Which Lens for Micro Four Thirds Camera + Europe Travel?

<p>Hi there,<br>

I am looking for advice about which lens I should buy and take on my trip around Europe mid-2015. I am not a photographer, but do like to have decent photos for albums. I currently have an Olympus PEN EPL-2 with the standard 14-42mm lens. I took the camera with this lens to a recent trip through Thailand and it was a little heavy for my liking and I also never used the zoom (hardly). I am looking to get a new lens that is lighter and smaller, suitable for standard travel photography, ie. architecture, landscapes, street and portraits. Really, an all-rounder. <br>

I am thinking one of the following lenses:<br>

Panasonic Lumix 14mm f/2.5<br />Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7<br />Olympus 25mm f/1.8<br>

I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions about what would be the best all-round lens? Or any others that are small/slim/light. <br>

Thanks in advance!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It's hard to get much smaller or lighter or cheaper than the Olympus 17mm/2.8 lens. A fine choice if the zoom is too big or heavy (is it really, though?).</p>

<p>In the good old days, such as they were, the typical normal (as in usual) initial lens sold with slrs was a 50mm (or so) prime. F1.7 or 1.8 was inexpensive and generally high performance although faster f1.4 and even faster lenses were available in some mounts. A really common focal length for fixed lens cameras was about 35mm. It wasn't so wide that the problems like converging verticals/keystoning or people pictures shot maybe a bit too close were too distorted and interiors were possible for family shooting, etc. Since you are considering this for a travel camera, I'd lean towards the 35mm equivalent - but only if constrained to a single small prime. Which I wouldn't do to myself these days.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also never used the zoom</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So what focal length was it set at? Seems to me that would be the one I'd get as a prime.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Olympus 25mm f/1.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's heavier than your zoom (assuming it's the kit lens that came with the EPL-2). And the Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7 weighs nearly as much as the 14-42. And even with the other options mentioned, you aren't saving more than 50g - I doubt that's even noticeable.</p>

<p>Personally, I would find the 14-42 already too limiting - can't imagine taking a prime lens only on a trip to Europe - it would be the antithesis to an "allr-ounder".</p>

Both Panasonic and Olympus make pancake ("smaller") 14-42mm zooms, but they would not represent any material reduction in weight, and their cost is not insignificant. If an EPL-2 plus the kit zoom is too heavy then perhaps you need to consider a high quality compact camera, like the Sony RX100, or Canon GX7, which would be smaller and lighter than your current camera and lens. Both of those options are not inexpensive though.

<p>I spent two week in Ireland and Scotland last September. I left the DSLR interchangeable lens camera home and my wife took her Lumix DMC-FX07 & I took my Lumix DMC-LX2 (16:9 format).<br>

They both performed superbly. Both are long discontinued but still work. The DMC-FX07 has a 28-102mm lens which proved to be very useful. We have an album full of very nice pictures and made a few 8x10 as well.</p>

<p>Full disclosure: I did carry my Mamiya 645 camera with 35mm, 55mm, & 150mm lens but I shot only B&W film with it. </p>

<p>The small digital Lumix cameras did the travel story shots. Pick up a small compact digital and leave the rest of the gear home.</p>

<p>I'd take the Panasonic 20mm / 1.7.</p>

<p>Thank you so much for the insight about the lack of weight difference. I was unaware!<br>

May I re-phrase, and ask, if I was to buy a new lens for 'better' quality images in a range of situations, what would be the suggestion? (Regardless of weight, however priced < $500). <br>

I was considering buying a new compact camera, but I think the EPL-2 is still an alright camera.... No?</p>

<p>More and more, I find myself returning to the days when I carried a 35mm, 50mm and 90mm lens on vacation, attaching whichever best suited the situation. A medium zoom lens (e.g., 24-70 for FX) is perhaps lighter and easier to manage than three separate lenses in this range. On a 4/3rds camera, a 14-42 would be the equivalent of a comparable range (28-80). If I had to choose one lens, either a 35mm or 50mm (equivalent) would work. Your photographic choices can easily adapt to the tools on hand. When you carry a hammer, you look for nails.</p>

<p>I support the suggestions to get a lighter travel camera. I'm using a Fuji X100S. I've used it in the USA, where I live, for about six months and I'm very happy with it. I found that I enjoy "zooming with my feet" :-). I bought it because of my experience in Paris last year with my Pentax K20D and a 40mm pancake lens. That's a good combination but it's heavy and conspicuous. The camera spent more time in my shoulder bag than I liked.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I am looking to get a new lens that is lighter and smaller, suitable for standard travel photography, ie. architecture, landscapes, street and portraits. Really, an all-rounder."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I travel and need to carry a light photographic load, a digital compact camera (Canon G11 or G15) with a 28-140mm (35mm equivalent) f/1.8 to f/2.8 lens is usually all I need.</p>

<p> </div>

<p>When I need to carry my micro 4/3 camera, I usually carry the 14mm f/2.5 Panasonic lens and the 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic lens.</p>

<p>For focal lengths greater than 20mm, I used the long end of the 14-42mm f/3.5 to f/5.6 Olympus lens. I have since replaced the zoom lens with the 45mm f/1.8 Olympus lens.</p>

<p> </div>

<p>When I need something smaller and lighter than my micro 4/3 camera or my compact camera, I travel only with my camera phone.</p>