Too many lenses? What would you get rid of?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by cyrax83, Jul 4, 2015.

  1. cyrax83

    cyrax83 Mu-43 Regular

    Dec 8, 2014
    When I first got my Olympus camera, I thought I'd get a Olympus 25 and 45 1.8 prime and be done with it, and that's what I did (even before the camera arrived!). I picked them up for dirt cheap too!

    Plans changed and instead of getting the E-M10 as I was originally going to, I got the E-M1 with the 12-40 pro 2.8 which is an amazing camera. Since then I've picked up some additional lenses and recently another body. My Olympus kit consists of:

    E-M1 and E-M5 as a backup/second body when I cbf changing lenses
    12-40 2.8
    25 1.8
    45 1.8
    60 2.8 Macro
    75 1.8 (recent new acquisition)
    40-150 f/4-5.6

    Now I don't have any plans for wildlife and I have barely used the 40-150 as it is so I'm happy the long range is covered. if I need it I do love the 12-40 2.8 as it's a solid piece of glass.

    I recently picked up the 75 1.8 to cover the longer range for a fast prime/portrait. I used it out on the beach, and whilst it's a heavy lens build like a tank, I do love it. The 150mm focal length doubles up perfectly as a short tele and fantastic portrait. I was thinking the perfect combo would be to have the 12-40 2.8 on the E-M1 and the 75 1.8 on the E-M5.

    As I love macro, I do love and will keep the Oly 60mm 2.8 macro.

    The 25 and 45 1.8 are now in a strange place. The 25 1.8 i'm happy to keep in case I'm going out and want something very portable and one single general purpose lens.

    The 45 1.8 i'm not sure. I'm currently trying to sell it, but for the ~$180 USD it would sell for in Australia - it's probably not worth it especially since I have an aftermarket B+W UV Filter and after market filter hood.

    Is there really a place for the 45 1.8 in this kit? Do I just cut my losses and sell it as it may not be used, or keep it? I feel it's so close to the 40 2.8, and the 60 2.8, and for portrait the 75 1.8 will be the go to lens. On the other hand, it's so cheap :hmmm:

  2. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    I have almost the same lenses (P20 instead of O25) except for the 75. I though about the 45 often but I'm not convinced. I'm sure it will be left at home often.
    How much did you use it in the last year? If you had to leave one or two lenses at home for your next shooting session which one will you leave?

    The 25 and the 45 can make for a super small generic kit: much smaller and lighter then your perfect combo, something to bring around "just in case".

    If you do not use it I'd sell it: it won't get more value then it has now. Would you swap it for another lens or another item?
  3. WasOM3user

    WasOM3user Mu-43 Veteran

    Oct 20, 2012
    Lancashire, UK
    With Indoor portraits it can be difficult with the 75mm due to the subject distance required which is where the 45mm F1.8 helps.

    The question then becomes "are you happy with the subject to background separation with F2.8 at 40mm? If yes then you are OK with the 12-40.

    Only you can answer this question as everyone else may have a different opinion.

    For example:-
    I have considered the 75mm, and I am a great admirer of the the lens, but for most of my portraits in typical UK sized rooms it can be difficult enough to get enough subject distance with the 45mm so the 75mm would sit in the bag. Outdoors I dig out the trusty Tamron SP90 F2.5 where the extra focal length helps with the separation at F2.5.

    I also love the handling of the 45mm on the EM-5, the combination is what brought me to m4/3, I.e. Small, light, quick, good quality and no need for a tripod so brilliant for informal work!!!
  4. So Thankful

    So Thankful Mu-43 Veteran

    Jun 9, 2015
    I have sold many lenses over the years many times regretting my decision. My advice is to keep all your equipment and just take what you think you will need on each given outing. Get a few different bags in various sizes to accommodate your needs.
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    There's no such thing as too many lenses...only too little space.
    • Agree Agree x 8
    • Like Like x 3
    • Funny Funny x 2
  6. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Keep all.
    That's a good lineup of lenses with no duplication and minimal overlap.
    Buy an ultrawide zoom to go with them!!
    • Like Like x 3
  7. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 30, 2013
    Lens lineup looks fine, each of these has a purpose. I wouldn't get rid of anything here, unless there is a lens you genuinely never use.

