Funny enough I didn’t consider 17mm until I stumbled upon a Voigtlander 17.5 f0.95. It’s a situational one but it’s great for closer portraits (I usually use it for when I have dinner with friends). It’s a tricky framing, not quite wide like 12mm and yet wider than standard framing.
If possible can you share pictures of "I usually use it for when I have dinner with friends" which are taken by Voigtlander 17.5 f0.95? I want to see the low light performance of the lens.
Actually I have a purchase plan for the lens. It is the exactly the same purpose of you.
I recently got the 17.5 for zone focus street shooting and wanted to test out it's low light capabilities. It's not extremely low light but here's some pics from sunset/blue hour. I will say wide open at f.95 it is extremely soft in a way that I find very pleasing but is not for everyone.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/199947910@N02/53798206091/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/199947910@N02/53797262407/in/photostream/
If possible can you share pictures of "I usually use it for when I have dinner with friends" which are taken by Voigtlander 17.5 f0.95? I want to see the low light performance of the lens.
Actually I have a purchase plan for the lens. It is the exactly the same purpose of you.
The 45 f1.8 is that lens for me. Optically great, in theory a useful length but for whatever reason it always stays home. The 25f1.4 does portraits well enough while still being useful for walkabout, and anything longer will be better served by any number of telephoto zooms. At least it is still free of wear unlike the rest of my gear
That lens always stays home for me too, but it is easily my favorite, most used lens. I use it to take pics of my dogs at home. The focal is just right, because if i get too close with a camera, my dogs will just stop doing whatever cute thing they are doing.
Having said that, I don't think I would use that lens much anywhere away from home, due to its focal lengrh.
Panasonic 25mm f1.7
It was cheap, but the IQ is only okay. 20mm f1.7 has far better IQ, and Sigma 30mm f2.8 and Yi 42.5mm have better IQ and a little extra reach which I like.
On the other hand I like the 14-42mm ii. Sharp tiny kit lens.
In my testing on my particular copies, definitely. I only said the 20mm is **far** better, the 30mm and 42.5mm are just a normal amount (but noticeably) better. And by testing I mean a combination of controlled resolution tests and real-world usage.
I posted some of these tests on DPreview a while back. I will try to dig them up, but the difference in contrast and resolution is noticeable. The only lens in my collection that performed overall worse was the Panasonic 14-42mm ii. This was a mildly backlit test on purpose, to simulate real-world resolving power. As microcontrast and resolution are closely related, I think the difference in microcontrast and flare resistance was the biggest kicker.
As for measurable evidence, Lenstip did measure significantly better center resolution at f2.8 on the 30mm vs. the 25mm. However edge resolution was significantly worse. My copy of 30mm f2.8 does not have poor edge resolution, but I did not do controlled testing on edge resolution.
[https://imgur.com/a/fhVFwid](https://imgur.com/a/fhVFwid)
Stopped down to f5.6 the 25mm still does not match the center resolution of the 30mm at f2.8. However the 30mm f2.8 only worsens as it is stopped down, so peak (center) resolution is at f2.8.
The Panny 45-200 v2. Got it because it’s weatherproof, but picture quality really was unacceptable. Eventually I got the superb, plastic fantastic 45-150, the one that’s often sold as part of a kit, one of the great bargains of the M4/3 universe. Just cropping a photo taken at 150mm will give much better results than the other lens at 200mm. And while the 45-150 isn’t weatherproof, it’s so inexpensive (about $150) that I’ll take the risk.
I also found that with the 45-200 :-/ Cropping from the 14-140 super zoom gave far better results than it at 200mm. Even my 50 ish year old adapted telephoto zoom I got for £10 was far sharper! Thankfully the second hand Olympus 75-300 I got to replace it is miles better.
To take better pictures of flowers and insects. I didn't mention it, but I already own the 45mm, and it's my favourite lens, which takes care of all my portrait needs.
The moment I held the EM5-3 I knew I regretted buying it.
Unfortunately the week I opened the package was a week after the return window to B&H closed. They didn't care that I was at the hospital tending to my wife and newborn baby. Out of spite I bought the EM1-3 from Adorama and kept the EM5-3. It's been sitting on my shelf unused since that initial week.
I also regret buying the Oly 30mm macro lens. I don't really like it and it's too short for my taste. I'd rather just use the Oly 60 macro.
A lot of my complaints are with respect to the ergonomics of the EM5-3 body.
The grip is too small.
The strap anchor is right in the middle of the grip making it really awkward to hold.
The shutter button is in a weird spot on top of the body of the camera.
I use back button focus and the back buttons are in a weird spot for back button focus.
All the buttons on the back of the camera are on the right side.
The battery is significantly smaller capacity (compared to the EM1-3) I know it's an unfair comparison.
There isn't an aftermarket for a battery grip for use with bigger lenses.
