Tough call really. Probably the Pany 12-35 if it was just ONE lens.
Most m43 lenses are so small, though, that you don't have to limit yourself to just one lens.
A "naked" OMD with the 14 2.5, 20 1.7 and 45 1.8 is still an extremely small setup. You can fit all of these lenses in your pocket (though the 45 will bulge a bit).
edit - 20mm 1.7, not 40mm...I gotta stop thinking in equivalence
It's small and light and takes great photos. It needs to be stopped down to be sharp at the telephoto end. I recently bought the overpriced LH-40 lens hood to make it even better.
The 25mm f/1.4 has a massive advantage with regards to aperture size, but when you compare photos taken with the lenses stopped down, only very intense and careful pixel peeping will tell you which lens took the photo.
I also have the 12-50mm lens, and feel ripped off. Very bad quality at the edges and corners when used at wide angles. Although maybe there's some sample variation because some people seem to like it.
Uncle Mike wrote:
Believe it or not, the 14-42mm II R kit lens.
It's small and light and takes great photos. It needs to be stopped down to be sharp at the telephoto end. I recently bought the overpriced LH-40 lens hood to make it even better.
The 25mm f/1.4 has a massive advantage with regards to aperture size, but when you compare photos taken with the lenses stopped down, only very intense and careful pixel peeping will tell you which lens took the photo.
I also have the 12-50mm lens, and feel ripped off. Very bad quality at the edges and corners when used at wide angles. Although maybe there's some sample variation because some people seem to like it....Show more →
Great Mike! I have been wanting to hear things on the 14-42 lens, so this is good news
cannpope wrote:
To all you OMD users out there...If you had to choose just ONE lens to keep on your body at all times, what would it be?
My DSLR gear is getting gone pretty fast, so I am going to have to soon make a decision on a small system soon!
If I had one lens with the OM-D it would definitely be the PL 25f1.4, from my knowledge of the M4/3 system. Sharp here is not the issue and is not the issue on most lenses closed down. The PL is not only sharp throughout the aperture range, the character rendition this Leica variant gives is gorgeous. Have a look through the many images on the web and you dont need to doubt that this lens is sharp, or that is works well on the OM-D look at the other qualities, colours, tones, how it deals with contrast. Hope you are happy with whatever you end up purchasing.
I have a lot of m4/3 lenses. I like a lot and have the Panny 14-45mm lens. It's an excellent all around zoom. It's especially good at the wide end. However, I rarely use the 14-45mm any more. Now, I mostly use the 14mm pancake, 25mm f1.4, and 45mm f1.8. I would pick your favorite focal length and get a prime.
14mm f/2.5: I think this lens is overrated. It's very small and light and an f-stop faster than the kit lenses (the kit lens is pretty light itself at only 4 ounces). But the 14-42mm II R has better image quality stopped down. That's right, a kit zoom has better image quality than a $300 prime lens. Corners are a little bit sharper on the 14-42, but my biggest complaint against the 14mm is that it produces more purple fringing than any other lens I've ever used. Overpriced for the stated retail price, although people have been buying grey-market lenses from eBay for less money.
25mm f/1.4: Bigger and heavier than any of my other m43 lenses, although by DSLR standards it's a small lens. Optical performance is very good but not without flaws--it doesn't defy the laws of physics. It's good wide open, but there's a definite improvement in sharpness and contrast stopping down to f/2. The corners never get perfectly sharp no matter how much you stop down. It's sharper than the 14-42 at the same focal length, even when opened up to an aperture larger than the 14-42 is capable of, but not sharper in a way that I think that you would notice unless you made a 30-inch print. There's a little less purple fringing than on the 14-42, but there is still some there.
45mm f/1.8: Tiny for a wide-aperture short-telephoto lens. You will notice the biggest difference here when compared to the 14-42 which is weakest at the long end. In comparison, the 45mm is sharp-sharp-sharp, from center to corner. Sharper than the 16MP sensor is really capable of taking advantage of. But this lens still has some purple fringing. It seems that one of the ways they made m43 lenses smaller is to not correct as much for lateral chromatic aberrations. Even though it' a good lens, for regular picture-taking where I don't need shallow DOF, I don't think it's worth the effort to switch out the zoom lens in order to get a sharper photo. If you are into portraits, then it's an outstanding portrait lens for the price, although Olympus rips you off $40 if you want a lens hood to go with the lens. The 25mm is also an outstanding portrait lens if you like portraits taken with a normal lens and can afford it.
I'm really glad that I don't have to get rid of any of my m43 leses, but if I did the last two to go would be the Pany 25mm f/1.4 and the Pany 12-35 f/2.8 -- although it would be very painful to have to give up the Oly 75mm, or the Pany 45mm, or the Oly 12mm. But anyhow, in answer to the original question posted -- think about whether the 25mm prime or the 12-35mm zoom best fits your shooting style and go with it.
Really? So many OM-D owners, who, if they had to choose one lens to keep on the camera at all times, it would be the Leica 25/1.4? That's pretty amazing.
Here's the poorboy's review :
I don't think Oly was off base when they made the 12-50 the kit lens. It seems to cover most subject matter easily, to very good results, if not stellar.
I've also had very good "universal" results with the Panasonic Lumix 14-42 Asph.
Either of those lenses could qualify as capable of staying on the camera at all times.
The Oly 40-150 is an amazing lens, with better IQ than either of these two above.
For high quality, I can't fault the Canon FD 50/3.5 Macro as my top lens (under $100 with adapter), followed by FD 24/2.8, Minolta MC 28/2.5, Minolta MC 50/1.7, and Minolta MD 45/2.8 pancake -- all fine lenses. But other than the Canon 50 Macro, none of these stay on the camera all the time.
So, for me it's one of the zooms or the Canon 50 macro that is on an M43 every day.
I'm sure you'll enjoy the Leica 25/1.4 -- it has the best reputation of all the lenses.
Gunzorro wrote:
Really? So many OM-D owners, who, if they had to choose one lens to keep on the camera at all times, it would be the Leica 25/1.4? That's pretty amazing.
Here's the poorboy's review :
I don't think Oly was off base when they made the 12-50 the kit lens. It seems to cover most subject matter easily, to very good results, if not stellar.
I've also had very good "universal" results with the Panasonic Lumix 14-42 Asph.
This forum attracts people who are perfectionists and who are into using prime lenses under the belief that only a prime lens can create perfect image quality. I think they feel great mental anguish if they have to take a photo with what they consider an inferior lens. I would agree that, on average, a prime lens will have better quality than a zoom at the same focal length, but it depends on the specific prime and the specific zoom.
I don't keep the 25mm f/1.4 on my camera all the time because one focal length is limiting, it's a large lens, and I really don't need the large aperture for daytime shooting.
Believe it or not, I also own a Panasonic 14-42 G Vario (I really need to stop buying kit lenses, I know), and I think it produces pretty good image quality, especially at 14mm, but the corners are kind of iffy at longer focal lengths, even at 25mm which is midrange, and it's also bigger and heavier and the zoom ring is not fun to turn, so I generally prefer the Olympus 14-42mm II as my go-to lens for both size and overall image quality throughout the zoom range.
If I were happier with the image quality from the 12-50, maybe I'd use that as my one lens, but I just think that lens is really bad at wide angles, especially horrid at 12mm (which is supposed to be one of it's main features, that it goes extra wide). Now as I said, maybe it's my copy because there are other people who think it's OK, although there are also other people who have made the exact same complaints. Maybe I'm just too picky? Yet I'm not so picky that I won't use the less expensive Olympus kit zoom.
However, I do like to use the 25mm when I'm taking pictures of family and friends, it's a great people lens.
Uncle Mike -- I think you've stated the position for and against the 12-50 very well. And you make it clear that when possible, better optics are attractive options (almost demands) of experienced photographers.
And I agree the 12-50 is no superlative, especially at 12mm. But it is far from a disaster.
I know I'm hogging the thread, but I would just like to show a few practical examples of how the lens comes in handy for me.
Here are several locations in Downtown LA and the North Hollywood area with shots take with the 12-50 at the 12mm setting. These are not for award winning purposes, just narrative detail shot of buildings for smaller scale reproduction or web use. (I took a lot of other pictures are longer settings during these two shoots, so the full zoom range came into play.)
Granted, these are not nearly as finely detailed as some I seen by Jordan and others using M43, but if I were "serious", I have used full frame and 24mm tilt and shift lens, or some other really sharp optic. But these were fast shots only trying to be adequate to the need, not award winning.
My point is that the lens is usable even at 12mm, if not grand. I don't know if there is an inexpensive, lightweight, compact zoom the has a lot better quality.
As I say, I agree with you, and am not trying to say don't use good glass when it is available.
Gunzorro, I think your photos demonstrate excellent post-processing for sharpness, although the second one down looks a bit oversharpened. However, it's impossible to judge fine differences in lens quality in images reduced in size to 1000 pixels.
I looked at some of my shots from the 12-50 taken at 12mm, downsized them to 1000 pixels, and then applied the Photoshop Smart Sharpen filter, and they looked sharp.
Just something about the way this lens draws in every situation that I really enjoy. Close up, mid distance, infinity, it does it all with it's own signature. My only complaint is that I wish it was a matte plastic or metal instead of the glossy finish.
If this lens came in 35mm F1.4 I don't see a need to visit this forum any more as I'll be done.
:
