what lenses to collect?

Discussion in 'This or That?' started by sin77, Jan 17, 2013.

  1. sin77

    sin77 Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 9, 2011
    During shooting trip, I would bring two cameras, D5100 and E-PM2.
    On D5100 I have 17-50 f2.8 and on E-PM2 PL45 f2.8 macro.

    Things I shoot are landscape, street, portrait, food macro, indoor events.

    Now my intention is to cover the ranges from ultra wide angle to around 150mm (of m43), preferrably using fast lens as I like some bokeh (not obsessive) and often shoot low light.
    I dont mind to use in-camera digital teleconverter mode, so the lens range I require is around 75mm, though 100mm can be good as well.

    As I have limited fund, I am looking at spending the least yet can achieve the above objectives.
    My intital plans are as follows:

    1. Buy Oly 9-18, & 60 macro. Sell PL45 macro & Pany 45-175x. (range is not far enough; bokeh less than desired)

    2. Buy Samyang 7.5 FE, & 75 f1.8. Sell PL45 & Pany 45-175x. (No macro lens)

    3. Buy 75 f1.8. Sell Pany 45-175x. (No UWA; no telezoom flexibility)

    4. Buy Pany 35-100 f2.8. Sell PL45, Pany 45-175x. (No macro lens)

    Which one should I pick? Or is there other alternative?
    Note that short zoom is covered by D5100 + 17-50 f2.8
  2. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    I consider a Fisheye a speciality lens. Yes, you can de-fish, but wider isn't necessarily better for things like landscape, as you get odd perspective distortion. You'd often be better off shooting a series at a longer focal length and stitching.

    You have a pretty good macro/portrait combo in the PL 45, although honestly, if you mean 'close-ups of food items' by 'food macro', something like the P 20/1.7 or Oly 45/1.8 (faster and sharper) will probably work just as well, since 2:1 or 1:1 reproduction is unnecessary for prepared dishes. Look at the 'pictures of food' thread and you'll note most people aren't using a macro lens for this kind of thing.

    I think you need to define, for yourself, what you consider essential for your objectives. I'm perfectly comfortable shooting landscape without an ultrawide, others feel an ultrawide is the 'essential' lens to own. I prefer longer focal portraits (45 is a bit short), but also love environmental portraits/candids with a fast 35 or 50mm equivalent lens (17 or 25 in MFT).

    Your easiest bet is probably just to get the 75/1.8; great for portraiture and outdoor street. None of the 'genres' you mention really require tele zoom range as such. The other lenses (14 and 45) cover a lot of other bases, although a 'normal' like a 20/1.7 or 25 might be a good idea. Sort of depends on how much you like primes.
  3. sin77

    sin77 Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 9, 2011
    I sometimes find FE images dramatic n interesting, but I guess uwa lens is a 'safer' option in usage. Also FE is only half the price of uwa. Hence, there is a dilemma.

    My food macro gets real close. The food itself (sometimes a grain) will fill the entire screen, and the plate will not be seen at all. Then of coz I also shoot flowers using macro. Some people advise that I get oly 12-50 but it is not a fast lens. I am tempted to sell my expensive macro lens so that I can get 35-100 f2.8. Hence 12-50 might fill in the gap for close up though not ideal. So I'm stuck again.

    As for 75 f1.8, it is almost 2/3 or 3/4 price of 35-100 f2.8. Is it more worthwhile to get the latter? A tiny fast zoom lens of such range is my long time dream. But the bokeh it will produce I think is only f4.0 of dslr standard. Hence dilemma again.
  4. danska

    danska Mu-43 Top Veteran

    May 21, 2012
    Portland, OR
    Real Name: