What would be your next lens for travel and landscape?

  • Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-100mm f/4 IS PRO

    Votes: 12 37.5%
  • Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm f/2.8

    Votes: 7 21.9%
  • Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm

    Votes: 2 6.3%
  • Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8

    Votes: 10 31.3%
  • 7artisans 7.5mm F2.8 Fisheye

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • Total voters
    32

JoaoTFS

New to Mu-43
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Messages
8
Location
Porto, Portugal
Real Name
João TF Santos
Hello everyone,

First of all I would like to thank the help that is provided with this forum, it is refreshing to see an objective forum and without great fanaticism regarding the equipment. Let's go to the back burner ...

I am returning from a trip and the desire to expand my equipment has increased, mainly because I have two more scheduled trips to the Amalfi Coast and to Mont Saint-Michel.
I am a photographer with a tendency for landscapes and travel.
I have the Olympus OMD EM5 mark II. Now I have three lenses, Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm f / 1.8 Black, Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm f / 3.5-6.3 EZ and Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f / 4-5.6 R.

90% of my photos are taken with the 17mm :bowdown:, I love this lens, the contrast, the colors and the ability in low light. I almost do not use another lens, sometimes I use the Olympus 40-150mm f / 4-5.6 when I want a bigger range and a very rare use the 12-50 to use the focal length of 12mm, but nowadays this lens stay mostly at home.

I would like to upgrade my lens collection and but I'm not sure which one to buy. I am undecided between Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f / 2.8 which would basically replace the 12-50, but I do not know if the quality difference outweighs the investment. Another one I have in view is the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm f / 2.8, but I do not know if I will use both the extra wide angle range, I have in mind the Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1: 4 -5,6 because I do not know if the difference in quality compensates the investment. But the lens that has created the most confusion in my decision is the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-100mm f / 4 IS PRO, a lens that for travel has a great capacity and after the ease of practically just having to have a lens with me and maybe the future the 75-300, however this lens worries me because of the low light performance and also the weight of the lens itself mounted on my EM5 MII although I have a grip that improves a lot.

At this point I think my main indecision is between 7-14 and 12-100, I hope I will not be more hesitant with your opinions. :laugh1:

Any thoughts on the subject?:daz:
 

Hypilein

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
1,664
If you have no burning desire for ultra wide angle (and you would know it if you had) go for the 12-100 PRO. I don't own it (because I need f2.8 for non landscape/travel and I do like ultrawides), but for travel and landscape it is the perfect lens. Don't worry about low light. Between IBIS and tripods you rarely have to increase ISO past 1600 for travel these days. Only issue I can see is church interiors, but you could still switch to your 17mm there.
 

pondball

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 3, 2016
Messages
2,064
Location
the near far nord, eh!
LSt year at this time we were just getting ready to head over to your wonderful country and city. Porto is a city we will have no problems visiting again... same with portugal. I took two lens with me... my 12-100/4 and my 7-14/2.8. I used the 12-100 about 95% of the time... even indoors when I didn’t need a wide angle (ie. when I wasn’t on my back on the floor of a church or other building trying to capture a full ceiling - and for that the 7 - 14 was perfect).

Since then I have added the 40x150/2.8 and the 300/4 to my collection but am not considering taking them on the next trip. Instead I will squeeze in my new 25/1.2 for night and low light shots. I expect my main use lens will still be the 12x100, followed by the 25 and then for the tight indoor shots I’ll put on the 7-14.

The 12-100 is such a wonderful travel lens... carried it around throughout the day, each day for jutpst over three weeks. Carried the 7-14 in my small sling bag or a jacket pocket when available. I even carried it in a fanny pouch when I didn’t want the sling or when it was too hot for a jacket ...

As much as I love my 40-150 and 300 they are not exactly what I would consider travel lens... unless you are renting a vehicle the entire time... or a pack mule ...

for normal travel and/or hiking I can’t say enough about the 12-100...
 

