I'm planning a trip to Europe next summer. I have OM-1 II with following lenses: 12-40 2.8 PRO, 40-150 F4 PRO, 50-200 2.8 (an amazing lens). I initially figured I'd take the 12-40 and 40-150 for a lightweight travel kit
But I wonder -- would I miss having something wider for interiors and landscapes? In that case, would I be better off purchasing a 8-25 F4 and taking that instead of (in addition to?) the 12-40 2.8?
Or a different option might be to take the 12-40 and maybe get the Panny F 1.7 prime?
I wonder if F 4 might not give me enough light for cathedral interiors, dawn/sunset landscapes?
Also, I've never done astrophotography, but might try to start. Is 12-40 2.8 enough for beginning astro?
Which country or countries are you visiting? I live in Copenhagen, Denmark, and one can definitely benefit from an ultra-wide in the many narrow streets. It all depends on your style, though.
I used to be an ultra-wide fanatic, and even used the Laowa 9mm f/5.6 on my Sony a7R V before I switched to OM System. When I look back at my images, I only like a few of them. Most ultra-wide images are not that interesting, unless it is of a huge, magnificient cathedral, or experimenting with perspective distortion in curved trees and buidlings, with prominent foregrounds.
Now a days, I am fine with 16mm equivalent in almost all situations. My style has changed, and I am much more into more standard and intimate details of landscapes and buildings. Furthermore, I lean more towards wildlife, both insects, birds and mammals, so I gravitate more towards telephoto lenses.
My kit for landscape and architecture consists of the 8-25 and 40-150 f/4 lenses. They are both excellent for that, and f/4 is plenty bright for indoor architecture in 99% situations due to the incredible stabilisation of the OM cameras. I can easily go down to 1/2 s, and I have gotten quite consistent results down to 2 s. I highly recommend this set, but since you already have the 12-40, adding the 9mm f/1.7 for occasional usage might make more sense.
All in all, if you consider using ultra-wide angle often, and pair it with the 40-150, I recommend the 8-25. If you only consider using it at times, and mostly indoors, I recommend the 9mm f/1.7, and just adding it to your kit at times. Both are incredible optically. As for astro, the 12-40 can do alright, but you will not get good astro results anywhere near the cities in Europe due to the light pollution.
I say yes to an ultrawide. I travel with the Panny 8-18 (this one is f2.8 at the 8mm end, and I prefer the slightly smaller and non-extending nature vs the OM 8-25, though I have not personally tried the 8-25) and find that plenty wide. I would think f4 is sufficient with the excellent OM IBIS.
When I use full frame I have 14mm available and sometimes get shots that really benefit from the additional 2mm, but I don't feel range anxiety when I bring the m43 system. On this most recent trip, I did find the 14mm as a worked well as a "shift" lens by cropping out the bottom and getting more of a pano shot in tight street settings.
I can see where if I used the 8-25 instead it would be tempting to skip a midrange zoom from a coverage perspective. However, I dislike changing lenses and find a 24mm-mild telephoto really freeing and always travel with one.
My experience in France and Germany is that most of the time, 12mm is fine. It would be nice to have something small and wider on occasion, such as the PL 9mm. I usually bring a longer zoom, too, but rarely have used it.
Like you I consider the 12-40/2.8 and the 40-150/4 as the key to a small travel kit. I was thinking of adding the 8-18mm, but found that too much overlap with the 12-40mm, so on my current trip I took the Panasonic 9mm instead. I also have the Laowa 6mm, but think that’s too wide in most cases.
