Micro 4/3 Musings on my system and/or wants and fancies....

[JensM]

Having looked at the Oly Lens roadmap as well as searching the rumour mills and forums, there seems to be something brewing in the longer end of the medium telephoto zoom range. It do seem to be a slow boil, though. It anyhow got me thinking about my system, it also ties in with slipping a E-M10 MkII with the 14-42EZ into my trouser pockets earlier tonight somewhat without thinking about it.

If the phantom lens turns out to be a 50 or 70-200-250 f:4PRO weighing equal to or less than the PL 50-200 and fitting with the TCs, it may be the thing that makes me jump off the Lumix bandwagon. What keeps me there in general, are the G9/PL50-200/1,4TC combo. I had the Oly 40-150Pro with TC but that was just to big to lug around outside of planned shots, and somewhat too short even with the TC, when I brought it to Africa.

Having gotten some hands on with the Oly bodies, I quite like them based on size/weight and specifications. In my book, they are without compromises, good EVFs, well working IBIS, even proper weathersealing in tiny bodies.

When it comes to lenses, though I am soundly in the Lumix/PL lens line-up based on size and weight but I tend to think of the PLs as f:4 with bonus stops. The f/4 Pros may be a turning point in regard of the lenses, if OMS introduces a longer medium tele Pro zoom. First impressions on the puny 12-45Pro is rather good and I am not sure how much I would miss the 15mm between 45 and 60, it is on the agenda to find out about that.

If I stick with a WA zoom, the PL 8-18 is quite a bit lighter than the 8-25 and in the inventory already, but either way, the overlap with a normal zoom is rather hefty, so the PL9 mm I found under the tree last year, may be just the ticket for the wide end of things. Zero overlap, 130 grams and the PL rendering, whats not to like? I need to shoot the 8mm alongside the 9mm to see what I miss without the zoom.

The Lumix f/2.8 zooms are not going anywhere, as I live up north and get 6 hours of dusky daylight in the winter time, with months of less than 0 dgrs, and that are what they were bought for.

It also goes without saying that the old stuff I collect/hoard, has little to no influence or bearing in this, other than being able to mix and match with the lenses. I am musing over the "serious job lot", even though the whole process started with a €20, partially broken, EM-10MkII bundled with a lens I fancied last autumn. That combined with fact that I already then tended to grip the G90 over the G9, based on size, even if I do miss the joystick.

Sorry for the longish rant, I needed to get it off my chest.

 

[ac12]

That phantom mid zoom has my attention as well.
I might upgrade my 40-150/2.8 for a 50-200/2.8. Although that isn't much more reach, so it is a "maybe."
On the other hand, a longer 70-250/2.8 WOULD be attractive. Although I'm not sure that I would like the increased size and weight.
But a pro 70-250/4 might be attractive enough to replace my 75-300. Even better if I can use the MC20 on it.

I decided that I did NOT want to mix Panasonic and Olympus zoom, as much as possible. The reason is simple, the zoom rings turn in opposite directions. So changing from Olympus to Panasonic and back at a shoot would confuse my hand.
I used both Nikon and Canon, and, the difference in zoom ring direction drove me NUTS. At one sport event, I just gave up on using the Canon, because I was losing sooo many shots, by turning the zoom ring the wrong way.
I use the P-Lumix 12-60, because when I travel or use that lens, that is usually the ONLY zoom I have. If I don't change lenses, I don't get confused.

The P-Lumix 35-100/2.8 has and still attracts me, for it's small size and speed. Cuz as you said, the Olympus 14-150/2.8 is a LOT bigger and heavier.

As with you, I love the 14-42EZ for its compact size.
But I HATE the Electronic Zoom. I never got used to using it, and since it is my only EZ, I don't get enough time to get used to it. Give me a manual zoom.

I don't have an ultra-wide lens.
There have been only a few times when I felt that I wanted one. So I have not looked into them . . . yet.
Instead I used stitching to make the super-ultra-wide shots.

While I like the fast f/2.8 pro zooms, I really don't have a use for them outside of my high school sports photography.
I am quite comfortable with the slower lenses, either f/4 pro or non-pro lenses.
I am willing to trade off the lens speed for a smaller and lighter lens. More so as I get older, which was the primary reason for me changing to m43 in the first place.

 

[JensM]

@ac12 ,

I dipped my toes in the shallow and cheap end of UW photography with the Oly 9mm Body Cap lens. It is a fish-eye, fixed f/8, with a whooping three distance slots, but it is good fun and easily de-fished in LR, adding the Nikon 10.5 mm profile for a reasonable rectilinear result.

I shot the "single in challenge" last July with it. That was, interesting...

 

[Holoholo33]

Don't forget the upcoming Oly 90 mm f3.5 Pro macro.

 

[RAH]

@ac12 ,

I dipped my toes in the shallow and cheap end of UW photography with the Oly 9mm Body Cap lens. It is a fish-eye, fixed f/8, with a whooping three distance slots, but it is good fun and easily de-fished in LR, adding the Nikon 10.5 mm profile for a reasonable rectilinear result.

I shot the "single in challenge" last July with it. That was, interesting...

I just bought one of these 9mm Body Cap lenses yesterday when OMDS had the one-day sale. Took me over 10 years to spring for it, so I am intrigued...

As far as what you originally posted, I used the 12-35 with my E-M10.2 for a few years and liked it a lot, but always wished I had a little more reach. So I switched to the PL 12-60 when it came out. It's great. But, at least for travel (if I ever do it again), I have switched again to the 12-45. I did some analsis using EXIFTool of my earlier travel usage and found that I seldom went above 45 when using the 12-60. Even around town I more often use the 12-45 nowadays, although I do use the 12-60 when I think I might need the extra reach. So I think you will like the 12-45.

I am in agreement with you on the PL 8-18 vs the PL 9. I have both and it's again what I will be doing with it. I definitely would not use the 8-18 as a primary travel lens (unlike the 12-60) - too niche. So the PL9 is much better suited, I think. But around town, I'm more apt to use the 8-18 because it is more versatile (except for the close focusing of the 9, of course). They are all really good lenses.

I agree that it will be interesting to see what OMDS comes up with for mid-range zooms. While I applaud the 40-150 f4 for size and usability, it would be nice to have say a 50-200 that can use a TC. It might be like a better-quality 75-300 when you add a 1.4x TC. The worry, at least for me, is that it would be too big and heavy.

 

[Holoholo33]

I agree that it will be interesting to see what OMDS comes up with for mid-range zooms. While I applaud the 40-150 f4 for size and usability, it would be nice to have say a 50-200 that can use a TC. It might be like a better-quality 75-300 when you add a 1.4x TC. The worry, at least for me, is that it would be too big and heavy.

Agreed. I'm waiting to see what they do with that slot. I haven't seen any clues as to what they're thinking. I was disappointed when they announced the 40-150 f4 Pro. That it is a very nice lens and satisfies a lot of people was not my gripe. I wanted something that would be like a ZD 50-200 SWD, but a mZD 50-200 f4 Pro that would be lighter and smaller than the 40-150 f2.8 Pro and still take the TCs. That would be a perfect complement to my 12-100 or a 12-60. I can use the 40-150 f2.8 Pro + MC-14 to get the range, but the bulk of that combo is off-putting for travel. We'll just have to wait and see.