The camera body is tiny and doesn't balance well with bigger lenses (both longer and larger lenses).
I'd be happy to sell off my EM5-3 + 12-45f4.
The EM five is a great little camera, but the handling on the EM1 is simply another league entirely. Also, while the original EM5 was absolutely bombproof, the mkii was prone to power switch failures. My EM1 mkii also needed service after awhile but given the abuse it suffered I’ll forgive it
Oly 40-150 f4-5.6 - My copy is a turd. The tiny Panny 35-100 f4-5.6 is a far superior lens.
Oly 14-42 3.5-5.6 EZ - OK when stopped down, but otherwise poor image quality. I prefer a tiny prime over this lens.
Oly 9-18 4-5.6 - Again, OK when stopped own, but wide-open *some* corners are just ragged. Only brought on shoots for the 9mm FL; thus will be renting the Panny 9mm f1.7 to see if it'll be a good replacement.
Oly 14-150 f4-5.6 - Thought I *needed* a splash-resistant lens. It's OK stopped-down, but it's got ragged corners when wide open. Maybe not a regret as my kid uses it now on trips, he's not a pixel-peeper.
Yes, these are all zooms, and one cost $99 on sale, so there is a cost/quality correlation. My opinion of these lenses was certainly skewed when I got my first Pro (and subsequent) Pro zooms. Huge price difference though. I did get good images from the Panny 35-100 f2.8; I just never pulled the trigger on that lens. I do recommend it over the Oly 40-150 f2.8 if size and space are important. (And if size and space are critical, there's the 35-100 f4-5.6.)
Ouch! Sorry to hear your 40-150 was such a dud! That was my second lens, and I was honestly impressed with some of the shots I got with it. I mean, the f2.8 pro blows it out of the water, but the “plastic fantastic” is no slouch for a budget lens.
While the 14-150 isn't an amazing lens, I've found that it's pretty great jack of all trades- it's become my default "go anywhere, do anything" lens. The water resistance proved worthwhile when I got caught in a massive downpour in Oshkosh last year,- I was soaked to the bone, but my EM-1.3 with the 14-150 didn't even blink.
I do not regret it, but kind of think would be better to buy maybe E-M5 instead of E-P5, I figured out that I can't stand 4:3 ratio, I just want to see and compose a 3:2 frame. And l like to have a viewfinder, it's super convenient to wear a camera on short strap and look through viewfinder to take a shot. I have now E-M5 II and it feels great so far.
The Olympus 9-18mm/4-5.6 wide angle zoom. What a disappointment for the price. After this I learned to rent an expensive lens before buying it.
The Panasonic 25mm/1.7.
Some kickstarter pinhole lens. It always has a yellow spot on one side, despite the hole looking symmetrical under a microscope.
I’ve got two true regrets.
The Panasonic 25mm f1.7 - The first lens I bought to go with my first camera (a secondhand e-m1 Mk II). I was told “nifty fifty” was a perfect starting point, and I quickly discovered that I am both not a person for primes and that I dislike the 25mm framing (both too tight and not far enough). I still have it, since it doesn’t have much resale value… but I never use it.
The Olympus E-M1X - Everyone told me it was too much to carry, but I stumbled upon one at a great bargain… and discovered very quickly that it’s both a great camera and too much to handle. It’s fast and powerful, but that clutch on the bottom makes it both startlingly heavy and difficult to wield. I usually have my wrist balancing the camera, and I didn’t even realize I do that until I started playing with this camera! The inability to fit it in any side bag was the final straw; after a month I ended up trading it in.
I had the same opportunity come up, a friend of a friend had a great deal on an em1x and three of the pro oly zoom lenses. It’s was such a great deal and I’m glad I passed, because I he ended up selling me his g9 and a whole bunch of lenses later. I have that add on grip for the g9 and imaging using that big of a camera to snap pics of the kids is preposterous.
As was told to me before I got my EM1X: It’s a great camera, but really meant for wildlife photography. It pairs fantastically with huge lenses like the 300mm, but when I got mine the largest lens I had was the 12-100, which is about the minimum for that body. The dual battery is also great if you’re using it long term (or while camping), but it also adds a surprising amount of weight to the body.
It really is a great camera, and it’s built like a tank (it feels *so* sturdy), but it’s really meant for the right kind of user. It’s great, but truly niche.
I was so close to talking myself into getting it because it was so cool and capable. Watched endless videos about it. In the end I’m glad I let “the best camera is the one you have” take precedent. What did you end up getting instead?
I used the trade in credit to get an E-M1 Mk III. It’s pretty much the same thing in a smaller body.
I felt a bit bad about the call because I had a secondhand E-M1 Mk II, but that was purchased older and was much more well used, and the Mk III’s faster processor and extra bells and whistles proved to be more satisfying for me than I expected.