Gerard

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 12, 2015
Messages
3,816
Location
Vleuten, Utrecht
During my last travels (Canadian rockies, New Zealand and Wales) my lenses were Olympus 17/1.8 and Panasonic 45-150. I am very pleased with these 2.
I wouldnt buy anything if I were you, you already have the ideal set. Unless there is a case of GAS of course. But other can give better comments than I can.
I own a Olympus 12-40, but I find it too big and heavy.

Happy travelling!
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,263
Location
Massachusetts, USA
I vote for the 12-100 PRO. As you mentioned, you only use the 12-50 these days for the 12mm size and the 40-150 "R" occasionally. While not as long as the "R" the 12-100 PRO does fairly well check off both those boxes for you. And the 17/1.8 will still be plenty useful even when traveling because it will be the lens you will want to use when walking around a town/city in the evening.
 

bassman

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
1,238
Location
New Jersey
Real Name
The Bassman
A discussion of what new equipment to buy must start with a problem statement: what picture am I trying to take that would be made easier or better with new gear?

In my case, the last lenses I bought were the 12mm and 75mm primes. The problem I was trying to solve was how to shoot concerts, where the light is limiting, with the best combination of ISO and shutter speed. So the 2.0 and 1.8 apertures were helpful. While I could shoot with my 2.8 zooms, I appreciate the extra speed. Similarly, I could get by with the 17and 45 1.8 primes, but the extra FL range gives me more flexibility. As it turns out, the 75 gave me 15 of 22 keepers Friday night. The 12 gave me 3, and the 17 and 45 each contributed 2.

So ... what problem are you trying to solve?
 

Clint

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
2,420
Location
San Diego area, CA
Real Name
Clint
@Gerard +1

The Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm f / 3.5-6.3 EZ is the most underrated Olympus lenses. The 12-40 is 1.8 times the weight of the 12-50 and although it focuses close it does not have the macro capability of the 12-50.

The 12-100mm has a nice range, with a comparatively significant weight and size increase.

If I was going to spend the money an the Olympus 9-18mm, I'd get the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f/4 instead. But you should really feel limited with what you have and have a want to shoot these wide lenses.

Gerald has already said it best.
 

Mack

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
1,672
If I were choosing given what you have, I'd go for the Laowa 7.5mm f/2. Mine is on my Pen-F 90% of the time. Small. Lightweight. Manual focus though, but the DOF is big enough that it isn't that much concern if you have the Fn button set to Focus Peaking.

Check out the users of it here on site: Showcase - Laowa 7.5mm f/2
 

Jay_M

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
548
Location
AZ
I agree that without knowing what you are trying to gain with a new lens everyone is just guessing based on their preferences. Since you mention not really ever using 12mm, and your 17mm being glued to your camera, I would assume you already have the ideal wide angle for yourself. That leads me to recommend checking out the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 II as a replacement for both of your zooms. This gets you the better aperture, while still having excellent optics, and it's more portable than the 12-100.
 

JoaoTFS

New to Mu-43
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Messages
8
Location
Porto, Portugal
Real Name
João TF Santos
LSt year at this time we were just getting ready to head over to your wonderful country and city. Porto is a city we will have no problems visiting again... same with portugal.
Thank you so much! I am always happy when I hear someone marveling at my country, and if they feel like coming back, I get the feeling that they have had the complete experience.

I took two lens with me... my 12-100/4 and my 7-14/2.8. I used the 12-100 about 95% of the time... even indoors when I didn’t need a wide angle (ie. when I wasn’t on my back on the floor of a church or other building trying to capture a full ceiling - and for that the 7 - 14 was perfect).

Since then I have added the 40x150/2.8 and the 300/4 to my collection but am not considering taking them on the next trip. Instead I will squeeze in my new 25/1.2 for night and low light shots. I expect my main use lens will still be the 12x100, followed by the 25 and then for the tight indoor shots I’ll put on the 7-14.

