1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Too many lenses, need to thin the herd!

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Shield, Feb 16, 2012.

  1. Shield

    Shield Mu-43 Regular

    133
    Jul 11, 2011
    Worthington Ohio
    Just got a good deal on another GH2 that included 3 more lenses.

    Let's just say I need to get rid of 2 lenses to start off with.

    I now have:

    14mm f/2.5
    25mm Summilux F/1.4
    45mm Olympus F/1.8
    45mm Panasonic macro w/OIS F/2.8
    14-45mm w/OIS
    14-50 four thirds w/adapter w/OIS F/2.8 - F/3.5
    14-140 w/OIS
    45-200 w/OIS
    100-300 w/OIS

    I shoot lots of video with the GH2, and my wife uses the 14mm and the 14-45 pretty much exclusively with the GF2. Still, need to thin the herd somewhat. My gut says to get rid of the Oly 45mm and the 14-140. Thoughts?
     
  2. scarbrd

    scarbrd Mu-43 Regular

    144
    Jul 1, 2011
    Houston, TX
    I would get rid of the Oly 45mm and the 45-200.

    The 14-140 is great range if you want to take just one lens with you.

    You could also lose the kit lens or the 14-50 w/adapter. those seem to be redundant.
     
  3. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    It really all depends on the subject matter you like to shoot, I think. Do you use a tele much? There's a lot of overlap between the 45-200 and 100-300; do you need both?

    Do you need both 45s? Yes they're aimed at different targets, but they certainly overlap. Will you use the macro capability of the PL very much?

    I love my 14-140 as a do-everything lens for when I'm just walking around, or on vacation. I probably wouldn't use the 4/3 14-50 much at all. If I want a fast lens, I'll go with the 20 or 25, and if I want a zoom I'll go with the 14-45 or 14-140, and I probably wouldn't put up with the slow AF of the 4/3 lens. That's just me, though.

    I have the 14mm length covered by three lenses (7-14, 14-45 and 14-140), so I probably wouldn't keep the 14mm prime. It's not that much faster than the zooms, and it's not as sharp as the 7-14. You didn't mention the UWA zoom, but you do have 14mm covered in several other lenses.
     
  4. Adubo

    Adubo SithLord

    Nov 4, 2010
    Globetrotter
    Andrew
    i'd vote for the kit 14-45mm and 45-200mm
     
  5. Shield

    Shield Mu-43 Regular

    133
    Jul 11, 2011
    Worthington Ohio
    When you say kit lens do you mean the 14-140? The 14-50 is a different animal altogether as it's F/2.8 from 14-22mm, F/3.2 from 23-35 or so, and F/3.5 from 36-50mm.

    However, I would miss 50-140mm, and the much quieter OIS on the 14-140. The Leica 14-50 looks better IMO, but quiet + faster focus of the 14-140 makes me pause. That's why this is so tough! Also, both the 14-140 and 14-50 with adapter both fetch around $500.
    In the past year I've owned multiple copies of each lens, and to be honest, I use the 14-50 more. But as soon as I sell the 14-140 I buy another one as I miss it, or I need to go film my son riding a bicycle and want the continuous auto focus in video mode. :confused:
     
  6. Shield

    Shield Mu-43 Regular

    133
    Jul 11, 2011
    Worthington Ohio
    Nope, sure don't need both. The 100-300 dazzles me every time I use it, especially for long range. Perhaps get rid of the 45-200 and the 45mm Oly?
    I don't know really, as I've never used a macro lens before. Can't say I'd really be into taking pictures of plants and bugs up close, but there is 2 other factors I'm looking at here - the 45mm does have OIS and "Leica" glass, but the Oly opens up to F/1.8.
    My wife would be very angry if I sold her 14mm pancake - it rarely leaves her GF2. I really like that lens too.
     
  7. Shield

    Shield Mu-43 Regular

    133
    Jul 11, 2011
    Worthington Ohio
    To keep or sell? If sell, do I really need two 45mm primes?

    Perhaps sell the Oly 45, Panny 14-45 and the 45-200?
     
  8. steve16823

    steve16823 Mu-43 Regular

    181
    Sep 26, 2011
    Brookfield, IL

    I agree about the Olympus 45mm. It's a fantastic lens but given that you have Panasonic bodies it would seem the PL 45mm macro w/OIS is more flexible.

    But the 14-140mm? I can't imagine having the GH2 without it! I would sooner get rid of the adapted 14-50mm and/or the 45-200mm. Unless you find that you use the 14-50mm alot, personally I wouldn't, especially since you've got the 14/25/45mm covered with some excellent primes.
     
  9. scarbrd

    scarbrd Mu-43 Regular

    144
    Jul 1, 2011
    Houston, TX
    I was referring to the 14-45 as the kit lens. I, too, have a bag full of lenses, the least used is the original kit lens. Most used is my 14-150 Oly.
     
