You Have US$1000. What Lenses to Buy?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by tjdean01, Nov 29, 2013.

  1. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    842
    Feb 20, 2013
    Let's assume we have zero lenses so grandpa's taking us lens shopping and we have $1000 spend! I guess we could get the 12-35 or 12-40 for $1000 used. I'm sure many would do the 14-42 ($100), 40-150 ($150), 20/25/17 ($400), $300 45, and maybe an adapted 50/1.4? Or maybe the 14-140 and probably get a pair of the 19, 30, and 60 f/2.8 Sigmas?

    So, it's not as if I'm limited to $1000; and I'm too old to have a grandpa, but since everyone has different focal length and size needs, I was just curious what everyone would get if they had just $1000 to spend over the next year or so on lenses.

    * * *​

    Me I might do P14-45 ($150 used), 14 ($200), 20 ($300), cheap 50/1.7 (because 45/1.8 would put me over $1000), Sigma 60 ($200), and a cheap adapted 135mm.

    Or: 12-32 ($400?), 15/1.7 ($400?), 30/2.8 ($100 used), adapted 50/1.7 ($50), adapted 135mm ($50). Have fun! :wink:
     
  2. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    Lens I'd get the most use out of? A 12-35 or 12-40.
     
  3. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    Flights to... somewhere.

    Best lens you'll ever use :smile:

    If it has to be spent on lenses though I'd get a Voigtländer Nokton 25/f0.95 - that would quite happily do me for a good while...
     
  4. edmsnap

    edmsnap Mu-43 Veteran

    430
    Dec 20, 2011
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Take grandpa to eBay...

    Tokina 17mm f/3.5 for wide angle. $150
    Canon nFD 24mm f/2 for a normal. $400
    Canon nFD 50mm f/1.4 for portrait. $100
    Helios 44-3 58mm f/2 because it's crazy fun. $60
    Vivtar Series-1 90mm f/2.5 because it's the best macro lens ever made and a wildly sharp short-tele. $275

    Total spent $985.
    You will have a 17-90mm focal range with a wide-angle, a normal, a portrait, a character lens, and a short-telephoto.
    You could get a 24mm f/2.8 instead of the f/2 and have $280 extra dollars for a good adapted telephoto such as the Canon nFD 200mm f/2.8.
     
  5. barbosas

    barbosas Mu-43 Veteran

    283
    May 7, 2013
    Lisbon
    Panasonic 14/2.5 - 200$
    Olympus 17/1.8 - 400$
    Olympus 45/1.8 - 275$
    Olympus 40/150 - 120$

    Total: 995$ (Current amazon.com prices)

    If you don't want the long telezoom I'd replace it with a cheap long legacy prime and save a few bucks.

    If you want to go wider, perhaps try to buy a new 12-32 around 300$ and ditch the long zoom (to keep the budget under 1000$)
     
  6. cdmicha

    cdmicha Mu-43 Regular

    74
    Dec 28, 2012
    Arkansas
    Chris
    Based on how I currently shoot, I'd have to go with:

    Sigma 19mm (200), Sigma 30mm (200), Oly 45mm (400), and then a long zoom. But if I could only have one lens on my m43 system, I'd have to go with the Oly 75. That thing is magic.
     
  7. mf100

    mf100 Mu-43 Regular

    95
    Aug 26, 2012
    Sawbridgeworth, England
    Matthew
    It would have to be the 12-40mm for me.
    I've just received mine through with the EM1 and it's wonderful. It's so good I'm now considering if I keep my trusty 12mm and reinvest the money into something else.
     
  8. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Pana 14

    Pana Leica 25

    Oly 45

    Buying all 3 used should come in under $1k total
     
  9. JamieW

    JamieW Mu-43 Veteran

    260
    Oct 25, 2013
    After having used the 12-40 for a couple of weeks, definitely the 12-40. Knowing it wouldn't be the last lens I'd ever own, I'd add primes as I needed them. 12-40 + 75 1.8 is a great combo.
     