The 12-100 is such a wonderful travel lens... carried it around throughout the day, each day for jutpst over three weeks. Carried the 7-14 in my small sling bag or a jacket pocket when available. I even carried it in a fanny pouch when I didn’t want the sling or when it was too hot for a jacket ...

As much as I love my 40-150 and 300 they are not exactly what I would consider travel lens... unless you are renting a vehicle the entire time... or a pack mule ...

for normal travel and/or hiking I can’t say enough about the 12-100...

"or a pack mule ..." :laugh1:

thanks for your input, the way you think aligns with mine, hence why my indecision
 

JoaoTFS

New to Mu-43
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Messages
8
Location
Porto, Portugal
Real Name
João TF Santos
During my last travels (Canadian rockies, New Zealand and Wales) my lenses were Olympus 17/1.8 and Panasonic 45-150. I am very pleased with these 2.
I wouldnt buy anything if I were you, you already have the ideal set. Unless there is a case of GAS of course. But other can give better comments than I can.
I own a Olympus 12-40, but I find it too big and heavy.

Happy travelling!
now you have made me even more confused. It is not usual I have very GAS, but we all have a little
 

JoaoTFS

New to Mu-43
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Messages
8
Location
Porto, Portugal
Real Name
João TF Santos
A discussion of what new equipment to buy must start with a problem statement: what picture am I trying to take that would be made easier or better with new gear?

In my case, the last lenses I bought were the 12mm and 75mm primes. The problem I was trying to solve was how to shoot concerts, where the light is limiting, with the best combination of ISO and shutter speed. So the 2.0 and 1.8 apertures were helpful. While I could shoot with my 2.8 zooms, I appreciate the extra speed. Similarly, I could get by with the 17and 45 1.8 primes, but the extra FL range gives me more flexibility. As it turns out, the 75 gave me 15 of 22 keepers Friday night. The 12 gave me 3, and the 17 and 45 each contributed 2.

So ... what problem are you trying to solve?
The problem I am trying to solve is simple and I thought it was obvious.
Bypassing the limitations that the 17 brings me.
I love the lens mainly for its quality, colors and contrast but sometimes I feel limited by its fixed focal length and I see myself having to swap by the 40-150.
Another limitation that I feel with any of my lenses is the lack of the ultra wide in certain situations, confined spaces for example.

Otherwise I'm fine, to me the 17mm is the perfect lens
 

jbruce

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Messages
39
Location
Northern Minnesota
Real Name
John
Although I have the Oly 12-40 Pro and the 40-150 Pro, I find my most used walk-about lens is the Oly 14-150 4-5.6 II on my em1-2. It is weatherproof, light, plenty wide and nearly impossible to see any difference in IQ compared to either of the Pro lenses. You might consider adding this lens to your possible choices. John
 

ToxicTabasco

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jul 2, 2018
Messages
1,328
Location
South West USA
Real Name
ToxicTabasco
Another vote for the 12-100. That range will give you everything. If you need wider for a lnadscape, do a 2 or more shot hand held panorama, and auto stitch it in Microsoft ICE. Free software that is mighty powerful for panorama stitching, and sizing.
 

Lcrunyon

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
2,144
Location
Maryland
Real Name
Loren
If you see a difference between the 17mm prime and your consumer zooms, then you will see about the same difference between the Pro zooms and those consumer zooms as well. That just depends on your personal taste.

My 12-100 has all but completely replaced my 12-40 (it’s that good). I love the dual IS, the focal range is perfect for traveling, it’s sharpness is simply amazing for an all-in-one; and when f/4 isn’t enough, you still have your prime(s).

But it is a bigger lens, the same size as the 7-14 Pro, roughly. I use an E-M1 Mkii, which fits the Pro lenses much better.

If balancing the body and lens matters to you (for many people it doesn’t), I’d still consider getting the 12-40 for its smaller form factor. The 12-40 is just as sharp, and its lack of dual IS is mitigated by its one stop faster aperture. The focal range is also still very useful.