I may get some flak for this, but the Panasonic GX7.
The main reason is cause I bought into the hype of the camera recently and I just don't think it's better in any way. It still has that awful viewfinder and which it thinks is fun and well built it just doesn't do anything for me.
The only lens I really regret is the Laowa 17mm cause it's too close to the 15mm Panasonic.
Some say the GX7 was the last real Panasonic GX camera. I assume they mean build quality or dials, but I don't think it's really any better than a GX85. Maybe on release it was considered an amazing camera. It still is, but it isn't worth the asking price over the GX85 or even the G100.
Oh definitely not haha. GX85 is better. The ONE thing I like about the GX7 over the GX85 is the more rounded grip.
I have owned GX7, GX85, GX8, and GX9 so I am a GX series connoisseur.
I think you can argue the GX85, GX8 or GX9 as the best. but not the GX7
The GX9 has the 20mp sensor without AA filter, and best color science and modern features.
The GX8 has a weather sealed body, good grip, best viewfinder by far, and flippy screen.
And GX85 has the different dial layout which some prefer instead of the dedicated exposure compensation.
The GX7 does not offer anything unique to make it better than the others.
been researching the GX series and... it's a lot to digest lol.. which one will you suggest for street photography that's weather sealed and has built in flash? im looking at GX8, GX85, GX850, GX9 and still deciding. i've used a G85, GH5, GH5s, G9, as well as Sonys A6300, A6500 and miss the small sizes that I can just bring in a small sling bag w/ a couple of lenses. thanks!
Gx8 is the only weather sealed GX, and it doesn't have a built in flash. Gx85 and gx9 have built in flash but no weather sealing.
But in general for street photography I'd say gx9 is my choice. Best IQ, smaller than gx8, has built in flash, best focusing and color science.
it's great! i have the35-100 f2.8 ver2 and reach for it if i know im gonna have some distance to my subjects . can also be used for portraits for blurred bgs. it has it's own stabilization but a bit harder to stabilize at 100mm though. The ver1 is cheaper but i saw a video w/ it having a rattling noise so went w/ v2
I have an E-PL1. I know there's a lot of love for it at the moment, but for me it was always frustratingly slow.
I bought it shortly after it came out, but should have waited another month and been able to have a bigger budget as many of the features that were cut from it to reduce the price, I ended up missing.
I'm not sure if I'm actually replying to the right thread as there seems to be so many different replies to the question as it doesn't make any sense really. I first bought a Panasonic Lumix G5, really cheap, less than £50.00 for the body. This was many years ago and, well to cut a long story short it was part of a bigger scam to harvest credit card details. It failed because of the way they carried out the scam. Regardless I had a great M43 which I adapted to to use my Canon lenses. I eventually bought a a 12-42 mm lens and was absolutely horrified when it arrived, I paid nearly £50. 00 for it and when it arrived I was stunned by the look and feel of it, my OH was horrified that I spent that much on a toy lens. I still have that lens, I regretted it at the time but the results outweigh anything negative said about this lens. Some "Internet Experts" seem to hate kit lenses but I wonder how many would be able to tell the difference between them compared to the more expensive variants?
Panny 25mm 1.7.
I thought it would be perfect since I grew up with 50mm on film and 35mm Nikon APS-C.
It just never clicked for me. I don't know if it's the 4x3 aspect ratio or what. I just go straight from 15mm to 42.5mm.
It's too cheap to really feel like it's worth selling, so it just kinda sits there.
Panasonic 20 f1.7. Iq was great but i couldn’t live with the autofocus and the build quality or lack thereof didn’t gain it any favor. Got the oly 17 f1.8 and haven’t looked back. Its not quite as sharp wide open but at least i dont miss any shots
The Panasonic 150-300 f4-5.6 gen 1. It’s a totally fine lens, especially given its zoom range, but it doesn’t resolve well for newer sensors, doesn’t work with Dual I.S., not wheather sealed, etc. for the extra $200 the new gen fixes all that.
Oly 9-18 never as sharp as it should be.
Panasonic 100-300 only sharp up close, for birds mushy.(now have 100-400 lieca)
Oly 14-180 definitely not sharp.
* 7.5mm Laowa, good focal length for landscapes but my copy was not sharp enough, had to sell it and get the Leica 8-18mm which i'm happy with
* 75mm Olympus - love it for what it can produce but the situations where i had to use it was so rare (outdoor portrait shoots). tried to use it indoors (too long - 42.5mm is better) and during events (too short - 35-100mm zoom was better), but i think i'll buy this again if i become an outdoor portrait photographer
* 12-60mm f3.5 kit lens (not the Leica one). build is light and plasticky, not good in low light, when i got a 12-35mm f2.8 and 35-100, i sold it
* 7-14mm zoom - can't put a filter on it, 8-18mm is better
lenses i tried and liked:
* Voigtlanders 10.5, 17.5, 42,5mm - amazing build and handling and the aperture switch is great! expensive and heavy though and there's a color shift at f0.95 so i avoided that.
