The ideal Micro Four Thirds lens setup

A few years ago, after buying my flat, I had very little money. I realised I could get some money in by selling off a few lenses. Since the lens I used the most was the 20 mm f/1.7 pancake, I sold off every other lens and got in enough money to get through the tight times. I had originally bought most of my lenses used, so I got back more or less what I invested in them in the first place.

The 20 mm served me well for the following two years as my only lens. The wide standard focal length is probably the most versatile focal length you can have if you only have one prime lens. In addition, the 20 mm pancake is small enough that my "large" Panasonic Lumix GX8 (which is still a lot thinner and lighter, but not smaller in width and height than any of the small full frame cameras) fits into jacket pockets which means I can bring a camera that is ergonomic enough to fit well in my hand and with good enough composition tools like the tilting EVF around as my daily carry camera. The f/1.7 aperture makes it a good lens for any lighting condition. The advantage of MFT when it comes to depth of field (since longer is almost always better) means that I can shoot at f/1.7 after sunset or indoors on low ISOs and still have the same depth of field as on a f/3.5 lens of an equivalent full frame focal length (40 mm). The disadvantage of more noise on higher ISOs on smaller sensors like APSC, MFT and 1 inch isn't a problem if you shoot fast enough lenses, but you get the advantage of the longer depth of field even in low light. The 20 mm has somewhat slow autofocus, so for video, I would use manual focus. I also experimented with manual focus for photography with it which also works well.

The 20 mm is in my opinion the most versatile and practical lens in the whole MFT system. I have used it for landscape, street, indoor events including video, close-up (with Ex.tele-conv, it becomes a 28 mm with a relatively larger reproduction ratio or you can crop when shooting RAW), environmental portraits, head shots and upper body portraits. I just wish it was weather sealed so I could confidently leave it on my camera during a blizzard. In other words, the 20 mm pancake will usually be the main lens in any lens set for me. Now that I have a bit more money again, I have felt that occasionally, it would be nice to have something wider or something longer. For a confirmation ceremony in a large hall, I bought the Sigma 60 f/2.8. I was very tempted by the Olympus 75 f/1.8, but it is a lot more expensive, larger and even though f/1.8 would be nice, f/2.8 is still fast enough to make decent images in low light. The Sigma is also small enough that I could keep it in my suit pocket when I used the 20 mm before and after the ceremony and easily switch over once inside. The 20 mm has taught me the value of small and light lenses.

I also missed the Lumix G 42.5 f/1.7 which is the best portrait and close up lens in the medium telephoto range unless you need one of the f/1.2 pro lenses. It also isn't larger than it needs to be like the otherwise great Sigma 56 f/1.4 which is an APSC lens and therefore larger than necessary for the focal length and aperture on MFT. The combination of built-in stabilisation, better sharpness and close focus abilities makes it a better choice than the Olympus 45 f/1.8 in my opinion. I have used it a lot for close-up in the past and also for the occasional portrait. I also missed having something wider occasionally, so when I saw a GM1 with a Lumix G 14 mm f/2.5 and a 12-32 for a decent price, that was a no brainer. I like the idea of the GM1 and my first MFT camera was the GM5, but both of those cameras are too unergonomic and fiddly in practical use for me. The lack of stabilisation is also a major drawback. The GX8 is so much more comfortable, and again, with the 20 mm or the 14 mm, it is small enough to fit in a jacket pocket which means the GM1's only advantage is lighter weight. I will sell the GM1 with its 12-32 and keep the 14 mm pancake.

I also bought the TTartisan 23 mm f/1.4 manual focus prime on a whim. My idea was that the slightly longer focal length would produce more winners for me since it would force me to think more about my composition. I owned the Panasonic Leica 25 f/1.4 in the past and even if it often felt too narrow, it also produced more winners than the zooms and primes I had owned before it. I actually came to it from the 20 mm pancake which at that time annoyed me because of it slightly slow auto-focus. This was also earlier in my photography journey. This time around, the 23 felt a bit restrictive coming from the 20 mm, but it did not actually help me produce anything I couldn't make with the 20. Even if it is rather small, it also surprised me by feeling heavy. Maybe the balance is towards the front of the lens or something, because on paper, it really isn't heavy at all. What the lens brings to the table is better manual focusing than the 20 mm, ideal for hyperfocal focusing for street or landscape. It is nice, but I don't really need it.

I still haven't written anything about the ideal setup. Up to this point, I did not really think in terms of a set of lenses, more in terms of what did I feel I wanted, needed or missed. I started thinking more about a versatile set for my uses at this point. There are many lenses I am curious about, but which focal lengths, apertures and features do I actually need? I am a hobby photographer that mainly shoot land/city/seascapes, (rural) street, travel and the occasional portrait. I live in southern Norway, close to the coast, which means wind, rain, snow, wave splashes, cold or a combination of these often occur. My GX8 camera is weather-sealed, but unfortunately, most of the small and light primes in the MFT system are not. On the other hand, most of the time, even in light rain or snow, being a bit careful and maybe keeping a hand on top of the lens is enough to keep the smaller 14 and 20 pancakes and the 42.5 safe. I have used these lenses a lot in all kinds of weather without any trouble, but I would feel more comfortable if they were weather-sealed.

When I started thinking more in terms of a set of lenses, I did a lot of thinking about what I actually need. I usually need a wide standard lens like the 20 mm. It is an ideal focal length as a walk-around lens. For travelling, maybe a medium wide angle like the Olympus or Youngnuo 17 would be better for large buildings and getting more context, but for most other things, a wide standard is better. I am not a fan of the exaggerated perspective a wider wide-angle lens produces unless it is used deliberately as an expressive means. I did use the Sigma 19 mm f/2.8 for a while as my walk-around lens some years ago and it was a very good lens, but I often felt that it exaggerated the perspective just a bit more than I like. That sensation disappeared when I went back to the 20 mm again. So even if the 20 mm can sometimes feel a bit narrow in very narrow streets when travelling, I think it is the main lens for me in any lens setup. When I could have only one lens, the 20 mm f/1.7 was that lens. Even when I can have more lenses, I keep the 20 on the camera and only occasionally use other lenses. It isn't perfect, but it is the best walk-around lens for me and after spending a lot of time with it, I know it well.

Occasionally, I want to exaggerate perspective or I am in a very tight place like an alley or in a small room where the 20 mm is just too tight. Then something wider would be useful. I already own the 14 mm f/2.5 which is a good lens. Robin Wong complained about auto-focus speed, but maybe that was a problem with the mark I on Olympus cameras. I have owned both the mark I and the mark II and I have never experienced slow autofocus with the GX8 (unlike the 20 mm pancake which is more like a full frame DSLR lens than a fast MFT lens in auto focus speed). It is also small and light which means it fits well into any lens set. It is sharp enough and it is faster than most zooms although the 15 f/1.7 is even faster and maybe with a bit nicer rendering, but that lens is also larger, heavier and more expensive. The 14 is much better than its reputation and extremely practical since it is the smallest and lightest autofocusing lens in the MFT system. (It can also become an 11 mm with the wide angle conversion lens and there is also a close-up attachment for it that can make it better at close focusing (which it already is quite good at). For my purposes, I think buying those are not really worth it since I seldom need anything wider than 14 and I have other lenses for close-up.)

For landscapes, the occasional animal, bird photo or portrait I sometimes need a longer lens. The 20 is good for portraits, but for closer head shots or upper body shots, you get a bit too close to the subject which makes the proportions of the face seem strange. I usually shoot environmental portraits which the 20 mm is good at, so for me, a longer lens is actually less about portraits and more about landscapes, birds or animals. I don't shoot any sport, but when Tour of Norway cycled by a few years ago, I made an attempt with the Sigma 56 f/1.4 that I owned at the time and got some decent shots. I don't usually shoot events either, but occasionally, I am at an outdoor concert or the Norwegian National Day celebrations or a confirmation or wedding and it is nice to have a lens that could work in such a situation.

