Micro 4/3 Lens: What should I buy to complete my kit?

[Erik_Olympus]

I recently purchased my first micro 4/3 camera after being a 4/3 user for the past 5 or 6 years. I purchased an E-PM2 and I'm satisfied enough with the system to want to purchase an additional lens but I'm torn over which to buy. I'm looking for that one lens that really brings out the best in the camera.

While budget is an issue, I'm willing to spend to get some quality (which also begs the question, would the money be better spent on a better body).

I'm torn between a fast wide-normal prime and a long telephoto and should I get one of each of a mid range lens or get one lens and spend a bit more. Currently I only have one native m4/3 lens - the kit 14-42mm R II.

I also have a few 4/3 lenses, which work but autofocus is slow. I've got the 9-18mm, 14-42mm, 40-150mm, 50mm Macro and 70-300mm. I also have 3 Konica Hexanon AR lenses, 40/1.8, 50/1.7 and UC 80-200/4. I find the E-PM2 pretty well suited for using these manual lenses and have little trouble with MF as long as I don't need to take the shot in a hurry.

The Olympus 12/2 looks very interesting as does the Panasonic 20/1.7. Then again so does the 75-300 ED. Although the 70-300 4/3 lens works, I would think it would be a whole different experience with a native lens.

Something like the SLR Magic HyperPrime might be really fun although it does something completely different.

Or to take it a whole other way, get the Panasonic 14mm/2.5, the Olympus 40-150, and Tokina 300mm.

What do you think?

[Greg McCary]

Erik I think you would be better served if you used m4/3rd lenses and get rid of the 4/3rd ones. But. If I were you I would consider the E5. When I had mine it seemed the images were sharper and almost 3D looking compared to the m4/3rd cameras and also the IS seemed to work better. Used bodies are everywhere and prices have dropped. The E5 is rugged and would last you many years. Unless the size is an issue.
Either way I would put all my eggs in one basket and use the lenses made for the system without adapters.

I recently purchased my first micro 4/3 camera after being a 4/3 user for the past 5 or 6 years. I purchased an E-PM2 and I'm satisfied enough with the system to want to purchase an additional lens but I'm torn over which to buy. I'm looking for that one lens that really brings out the best in the camera.

While budget is an issue, I'm willing to spend to get some quality (which also begs the question, would the money be better spent on a better body).

I'm torn between a fast wide-normal prime and a long telephoto and should I get one of each of a mid range lens or get one lens and spend a bit more. Currently I only have one native m4/3 lens - the kit 14-42mm R II.

I also have a few 4/3 lenses, which work but autofocus is slow. I've got the 9-18mm, 14-42mm, 40-150mm, 50mm Macro and 70-300mm. I also have 3 Konica Hexanon AR lenses, 40/1.8, 50/1.7 and UC 80-200/4. I find the E-PM2 pretty well suited for using these manual lenses and have little trouble with MF as long as I don't need to take the shot in a hurry.

The Olympus 12/2 looks very interesting as does the Panasonic 20/1.7. Then again so does the 75-300 ED. Although the 70-300 4/3 lens works, I would think it would be a whole different experience with a native lens.

Something like the SLR Magic HyperPrime might be really fun although it does something completely different.

Or to take it a whole other way, get the Panasonic 14mm/2.5, the Olympus 40-150, and Tokina 300mm.

What do you think?

[Liz]

Erik,

I agree with Greg about going with one system. Either system! Just let me add my "personal" two cents worth. You know which system would be best for you.

I just want to say that when I switched from Canon dslrs I thought I wouldn't be happy with the micro 4/3 system. However, I have been really happy these past few years, and I don't miss Canon anymore. One thing - I've been careful how I choose my lenses. It makes all the difference! I own some really nice m4/3 lenses. Some I got refurbished or used due to budget. Some I got on big sales. Some I just spent a lot of money on!!!!!!!!!!!

Good luck! This is a fun - but challenging decision to have to make! Keep us updated! It's exciting!

Liz

Liz

[Erik_Olympus]

Thanks for the advice guys, although I don't agree entirely.

I do agree that the best performance form the E-PM2 is going to be from native lenses and I am going to give that system every chance to perform. I purchased both kit lenses (although the 40-150mm is the older version) used, the 17mm/1.8 for $350 and I'm on the lookout for the 75-300mm. With those four lenses I think I will have most of my focal length needs covered and will have enough native lenses of different grades to really understand how the camera performs.