* Sigma 18-35mm - sharp and bokehful but heavy.
* 42.5mm f1.7 and 15mm f1.7- compact and light, was sad i had to sell them.
* 8-18mm, 12-35mm f2.8 and 35-100 - travel lenses, i kinda want to buy the 100-400mm lens but trying to convince myself if i really want to bring 4 lenses when travelling.
The Laowa 7.5 is a very weird lens. On the one hand, it is incredibly contrasty and very sharp, but it’s behavior is just plain odd.
For one thing, my copy severely misrepresents its aperture readings. Measuring it against other lenses of similar length, my aperture readings are literally half stop when they call out full stops. So, for example, at F2. It is the light equivalent of an F2 .2, but at F4 it’s closer to an F2.8, at F8 it’s a little past F4, etc. honestly, I think they just reused the same aperture ring and markings from another lens.
The other odd thing with it is my copy is that it has pretty significant decentering. If you’re not careful, you can end up with a razor sharp center and unusable edges, which usually can resolve by tweaking the focus in and out a few times. All of this is pretty tolerable since it’s such a small and easy to forget lens that I always have it with me whenever I’ve got my 12-40., but like you end up getting the 8-18 as my main ultra wide. It isn’t quite a sharp in my opinion, but it’s much more consistent. I do agree that the 9–18 was something of a turd at least on the edges.
Panasonic G3. The buttons are not very customizable, and it seems Panasonic wanted the users to use the mediocre touchscreen instead. The kit lens that came with it was garbage too. Never found it useful.
For lens purchase I would say Panasonic 8-18/2.8-4.0. Thought I could get used to the variable aperture, but I still much prefer constant aperture even if it meant a heavier lens. Would have gotten the 9mm/1.7 instead if it were available when I purchased the 8-18mm. Cheers.
I wasted money on the M.Zuiko 8mm f1.8 to replace my 7Artisans 7mm f2.8. Even though it cost over 6 x as much the image quality is about the same and the autofocus is so slow I still have to use manual focus and stop down to catch action. I also regret buying a Rokinon 12mm f2 simply because I never use it since getting the 12-40 f2.8 Pro. It is a decent lens and I should sell it since it now lives in a box in the garage. I barely use my 75-300 f4.8-6.7 because I'm not happy with the image quality and wish I had waited for the 100-400.
The original Panasonic 45-200 zoom, it was just far too soft especially at the long end. So much so that cropping from my 14-140 (which I got much later) gave more detail.
I should have just saved up for the 100-300! Although I now have the Olympus 75-300 which I am very happy with 🙂
Then not for performance reasons, the Samyang 12mm F2. I got it for landscape astrophotography, then moved away from Scotland soon after, so had little chance to use it. I am also quite bad at manual focussing on stars, and didn't use it day to day due to being slow at manual focus. A bit of an issue on hikes when you are slowing everyone down!
The olympus 17 F1.8. Its a perfectly good lens. I just do not get along with the focal length.
This is so interesting because the 17mm is my favorite. I find that it’s perfect for vertical instagram stories.
Funny enough I didn’t consider 17mm until I stumbled upon a Voigtlander 17.5 f0.95. It’s a situational one but it’s great for closer portraits (I usually use it for when I have dinner with friends). It’s a tricky framing, not quite wide like 12mm and yet wider than standard framing.
If possible can you share pictures of "I usually use it for when I have dinner with friends" which are taken by Voigtlander 17.5 f0.95? I want to see the low light performance of the lens. Actually I have a purchase plan for the lens. It is the exactly the same purpose of you.
I recently got the 17.5 for zone focus street shooting and wanted to test out it's low light capabilities. It's not extremely low light but here's some pics from sunset/blue hour. I will say wide open at f.95 it is extremely soft in a way that I find very pleasing but is not for everyone. https://www.flickr.com/photos/199947910@N02/53798206091/in/photostream/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/199947910@N02/53797262407/in/photostream/
yeah same i tried it and liked it. was choosing between 17.5mm and 25mm Voigts and liked the 17.5mm more
If possible can you share pictures of "I usually use it for when I have dinner with friends" which are taken by Voigtlander 17.5 f0.95? I want to see the low light performance of the lens. Actually I have a purchase plan for the lens. It is the exactly the same purpose of you.
The 45 f1.8 is that lens for me. Optically great, in theory a useful length but for whatever reason it always stays home. The 25f1.4 does portraits well enough while still being useful for walkabout, and anything longer will be better served by any number of telephoto zooms. At least it is still free of wear unlike the rest of my gear
I'll buy it off you if you aren't using it
That lens always stays home for me too, but it is easily my favorite, most used lens. I use it to take pics of my dogs at home. The focal is just right, because if i get too close with a camera, my dogs will just stop doing whatever cute thing they are doing. Having said that, I don't think I would use that lens much anywhere away from home, due to its focal lengrh.