  10. alex66

    alex66 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    715
    Jul 23, 2010
    What he said or a used panasonic 12-35 and the 45mm oly I have seen them used for less than the eqivalent of $1k.
     
  11. beameup

    beameup Mu-43 Regular

    104
    Oct 23, 2013
    I'd go with the 12-40mm. It was designed with the M1 in mind.
    Besides, then you would not need to constantly be changing lenses. :th_salute:
     
  12. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    14mm f/2.5
    25mm f/1.4
    45mm f/1.8

    Tight but you should come close to $1k
     
  13. DynaSport

    DynaSport Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 5, 2013
    Dan
    That's the kit I've been putting together. I have the 14 and 45 and am hoping to get the 25 at some point in the not too distant future.

    But that will be just a start for me. I'll still want wider and longer and I'd love a macro. But 14, 25, 45, is the start of a really good kit.
     
  14. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    If budget allows, I'd go with the 12mm f/2 instead of the 14mm which is what I eventually did. I'm more used to the 24mm focal length (equiv) rather than the 28mm... a personal preference. The 14mm is a good bang for buck lens never the less.
     
  15. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    836
    Sep 30, 2013
    Ditto, replace the 14 with the Oly 12 if you can manage the extra expense. These 3 lenses/fls cover the majority of my shooting.
     
  16. zensu

    zensu An Old Fool

    Aug 8, 2012
    Southeastern USA
    Bobby
    I've already bit the bullet and got the new 12-40 and I love it. The sharpness, focal range, and close focusing across the zoom range make this my favorite lens. I wouldn't be surprised if this lens never comes off my camera.
     
  17. humzai

    humzai Mu-43 Veteran

    410
    Apr 17, 2012
    Yeah the 12-40mm makes a good argument for the money. If I was primarily a panny user then the 12-35mm the 35-100mm might be a good piece as well. It feels good that the system is so well fleshed out that we can even have some variety in this post. I was so excited when the panny 20mm was released. I finally had a fast m4/3 lens.
     
  18. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    From 50mm to longer, you can get by with legacy stuff, but you can do a lot better with native glass at 17mm and 24mm (the 20mm or 25mm Panasonic native m4/3 lenses are both noticeably better choices, as well as being faster, sharper wide open, and provide autofocus). I'd replace the 17mm legacy Tokina with the 14mm Panasonic f2.5 for similar money, gain an extra f-stop, more sharpness, wider FOV, and FAR more compactness.

    The Canon 50mm f1.4 is a good choice, but there are also numerous other 50mm alternatives that are just as good. I don't think that the Helios 58mm lens adds anything to the party. Skip that, and get a legacy 200mm f3.5 or f4 for similar money - and save a ton of size and weight and money compared to a 200mm f2.8

    And while the Vivitar 90mm f2.5 is a great lens, it's pretty bulky for a Micro 4/3 system (as well as no longer being a short tele). The Tamron 90mm f2.5 SP is very nearly as good, noticeably smaller and lighter, and will cost about half as much.
     
  19. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    Or add a wide converter to the 14mm (I use the Sony ECL-VCU1, which can be gotten for under $100, and turns the 14mm into a 10.5mm lens). And you can still be under $1K for the total kit, if buying the stuff used. You can even throw in a legacy telephoto in the 135mm or 200mm rang, or alternatively, a legacy Macro lens, and still be pretty close to $1K
     
  20. alainwong

    alainwong Mu-43 Rookie

    16
    Apr 18, 2012
    Montreal
    I'm a GF1, Gh1, Gh2, and now Gh3 shooter.

    For hobby photography, the Panasonic 12-35 zoom stays on my lens 90% of the time, and Olympus 45 for the last 10% when I want decent bokeh for portraits. If you can get both used, it would be slightly over $1k and cover your bases.

    For specialized or professional use where you charge money, buy $600-750 worth of primes (PL 25 + Oly 45 or used Voigtlander 25) and save some of your budget for lighting accessories like a flash and a 42" reflector/diffuser.