PDA

View Full Version : What lens do you want most/ will get next?



raven15
03-17-2009, 02:11 AM
I have lens lust, but at present have no resources to get anything else, so I figured I'd blow off some steam by posting!

I"m pretty sure the next lens I get (and possibly any lenses I get from now on) will be a prime lens. Specifically I'm thinking about the 35mm or 50mm macro. If I stay in China for another year I will probably get the 50mm in August, it will largely replace my 40-150. I have discovered that the ~40-60 (80-120)mm focal length is quite useful for taking candid pictures of people in foreign countries, and I would love the shallow depth of field to play with. Plus, by all accounts I have read I can't even imagine the image quality of this lens, which is really making my mouth water. 'Course, it is freakin' expensive.

And the 35mm of course would fit the gap between the 9-18 and 70-300 exactly by multiples of two, perfect for me. This would be the ultimate nature combination, from 18-600mm equivalent, with 1:1 macro. I would probably also get the 2x teleconverter, thus achieving 18mm-1200mm with 2:1 macro, the TRUE ultimate nature combination! I can't even think of anything comparable, I will definitely get this combo sometime. Of course, that's only when I return to the States, where there is some nature around...

Any thought on this / what do you plan on next? Grr.. lens lust is bad, the camera companies have us just where they want us...

raven15
03-19-2009, 06:37 AM
Also, anything pancake Oly releases, I want. Regardless of aperture or focal length. Though I have a preference for a wide angle pancake lens, in the 12-18mm range.

Phill D
03-19-2009, 03:58 PM
I'm with you on the 50mm. I've been thinking about that for some time but as you say it's just too expensive. The other lens I've lusted after for ages is the Leica/Panasonic 14-150 zoom. I'd love to replace my two kit lenses with that all rounder but now we are talking serious cash! Maybe when I retire then perhaps an E620 & 14-150 would be justifyable. Its the only dslr version of a superzoom that makes sense in my book.

kgosden
03-19-2009, 08:13 PM
Unfortunately the Oly lens I lust after doesn't exist yet. I have wanted a wide angle tilt/shift for the past 20 years. It is enough to make me consider switching brands except I still love my current glass. Probably good that the Canon and Nikon examples run over $2000 as that is a barrier to switching.

Of the current lenses I will probably get the 9-18 next. The 11-22 has been great, but the 12-60 makes it mostly irrelevant. I rented the 7-14, great lens, but too big and heavy to carry often.

jekostas
03-19-2009, 11:10 PM
50mm macro first, probably, after that I'm going in a slightly different direction:
40MM Hexanon AR F1.8 and 57 MM Hexanon AR F1.2, just for kicks.

Maybe the 12-60 after that.

Don Kondra
03-19-2009, 11:44 PM
Geez,

I was gonna dazzle you with a shot using the 50 but I was so hungry I missed the focus :D

44967

Cheers, Don

raven15
03-20-2009, 01:52 AM
The other lens I've lusted after for ages is the Leica/Panasonic 14-150 zoom. I'd love to replace my two kit lenses with that all rounder but now we are talking serious cash! Maybe when I retire then perhaps an E620 & 14-150 would be justifyable. Its the only dslr version of a superzoom that makes sense in my book.

I am currently going the opposite direction. I have realized than a superzoom will never be long enough at either telephoto or especially wide angle, so I will always need two or three extra lenses. So then there seems no point in having a superzoom. Hence, I sold the 18-180 and replaced it with the 9-18 and 40-150. The same, I think, would apply to the 14-150, for me. Also, shooting primes seems to improve my composition, and I oddly find I enjoy shooting primes more.



Unfortunately the Oly lens I lust after doesn't exist yet. I have wanted a wide angle tilt/shift for the past 20 years. It is enough to make me consider switching brands except I still love my current glass. Probably good that the Canon and Nikon examples run over $2000 as that is a barrier to switching.
Yeah, if I were going pro I'd probably look at something else. Tilt shift and/or fast primes would draw me to full frame if it was my job, depending on what I was doing. I do know Oly made some tilt shift lenses in the past that were extraordinarily good, but I think they are more expensive than $2000, even now. (I haven't investigated, don't take my word for it.)


50mm macro first, probably, after that I'm going in a slightly different direction:
40MM Hexanon AR F1.8 and 57 MM Hexanon AR F1.2, just for kicks.

Maybe the 12-60 after that.

So broad consensus that 50mm is next ;)?

My original thought was that the 8mm fisheye + 12-60 + 70-300 was the ideal nature combo, because I think rectilinear distortion in landscapes looks unnatural, a fisheye would be much more realistic as long as there were no trees or strong horizon line (ie. bare mountains). Then I was diagnosed with a strong allergy to large lenses, and decided the 9-18 + 35 + 70-300 would be a better fit, especially with the 2x TC. It also turns out to be a lot cheaper, since I have the 9-18 for traveling and the 70-300mm already. But I don't exclude the 8mm + 12-60mm as a bad combination!

kgosden
03-20-2009, 06:19 AM
I do know Oly made some tilt shift lenses in the past that were extraordinarily good, but I think they are more expensive than $2000, even now.

Actually Olympus only made shift lenses, a 24mm and a 35mm. I actually have the 35mm. I played with it a few times with my OM adapter, but with the 2x factor it was not very useful. For a T/S lens to be really beneficial it needs to be no wider a field of view than ~30mm. I probably need to eBay mine...

Armanius
03-27-2009, 11:40 AM
@ Raven15

Not sure if the 50 macro will be a good choice for taking candid portraits. Never owned one (yet), but read TONS about it. You might want something that auto focuses a little bit faster than the 50 for candid shots.