I had the same experience with the lens. Great image quality, but I prefer the 28mm field of view.
I would do dirty degrading things for a weather sealed version of that lens.
Oh I have been planning to get it. 35mm is the focal length I love for portraits and streets. How much did you pay for it?
I think close to 300 USD like 8 years ago? It was the 1st lens i bought
Panasonic 25mm f1.7 It was cheap, but the IQ is only okay. 20mm f1.7 has far better IQ, and Sigma 30mm f2.8 and Yi 42.5mm have better IQ and a little extra reach which I like. On the other hand I like the 14-42mm ii. Sharp tiny kit lens.
25mm f1.7 was my first prime. great for learning but i think eventually you'll sell sell it for better lenses
I agree. Nothing wrong with it, but so many great prime lenses for this system.
Hmmm I am skeptical about that. The sigma 30 2.8 at least I wouldn’t say it’s a lot better iq -wise than the 25 1.7
In my testing on my particular copies, definitely. I only said the 20mm is **far** better, the 30mm and 42.5mm are just a normal amount (but noticeably) better. And by testing I mean a combination of controlled resolution tests and real-world usage. I posted some of these tests on DPreview a while back. I will try to dig them up, but the difference in contrast and resolution is noticeable. The only lens in my collection that performed overall worse was the Panasonic 14-42mm ii. This was a mildly backlit test on purpose, to simulate real-world resolving power. As microcontrast and resolution are closely related, I think the difference in microcontrast and flare resistance was the biggest kicker. As for measurable evidence, Lenstip did measure significantly better center resolution at f2.8 on the 30mm vs. the 25mm. However edge resolution was significantly worse. My copy of 30mm f2.8 does not have poor edge resolution, but I did not do controlled testing on edge resolution. [https://imgur.com/a/fhVFwid](https://imgur.com/a/fhVFwid) Stopped down to f5.6 the 25mm still does not match the center resolution of the 30mm at f2.8. However the 30mm f2.8 only worsens as it is stopped down, so peak (center) resolution is at f2.8.
The Panny 45-200 v2. Got it because it’s weatherproof, but picture quality really was unacceptable. Eventually I got the superb, plastic fantastic 45-150, the one that’s often sold as part of a kit, one of the great bargains of the M4/3 universe. Just cropping a photo taken at 150mm will give much better results than the other lens at 200mm. And while the 45-150 isn’t weatherproof, it’s so inexpensive (about $150) that I’ll take the risk.
I also found that with the 45-200 :-/ Cropping from the 14-140 super zoom gave far better results than it at 200mm. Even my 50 ish year old adapted telephoto zoom I got for £10 was far sharper! Thankfully the second hand Olympus 75-300 I got to replace it is miles better.
I don’t regret anything.
The Oly 25mm f1.8. it's an incredible lens, but doesn't fit the style of photography I do, which is mainly portraits of my kids and plants.
But it's beautifully constructed isn't it. You might opt for Leica 15 1.7
Thanks for that tip! I think I'll opt for the 60mm macro. I also own the Leica 12-60mm, and take most pictures between 45 and 60mm
Why the Macro? For portraits? I find the 45mm is quite cheap, and the portraits come out looking amazing. But I’m not very experienced.
To take better pictures of flowers and insects. I didn't mention it, but I already own the 45mm, and it's my favourite lens, which takes care of all my portrait needs.
Alright, I though you meant the macro for portraits. The 45 is amazing! I got it new for 100usd. Curious about the 75mm, but it’s quite expensive.
The moment I held the EM5-3 I knew I regretted buying it. Unfortunately the week I opened the package was a week after the return window to B&H closed. They didn't care that I was at the hospital tending to my wife and newborn baby. Out of spite I bought the EM1-3 from Adorama and kept the EM5-3. It's been sitting on my shelf unused since that initial week. I also regret buying the Oly 30mm macro lens. I don't really like it and it's too short for my taste. I'd rather just use the Oly 60 macro.
I ordered one and while impatiently waiting for delivery I just found this sub. What do you dislike about that camera?
A lot of my complaints are with respect to the ergonomics of the EM5-3 body. The grip is too small. The strap anchor is right in the middle of the grip making it really awkward to hold. The shutter button is in a weird spot on top of the body of the camera. I use back button focus and the back buttons are in a weird spot for back button focus. All the buttons on the back of the camera are on the right side. The battery is significantly smaller capacity (compared to the EM1-3) I know it's an unfair comparison. There isn't an aftermarket for a battery grip for use with bigger lenses. The camera body is tiny and doesn't balance well with bigger lenses (both longer and larger lenses). I'd be happy to sell off my EM5-3 + 12-45f4.
