My superb four-lens 12mm to 45mm kit

I simply couldn't deal with an f/4 maximum aperture lens as an only lens when traveling. Far too limiting for me.

That’s why my minimal kit includes a fast prime and a zoom, or two fast primes.

But I also couldn’t deal with a long trip limited to just one focal length. I’ve done outings with just one prime, but that was just one shoot. And even there… well, look at yesterday, which was me making a chance stop at a local ‘history farm’ as I was running around town. I used a Contax 45/2.8 for most of it, and it worked fine. But there were a couple of cows out in a field that I couldn’t reach with the 45, and I couldn’t actually go out into the field, so I had to pull out the Elmar 90mm. Going out on a long trip, when I had no idea what I was going to run into? There’s no way I’m going to make that kind of gamble on a single focal length.

Like many others, I have way more lenses than I need! I purchased a number of them due to either curiosity or because of some intriguing quality. With 20/20 hindsight, I would take a different approach if I was starting over and align my purchases with a specific use or function. Nevertheless, two kit combinations stand out:

1. Olympus E-M1 Mk2 & 12-40mm f/2.8 (love this focal range and this lens is always attached to my E-M1 Mk2)
2. Pen-F & Pen Primes (12mm f/2, 17mm f/1,8, 25mm f/1.8 & 45mm f/1.8)

I also have the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 but don't include it with my Pen-F kit. Previously, my Olympus E-P5 was the body used with this lens kit. I still prefer the tilt screen of the E-P5 but have been making a concerted effort to use the Pen-F instead.

Jim

Jim, I'm curious, why do you refer to those f/1.8 primes as "Pen Primes"? I'm not seen that designation on/for them before.

Indeed. That's the reason I buy an interchangeable lens camera So as to not be limited, artificially or otherwise. It's also the reason I shoot m4/3, so I can carry a bit of variety with me, without having to employ the services of a Porter to help shoulder the load. That to me, is where m4/3 shines. A great selection of tiny, light, compact, sharp and reasonably priced prime lenses. From ultrawide, to short telephoto. Why artificially restrict yourself, when they're readily available, at very affordable prices?
Some of the best fun I've had with a camera, was on a couple of month, or a touch longer trip, the wife and I did a little while back, with my GX8, Lumix 14 2.5, & Lumix 20 & 25 f1.7 basic, consumer level primes.

I don't see any evidence for that in the 10 images you just posted. I would argue that every single one could easily have been shot at f/4 or narrower and unless someone was scrutinizing the background blur side by side, they would be very hard pressed to tell a difference. In fact, three of those 10 were shot at f/4 or narrower and the one apparently in the lowest ambient light, you shot at f/7.1.

Yet your minimal kit is a zoom and a single prime or two primes. Are the focal lengths of the prime lenses in your minimal kit within the range of the zoom? If they are, your "gamble" isn't hedged at all.

There are always compromises. I have three M4/3 bodies and a small number of prime and zoom lenses from 4mm to 300mm. In a situation where I want to travel as efficiently as possible, the 5iii and the 12-45 Pro is the compromise I choose. The OP asked how we dealt with having to reduce bulk. This is how I do it. Obviously it isn't the most compact M4/3 kit I could put together, but it is what I'm comfortable with.

Not Jim, but there are certain body / lens combinations that are almost perfect, and have a really great balance (e. g. the slower Fujifilm lenses are sometimes called Fujicrons, because they are similarly well balanced as the Leica Summicrons).

Ummmm, the 7th photo was shot at ISO 3200, f2 @ 1/50. To freeze the motion That's why one shoots faster primes. I'd like to see that shot at f4. And yeah, I could have shot them all with a smartphone. But I think you're completely missing the point. If you're happy to have all your photos looking like they were shot with a point & shoot or older phone, then yeah, no need for faster primes on a 4/3 sensor at all. Depends entirely what look you're after. Like I wrote, I couldn't deal with f4 as a maximum aperture. Personal choice. Can always stop down a fast prime, you're always limited to f4.

I think he meant the second photo, but now in hindsight it’s kind of hard to argue.

Then there’s the obvious argument that most lenses don’t behave at their best when fully wide open, so even if you step down a f/2.8 to f/4 you should (in most cases) have the benefit of a slightly improved image quality.

A few more shots where IBIS doesn't help you. I have a G9, I know what good IBIS can do, it's not going to help you here with a slow zoom.

ISO3200 f2 1/40.

ISO1600 f1.8 1/20 This is one of two shots, one taken in daylight, the other at night, to portray the extreme contrast in activity & hustle.

