Lenses - have I got this right?

[kochleffel]

I stopped using film quite a while ago, but until recently I used only point-and-shoot digital cameras. Recently I started using an Olympus EM-10,  a mirrorless camera in the Micro Four Thirds format (who on earth thought of that name?). It is still a bit hard to think about the focal length of lenses. I have to translate them into 35mm equivalents, and will do so in this post.

 

So far I have only the lenses supplied with the camera. One is a 14-42 mm zoom (equiv. 28-84 mm). It's easy to love the way it retracts to almost no depth, and I've been getting decent results with it. The other is a 40-150 mm zoom (equiv. 80-300 mm), which would sell for $99 (plastic housing), although it added almost nothing to the bundle price. I've used it only for shooting at public meetings, for which it works OK. I haven't used it outdoors.

 

I have two cruises planned for which I think I might want other lenses. The first is to the Baltic ports, including St. Petersburg. I'm thinking of not taking the 40-150 but adding a 25 mm (equiv. 50 mm) prime lens with a 1.7 or 1.8 aperture for shooting indoors in available light, plus the 14-42 for outdoors.

 

The second, not until 2020, is to Alaska. For that I think I would take both zoom lenses, but I wonder whether (a) I would regret not having a longer zoom, such as the Zuiko 75-300 mm (equiv. 150-600 mm), and (b) I would want a wider zoom lens, such as the Zuiko 9-18 mm (equiv. 18-36 mm). I probably would not take the 25 mm prime in that case, and maybe not the the 40-150 zoom since the other two would cover its range.

 

Does this make any sense? Is there any of these that I would discover too late that I really needed? Total cost is a consideration; the Olympus PRO lenses don't come into consideration at all. Weight and bulk are also considerations.

[spthealien]

A good spread for travel that I recommend is a good wide angle (so your Zuiko 9-18), a good walkaround zoom (your 14-42) and a good bright prime (something like a FF 35mm equivalent that's 1.4/1.8). For specialty trips to Alaska, I might recommend renting a long lens for wildlife--but something that may/may not make sense for a purchase.

[pengu1n]

Hi,

Nice to see another Olympus shooter on this site!  I too have the EM10 mark ii.  Not sure what you'd need for the Baltic trip, but I have been to Alaska twice lately.  I rented an EM1 mark ii for the last trip.  I like the 75-300mm for Alaska. You'll always want more reach for the wildlife in Alaska.  I got it used at a local camera store. My everyday lens is a 14-150mm - I like not having to change lenses frequently.  If you like macro, the 60mm is very nice.

These are with the EM10 & 75-300mm:

 

 

 

Here are a couple with the EM1 mark ii and the 75-300mm:

 

 

One more, this is the EM1 and 12-100mm (also rented, would love this lens but it's expensive!)

[TheOldBear]

I also have the pair of 'R' lenses [14-42 & 40-150] and was happy with the results on our 2017 cruise. This included some photos taken in the 'Royal Court' theatre of the National Symphony & passenger chorus. 

 

There were a couple of occasions I would have liked to have had a slightly wider perspective, there are lots of options from adding the 8mm 'body cap' fisheye - to the 12-100 f4 or even the new 12-200 f3.5-6.3 lens. Any of the travel zooms might be a bit unwieldily on the M10.2 body, so getting a grip might be useful.

 

For Alaska, if I need some extreme reach - looks like rental is the only option short of winning a lottery prize.

[pengu1n]

15 hours ago, TheOldBear said:

For Alaska, if I need some extreme reach - looks like rental is the only option short of winning a lottery prize.

  I don't know, compared to the price of a cruise,  I don't think $325 is too much. (when it would cost around $80 to rent).

https://www.cccamera.com/shop/Used-Olympus-M.Zuilo-75-300mm-F4.8-6.7-ED-II/c28637c0-a231-0136-f712-00163e90e196?variation=1896387

[TheOldBear]

7 minutes ago, pengu1n said:

  I don't know, compared to the price of a cruise,  I don't think $325 is too much. (when it would cost around $80 to rent).

https://www.cccamera.com/shop/Used-Olympus-M.Zuilo-75-300mm-F4.8-6.7-ED-II/c28637c0-a231-0136-f712-00163e90e196?variation=1896387

 

That seems to be a good option - but I was thinking about renting a combo like one of these

• G9 + PL 100-400
• M1.2 + Oly 40-150 + TC [Lensrental's 'wildlife kit']
• M1.2 + Oly 150 - 400 [new 'pro' level lens]

Plus bringing my existing small setup

[pengu1n]

Sounds like good choices!  I really liked the M1.2 and after renting it last summer, have been watching for a "deal." I read through the manual before receiving it and had it come several days early so I could practice some the features I wanted to use and to set up pre-sets that I wanted to use. That being said (and practiced) I still forgot most of it in the field!  But I was happy overall with the shots I got. (Except the eagles - still didn't get a good shot of them!)

 

[kochleffel]

I can envision buying a used 75-300 mm, especially considering how long I'd have to keep a rented lens.

 

But today I really wished I had the 9-18 mm. I was photographing something on a stage and kept edging back. I wasn't in imminent danger of falling off the edge of the stage, but in the past few years I seem to have become accident-prone: broke my nose (twice) and my left arm, and dislocated my right shoulder before the arm was completely healed.

 

[pengu1n]

Yikes!  Maybe you need one of these! Maybe they have camo colors so you blend in better!

 

 

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by pengu1n

[kochleffel]

1 hour ago, pengu1n said:

Maybe you need one of these!

 

That has been suggested.

[kochleffel]

On 3/12/2019 at 6:58 PM, kochleffel said:

But today I really wished I had the 9-18 mm.

 

And yesterday I bought one on ebay!

 

[getting older slowly]

On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 9:58 AM, kochleffel said:

I can envision buying a used 75-300 mm, especially considering how long I'd have to keep a rented lens.

 

But today I really wished I had the 9-18 mm. I was photographing something on a stage and kept edging back. I wasn't in imminent danger of falling off the edge of the stage, but in the past few years I seem to have become accident-prone: broke my nose (twice) and my left arm, and dislocated my right shoulder before the arm was completely healed.

 

First post in photography section.. have used Olympus since the mid 70's and finally went digital 2010 with an E-30 which I still use today.... love the 9-18mm since mainly like landscapes also have the 75-300mm a great lens ...

 

the big thing about the 9-18 it is great for interior shots as well as shots of the ship in port...

 

Cheers Don

[kochleffel]

18 hours ago, getting older slowly said:

the big thing about the 9-18 it is great for interior shots as well as shots of the ship in port...

 

I'll be using it tomorrow at a public event (on land).

[peety3]

On 3/11/2019 at 5:11 PM, TheOldBear said:

For Alaska, if I need some extreme reach - looks like rental is the only option short of winning a lottery prize.

Bingo! And if it's the kind of lens you wouldn't use frequently, renting is even more logical.

 

There's also a benefit of not being locked into a particular model. Although it's been about two years since we last cruised, we've done six Alaska cruises over the past nine years, and each time I rented a long lens. Through the magic of technology, the lenses keep getting better, and by renting, I can keep playing with better options. On our initial 2010 cruise, I rented the Canon 500mm f/4 IS, which I think weighed about 8.5 pounds by itself. Nowadays, I can rent the Canon 600mm f/4 IS Mark III, and it's about 6.5 pounds. Had I bought anywhere along the way, I wouldn't have access to the lighter options of today unless I was willing to take a loss on the sale of the old lens and "buy up".