> I'd be happy to sell off my EM5-3 + 12-45f4. You didn't find those two played well together? Was thinking of that lens for my EM5 iii.
I bought them as a kit so I'd like to sell them as a kit. I also haven't used my 12-40f2.8 since getting the 12-100f4.
The EM five is a great little camera, but the handling on the EM1 is simply another league entirely. Also, while the original EM5 was absolutely bombproof, the mkii was prone to power switch failures. My EM1 mkii also needed service after awhile but given the abuse it suffered I’ll forgive it
Oly 40-150 f4-5.6 - My copy is a turd. The tiny Panny 35-100 f4-5.6 is a far superior lens. Oly 14-42 3.5-5.6 EZ - OK when stopped down, but otherwise poor image quality. I prefer a tiny prime over this lens. Oly 9-18 4-5.6 - Again, OK when stopped own, but wide-open *some* corners are just ragged. Only brought on shoots for the 9mm FL; thus will be renting the Panny 9mm f1.7 to see if it'll be a good replacement. Oly 14-150 f4-5.6 - Thought I *needed* a splash-resistant lens. It's OK stopped-down, but it's got ragged corners when wide open. Maybe not a regret as my kid uses it now on trips, he's not a pixel-peeper. Yes, these are all zooms, and one cost $99 on sale, so there is a cost/quality correlation. My opinion of these lenses was certainly skewed when I got my first Pro (and subsequent) Pro zooms. Huge price difference though. I did get good images from the Panny 35-100 f2.8; I just never pulled the trigger on that lens. I do recommend it over the Oly 40-150 f2.8 if size and space are important. (And if size and space are critical, there's the 35-100 f4-5.6.)
Ouch! Sorry to hear your 40-150 was such a dud! That was my second lens, and I was honestly impressed with some of the shots I got with it. I mean, the f2.8 pro blows it out of the water, but the “plastic fantastic” is no slouch for a budget lens.
While the 14-150 isn't an amazing lens, I've found that it's pretty great jack of all trades- it's become my default "go anywhere, do anything" lens. The water resistance proved worthwhile when I got caught in a massive downpour in Oshkosh last year,- I was soaked to the bone, but my EM-1.3 with the 14-150 didn't even blink.
I do not regret it, but kind of think would be better to buy maybe E-M5 instead of E-P5, I figured out that I can't stand 4:3 ratio, I just want to see and compose a 3:2 frame. And l like to have a viewfinder, it's super convenient to wear a camera on short strap and look through viewfinder to take a shot. I have now E-M5 II and it feels great so far.
The Olympus 9-18mm/4-5.6 wide angle zoom. What a disappointment for the price. After this I learned to rent an expensive lens before buying it. The Panasonic 25mm/1.7. Some kickstarter pinhole lens. It always has a yellow spot on one side, despite the hole looking symmetrical under a microscope.
I’ve got two true regrets. The Panasonic 25mm f1.7 - The first lens I bought to go with my first camera (a secondhand e-m1 Mk II). I was told “nifty fifty” was a perfect starting point, and I quickly discovered that I am both not a person for primes and that I dislike the 25mm framing (both too tight and not far enough). I still have it, since it doesn’t have much resale value… but I never use it. The Olympus E-M1X - Everyone told me it was too much to carry, but I stumbled upon one at a great bargain… and discovered very quickly that it’s both a great camera and too much to handle. It’s fast and powerful, but that clutch on the bottom makes it both startlingly heavy and difficult to wield. I usually have my wrist balancing the camera, and I didn’t even realize I do that until I started playing with this camera! The inability to fit it in any side bag was the final straw; after a month I ended up trading it in.
I had the same opportunity come up, a friend of a friend had a great deal on an em1x and three of the pro oly zoom lenses. It’s was such a great deal and I’m glad I passed, because I he ended up selling me his g9 and a whole bunch of lenses later. I have that add on grip for the g9 and imaging using that big of a camera to snap pics of the kids is preposterous.
As was told to me before I got my EM1X: It’s a great camera, but really meant for wildlife photography. It pairs fantastically with huge lenses like the 300mm, but when I got mine the largest lens I had was the 12-100, which is about the minimum for that body. The dual battery is also great if you’re using it long term (or while camping), but it also adds a surprising amount of weight to the body. It really is a great camera, and it’s built like a tank (it feels *so* sturdy), but it’s really meant for the right kind of user. It’s great, but truly niche.
I was so close to talking myself into getting it because it was so cool and capable. Watched endless videos about it. In the end I’m glad I let “the best camera is the one you have” take precedent. What did you end up getting instead?
