Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Micro Four Thirds Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2019 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...

  
 
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


I'm pondering what I might build for a micro 4/3 kit. I'd be looking at pairing it with FF (Panny S1), so each body would have it's strengths to play to between the diff formats.

Assuming that I'm okay with some bit of overlap in coverage (but don't want full duplication of two sets of lenses) ... what might you suggest for the m43 set of glass?

I'm looking at:

PL 200/2.8 + 1.4 TC
Oly 75/1.8


The can be either a shorter prime than the 75, or a short ratio zoom (brand agnostic). I figure the FF will cover UWA > Portrait range, so the m4/3 doesn't have to go into the WA / UWA range.

Any / all thoughts are welcome.



May 29, 2019 at 10:48 PM
James Farrell
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


You should state what kind of photography you like to do which would influence our recommendations.


May 30, 2019 at 09:14 AM
Robin Smith
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


You'll probably inevitably end up with duplicating the systems to some extent, otherwise you will end up taking both systems with you when you want maximum coverage, which in my opinion is a bad outcome. My advice it is to tread carefully.

The Sigma 56mm f1.4 is getting good reviews, and the 45mm f1.2 PRO or 45mm Nocticron are great. About the most useful lens is the Olympus 12mm-100mm PRO.



May 30, 2019 at 09:25 AM
stan2
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


if the 75mm Oly fits in the set, I don't think you'll be disappointed. I've used mine for everything: low light no flash headshots across the room, chasing kids around the park, flowers, medium telephoto landscapes.


May 30, 2019 at 10:26 AM
imsurokim
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


I just build up m43 system. I use Sony A7III as my main body and have 24-105 f4, 55mm f1.8, Sigma 100-400 with MC-11 adaptor. My plan for new build was to travel light so picked up Panny GX9 and Laowa 7.5mm, PL 15mm, 25mm, and Panny 35-100 f/2.8 II lens.

I have travel coming up to Korea/Japan and will leave my Sony system at home and just carry m43.

The part I like about m43 is when my kids are 1~2 feet apart(not side by side) I can have both of them focused even @ wide open aperture. When I use full frame camera, I have to tighten up aperture a bit to have both of them focus meaning high ISO or low shutter speed. It's just one example. Problem comes when you try to freeze object @ low light situation. I think ISO 3200 is very usable, but above that is quite grainy. When I go indoor event needing longer reach @ low light, I will probably bring my Sony because of high ISO performance.



May 30, 2019 at 05:12 PM
pr4photos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


My m43 kit, built to emulate my ff kit, consists of a Lumix G9, Leica 8-18mm f4. Olympus 12-40mm f2.8, Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8, Nocticron 42.5mm f1.2, and Olympus 60mm macro

For most purposes the Nocti and the macro lens are left out of the bag. This then leaves a small, lightweight kit, that provides professional quality images



May 31, 2019 at 04:04 AM
Robin Smith
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


The depth of field advantage of m43 is quite an advantage, and not usually emphasized. It means you can keep your ISOs down to maximize quality, so the much vaunted superiority of FF over m43 is reduced considerably. My kit is 8-18mm, 12-100mm, 25mm and 45 mm PROs and 75mm. I also have the 40-150mm PRO and 12-40mm. I rarely take everything, mixing and matching as desired but it is a lot smaller than my Canon kit and is tremendously versatile.


May 31, 2019 at 09:20 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


Robin Smith wrote:
The depth of field advantage of m43 is quite an advantage, and not usually emphasized. It means you can keep your ISOs down to maximize quality, so the much vaunted superiority of FF over m43 is reduced considerably. My kit is 8-18mm, 12-100mm, 25mm and 45 mm PROs and 75mm. I also have the 40-150mm PRO and 12-40mm. I rarely take everything, mixing and matching as desired but it is a lot smaller than my Canon kit and is tremendously versatile.


Yes, I have been "doing the math" with regard to the ISO advantage vs. the noise / DOF considerations. It strikes me that situational can be +/- either way depending on your objective. To the point that it may not be a wholesale issue one way or the other.



May 31, 2019 at 05:30 PM
bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


The increased DOF is a blessing not only in landscape photography but for portraits as well. I had a love-hate relationship with my old Canon EF 85/1.2 lens as I find f1.2 almost unusable because of the ultra-shallow DOF - and it was extremely difficult for me to consistently achieve accurate focus with that lens, so I would typically shoot at f2. I find it ridiculous to be paying for an f1.2 lens that doesn't work well at f1.2. No such problem with my Panasonic Nocticron 42.5/1.2 lens which is a truly amazing lens that is sharper and 10x faster at AF than my old Canon lens.

RustyBug wrote:
Yes, I have been "doing the math" with regard to the ISO advantage vs. the noise / DOF considerations. It strikes me that situational can be +/- either way depending on your objective. To the point that it may not be a wholesale issue one way or the other.




May 31, 2019 at 05:51 PM
johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


Do you want to use the MFT kit instead of FF, for example when you travel, or do you want MFT for long range work only, next to FF for everything else?

I’m selling my FF Canon gear and going MFT for everything except BIF, for which I’m using Nikon.



May 31, 2019 at 07:48 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


johnvanr wrote:
Do you want to use the MFT kit instead of FF, for example when you travel, or do you want MFT for long range work only, next to FF for everything else?

I’m selling my FF Canon gear and going MFT for everything except BIF, for which I’m using Nikon.


Long for MFT

WA / UWA seems to have too much distortion in MFT lenses (RAW), so I'd likely stay FF from UWA > Portrait. MFT could see normal & macro (overlapping) or not.

I've also considered the Nikon PF 500 for long, but am looking at the MFT 200/2.8 instead (+TC). The S1 has my attention for FF, but I don't think they'll have anything long for some time (except for the Sigma's). That, or I continue with my Canon 100-400 on the S1 with a Siggy adapter.



May 31, 2019 at 09:14 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


bobbytan wrote:
The increased DOF is a blessing not only in landscape photography but for portraits as well. I had a love-hate relationship with my old Canon EF 85/1.2 lens as I find f1.2 almost unusable because of the ultra-shallow DOF - and it was extremely difficult for me to consistently achieve accurate focus with that lens, so I would typically shoot at f2. I find it ridiculous to be paying for an f1.2 lens that doesn't work well at f1.2. No such problem with my Panasonic Nocticron 42.5/1.2 lens which is a truly amazing lens that is sharper and 10x faster
...Show more

When I had the Siggy 50-100 / 1.8 and found myself shooting it more at 2.2 or 2.5 most of the time anyway. I also have always thought that with the planes of nose vs. chin / cheeks / forehead vs. eye sockets vs. ears ... uber shallow was often times insufficient ... especially when the subject is oblique.



May 31, 2019 at 09:21 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


bobbytan wrote:
The increased DOF is a blessing not only in landscape photography but for portraits as well. I had a love-hate relationship with my old Canon EF 85/1.2 lens as I find f1.2 almost unusable because of the ultra-shallow DOF - and it was extremely difficult for me to consistently achieve accurate focus with that lens, so I would typically shoot at f2. I find it ridiculous to be paying for an f1.2 lens that doesn't work well at f1.2. No such problem with my Panasonic Nocticron 42.5/1.2 lens which is a truly amazing lens that is sharper and 10x faster
...Show more

When I had the Siggy 50-100 / 1.8 and found myself shooting it more at 2.2 or 2.5 most of the time anyway. I also have always thought that with the planes of nose vs. chin / cheeks / forehead vs. eye sockets vs. ears ... uber shallow was often times insufficient ... especially when the subject is oblique.


Mostly a bit of GAS right now, but I think that MFT has progressed significantly since I originally considered 4/3 (pre-micro) ... hence a "revisit" to the platform is where I'm at on this.

Just wanting to know which glass others find to their liking (i.e. separate the wheat from the chaff), so when I start evaluating I can focus on the good stuff to see if I find it inspiring or meh.



May 31, 2019 at 09:21 PM
bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


Although I only have the Nocticron I do believe that all the f1.2 Oly lenses are very good. And so is the 75/1.8 and 60 macro. I am sure the PL 200/2.8 is an excellent lens too.


Jun 01, 2019 at 01:28 AM
James Farrell
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


RustyBug wrote:
When I had the Siggy 50-100 / 1.8 and found myself shooting it more at 2.2 or 2.5 most of the time anyway. I also have always thought that with the planes of nose vs. chin / cheeks / forehead vs. eye sockets vs. ears ... uber shallow was often times insufficient ... especially when the subject is oblique.

Mostly a bit of GAS right now, but I think that MFT has progressed significantly since I originally considered 4/3 (pre-micro) ... hence a "revisit" to the platform is where I'm at on this.

Just wanting to know which glass others find to
...Show more

Well, for me the two sharpest m4/3 lenses I own are the Olympus 45mm f/1.2 and the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8. Two samples attached below. Of course, images that you see posted that are down-sampled and washed through a raw converter (here Capture One Pro 12) will look better than the raw images straight out of the camera - you of course know that.

I suppose it matter more what kinds of things you like to shoot as to what might interest you. I mostly enjoy "wildlife landscapes" from Canada as I avoid US National Parks which are madhouses anymore. So, my choices are on the long side as I also own the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 Pro and the Olympus 300 f/4 Pro (which is getting less love these days compared to the Pany 200/2.8 (and with its TC14 too).






Mink in the Great Bear Rainforest of Coastal British Columbia, Canada






Coastal British Columbia Canada




Jun 01, 2019 at 01:56 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


James Farrell wrote:

So, my choices are on the long side as I also own the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 Pro and the Olympus 300 f/4 Pro (which is getting less love these days compared to the Pany 200/2.8 (and with its TC14 too).



I'd love to see a shootout between the 300/4 vs. the 200/2.8 + TC14. My "web research" suggests I'll prefer the PL over the Oly.

I suppose the 40-150/2.8 & 200/2.8 (+TC14) would likely cover the MFT (maybe with something like the 70 or 60 macro in the mix)... south of that would likely be FF anyway.



Jun 01, 2019 at 09:17 PM
James Farrell
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


RustyBug wrote:
I'd love to see a shootout between the 300/4 vs. the 200/2.8 + TC14. My "web research" suggests I'll prefer the PL over the Oly.

I suppose the 40-150/2.8 & 200/2.8 (+TC14) would likely cover the MFT (maybe with something like the 70 or 60 macro in the mix)... south of that would likely be FF anyway.


Shootouts? Not seen any, and never read one that I believe anyhow.Moreover, only a few reviews out on the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8 lens. This one makes some interesting comparisons - https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/panasonic/200mm-f2.8-power-ois-leica-dg-elmarit/review/

I own both the Olympus 300/4 and the Pany 200/2.8 (plus the TC14 that came with it). Personally, I think it’s moslty a tie as to whether the 300/4 or the Pany 200/2.8 with the TC14) is sharper although Lenstip reviews suggest the Pany is a bit sharper, even with the TC14 (despite their comparisons using different Olympus bodies). Both are extremely good. I could post comparisons all day long, but the downsampling and other effects of Internet posting would render the comparisons meaningless. You know that scenario. I did write about the 200/2.8 here - https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1544289/0#14465966 for what it's worth.

Full disclosure: Earlier this spring I sold my ‘first’ Pany 200/2.8 as I need the money for something else. I regret very much having done that. So, recently I bought the lens AGAIN as it was on sale for what I paid for the first one. Not the first time I’ve done something dumb like that.

If I was given a choice or owning only one of the two aforementioned lenses, I would choose the Pany 200/2.8. It’s simply the sharpest m4/3 lens at a long focal length one can buy. And the TC14 makes it comparable to the 300/4, only giving up 40mm effective focal length in FF terms. Having two focal lengths available in the form of one lens body (with or without the TC) is an attractive proposition.



Jun 02, 2019 at 01:08 PM
whumber
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


James Farrell wrote:
Shootouts? Not seen any, and never read one that I believe anyhow.Moreover, only a few reviews out on the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8 lens. This one makes some interesting comparisons - https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/panasonic/200mm-f2.8-power-ois-leica-dg-elmarit/review/

I own both the Olympus 300/4 and the Pany 200/2.8 (plus the TC14 that came with it). Personally, I think it’s moslty a tie as to whether the 300/4 or the Pany 200/2.8 with the TC14) is sharper although Lenstip reviews suggest the Pany is a bit sharper, even with the TC14 (despite their comparisons using different Olympus bodies). Both are extremely good. I could post comparisons all
...Show more

Agreed, the Panasonic 200 2.8 is a spectacular lens. It's such a shame that Olympus and Panasonic can't play nice with their IBIS + OIS systems.



Jun 02, 2019 at 02:30 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Thinking about building a micro 4/3 kit ...


James Farrell wrote:
Shootouts? Not seen any, and never read one that I believe anyhow.Moreover, only a few reviews out on the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8 lens. This one makes some interesting comparisons - https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/panasonic/200mm-f2.8-power-ois-leica-dg-elmarit/review/

I own both the Olympus 300/4 and the Pany 200/2.8 (plus the TC14 that came with it). Personally, I think it’s moslty a tie as to whether the 300/4 or the Pany 200/2.8 with the TC14) is sharper although Lenstip reviews suggest the Pany is a bit sharper, even with the TC14 (despite their comparisons using different Olympus bodies). Both are extremely good. I could post comparisons all
...Show more

Repeat purchase(s) ... usually says something about the gear.

I've been reviewing this thread ... and have gotten pretty good at being able to "call" which ones were shot with the 200/2.8 before seeing the exif.
7-14 seems to have a similar "identifiable" or "recognizable" quality to it as well.



Jun 02, 2019 at 04:16 PM





FM Forums | Micro Four Thirds Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.