That being said, I am totally struck with lens lust too. I just started getting into photography three months ago, and I've spent way too much on it already. And I'm only in the tip of the iceberg. I'd love to get the 50 macro too. But not sure if that's what I should be getting first. Here's what I have in my bag now that I use with the E-410 and 510:

14-42
14-54(I)
40-150
25 pancake

I would like to get a longer telephoto lens. Love the portability of the 40-150, but sometimes, it's not long enough. I'd like to get the 70-300, because it's not as expensive and it's very long. But I hear that the 70-300 is a whole lot slower to focus than the 40-150, which already isn't an autofocus speed demon. The 50-200 would be nice, but it's now over $1000 for a new one. Plus, the extra 50mm over the 40-150 may not be all that much. Although I'm sure the IQ of the 50-200 would beat the pants off the 40-150 and the 70-300. There is the Sigma 70-200, and it's $200-300 cheaper than the Oly 50-200. But it's also chunkier and supposedly not as good. Not to mention that I would have the same issue about getting something that's only 50mm longer than the 40-150. So the best resolution that I can see to my dilema is to get the Sigma 55-200. I am still only getting 50 extra mm over the 40-150. But the 55-200 is also pretty inexpensive compared to the other lenses. Although I'd take a major hit in the IQ department there when comparing the 55-200 versus any of the other aforementioned lenses.

raven15
03-29-2009, 06:45 AM
Not sure if the 50 macro will be a good choice for taking candid portraits. Never owned one (yet), but read TONS about it. You might want something that auto focuses a little bit faster than the 50 for candid shots.

Yeah, I've been reading about it. It is sort of stupid that a lens of that price is slow to autofocus, but in practice it shouldn't matter that much. My candid shots are generally done by finding an interesting backdrop- or action-in-progress, prefocusing and choosing the right framing first, then clicking the shutter when the alignment of the stars and planets or subject matter is correct (whichever happens first). I've been thinking that my 40-150 is sort of lacking in contrast, which the 50mm is supposedly good at. On the other hand, I have a use for the 150mm end of it. On the other other hand, I have use for a macro lens sometimes (besides the 70-300, which is as good at macro as the 50mm, but large and long and slow).

In late July I'll have ~$500 to spend, so I can get a combination of:

35mm macro lens
2x teleconverter (less useful with no IS, and in China)
50mm macro
FL36R flash (not as useful without the wireless flash control of E-420 and newer cameras, but still very useful)
E-620 (expensive, but would enable wireless flash and IS 2x teleconverter, among many others)

Decisions, decisions. Though the 35mm macro + FL36R flash option is looking pretty nice, but the lens would be less useful for another year in China (but better for my purposes otherwise). Or else I need to find $2000 laying around :D.

raven15
03-29-2009, 06:53 AM
So the best resolution that I can see to my dilema is to get the Sigma 55-200.

You wouldn't be saying that if you had ever used the 70-300 mm :p. They're nice! (Even if they do sometimes search for focus from 1 meter to infinity. Twice.)

raven15
03-29-2009, 06:55 AM
Not sure if the 50 macro will be a good choice for taking candid portraits. Never owned one (yet), but read TONS about it. You might want something that auto focuses a little bit faster than the 50 for candid shots.

Yeah, I've been reading about it. It is sort of stupid that a lens of that price is slow to autofocus, but in practice it shouldn't matter that much. My candid people shots are frequently done by finding an interesting backdrop- or action-in-progress, then prefocusing and choosing the right framing first, then clicking the shutter when the alignment of the stars and planets or subject matter is correct, whichever happens first. I've been thinking that my 40-150 is sort of lacking in contrast, which the 50mm is supposedly good at. On the other hand, I have a use for the 150mm end of it. On the other other hand, I have use for a macro lens sometimes (besides the 70-300, which is as good at macro as the 50mm, but large long and slow).

In late July I'll have ~$500 to spend, so I can get a combination of:

35mm macro lens
2x teleconverter (less useful with no IS, and in China)
50mm macro
FL36R flash (not as useful without the wireless flash control of E-420 and newer cameras, but still very useful)
E-620 (expensive, but would enable wireless flash and IS 2x teleconverter, among many others)

Decisions, decisions. Though the 35mm macro + FL36R flash option is looking pretty nice, but the lens would be less useful for another year in China (but better for my purposes otherwise). Or else I need to find $2000 laying around :D.

Armanius
03-30-2009, 09:26 AM
@Raven

I don't think $500 budget will get you the E-620. If I recall correctly, that bad boy is priced initially at $700 or $800.

You seem to like the 70-300. Do you generally use it handheld or with a tripod? How often does it search for focus in AF? How do you see the 70-300 as a candid portrait/street shooter? I am thinking that shooting from a far is probably a better way of getting candid shots and less angry stares. But would the 70-300 be quick enough to allow such type of photography?

Thanks!

raven15
03-31-2009, 04:19 AM
I don't think $500 budget will get you the E-620. If I recall correctly, that bad boy is priced initially at $700 or $800.
No... but by August, it won't be less affordable than a 35 macro + 2x teleconverter :D. I don't need the kit lens, I already sold mine.



You seem to like the 70-300. Do you generally use it handheld or with a tripod? How often does it search for focus in AF? How do you see the 70-300 as a candid portrait/street shooter? I am thinking that shooting from a far is probably a better way of getting candid shots and less angry stares. But would the 70-300 be quick enough to allow such type of photography?

Thanks!

I use it handheld, with the E-410. I don't like tripods, they detract from portability. Sometimes I have had to prop it on something for stability. I think the 70-300 would be more usable for candids than some other things. It's main problem is it gets confused sometimes about whether it is trying to focus on macro or something in the distance. If you have a clearly defined subject at a clearly defined distance it should be OK. If your subject is low in contrast, or there is clutter in the foreground of the frame, it will be less decisive.