Micro 4/3 Olympus 12-40 2.8 for indoors?

[Pauhana]

Indoor photography of kids Using OM-1. This is primarily what this will be used for
recommendations, on a budget.

olympus. 12-40 2.8. Used
Olympus 25 1.8. On sale 299
Panasonic 25 1.7. On sale 149
Panasonic 25. 1.4. Can get used for just over 300

 

[MoonMind]

On the OM-1 with its phenomenal I.B.I.S., using the 12-40mm f/2.8 is feasible.

That said, the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 is one of my favourite lenses for the system, ever - if, that is, you can forgo sealing; is my compact all-weather system, so I can't - I'm using the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 II.

For versatility and performance, even though I usually use the 12-45mm f/4, I still keep my 12-40mm f/2.8 - it's just too good and useful a lens to let go.

M.

 

[Pauhana]

On the OM-1 with its phenomenal I.B.I.S., using the 12-40mm f/2.8 is feasible.

That said, the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 is one of my favourite lenses for the system, ever - if, that is, you can forgo sealing; is my compact all-weather system, so I can't - I'm using the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 II.

For versatility and performance, even though I usually use the 12-45mm f/4, I still keep my 12-40mm f/2.8 - it's just too good and useful a lens to let go.

M.

Outdoors not an issue. I use 12-100 f4 outdoors 25 1.8 on sale for 299 is a good price and not much more than used. Panasonic 25 1.4 I see is ver I not ii for 300.

 

[John King]

The f/1.8 25 is a cracker of a lens, and 1.5 stops faster for indoor work than the f/2.8 12-40.

Not much rain indoors, as a rule ... .

 

[JensM]

Based of your list, I would probably go for the PL25 f/1.4...
Or to be more precise, it is what I have after a stint with the Lumix 25, which I didnt like, but that was probably more to how it felt than to how it performed. My PL is a MkI, iow not weather-proofed.

That said, I would have a taken a look at the Oly 17mm f/1.8 as well, for the subject matter.

 

[davidzvi]

Is 25mm wide enough indoors? My choice is the OM 20mm Pro. But that's out of your budget. So the O17 f/1.8 or PL15 f/1.7. The P20 is bright and wonderfully sharp, but AF speed and kids indoors? No.

That said I would go for a faster prime over the f/2.8 zoom. You have f/4 (as do I) so I would look for at least a 1.5 - 2.0 stops faster.

 

[Holoholo33]

I took my 12-40 f2.8 on a mainland trip to visit relatives. I used it with an EM5 III and it performed very well under indoor lighting conditions and outdoors as well. I didn't need a faster aperture and in fact, I sometimes stopped down to f4 for a little more DOF. I especially liked the 12 mm wide angle end for indoor photos. I could probably have used a wide angle prime, like my PL 15 f1.7 and although I brought it with me, I never took it out of the bag. Frankly, the 12-40 did what I needed, except for one occasion when a longer lens when have been useful outdoors. A great all-around lens. BTW, I had a 25 f1.8 lens and while it was very sharp, I used it so little that I sold it almost unused.

 

[MoonMind]

I'll echo David's thoughts about the wide angle - I really should have stated that, but I (instinctively?) picked the only lens that wasn't a "normal". If it's about kid shots, you need fast AF - which basically rules out the 25mm f/1.4 (first version - the Mk II is really quite nice). But the Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 (which would be my pick) is probably too expensive, right? Maybe you can find one used? I really love that lens, and it's fast in every sense of the word. Of the 25mm lenses, I'll stick to my original recommendation: Olympus 25mm f/1.8 - fast, sharp, very appealing rendering (I used to call it my "mini Summicron" - even though the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 II(!) may fit that description even better; and yes, I also own the original, it's not just wannabe talk).

But here's a thought. Since you already own the 12-100mm, why not think about the new Panasonic 9mm f/1.7? It's a surprisingly great lens, and not that expensive at all.

A word on the Olympus 17mm f/1.8: There's a lot to like about the lens - if you *don't* think of it as a landscape lens. However, optically, it has its irritating limitation at times. As a walk-around or documentary lens (visual notebook), it's fine, AF is great. But aberrations can be annoying; this is one of the (increasingly rare) lenses where electronic corrections can mask its flaws, but also may exacerbate them occasionally. I had it fail to deliver the quality I'd have needed, that's why I replaced it with the 15mm f/1.7, differences in FoV notwithstandin . But again, for movement, street and documentary, the Olympus 17mm f71.8 is well suited.

