On a tangent to the "grab and go camera" thread which should have been more a point and shoot thing but evolved into a little of everything photography, I propose this question:

On your mirrorless or SLR setup, if you could choose only one lens (because for some reason the laws says you can only own one lens, or bags/backpacks are out of style, whatever, pick a reason) which one would it be?

I recently picked up the Lumix GX8 and then immediately grabbed two inexpensive pancakes for it: A Lumix G 14mm f/2.5 and a Lumix G 20mm f/1.7. Both are ultra-lightweight, fast, and crisp little lenses. But they aren't enough. After a soul-search for what I needed, I decided to get the Olympus M.Zuiko Pro 12-40mm f/2.8. It was a difficult choice between it and the 7-14mm they offer. I don't think the 12mm is going to be wide enough for this 2x crop sensor to use it like I've come to use my 10-20mm on the APS-C but perhaps that is what my 7.5mm fisheye is for.

Some of the best lenses available for Micro Four Thirds platform are all-manual, which is fine, but it's also really nice to have one-touch autofocus for shooting stills.

I'll update when I can shoot something with it other than my baby.

i found this take interesting:

http://www.thecoolist.com/exploring-the ... 50mm-lens/

BRD wrote:i found this take interesting:

http://www.thecoolist.com/exploring-the ... 50mm-lens/

I have that EF 50mm f/1.8. Who doesn't? Cheap, sharp, lightweight. It is a nice lens, but it makes you work at that focal length, especially on sensors where it's cropped.

Interesting question.

First of all, my micro four thirds gear is ancient. When I go on vacation, and want to travel light, I use one lens, an ancient Olympus 14-140 on a compact EP2 Olympus body with built in Image Stabilization. This keeps the lens much smaller than say a Panasonic optic that contains its own stabilization. Olympus EP2 + 14-140mm Oly Optic. I also have the electronic viewfinder.

Of course my usual travel needs are not that critical re optical quality. If I ran a major website like BCP and produced major videos, I'd dump my ancient gear in heartbeat.

For other venues and applications, where sharpness, Bokeh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh ), contrast, or low light available capability, etc are needed, I would go for a dedicated prime lens. Here I like my Panasonic 20mm. Sadly, I don't have many primes; I wish I did.

Of course with primes, you are stuck in a limited zone. If you need flexibility re range, you are left short.

So, what is a fabulous zoom with decent contrast, decent speed, and excellent sharpness for the Micro four thirds format. Wow. That can get expensive. My opinion, get two lenses, a super fast wide angle prime lens, and a really high end zoom.

My choices : Three Possible Choices of Zooms; Pick your price range


Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO Lens



Olympus 12-60mm f/2.8-4 ED SWD Zuiko Zoom Lens



Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 ED SWD Zuiko Zoom Lens



And a small stellar wide angle prime lens:

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm f/2.0 Lens

The 35~135mm is the handiest range I've ever had in a lens. It's too bad nobody makes a f2.8 in that focal length, as I think it's much more usable that the ubiquitous 80~200mm zooms.

Though I guess if I was going to get stuck with one lens it'd be my 85mm f1.4

Hammer wrote:Though I guess if I was going to get stuck with one lens it'd be my 85mm f1.4

I think "The One" has to open to at least 1.8." So many of these expensive zooms only open to 2.8. Why is that? No room left in the barrel after the zoomy guts are added?

@ Hammer:

That 85mm 1.4 is so sweet. I always wanted that lens in Canon optic but had to settle for the 85 F1.8. No money

I used to shoot a lot of rock bands so for that the 135mm F2.0 was the bees knees as they say. Camera: Canon 50D

I think we all agree it depends on what you are shooting.

Micro four thirds significantly changes the game. ZZZ's new Panasonic GX8 has dual image stabilization so the in body stabilization permits full functional use of Olympus lenses.

I do like the Oly 12-40mm F2.8 plus it has a manageable 62mm filter thread. Jump to the Oly 14-35mm F2.0 and you now have a massive 77mm filter thread. Ouch.

If video is on the agenda, I would wait to see what some of the new virtual reality camera options are going to be like. Next Photokina in Germany is 20th September to the 25th September 2016 at the Cologne International Expocentre in Cologne, Germany. Ach du lieber !

I've owned the Olympus 12-60mm f/2.8-4 ED Zuiko for about 5 or 6 years. When I only have room for one lens, it's the one I take for general photography. The results are great. I usually carry the camera by the lens. It is big and heavy. But for the "pixel peepers", it is quite satisfying to be able to zoom in on the image file to 1X pixel size and still have a sharp picture. It's big and heavy. I would like a faster lens at times, but it would be bigger and heavier.

Physics is a bitch. And that creates the difficulty in selecting a single lens. You can't have it all in one package. So, you need to think about your most important missions and select accordingly. Realities of economics comes into play, too. This sounds a lot like the "best aircraft" decision.

tom

The new rig:

This Olympus M.Zuiko Pro 12-40 f/2.8 is nice. It's a burly chunk of metal and is a fast focuser, and sharp. Also added the Lumix FL360 flash. A bounce head flash is a must.



I've really only taken kid pics with it thus far.

My Lumix GF5 sports an aspherical Lumix 14-42 lens that often leaves me wanting more reach. The speed of the lens isn't that big a deal for me with the kind of shooting I do. In the old days of shooting film I used black and white Tri-X and pushed the ASA to 1200 to do sports shots at night (I worked part time for a community newspaper on the high school sports beat). With digital I can select "film" speeds that are much faster than that so all of my current shooting needs are met. I do lust for a 14-140 lens, but even the $597 one is slow (f3.5). That makes my wallet wheeze and keeps me shooting with something that doesn't meet all of my needs. Sigh.

.
Flyhound wrote: I do lust for a 14-140 lens....

With the small GF5, a nice and most importantly SMALL COMPACT affordable used lens would be the older Olympus 14-140. It would balance extremely well, although you'd not enjoy image stabilization since it is an older Panasonic body, and Panasonic had IS in their lenses, not generally in their bodies. Newer bodies like ZZZ's new Panasonic have both. SInce you are an old shutterbug, you can I am sure properly brace for shots in low light or at long focal lengths.

I have an Oly 14-140 on an older Olympus EP3 and I do love the very compactness of the package. I currently use an old Canon 50D with a massive Canon 100mm macro and Canon ringflash at work and I feel like I am lifting weights at the gym. GF5 + Oly 14-140. Give it your consideration. Here is a lens size comparison, older Pansonic vs Oly 14-140 zooms. There are by the way newer versions out for each but for substantially more $$$.

This is the one lens I carry around - the Sigma 200-500 f2.8. It's the only one I take because when I have it in the plane, nothing else fits...I still need an adapter to connect it to my Fuji X-T10 though.

Haha Allen... nice. Do you really have that lens? Those big teles really command the $$$$$.

I was thinking about this thread last night after reading some of the posts, and realized that there's no divorcing the camera body and sensor from the best do-it-all lens. Style of shooting and preference aside, the focal length is not a fixed unit. The same lens on a Canon full-frame body is going to provide a very difference experience on the smaller sensor bodies.

This 12-40 that I now have on the GX8 would be insanely wide on a full frame sensor, but on the little micro four thirds it's just kinda wide.

So in your suggestions and anecdotes, I think actual lens model and body are pretty important to the story.

Keep talking, keep talking. My retirement job is learning this shit and I want to be a sponge.

Gump

While it's unfortunately no longer for sale, B&H offered this 1200mm f5.6 Canon lens. USED it was $180,000.00



I guess after paying that bill there was no money left for a tripod?

This thread....

amacbean wrote:This is the one lens I carry around - the Sigma 200-500 f2.8. It's the only one I take because when I have it in the plane, nothing else fits...I still need an adapter to connect it to my Fuji X-T10 though.

I thought that was a thermos. Or a TOW missile system.

Hammer wrote:I guess after paying that bill there was no money left for a tripod?

What a *weird* way to demo a product!

Or maybe it was $180K because it came with a Hasidic Jew as a porter/tripod?

I'm thinking you guys may like this . Good for spotting climbers on Eiger Norwand.

http://www.telescopes.com/products/celestron-rasa-rowe-ackermann-schmidt-astrograph-11-in-telescope-with-cge-pro-mount

Hammer wrote:While it's unfortunately no longer for sale, B&H offered this 1200mm f5.6 Canon lens. USED it was $180,000.00



I guess after paying that bill there was no money left for a tripod?

I think before i would pay 180k for a hollow tube with a bunch of glass discs i would just buy a bad ass airplane and fly over to the subject i wanted to shoot. [emoji6]