For landscapes, weather is a factor. Ideally, I would have a lens I could use during a blizzard in -20 Celsius by the coast with a lot of humidity. Even though I own the 42.5 f/1.7, I don't use it that much because it feels a bit on the short side for telephoto landscapes, animals at a distance and events and I seldom shoot portraits that aren't environmental. The Sigma 60 f/2.8 is more ideal for those scenarios, except that it isn't weather sealed. I don't often shoot in low light at events or outdoors for landscapes. When I bought the Sigma 60, I also thought about the 12-60 f/2.8-4, but felt that f/4 was a bit too slow for the event I bought the Sigma for. The Olympus 75 has a better focal length and faster aperture than the other alternatives and back when I owned the Sigma 56, I sometimes used it for landscapes. I don't shoot birds or animals often enough that I need a dedicated telephoto zoom like the 35-100 f/2.8 or the Olympus 40 - 150 f/2.8. These lenses feel too large and expensive for something I only occasionally do and 60 is long enough for my needs.

I am still not 100% certain about the telephoto side, but I did buy the 12-60 f/2.8-4 since it is a useful occasional telephoto, superish zoom ans bad weather lens. Since it covers the whole focal range I need, I can confidently go out in bad weather during winter with it on my camera. I can also use it as the second lens together with the 20 mm when travelling. Especially when travelling with other people and not knowing what to expect, a superish zoom can be useful. The 12-60 is super enough to cover all my needs with enough speed, but not so super that it looses its optical excellence or aperture speed like the 14-140 f/3.5-5.6. Maybe I will invest in the Olympus 75 f/1.8 if I find myself shooting a lot of low light events or landscapes, but as an occasional telephoto, the 12-60 at f/4 on the long end is good enough. It is larger and heavier which is the disadvantage of a zoom over primes and it is slower, but I can use it during winter or bad weather without worrying and it has a versatile zoom range. An advantage of the 12-60 is that it focuses closely and even though the spec sheet says 0.3 x magnification and the 42.5 f/1.7 spec sheet says 0.4 x, in reality, I get more magnification with the 12-60. Maybe 0.3x is at the wide end and they forgot to write the magnification at the long end?

My ideals are to have as few lenses as possible and as small and light as possible, but at the same time have all the lenses I need. I will sell the TTartisans 23 mm even if it is a good lens since I already have the 20 mm. I will also sell the 60 f/2.8 since I seldom shoot indoor events which is the main advantage of this f/2.8 over the 12-60 f/2.8 - 4. I am more hesitant to sell the 42.5 f/1.7 since it makes an excellent three prime set with the 14 and 20 pancakes even though I do not actually use it very much. The low light capabilities of f/1.7 can be useful when the 12-60 f/2.8-4 is too slow and weather sealing isn't needed. If I continue to not use it much over time, it will go, but for now, I hold onto it as a fourth lens.

I have been thinking about and trying out a lot of different MFT lenses over the years. In the past I was more concerned with getting the very best lenses, but over time, I have come to appreciate the value of compromising on some aspects, like auto-focus speed with the 20 mm or aperture size on the long side of the 12-60 or slightly on the 14 to gain practical advantages like small size and light weight, weather sealing or a practical zoom range. A camera and lens combination that you can keep in a jacket pocket like the GX8 + 20 mm pancake is more valuable than something like the GX8 + the OM System 20 mm f/1.4 which technically is a better lens and even brings weather sealing to the table, but is too large and heavy to be kept on the camera in a jacket pocket. On the days where weather sealing matters, I can bring the camera in a small camera bag with the 12-60 mounted so I don't have to mount it in bad weather, or I can carry the camera in my hand with a wrist wrap with the 12-60 on from the moment I leave home or wherever I stay.

Another advantage of having few, small and light lenses are that there is space in my small camera bag insert for my charger, extra batteries, ND filter, mini-tripod etc. as well as the lenses. When I travel, I can travel with any shoulder bag or backpack and use the insert from my camera bag to keep my whole camera system. Or I can keep the camera with the 20 mm in my jacket pocket ready for action and have the rest of the equipment in the camera bag insert in a suitcase.