You can’t go wrong either way.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
11
If one of your goals is to expand your wide angle options, the PL 8-18 2.8-4 is worth considering. It is lighter than the 7-14 pro, faster than the O 9-18 and can accept filters. It gives you a lot of flexibility for tight interiors, streetscapes, and landscapes. Plus it gives you something in the more “normal” 35mm range which you seem to like given your significant use of the 17mm. With the PL 8-18 you could add a fast prime (which you also seem to like) in the 17-45 range (if you want an upgrade or different focal length from the 17) and then jump to the 75-300 for your telephoto. For travel, I don’t find that speed in a telephoto is as critical, as most of the time it’s used outdoors.
 

Thai-Mike

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
3,129
Location
Thailand
Real Name
Michael
During my 3 years experience with my EM 10 Mark2, I owned lots of lenses for night, markets, sport, traveling, in low and high light shooting, etc.. I finally got rid of lots of lenses. I use for my Traveling around Thailand and daily photographing just a view lenses, which you can see in my signature. I was viewing my old photos I took in a 6 year period. I discovered that my style is almost always the same. I feel comfortable with it.

So it depends what kind of photographer you are and this should influence your lens choices.
 

Saledolce

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2017
Messages
958
Location
Italy
90% of my photos are taken with the 17mm :bowdown:, I love this lens, the contrast, the colors and the ability in low light. I almost do not use another lens, sometimes I use the Olympus 40-150mm f / 4-5.6 when I want a bigger range and a very rare use the 12-50 to use the focal length of 12mm

Of course, what lens you should pick next depends on your style and what you like to shoot. By reading this sentence you made me think 3 things: you are not afraid to swap lenses while you travel, you love your 17mm as your normal, you feel covered above 40mm. I'd trade the 12-50 in for an O12mm or a Laowa 7.5 if you feel like going even wider. It would be a two primes, and 1 very light zoom kit, really good for traveling light and still have great performances.
 

davidzvi

Super Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
4,260
Location
Outside Boston MA
Real Name
David
If one of your goals is to expand your wide angle options, the PL 8-18 2.8-4 is worth considering. It is lighter than the 7-14 pro, faster than the O 9-18 and can accept filters. It gives you a lot of flexibility for tight interiors, streetscapes, and landscapes. Plus it gives you something in the more “normal” 35mm range which you seem to like given your significant use of the 17mm. With the PL 8-18 you could add a fast prime (which you also seem to like) in the 17-45 range (if you want an upgrade or different focal length from the 17) and then jump to the 75-300 for your telephoto. For travel, I don’t find that speed in a telephoto is as critical, as most of the time it’s used outdoors.

The PL8-18 would have been my pick had it been on your list. It's bigger, heavier, and more expensive than the O9-18 and if you didn't have the O7-14 f/2.8 and O12-100 f/4 on your list it would be my pick. I wouldn't pick the 12-40 or 12-100 since you really use your 12-50, even though both are much better. But why get a better version of something you don't use?
 

D7k1

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
2,828
My travel kit is the Oly 9-18 and either the 75-300 or the 35-100 f4/5.6. Why? These lens are all very nice lens optically and they are very small and light for what they are. When I'm not in the desert country, the 9-18/35-100 is by far the best "city" kit I've had for vacation. With an Oly body you can shoot ridiculously low shutter speeds with these slow lenses even without a tripod. The quality is good enough for a 16 x 20 image - when was the last time your printed bigger than that. The 75-300mm is a very good lens if you use with proper technique and it too is very small.

At home its often my 12-35 & PL100-400 on my 2 Gx8 cameras, but for travel it's the mentioned lenses and my Gx85 - so far I've not regretted my choice of tools . you can find the 8-18 & 35-100 in B&S for a total of $500 often. Someone breaks into your car or hotel room and it not a huge financial hit.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom