Which Olympus lens to invest in

[ianpinion]

It's been said many a time that with photography it's always best to invest your hard earned cash in better quality lenses than keep upgrading your camera body, because better glass can make a bigger improvement on the sharpness of your shots than anything else.

With this in mind, I'm looking to the future and trying to plan which lenses I should buy to go with my Olympus E620. I want one lens that will help me produce great landscapes, cityscapes and seascapes, one good macro lens and possibly a good telephoto lens. The problem I'm finding though is there aren't many reviews knocking around for Olympus Zuiko's Pro Quality and Top Pro Quality lenses. There are a plethora of reviews on the Standard lenses but next to none on the better lenses.

I suppose firstly, I would like to ask the reviewers on this site to conduct some reviews on these better lenses and secondly see if any of you have any knowledge, comments or feedback on these lenses. Failing that, could any of you suggest any suitable alternatives that are available from other manufacturers that are available with the 4/3rds mount?

Thank you,

[chris-p]

Depends on what you've got already.

I had a 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 on my E-510 (the older non-SWD model) which I bought second hand from Harpers Photographic in Woking and it was a corker. Still one of the the best lenses I've owned and the only thing I have ever found which is sharper is my 35mm prime.

For me, the ideal 4/3 range would be the Oly 7-14 f/4, the 12-60, the 50-200 and then maybe a long prime if you need/can afford it. Macro-wise I'd have the Sigma 105mm or 150mm. I'd probably also have the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 as you can't beat a wide aperture prime lens and the Sigma gets very good reviews - Jonathan Ryan swears by it!

I used to use the Four Thirds User website a lot as well as Four Thirds Photo and they both have (or at least used to have) loads of good reviews and back to back tests of lenses.

[ianpinion]

At the moment Chris I have the standard 14 - 42 kit lens, the 40 -150 f/4.5-6.3,the 18 -180 f/3.5 - f/5.6 and a 1.4 teleconverter. So I'm looking for a natural progression to replace these lenses in time with better ones.

[chris-p]

For me, the lens I always wanted was the 12-60 which I've used on my old E-510 and it was a HUGE step up from the 14-42. The 50-200 was also excellent so I'd probably aim for those to start off with.

Both are stunningly sharp and the build quality on them is second to none. I part-exchanged my 40-150 and 70-300 into a used 50-200 and it was the best thing I did.

Getting the 12-60 and 50-200 would more than cover your current range of focal lengths (albeit ignoring your 1.4 TC but you can always stick it on the 50-200). My favourite lens I own is my 35mm f/1.8 because it's so sharp, the colour is so well saturated through it and it's great playing with very wide apertures so I would probably add that to the collection next. Depends how much money you've got I suppose!!

[ianpinion]

Thanks for that Chris. So you think it would be a waste of time looking at either the 9 - 18mm f/4-5.6 or the marginally better 11 - 22mm f/2.8-3.5 and concentrate on the 12 - 60mm. The 50 - 200 does get a very good write up from what few I've seen, along with the 7 - 14mm, but that's out of my current price range. I could spend that kind of money on the deposit for a holiday....

The next question is what's the best way of parting with your old lenses.

[chris-p]

I suggested the 12-60 and 50-200 as they cover the range you've got currently. The 12-60 is a little wider but not much and the 50-200 is a bit longer so it means you've automatically got at least the same focal length range.

As a general, walk around kit the 12-60 and 50-200 would cover most situations I would think.

Wide angle is a bit harder with 4/3 so I don't know what's more important - the better quality of the 11-22 or the wider angle of the 9-18?

[ianpinion]

No I'm not sure whether the wider angle or the better quality is more important either Chris, but I'm attending a photography course in November and I've emailed the pro photographer about this for his advice. I'm awaiting his response, but he's been away taking another course and out of contact.

I know Flake would say with the 2x crop sensor diffraction will be a bigger issue at small apertures, so I could only be limited to a max of f/10 with either.

[chris-p]

I suppose it depends on how much really wide angle stuff you're likely to shoot. I'd be tempted to go for better quality and take a few steps backwards (unless it's cliff edge or something! )

I was blown away by the 50-200 as all I had to compare it to was the 40-150 and 70-300 (which is just a re-badged Sigma and hence not very good) and, while I definately noticed the "loss" of 100mm on the long end, it was sooo much better.
I only used the 12-60 for an hour or so but the shots were pin sharp, the AF was much faster than the 14-42 and the f/2.8 was a real bonus.

Originally Posted by ianpinion

I know Flake would say with the 2x crop sensor diffraction will be a bigger issue at small apertures, so I could only be limited to a max of f/10 with either.

Yeah she would. It's all down to the pixel pitch!

[ianpinion]

Well I can't make my mind up and all because of a last mintue twist. You see, I've been talking to the professional photographer whose course I'm attending in a couple of weeks time and he said he prefers a prime lens for landscapes. Trouble is, the prime lenses for the 4/3rds mount are either fisheyes or macro lenses. All the rest are zoom lenses, barring the pancake lens. Plus he added I should wait until I've decided what style of photography to pursue and make my own. Which is a fair point. Next question is, can anyone spot a developing trend or style in my images?

[chris-p]

I think they are fair points and you will always get best image quality with a prime lens.

I wouldn't worry about the macro lenses, they're very sharp and great for landscapes. The only complaint I've ever heard about using a macro lens as a "normal" prime was that they can be a little too sharp for portraiture.

But there is a big "but!... and this was the reason I left the 4/3 system behind...

The real problem is the widest you can get (thats not fish eye) is 24mm and then with the 4/3 2x FOV multiplier... The 7-14 f/4 is you're only real extra wide angle option and it's painfully expensive! The 50mm is considerably sharper than the 35mm so then you're looking at a 100mm FOV which isn't landscape stuff.

You could consider the Sigma 10-20. I use one on my D90 (and it's actually weird looking through the viewfinder at 10mm - it's like the world has been squeezed into your camera) with good results but you're still only looking at 20mm at the widest.

And this brings you right back to the issue I had with 4/3. The ONLY really wide angle lens is the 7-14. And at over £1000 (currently £1,347 on WEX) it's expensive. However, the whole range (7-14, 12-60 & 50-200) means that a sensible starter-pro lens selection is a little over £3,100 - thats much cheaper than with Canon or Nikon (the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 blah blah is £2,000 alone).