1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Which lens?

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by weeowee, Sep 25, 2013.

  1. weeowee

    weeowee Mu-43 Regular

    146
    May 6, 2012
    My current setup is em5, pany 20mm, 60mm macro and 40-150mm. I was thinking of either buying the 12-50mm oand a samyang fisheye, or the samyang fisheye and the 14-42mm or skip the kit lenses and get the fisheye and the 45mm oly?
    A. 12-50mm and fisheye
    B. 14-42mm and fisheye
    C. 45mm and fisheye

    Last option just wait for the 12-40mm but that seems too expensive.
     
  2. Adubo

    Adubo SithLord

    Nov 4, 2010
    Globetrotter
    Andrew
  3. khollister

    khollister Mu-43 Veteran

    259
    Sep 16, 2010
    Orlando, FL
    Keith
    D. Olympus 9-18

    While the 12-50 is OK (not great) at the short end, I find it rather pedestrian at the longer end. Since you already have the 60mm macro, the pseudo-macro mode of the 12-50 isn't particularly useful either. The 14-42 kit lens doesn't do anything for you other than giving you a 14mm wide - you could get better quality at the same cost with the 14mm prime.

    The 45/1.8 is a great lens, but it seems a bit redundant with your 60 except for slightly more DOF control (the faster aperture is partly offset by the shorter focal length).

    The corners are definitely soft even @ 12mm on the 12-50 compared to the 9-18 (which is slightly worse than the 12mm prime).
     
  4. weeowee

    weeowee Mu-43 Regular

    146
    May 6, 2012
    Yea, i was also thinking of splurging for the 9-18mm but since i don't shoot wide angles/landscape that much i was just planning on the fisheye for my wide angle.
    What about E. Sell the 20, get a 25mm1.4 and the fish-eye. So my lineup would be 7.5 fisheye, 25mm, 60mm and 40-150mm
     
  5. khollister

    khollister Mu-43 Veteran

    259
    Sep 16, 2010
    Orlando, FL
    Keith
    I have the Rok fisheye and I use it far more than I thought I would when I bought it. But ...

    It really isn't a substitute for a WA/UWA, especially for architecture, interiors or where you don't want the horizon smack dab in the middle of the frame due to the fisheye perspective. It just seems awfully extreme as your only wide angle, but it's your money :wink:

    I suggested the 9-18 as a pretty good UWA zoom, assuming you are primarily OK stopping it down for traditional WA stuff.

    Another option is the 14/2.5 (not all that wide by today's standards, but a nice inexpensive lens).

    The 25 is a nicer (and larger) lens than the 20 assuming you like the 50mm equiv FOV. I am probably going to sell mine because I just don't shoot much with a 50 (haven't in almost 40 years of photography), so I'm going to the 17/1.8 even though it is not as impressive optically.
     
  6. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Whatever FL lenses you need, I'd avoid the cheaper Oly zooms. They're slow (as molasses in the case of the 12-50), have poor build quality and generally have only average or poor IQ (takes cover and dons a tin hat!).
     
  7. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    I like the 12-50, for what it is and what it costs, but it is surely not a "must have" sort of lens. I find that I do appreciate the fact that it is weather-proof. I'm not regularly out shooting in rain storms, but it's nice to grab the E-M5 + 12-50 when the weather is less than ideal and not worry about it getting wet.
     
  8. weeowee

    weeowee Mu-43 Regular

    146
    May 6, 2012
    would it be too much if i get the 25mm? I mean would it be redundant or too near since i already have the the 20mm? Or do i have to sell the 20mm first?
     
  9. weeowee

    weeowee Mu-43 Regular

    146
    May 6, 2012
    So far im leaning more towards keeping the 20mm, getting a 45mm then saving up for the 9-18, i only shoot wide anglel like maybe 1 percent of the time so it doesnt matter that much to me, although i was attracted to the fisheye bec of the panospheres, the 45 i want it mainly for my shots of my doggies, the 60mm i just use when its raining or macro work.
     
  10. alex66

    alex66 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    715
    Jul 23, 2010
    How about option E panasonic 14-45mm seems to be the best zoom bar the 2.8's and can be had for less than the oly 12-50. I miss mine and will be getting another though I am more of a prime shooter now. Dont know about the 7.5mm but the same people are aparantly going to make a 10mm that might be a good option.
     
  11. tdekany

    tdekany Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 8, 2011
    Oregon
    I respect your opinion, but you should see the pictures posted on Fred Miranda with the 12-50. I guess it is: who is behind the camera :2thumbs:
     
  12. Luger718

    Luger718 Mu-43 Regular

    38
    Aug 13, 2013
    the 12-50mm refurbished is on olympus' store for $199
     
  13. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    Just because a lens is crap doesn't mean that a skilled photographer can't take some outstanding photos with it. But that doesn't alter the fact that the lens might still be crap, and much better choices for most people might still be available.
     
  14. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Absolutely. Holgas, for example, can take stunning shots given the scene, the light and the eye - but then again the same's true with a 12-35. What's more, I can always make a shot with my 12-35 look like it's from a Holga. I can't do it the other way around! Good gear doesn't make the shot, but it does enrich the photographer's experience - and that matters to me...
     
  15. tdekany

    tdekany Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 8, 2011
    Oregon
    What i was saying is that many of those shots with the 12-50 look way better than shots with the 12-35 on this forum. The 12-50 is simply not as bad as you make it sound like.
     
  16. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I guess we can agree on that. I was vascillating between the 12-35 and 12-50 actually. If the 12-50 had been just a bit faster I'd have gone that way. I think its macro mode is a nice feature. I know there has been some good work done with it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. tdekany

    tdekany Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 8, 2011
    Oregon
    I'd most definitely chose the 12-35 over the 12-50 but price is preventing me from doing that. I made the mistake of listening to people when I had the 12-50 that came with the OM-D and after a short while I sold it. Looking back at my pictures now, the lens I had was very sharp and I will buy another copy until I can get $$$ to get the 12-35 or 12-40