    I would buy an ultrawide zoom though. :biggrin:
  8. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 13, 2012
    David Dornblaser
    I have those lenses with the exceptions of the O60 & 75. I would keep them all.
  9. cyrax83

    cyrax83 Mu-43 Regular

    Dec 8, 2014
    Thanks guys for the advice. Oh how I'd love an ultrawide but the 7-14 is out of the budget

    If Oly released a cheaper 8mm reticular f/4 prime or cheaper slower zoom lens, well... That'd be another story
  10. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 30, 2013
    A used/import 9-18/4-5.6 isn't that expensive.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2014
    I decided a while back that any primes in my bag had to notably distinguish themselves from the Pro zooms. Otherwise, they wouldn't be worth it. My dream list of primes (I don't have all of them) would be:

    Olympus 8mm f/1.8 Pro Fisheye ✔️
    Pan-Leica 25mm f/1.4 ✔️
    Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2
    Olympus 60mm f/2.8 macro ✔️
    Olympus 75mm f1.8 ✔️
    Olympus 300mm f/4 Pro

    I have the 12mm f/2 and 45mm f/1.8 and never use them. I haven't been able to sell them, but given the low resale value for them, haven't tried too hard. They're still great for their size, so I can still see them as useful for a small PEN, or something.
  12. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Legend

    If you want to cull ruthlessly, then I'd get rid of the 25/45/75mm primes. Your 12-40 covers the first two. 60/75mm are close in focal length and since you said you love macro, the 75mm is a bit redundant unless you desperately need the f1.8 aperture. Since you seem OK with f2.8 on the zoom, that's my first reaction.

    Now you probably don't need the money that bad, so you may not need to go that extreme.

    Another thought is that if you want a 2 lens/body combo, maybe trading the 3 f2.8 primes for a 35-100mm f2.8 is a reasonable idea.
  13. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 30, 2013
    This is very similar to my kit. I have the 7-14/4, 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8, and I like my primes to be noticeably different:

    I have the 12/2 as well but will likely sell it soon (resale value isn't bad for this lens) and sold my 45/1.8 immediately after getting the Nocticron.
  14. hazwing

    hazwing Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 25, 2012
    I'm in a similar boat to the op, except I have the 17/1.8 instead of the 25mm.

    Im thinking of getting rid of the 45mm, since getting the 75mm. However, I have so far kept it for its size and it's low resale value.
  15. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2014
    Owning the Oly 45 is one reason I haven't been able to justify buying the Nocticron. That, and I don't need the OIS. But, I'll get it someday, or maybe wait and see how it goes with the fast primes Oly says they will make next.

    I actually do think the small Oly primes are tough to beat for quality - compactness ratio.
  16. PacNWMike

    PacNWMike Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Dec 5, 2014
    Salish Sea
    Sell all of the primes and buy a 9-18 if you can't afford a 7-14. :biggrin:
  17. mcasan

    mcasan Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 26, 2014
    I stick with my 60mm Macro and the rest are all Pro zooms.
  18. PacNWMike

    PacNWMike Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Dec 5, 2014
    Salish Sea
    OK, OK. Add a macro. I guess I do have that 105 Sigma. (and a basket of old Zuikos):) 
  19. mcasan

    mcasan Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 26, 2014
    As someone who shoots mostly landscape and wildlife, I don't understand wanting a double handful of small primes. For me the 3 Pro zooms at 2.8 plus the TC can usually do what I need. Granted I will get the 300mm Pro when it is available late this year.

    Is the bokeh using 1.x lenses all that different from using 2.8 lenses? Of course some of the bokeh results in the relative distances between the lens, the subject and the background.
  20. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2014
    I totally understand where you're coming from, as it sounds like you and I gave much the same needs. I prefer zooms for 90% of my shooting because of the convenience factor. But, adding in a macro lens and a fisheye, there's two primes with unique capabilities the zooms can't do (though extension tubes help with the macro). The 300mm pro is a must-have for me as a wildlife photographer. Then add specialty situations where even more background separation than you can get with technique, and/or more low light performance is needed, and some of those other primes still have enough of an advantage that at least one or two of them might be tempting, if they are distinguishing enough in those departments (which is why for me it will be only the fastest and sharpest primes or none at all). Even then, I don't know if I would have bought some of my primes had the Pro zooms come out first, and the main reason I have not bought the Nocticron (as good as it is) is that because I largely agree with you, I just haven't been able to justify the price.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.