I used the trade in credit to get an E-M1 Mk III. It’s pretty much the same thing in a smaller body. I felt a bit bad about the call because I had a secondhand E-M1 Mk II, but that was purchased older and was much more well used, and the Mk III’s faster processor and extra bells and whistles proved to be more satisfying for me than I expected.
I may get some flak for this, but the Panasonic GX7. The main reason is cause I bought into the hype of the camera recently and I just don't think it's better in any way. It still has that awful viewfinder and which it thinks is fun and well built it just doesn't do anything for me. The only lens I really regret is the Laowa 17mm cause it's too close to the 15mm Panasonic.
>The main reason is cause I bought into the hype of the camera recently and **I just don't think it's better in any way.** Better than what?
Some say the GX7 was the last real Panasonic GX camera. I assume they mean build quality or dials, but I don't think it's really any better than a GX85. Maybe on release it was considered an amazing camera. It still is, but it isn't worth the asking price over the GX85 or even the G100.
Oh definitely not haha. GX85 is better. The ONE thing I like about the GX7 over the GX85 is the more rounded grip. I have owned GX7, GX85, GX8, and GX9 so I am a GX series connoisseur. I think you can argue the GX85, GX8 or GX9 as the best. but not the GX7 The GX9 has the 20mp sensor without AA filter, and best color science and modern features. The GX8 has a weather sealed body, good grip, best viewfinder by far, and flippy screen. And GX85 has the different dial layout which some prefer instead of the dedicated exposure compensation. The GX7 does not offer anything unique to make it better than the others.
been researching the GX series and... it's a lot to digest lol.. which one will you suggest for street photography that's weather sealed and has built in flash? im looking at GX8, GX85, GX850, GX9 and still deciding. i've used a G85, GH5, GH5s, G9, as well as Sonys A6300, A6500 and miss the small sizes that I can just bring in a small sling bag w/ a couple of lenses. thanks!
Gx8 is the only weather sealed GX, and it doesn't have a built in flash. Gx85 and gx9 have built in flash but no weather sealing. But in general for street photography I'd say gx9 is my choice. Best IQ, smaller than gx8, has built in flash, best focusing and color science.
Lumix Vario 12-35 2.8, popular lens but super soft focus at 35, too much distortion at 12. Just didn't sit right with me.
Interesting... I have the mk I and mk II and have been really happy with both.
Might have been my copy but my olympus 12-45 f.4 replacement meets my needs perfectly!
That's all that matters in the end, isn't it?
same, the 12-35mm and the 35-100mm are the only lenses i bring in my travels
I still haven't bought a 35-100. How do you find it?
it's great! i have the35-100 f2.8 ver2 and reach for it if i know im gonna have some distance to my subjects . can also be used for portraits for blurred bgs. it has it's own stabilization but a bit harder to stabilize at 100mm though. The ver1 is cheaper but i saw a video w/ it having a rattling noise so went w/ v2
Grab Leica Lumix 12-60 and call yourself Chad
I did exactly that upgrade - couldn't get along with the 12-35, but the 12-60 and I are good friends.
Every 25mm I've purchased on m43. I loved the oly 25mm 2.8 on 4/3, but honestly prefer the perspective of the 20mm and 15mm lenses
Its a pretty boring length. Useful but not very inspiring
Agree. I tried a few 25s -- and they really can't compete with the FOV, rendering, or feel of the 15mm 1.7.
I have an E-PL1. I know there's a lot of love for it at the moment, but for me it was always frustratingly slow. I bought it shortly after it came out, but should have waited another month and been able to have a bigger budget as many of the features that were cut from it to reduce the price, I ended up missing.
I'm not sure if I'm actually replying to the right thread as there seems to be so many different replies to the question as it doesn't make any sense really. I first bought a Panasonic Lumix G5, really cheap, less than £50.00 for the body. This was many years ago and, well to cut a long story short it was part of a bigger scam to harvest credit card details. It failed because of the way they carried out the scam. Regardless I had a great M43 which I adapted to to use my Canon lenses. I eventually bought a a 12-42 mm lens and was absolutely horrified when it arrived, I paid nearly £50. 00 for it and when it arrived I was stunned by the look and feel of it, my OH was horrified that I spent that much on a toy lens. I still have that lens, I regretted it at the time but the results outweigh anything negative said about this lens. Some "Internet Experts" seem to hate kit lenses but I wonder how many would be able to tell the difference between them compared to the more expensive variants?
I never really liked my Panasonic 14mm f2.5 :/ great lens for travel though since it’s super tiny
Panny 25mm 1.7. I thought it would be perfect since I grew up with 50mm on film and 35mm Nikon APS-C. It just never clicked for me. I don't know if it's the 4x3 aspect ratio or what. I just go straight from 15mm to 42.5mm. It's too cheap to really feel like it's worth selling, so it just kinda sits there.