  10. Adubo

    Adubo SithLord

    Nov 4, 2010
    Globetrotter
    Andrew
    i'd sell the kit lens 14-45, and the 45-200mm plus the 45/macro... i'd rather keep the Oly 45/1.8 because of the aperture i get
     
  11. InlawBiker

    InlawBiker Mu-43 Veteran

    218
    Feb 1, 2012
    Seattle, WA
    Greg
    Wow, what a treasure chest of lenses. I know you said two, but what I would do...

    Sell - 45mm Panasonic macro w/OIS F/2.8
    Sell - 14-50 four thirds w/adapter w/OIS F/2.8 - F/3.5
    Sell - 45-200 w/OIS

    Keep - 14-45mm w/OIS (for the GF2. This is my most-used).
    Keep - 14mm f/2.5 - Tiny!
    Keep - 25mm Summilux F/1.4
    Keep - 45mm Olympus F/1.8
    Keep - 14-140 w/OIS
    Keep - 100-300 w/OIS
     
  12. Shield

    Shield Mu-43 Regular

    133
    Jul 11, 2011
    Worthington Ohio
    Actually there never was a kit lens that was 14-45; the "kit" was 14-42. The 14-45 is actually a tad sharper.

    I'm shooting some indoor tests right now on a tripod; all lenses (except for the 25mm and 100-300) set to 45mm @ F/5.6. Will report back in.
     
  13. Shield

    Shield Mu-43 Regular

    133
    Jul 11, 2011
    Worthington Ohio
    I have seriously considered this as well. It's the strangest thing, but I get quite a bit of moire outdoors with the 14-140 lens. At least for one I used to have; maybe this one is different.
    Also the 14-50 breathes quite a bit; when you focus it zooms in and out and it might go up on the chopping block too.
     
  14. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    702
    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    I think this is a good choice. Now your zooms don't really cross focal lengths as much.
     
  15. Shield

    Shield Mu-43 Regular

    133
    Jul 11, 2011
    Worthington Ohio
    I have made my decision; I'm selling the 14-50, 45mm Panny, and the 45-200 lens.
    Will list on ebay tonight. I will also post them in the "For sale" section on these boards with hopefully reasonable prices.

    Thanks,
    Shawn
     
  16. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    I would've said to get rid of the 14-45mm and 45-200mm.

    You have a whole slough of great prime lenses, so why do you need so many zooms which replicate their focal ranges but with much slower lens speed and softer output? Just one good super-tele zoom (the 100-300mm) will do you. However, you say you shoot a lot of video and the 14-140mm will make a good video lens so that would be my third choice of zooms to go. The 14-45mm is the most redundant with all your prime lenses in the 14mm, 25mm, and 45mm ranges. That should be the very first to go - why would you want to bring out a zoom lens that's slower and softer when you have much faster, sharper, and smaller lenses covering the same range? The 14-140mm at least gives you that mid-tele range.

    The Leica 14-50mm Vario-Elmarit is the only fast zoom you have which will have a chance of comparing in lens speed and quality with your primes. Plus keeping the Four-Thirds mount adapter will open your world up to many more great fast, affordable lenses.

    I would not get rid of your Leica 45mm Macro-Elmarit! If you do that, what will you use for macros? Even if you don't shoot them often, when you need to shoot macro there is no replacement for a macro lens! The m.Zuiko 45mm I would also keep for its fast aperture and fast autofocus, which will give you a better general-purpose lens so you can save your macro with slower aperture and longer focus throw for when you need macro. Of course, if you kept your Leica 14-50mm Vario-Elmarit with the Four-Thirds mount adapter, you could also get a good macro lens from the Four-Thirds collection such as the Zuiko 35mm f/3.5 (most affordable, but still killer sharp and very compact), Zuiko 50mm f/2, Sigma 105mm f/2.8, or Sigma APO 150mm f/2.8 (much more working distance than the Zuikos or your current Macro-Elmarit). As you probably know, AF is not needed at all for macro so the slower AF of 4/3 lenses vs. m4/3 is irrelevant.
     
  17. pxpaulx

    pxpaulx Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 19, 2010
    Midwest
    Paul
    Why not sell the 14-45mm as well? I think if your wife already uses the 14mm, you're just afraid she'll start picking up the 25mm and Oly 45! Seriously though, for the times you need a 'normal' zoom she can suck it up and use the 14-140mm. as another alternative you could even switch from the 14-45mm to the current panasonic 14-42mm (non-collapsing version) and come out another $100 ahead.
     
  18. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    Too bad. I might have taken the 100-300....
     
  19. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    I wouldn't worry about that... it just means your lens is resolving sharper detail. ;)
     
  20. jbuch84

    jbuch84 Mu-43 Veteran

    233
    Feb 9, 2011
    Orlando, FL
    James
    I'd have sold the 14-45mm and 45-200mm also and kept the Oly 45mm (such a nice lens).
    I had the same problem as you in owning the 20mm 1.7, 14mm 2.5, 14-45mm, 45-200mm. I sold all but the 20mm and 45mm and all that i miss is having a zoom but i'm planing to buy a power zoom as they are so much smaller.