Olympus OM-d E-m1 (Page 6): Yes it is the MK2, what I am struggling with is whether to get the 12-40, given that I already have the 12-50mm and the 45mm...I suspect that the 12-40 is a...

hb3 Loc: Texas

lukan wrote:

Is that 70-300 a Mk2? The 2nd iteration is better... (show quote)

Yes it is the MK2, what I am struggling with is whether to get the 12-40, given that I already have the 12-50mm and the 45mm...I suspect that the 12-40 is a much better lens than the 12-50 and should simply think about the 12-50mm as a lens for macro...and possibly sell the 45mm, wondering if the 12-40 is going to give me similar quality to the 45mm, your thoughts?

I can imagine longing for the 40-150mm when it is available.

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

hb3 wrote:

Yes it is the MK2, what I am struggling with is whether to get the 12-40, given that I already have the 12-50mm and the 45mm...I suspect that the 12-40 is a much better lens than the 12-50 and should simply think about the 12-50mm as a lens for macro...and possibly sell the 45mm, wondering if the 12-40 is going to give me similar quality to the 45mm, your thoughts?

I can imagine longing for the 40-150mm when it is available.

If you get, or keep, a second body then the 45 should probably stay on it. I keep the 12-40 on the EM-1 and the 45 on my EP-5. If you sell the 12-50 and get the 12-40 it'll be newer gear but not necessarily better. If you keep the 12-50 and get the 75, then the 40-150 becomes more utilitarian at the long end only. If you just clean everything up and get only the 12-40 and then the 40-150, and sell the 12-50, you'll have awesome and beautiful lenses but have spent $$$ to accomplish that. The 45 is a superfine lens, and in my humble opinion should be considered a keeper.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

hb3 wrote:

Yes it is the MK2, what I am struggling with is whether to get the 12-40, given that I already have the 12-50mm and the 45mm...I suspect that the 12-40 is a much better lens than the 12-50 and should simply think about the 12-50mm as a lens for macro...and possibly sell the 45mm, wondering if the 12-40 is going to give me similar quality to the 45mm, your thoughts?

I can imagine longing for the 40-150mm when it is available.

Oye,
My pocket book is going to take a hit next year...

http://www.43rumors.com/first-pictures-of-the-next-two-olympus-pro-zooms-7-18mm-f2-8-and-300mm-f4-0/

As to selling the 45...personally I love that lens, it's small, compact and very SHARP. Only the 75 out resolves it. While the 12-40 is a great lens in it's own right, it's a totally different beast. When I have a prime on my camera, and maybe this is just me, I tend to think more about composition rather than just clicking away...but when i have a zoom, I tend to fixate on, should I be zooming or not, and not as much about the subject...like I said, that's me. I think this is why I prefer zooms. However there is something to be said about the connivence of a nice zoom, especially one with a constant aperture.

hb3 Loc: Texas

lukan wrote:

If you get, or keep, a second body then the 45 sho... (show quote)

Thanks...appreciate the analysis...will probably get the 12-40, the 40-150 and keep what I have...thanks again...

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

hb3 wrote:

Yes it is the MK2, what I am struggling with is whether to get the 12-40, given that I already have the 12-50mm and the 45mm...I suspect that the 12-40 is a much better lens than the 12-50 and should simply think about the 12-50mm as a lens for macro...and possibly sell the 45mm, wondering if the 12-40 is going to give me similar quality to the 45mm, your thoughts?

I can imagine longing for the 40-150mm when it is available.

I think the Mk2 is great because where else can you get that reach with such small weight and dimension?

hb3 Loc: Texas

lukan wrote:

I think the Mk2 is great because where else can you get that reach with such small weight and dimension?

yep 600mm reach is wonderful...I sometimes use the 2x teleconverter on a distant shot to ensure focus...

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

hb3 wrote:

yep 600mm reach is wonderful...I sometimes use the 2x teleconverter on a distant shot to ensure focus...

I've set up the toggle switch (on setting two) that when I press the AFL/AEL button to switch to the teleconverter...super quick to toggle on and off.

hb3 Loc: Texas

Cdouthitt wrote:

I've set up the toggle switch (on setting two) that when I press the AFL/AEL button to switch to the teleconverter...super quick to toggle on and off.

same here....

hb3 Loc: Texas

Wonder what this baby will go for?

www.dpreview.com%2Fnews%2F2014%2F02%2F12%2Folympus-confirms-development-of-7-14mm-f2-8-and-300mm-f4-pro-lenses%3Futm_medium%3Dtwitter&newwindow=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.google.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dpreview.com%2Fnews%2F2014%2F02%2F12%2Folympus-confirms-development-of-7-14mm-f2-8-and-300mm-f4-pro-lenses%3Futm_medium%3Dtwitter&newwindow=1

fawlty128 Loc: LI, NY now in Allentown, PA

hb3 wrote:

Wonder what this baby will go for?

www.dpreview.com%2Fnews%2F2014%2F02%2F12%2Folympus-confirms-development-of-7-14mm-f2-8-and-300mm-f4-pro-lenses%3Futm_medium%3Dtwitter&newwindow=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.google.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dpreview.com%2Fnews%2F2014%2F02%2F12%2Folympus-confirms-development-of-7-14mm-f2-8-and-300mm-f4-pro-lenses%3Futm_medium%3Dtwitter&newwindow=1

I would definitely be interested in the 300mm f/4 hopefully it won't be ridiculously priced

hb3 Loc: Texas

fawlty128 wrote:

I would definitely be interested in the 300mm f/4 hopefully it won't be ridiculously priced

It will be hefty....my guess is over $1000....

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

hb3 wrote:

It will be hefty....my guess is over $1000....

closer to 1500...cause they know people will spend it...not me...I'm quite happy with my new super Tak SMC 200 f/4.

The 7-14mm f2.8, now that's a different story. I'm buying that one for the extra stop for doing astrophtotography. That and I hope its a bit smaller then the ZD SHG 7-14. Speaking of which, anyone want to buy mine...$900 takes it...it's an awesome lens, much better than the panasonic version.

fawlty128 Loc: LI, NY now in Allentown, PA

Cdouthitt wrote:

closer to 1500...cause they know people will spend it...

$1500 sounds good to me. If I start putting away $85 a month now, will have the money by next Sept. Just don't tell my wife.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

fawlty128 wrote:

Just don't tell my wife.

Only if you double it and buy me one too...;-)

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

fawlty128 wrote:

$1500 sounds good to me. If I start putting away $85 a month now, will have the money by next Sept. Just don't tell my wife.

Oh, I like your math.... Keep more in my purse and still have the required amount of money in record time...

Sorry, I like teasing people, surely you meant $185/month ;-)