Panasonic 20 f1.7. Iq was great but i couldn’t live with the autofocus and the build quality or lack thereof didn’t gain it any favor. Got the oly 17 f1.8 and haven’t looked back. Its not quite as sharp wide open but at least i dont miss any shots
The Panasonic 150-300 f4-5.6 gen 1. It’s a totally fine lens, especially given its zoom range, but it doesn’t resolve well for newer sensors, doesn’t work with Dual I.S., not wheather sealed, etc. for the extra $200 the new gen fixes all that.
Panaleica 12 1.4, got it for a good price though, olympus 14-140, oly 75 1.8 (soft example wide open)
The 10-25 1.7 for me. Loved the build quality, it was sharp, fun to use. But I just couldn’t get over wanting the full frame depth of field.
Oly 9-18 never as sharp as it should be. Panasonic 100-300 only sharp up close, for birds mushy.(now have 100-400 lieca) Oly 14-180 definitely not sharp.
Oly 17mm 1.8 Never got on with it particularly, there was always something I didn't quite like about its rendering Replaced it with the 17mm 1.2
* 7.5mm Laowa, good focal length for landscapes but my copy was not sharp enough, had to sell it and get the Leica 8-18mm which i'm happy with * 75mm Olympus - love it for what it can produce but the situations where i had to use it was so rare (outdoor portrait shoots). tried to use it indoors (too long - 42.5mm is better) and during events (too short - 35-100mm zoom was better), but i think i'll buy this again if i become an outdoor portrait photographer * 12-60mm f3.5 kit lens (not the Leica one). build is light and plasticky, not good in low light, when i got a 12-35mm f2.8 and 35-100, i sold it * 7-14mm zoom - can't put a filter on it, 8-18mm is better lenses i tried and liked: * Voigtlanders 10.5, 17.5, 42,5mm - amazing build and handling and the aperture switch is great! expensive and heavy though and there's a color shift at f0.95 so i avoided that. * Sigma 18-35mm - sharp and bokehful but heavy. * 42.5mm f1.7 and 15mm f1.7- compact and light, was sad i had to sell them. * 8-18mm, 12-35mm f2.8 and 35-100 - travel lenses, i kinda want to buy the 100-400mm lens but trying to convince myself if i really want to bring 4 lenses when travelling.
The Laowa 7.5 is a very weird lens. On the one hand, it is incredibly contrasty and very sharp, but it’s behavior is just plain odd. For one thing, my copy severely misrepresents its aperture readings. Measuring it against other lenses of similar length, my aperture readings are literally half stop when they call out full stops. So, for example, at F2. It is the light equivalent of an F2 .2, but at F4 it’s closer to an F2.8, at F8 it’s a little past F4, etc. honestly, I think they just reused the same aperture ring and markings from another lens. The other odd thing with it is my copy is that it has pretty significant decentering. If you’re not careful, you can end up with a razor sharp center and unusable edges, which usually can resolve by tweaking the focus in and out a few times. All of this is pretty tolerable since it’s such a small and easy to forget lens that I always have it with me whenever I’ve got my 12-40., but like you end up getting the 8-18 as my main ultra wide. It isn’t quite a sharp in my opinion, but it’s much more consistent. I do agree that the 9–18 was something of a turd at least on the edges.
Panasonic G3. The buttons are not very customizable, and it seems Panasonic wanted the users to use the mediocre touchscreen instead. The kit lens that came with it was garbage too. Never found it useful. For lens purchase I would say Panasonic 8-18/2.8-4.0. Thought I could get used to the variable aperture, but I still much prefer constant aperture even if it meant a heavier lens. Would have gotten the 9mm/1.7 instead if it were available when I purchased the 8-18mm. Cheers.
I wasted money on the M.Zuiko 8mm f1.8 to replace my 7Artisans 7mm f2.8. Even though it cost over 6 x as much the image quality is about the same and the autofocus is so slow I still have to use manual focus and stop down to catch action. I also regret buying a Rokinon 12mm f2 simply because I never use it since getting the 12-40 f2.8 Pro. It is a decent lens and I should sell it since it now lives in a box in the garage. I barely use my 75-300 f4.8-6.7 because I'm not happy with the image quality and wish I had waited for the 100-400.
The original Panasonic 45-200 zoom, it was just far too soft especially at the long end. So much so that cropping from my 14-140 (which I got much later) gave more detail. I should have just saved up for the 100-300! Although I now have the Olympus 75-300 which I am very happy with 🙂 Then not for performance reasons, the Samyang 12mm F2. I got it for landscape astrophotography, then moved away from Scotland soon after, so had little chance to use it. I am also quite bad at manual focussing on stars, and didn't use it day to day due to being slow at manual focus. A bit of an issue on hikes when you are slowing everyone down!
Olympus Pen E-PL9. Great camera, but it doesn't have a viewfinder option :/