ISO800 f1.8 And so on. We spent plenty of time in Karaoke bars & nightclubs, f4 is just not going to do it. Nicely.

Yeah, and the f/1.2 PRO primes are a really great fit for MFT + low light, but they are pretty big for the format (generally speaking, because personally I don’t care, and when I got into MFT it was mostly the size reduction for telephoto lenses that mattered to me; even with the faster primes a MFT kit is about half the size than my Canon R5, not fully equivalent, but equivalent enough).

Normally I wouldn’t overcomplicate things, and just take a travel zoom + prime with me. When I would know that I’ll be going to take photos at night like in your example, I would probably don’t take a bigger & slower zoom, but instead maybe take a faster & smaller zoom lens with me. This entirely depends on the situation.

Another real quick example. I did a little road trip with my 2 G100's over Easter. Didn't even bother with my G9, as I knew IBIS would be of zero use.

ISO4000 f1.4 1/160. And a trip through deep prime :)

ISO3200 f1.6 1/200

Same settings as previous shot. f4 isn't going to work.

Surprisingly, the G100 performed rather admirably during the Tea break entertainment. Surprised me, as it would not normally be my first choice for the subject matter. Savage crops as I wasn't expecting it, & subsequently focal length limited. These were with an f2.8-4 lens though.

Which is why I have no interest in those f1.2's. All those shots in that first post were taken with my tiny, light and cheap consumer primes. I got the Lumix 25 f1.7 for free. The Lumix 20 pancake for just over $300 Au. A second hand Lumix 14 f2.5 for under $200 Au. I got the tax back on my GX8 & it cost me just over $700 Au. Fabulous travel gear. And I had the time of my life with it. My G100's cost $475 Au for one, $500 for the second. On sale. Brand spanking new, I almost think of them as disposable. Although I'd probably shed a tear if they failed to proceed due to stupidity leading to damage. Tiny, light, cheap, capable, & brilliant fun to shoot with. To me, that's what m4/3 is all about. Perfect for travel, and everyday usage.

Horses for courses. Maybe I’m in the minority, but personally I have no interest in the slower f/1.8 MFT primes. The OM-D E-M1 Mark III is already so big that it isn’t pocketable anymore. If I need to take a bag with me, I don’t care if the lens is slightly bigger. Weather resistance was another major pro for me why I got into the system, and in this regard only the PRO lenses deliver (with a few exceptions). f/1.2 is just f/2.4 speaking in equivalency terms. As I’m used to shoot on the Canon RF f/1.2 primes where you can additionally bump up the ISO due to increased total pixel count, the difference in image quality & creative expression would be too big.

Absolutely. I have the PL 9 1.7, Laowa 10 f2, PL 15 1.7, 20 pancake, PL 25 1.4, Siggy 30 1.4, Lumix 42.5 1.7, Oly 45 1.8, & Siggy 56 1.4. And a few other cheapies. Professional photographers shoot weddings and sport @ f2.8, if I can't shoot a few frames that I'm happy with at equivalent aperture, (or close enough to it that it doesn't really matter) then it's not the gear that's the issue. The overseas trip I did with my GX8 and cheap primes was the catalyst for getting rid of my Canon 135 format gear. I had (and still don't) no intention of loadng up like a pack horse with f1.2 gear to make any significant difference, so the 1.4-1.7 lenses work just fine and dandy for me. If I wanted to shoot 135 format @ 1.2, or extensively shoot very low light fast action, I'd go buy a full frame camera and lenses, and be done with it. Each to their own as you say.

I get that but my question is about the term "Pen Primes". It may be that it's just @NorCalJim's term for them but were they actually called that by Olympus?

You should have a look at Derek Forss' YouTube channel. He does a lot of photography inside dark churches and cathedrals using the Olympus 12-100 f/4. The IBIS in his E-M1 is sufficient to allow him to go down to very low shutter speeds and get superb photos. And he typically shoots at ISO 200 to boot. Now I do understand that Olympus' IBIS is superior to Panasonic but I wouldn't think it would be that much so.

Olympus introduced 5 prime lenses to complement the Pen camera series. They were not all introduced at once. For example, the 12mm f/2 and 45mm f/1.8 lenses were introduced in 2011. I didn't keep the Olympus lens boxes, but on one of the sides, the work "Pen" was prominently displayed. Four of these lenses were small and a great match for the Pen cameras (12mm f/2, 17mm f/1.8, 25mm f/1.8 & 45mm f/1.8). The size and weight of the 75mm f/1.8 lens didn't match the small and light profile of the other Pen Primes.

Jim