That said, I'm going to keep my 4/3 lenses as well as my older Konica film lenses and use them on the E-PM2. I don't anticipate using them often - I believe the advantages of the native lenses will make themselves apparent - but I will keep them around for occasional use. Actually, my favorite shots so far were with the Konica AR UC 80-200 although it's a big, heavy lens so not something I would use frequently. However, I'm very happy to use the AR 40mm or 50mm all day long and have been pleased with the results from those lenses.

Also, lenses like the 4/3 9-18mm or 50mmm Macro, could easily be used with manual focus. Those lenses would generally be used for landscape and macro photography, where AF may not come into play. I don't really see a reason to get rid of them or to replace them with native lenses at this time.

Also, although I've made a commitment to M4/3, as Greg suggested, I'm going to keep an eye out for a decent deal on a used 4/3 body. The E-5 is still a little pricey but the E-620 is within reach right now. And that would be a step up from my E-520.

So in conclusion, I'm going with one system for now but am reserving the right to get back into the other, and will continue to use non-native lenses from time to time.

[Liz]

Erik.....thanks for the update. Reading your post, I agree that you made the best decision. It is certainly well thought-out and the most important part of this decision is that you know what you want.

I love my Olympus E-M5. HOWEVER, there are times when my hands "itch" to play with a Canon dslr. I have to say, I would not go back, though. Even if I wanted to I can't carry heavy equipment anymore - my original reason for selling my gorgeous Canon lenses and going to M4/3. I haven't regretted it!

Also, I do get images comparable to what I got with the Canon "L" lenses.

I'm happy for you. I look forward to seeing more of your work.

Liz

[Erik_Olympus]

I'm sure I'll be concentrating on the MFT gear for the next 6 months or so. I'm really starting to like the 17mm. Looks great on the camera too!

[tooljunkie]

So it's a month later, whats your opinion of the E-PM2 and the lenses that you purchased?

[Erik_Olympus]

I just returned from vacation so I really put the camera through its paces. I brought the 14-42, 40-150 and 17/1.8 with me, as well as a Konica 50mm/1.7.

Overall, I am pleased with the camera. It performs better than my E-520 in many ways, especially in low light. Couple it with the 17mm and you have a great tool for low light and street photography.

Here's a sample

[/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/ngftuz]by erikzen, on Flickr

The 40-150 also does surprisingly well:
P4191458 by erikzen, on Flickr

The 14-42 is probably my least favorite lens but it's handy for snapshots and the like. It also makes a pretty good "drive by" lens.

P4150454 by erikzen, on Flickr

I'm surprised at how crisp the shots from the 40-150 are. Looking back on my 1300 vacation shots, most were with the 17, followed by the 40-150. I could have probably left the 14-42 at home but sometimes it's nice to have that wider field of view.

All in all, I'm happy with the camera and the system. My next lens will probably be the 75-300. After that, I think I could be pretty happy for a while.

[Liz]

These are beautiful images, Erik. I'm glad you like your new gear!

I hope you keep posting......I'm enjoying your images.


Liz

[tooljunkie]

I just returned from vacation so I really put the camera through its paces. I brought the 14-42, 40-150 and 17/1.8 with me, as well as a Konica 50mm/1.7.

Overall, I am pleased with the camera. It performs better than my E-520 in many ways, especially in low light. Couple it with the 17mm and you have a great tool for low light and street photography.





The 40-150 also does surprisingly well:

The 14-42 is probably my least favorite lens but it's handy for snapshots and the like. It also makes a pretty good "drive by" lens.


I'm surprised at how crisp the shots from the 40-150 are. Looking back on my 1300 vacation shots, most were with the 17, followed by the 40-150. I could have probably left the 14-42 at home but sometimes it's nice to have that wider field of view.

All in all, I'm happy with the camera and the system. My next lens will probably be the 75-300. After that, I think I could be pretty happy for a while.

I'm almost always happy with the shots I get from my M Zuiko 40-150. It will even take good close-ups if you can get back far enough. I also have the M Zuiko 75-300 and it's good except right at 300, not so crisp.

If you don't mind the size and weight, the M Zuiko 12-40 PRO is phenomenal. Crisp through out the focal length and unbelievable for close ups, although no macro.

[Erik_Olympus]

Here's a close up using the 40-150. The more I use the lens the more I like it. It seems sharper than the original 4/3 version.