M.

 

[RAH]

I agree with those saying that for shooting kids indoors, you would be better off with a lens wider than 25mm. I think the Oly 17mm 1.8 would be ideal. Anything wider might be too much, with the potential for too much distortion on the edges. If you have a kit lens, you could experiment with the various focal lengths first, I should think. If you got the 12-40, you'd wish it was faster, I think.

 

[Pauhana]

too many good choices. Have looked hard at Panny 15 trust me. have used the 12-100 indoor when light was good. Going to look back at what focal lengths I used primarily. Should have done that originally. Thanks for all the input

 

[Pauhana]

Problem solved………found a used Panny 15. On order.

 

[DeeJayK]

Problem solved………found a used Panny 15. On order.

I think that will be a good choice, even though you won't be able to utilize the most unique feature of that lens (its physical aperture ring) on the OM-1.

The other factor that would be relevant to this decision that you didn't mention is how old (and fast) your kids are. The 12-40 might be fast enough to capture a relatively immobile infant, and you might appreciate the proximity to your subject that the wide end of that lens allows. But for toddlers to pre-schoolers, you may find the brighter lens more appropriate to allow you to bump up the shutter speed. And then, once your kids get into playing sports, that represents a whole new variety of challenges in terms of useful gear.

- K

 

[RAH]

Phew! Another option - you can put them up for adoption!

 

[Pauhana]

I think that will be a good choice, even though you won't be able to utilize the most unique feature of that lens (its physical aperture ring) on the OM-1.

The other factor that would be relevant to this decision that you didn't mention is how old (and fast) your kids are. The 12-40 might be fast enough to capture a relatively immobile infant, and you might appreciate the proximity to your subject that the wide end of that lens allows. But for toddlers to pre-schoolers, you may find the brighter lens more appropriate to allow you to bump up the shutter speed. And then, once your kids get into playing sports, that represents a whole new variety of challenges in terms of useful gear.

- K

Ha I know, , will Probably be picking up a 40-150 2.8 for sports and indoor concerts at some point

 

[John King]

Ha I know, , will Probably be picking up a 40-150 2.8 for sports and indoor concerts at some point

Good excuse for fleshing out your camera gear ... .

Some strategic and tactical planning involved.

 

[ac12]

Now that you have a 15 on order, this response is for others in a similar situation.

It DEPENDS
How DIM is the indoors?
A zoom is nice and flexible, but even f/2.8 can be too slow.
Kids can move awfully fast, and it is just like shooting indoor sports.

A 25/1.8 is good, but indoors, I suggest the wider 17/1.8 (or the Panasonic 15)
The reason for the wide is, often you do not have space indoors, your back may be literally up against the wall. Been there, done that, MANY times. In my film days, I used a 24, equivalent to a 12mm m4/3 lens, for that very reason, lack of space to back up far enough.

For comparison, the lens on many cell phones is about as wide as a 12mm m4/3 lens, or even a bit wider.

 

[RAH]

Now that you have a 15 on order, this response is for others in a similar situation.

It DEPENDS
How DIM is the indoors?
A zoom is nice and flexible, but even f/2.8 can be too slow.
Kids can move awfully fast, and it is just like shooting indoor sports.

A 25/1.8 is good, but indoors, I suggest the wider 17/1.8 (or the Panasonic 15)
The reason for the wide is, often you do not have space indoors, your back may be literally up against the wall. Been there, done that, MANY times. In my film days, I used a 24, equivalent to a 12mm m4/3 lens, for that very reason, lack of space to back up far enough.

For comparison, the lens on many cell phones is about as wide as a 12mm m4/3 lens, or even a bit wider.

Well, I don't really think "it depends" all that much. I mean, unless you live in a studio with very bright lights or a greenhouse, very few homes have enough light to not be considered kind of dim by photography standards. So yeah, 2.8 is often too slow. Which is why I and a lot of other respondents suggested faster lenses, often only available via primes.

And as you said, you often need wider than 25 too. Hence the need for 17mm (which I recommended), or 15, which is good too and what he got.

So, not much depending, I think.

 

[John King]

If you really, really need to freeze movement, learn to use flash. And, of course, buy a decent flash gun.

Even the tiny flashes that come with some Olympus models can make a huge difference.

 

[ac12]

If you really, really need to freeze movement, learn to use flash. And, of course, buy a decent flash gun.

Even the tiny flashes that come with some Olympus models can make a huge difference.

Or said another way, when you don't have enough light, bring your own.