The 25 is a larger lens, but it is one of my favorites, and it is a pleasure to manually focus. Are you planning on purchasing any more primes? If so, then you may want to consider going wide (among the three) now with the 17, if that is suitable to your style of shooting.

Good luck,

--Ken

I don't shoot video but do tip my hat to those able to create awesome video clips.

 

[rparmar]

any reason you are all recommending the 14 over the 12mm f/2, besides price? Personally I didn't consider the 14 since I'd rather go 12mm (i.e., wide w/ small aperture for wide and indoor work) or in the 17-25mm range (traditional prime).

The 12mm doesn't have the superior optics to justify its price, IMO. Though I liked the MF mode a lot, it just isn't worth that crazy premium. Also, how much is the black version? Total rip-off.

Besides, I prefer 28mm to 24mm (135). It produces a more natural view to me.

Finally, the 12mm is smaller.

 

[bigbluebear]

They're all good lenses, right?

I would go with the 14mm to get the widest FOV at a reasonable price. Killer lens IMO.

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

weir, Shannon River by robinparmar, on Flickr

Great pic there. Here's something I took while I was in Singapore with a FF camera.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/467202_979327996754_278380891_o.jpg

 

[rparmar]

Singapore... wow!

 

[Mijo]

The 12mm doesn't have the superior optics to justify its price, IMO. Though I liked the MF mode a lot, it just isn't worth that crazy premium. Also, how much is the black version? Total rip-off.

I would respectfully disagree with this statement. I have the silver version of the 12mm and also bought the Oly hood and metal lens cover, which together is priced pretty close to the LE black 12mm package (which also included a filter).

OT - my 3 prime set up normally consists of the panny 8mm, CV 17 and the PL 45. The CV 17 is a low light monster and gets the most use when i go with just these three. If space and weight are an issue I'll sub the new Oly 17 for the CV.

My other 3 prime set up is the 12mm, PL 25 and the Oly 75.

 

[phidauex]

The 12mm is a great lens, but it is a lot more expensive than the 14mm. If you need 2mm more width, and a bit less than 1/3rd stop more light, and are willing to take a larger lens and a much more expensive lens, then by all means buy it. But if you aren't sure yet, or want a more portable lens, you can get the 14mm/2.5 from Panasonic for peanuts. I bought mine on Ebay from Hong Kong for $160, brand new.

My current primes: 7.5mm Fisheye, 14mm, 25mm, 50mm (vintage), 60mm Macro. If I had to keep just three, I'd keep the 14, the 25 and the 60.

-Sam

 

[snkenai]

Just a thought on the 45. I have used my daughter's for a month or two (still have it for now). My take on it is, that it is a great portrait lens, but not to my liking for outdoor/landscape. Just does not have that something? Maybe contrast? Don't know how to describe it, but for me, it was not worth the investment. It's a great lens, but not for my needs.
Also noticed that in very low light, the 14-42 IIr nailed focus quicker and with more authority. Still not a issue, just an observation.
So the 45 is going back and I'll use the kit lens and some legacy glass for a while.

 

[dav1dz]

Does this have to be a 3 primes kit selection?

 

[GaryAyala]

I'd go 12mm, 25mm and 75mm.

 

[bigbluebear]

I would respectfully disagree with this statement. I have the silver version of the 12mm and also bought the Oly hood and metal lens cover, which together is priced pretty close to the LE black 12mm package (which also included a filter).

OT - my 3 prime set up normally consists of the panny 8mm, CV 17 and the PL 45. The CV 17 is a low light monster and gets the most use when i go with just these three. If space and weight are an issue I'll sub the new Oly 17 for the CV.

My other 3 prime set up is the 12mm, PL 25 and the Oly 75.

Thanks for sharing! What's the CV 17?

I haven't ventured out to the panny 8mm since it's a fisheye. I've used a fisheye in the past and found it difficult to master. Also defishing tools imo take away much of the IQ.

 

[bigbluebear]

I'd go 12mm, 25mm and 75mm.

Which happen to be the three most expensive

I actually like that spread. I worry that I won't use the 75mm as much tho.

 

[Mijo]

Thanks for sharing! What's the CV 17?

I haven't ventured out to the panny 8mm since it's a fisheye. I've used a fisheye in the past and found it difficult to master. Also defishing tools imo take away much of the IQ.

The CV 17 is the Cosina Voightlander 17.5mm f.95, Voigtlaender - Nokton F0,95/17,5mm aspherical .

There's an image thread on this forum for this lens. It's expensive, MF only and real heavy but at f.95 it's a light sponge. The MFD is extrememly short, which is a huge plus (IMO).