Which lenses? We are taking a Viking Orion cruise in the spring (Apr/May). I shoot an Olympus OM-D EM-1 Mark III. I am soliciting suggestions as to which two Zuiko glass' to take. I am...

NotAnselAdams Loc: Pueblo, CO

We are taking a Viking Orion cruise in the spring (Apr/May). I shoot an Olympus OM-D EM-1 Mark III. I am soliciting suggestions as to which two Zuiko glass' to take. I am leaning towards the 12-45mm Pro and a 12-200mm tele. in the closet I also have a 17mm F1.8 prime, a 12mm F2.0, and a 45mm F1.8. I'm thinking the 12-45 for shots aboard ship and street scenes when on land-based tours. the 12-200 for opportunities of "at sea" or distance photos. I am open to offerings as to which two lenses to take.
We board Viking Orion in LA but will then pull into San Diego, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Astoria OR, Victoria Island, BC and Vancouver BC to finish the cruise. Between Santa Barbara and San Fran and between 'Frisco and Astoria will be "at sea" days. I am not only asking about which two lenses to take but of the ports to be visited what would anyone offer as "do not miss" things to do.
Oh, BTW this trip will be to celebrate our 50th anniversary. Thanks to all.
Not Ansel

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Me?
I'd take the 12-200 and the 45 ƒ1.8 for any possible lower light shots.
Doesn't the 12-45 replicate the lower end of the 12-200? Are they vastly different (other than focal length)?

(I went to Iceland with an 18-200 and a 50.)

lreisner Loc: Union,NJ

Longshadow wrote:

Me?
I'd take the 12-200 and the 45 ƒ1.8 for any possible lower light shots.
Doesn't the 12-45 replicate the lower end of the 12-200? Are they vastly different (other than focal length)?

(I went to Iceland with an 18-200 and a 50.)

I agree with Longshadow. The two lenses are more than enough. The 18-200 might really be all that you need if it is a fast enough lens, unless you want to keep a more compact lens on your camera for walking around the ship. When I travel I subscribe to the theory that less is more. Have a great trip.

NotAnselAdams Loc: Pueblo, CO

One of my concerns was too many "12" lenses. I've played around with comparing duplicate shots with all the "12's". I need to practice with the 45 F 1.8. Thanks for the input.
Not Ansel

Peterfiore Loc: Where DR goes south

Remember, in M4/3, the 45 is short tele. I would take the 17mm F1.8 prime, or your 12mm F2.0. I have the 17mm, and it never leaves my Pan GX-85. A wider faster lens will be most welcome on the ship.

LDB415 Loc: Houston south suburb

Of those choices I'd take the 12-200 to cover whatever reach I wanted and the 12, or maybe the 17, to cover lower light needs and indoor shots wherever.

RJW Loc: Oregon

I shoot M43 and would recommend the 17mm 1.8, an equivalent full-frame 35mm lenses which as mentioned will work better in low light shot which there are many of on a cruise ship. Second lens recommendation would be the 12-200mm. When walking around, the 17mm is small enough to keep in your pocket for special shots indoors. Sounds like a great trip, have fun! RJW

NotAnselAdams Loc: Pueblo, CO

It looks like the 17 is starting to nudge out the 12-45. Thanks to all for your import.
Not Ansel

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

NotAnselAdams wrote:

We are taking a Viking Orion cruise in the spring ... (show quote)

Now, I assume that with "Victoria Island" (which is located in the arctic) you mean the capital city of British Columbia, Victoria, which is located on the southern tip of Vancouver Island and just a hop and a skip from the city of Vancouver.
Congratulations on your anniversary! We beat you by 3 years! Instead of going to "the Island" (where we lived for some twenty years) we went to a location close to the border with the province of Alberta, a location approximately the same travel distance for all four our boys and their families. Spent a long weekend there, and it was fun, relaxing and unforgettable. Wishing the same nice memories for you!
Make sure your camera is "shooting ready" and you have one or two spare SD cards at hand, for the crossing from Victoria to Vancouver, there are some neat scenes to take photos of.

NotAnselAdams Loc: Pueblo, CO

We visited Vancouver a few years ago. We did the whale watching thing then. On the stop at Victoria we may run up to the Buchart Gardens if time allows. Thanks and take care.
Not Ansel

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

When I went on a cruise I took my APS-C camera with only 1 lens, an 18-300. I was more than satisfied with that. Your 12-200 on a M4/3 covers a similar range. I did also take a flash.

Hip Coyote

RJW wrote:

I shoot M43 and would recommend the 17mm 1.8, an equivalent full-frame 35mm lenses which as mentioned will work better in low light shot which there are many of on a cruise ship. Second lens recommendation would be the 12-200mm. When walking around, the 17mm is small enough to keep in your pocket for special shots indoors. Sounds like a great trip, have fun! RJW

I also am a M43 user (as are all evil geniuses) and recommend the nearly same thing and is exactly what I do when traveling light. The only difference is I have the 12-100 Pro rather than the 12-200...so OP has more flexibility than I would. Take the little Oly flash as well.

camvelkuf

NotAnselAdams wrote:

It looks like the 17 is starting to nudge out the 12-45. Thanks to all for your import.
Not Ansel

I am surprised that nobody is mentioning the new M Zuiko 8 - 25 mm f.4 Pro lens, along with the 12 - 200 mm. Evidently, that new lens is highly recommended and would allow spectacular wide scenery shots. Also, less overlap with other lenses.

mikee

Camera gear aside, what interests you on a cruise? Your activity level/limitations? Personally, not a fan of So. Cal. so i can't help you there.

San Francisco has plenty of great stuff. Ride a cable car. Visit Alcatraz and fisherman's warf. Eat a crab! Visit The Exploratorium, an interactive museum. Ride BART. Visit chinatown, if it's still called that. Be aware, San Francisco is quite hilly, and summer starts in July and ends in August (Mark Twain reportedly claimed his worst winter was a summer speant in San Francisco).

Victoria is quite nice to just stroll around and have tea at the Empress hotel. I'm sure they will have a Butchart Gardens tour available (I hated it as a teenager). See about a float plane tour with Kenmore Air. The B.C. Museum is pretty good, as is a tour of parliment.

Vancouver

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

NotAnselAdams wrote:

We are taking a Viking Orion cruise in the spring ... (show quote)

As a micro 4/3 format camera, that 12-200mm zoom will "act like 24-400mm" on full frame. The 12-45mm will "act like" a 24-90mm. I'm not at all familiar with the qualities of these two zooms, so my first thought is that the 12-200mm makes the most sense and the 12-45mm just duplicates much of it.

Among the primes, the first I'd want is the 17mm... which will "act like 34mm" on full frame. I appreciate a "slightly wide" normal lens for walk-around/street shooting. It can also be useful for environmental portraits and small group portraits, so long as the subjects aren't too close to the lens or too to the edges of the image area (due to wide angle distortions and exaggerations). The 12mm and 45mm primes are less necessary, in my opinion, since the 12-200mm zoom covers them well. However, if the 45mm were close focusing (macro or nearly so), I might want to make it a third lens in my kit.