17mm 1.8 or 25mm 1.4 - Page 2

las Palm as · #11 December 2nd, 2012, 05:07 AM

both

goldenlight · #12 December 2nd, 2012, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jloden

This is the age old 50mm versus 35mm question, really. For me no question the 25mm f/1.4 if I could only have one. I'm a 50mm fan though (so far at least), and it's one of the very last lenses I would ever sell. If I have to take just one lens with me somehere, it's usually a 25mm because I frame naturally with that focal length. I'm not sure that I'll get the 17mm eventually or not, but I would most assuredly not trade in my 25mm for it personally.

If you don't know if you have a preference for 35mm or 50mm equivalent framing, 2 suggestions to help you decide:

1) when you used the 20mm, did you consistently wish it was a little wider, or maybe a little tighter? Did you frequently find yourself cropping in tighter in post-processing?

2) If you have lightroom or any other software that lets you review your existing photos, what focal length do you find yourself using more often/gravitating towards, if any?

Another thing I notice is you have the 9-18mm, 12mm, and 12-50mm so I'm guessing you may be a wide angle fan. With that being the case, maybe a 35mm equivalent is going to be more natural for you?

Lastly, from a purely functional standpoint: the 17mm will have the snap focus ring; if you like to zone focus or manual focus a lot that's a big plus.

Excellent, practical advice - very balanced and helpful. This should help the OP arrive at the best choice for himself.

zucchiniboy · #13 December 2nd, 2012, 09:29 AM

I mulled over that same decision a couple weeks ago and picked the 25, since I found with my 20 I wanted to be closer. For wider shots I just switch to the 14.

Bravin Neff · #14 December 3rd, 2012, 10:22 AM

Both if you can afford it. 17mm if you can only have one.

Both are decent focal lengths, although I personally gravitate far more to 28-35mm equivalents than 50mm. But the PL25/1.4 is a fantastic lens, and I'm sure the new 17/1.8 will also be good.

Oh to heck with it, just get both. That's what I'm doing.

georhey77 · #15 December 13th, 2012, 10:56 AM

I hardly use my Panasonic 25mm now that I've picked up my 17mm. Great all around lens!

Jonathan F/2 · #16 December 13th, 2012, 10:59 AM

I love the 25mm 1.4 in terms of aperture and optical quality, but I really do not like the 50mm FOV. I'd have to opt for the 17mm 1.8. The 35mm FOV is more suited for street style photography if that's your thing.

datagov · #17 December 13th, 2012, 10:12 PM

My first lens was the Panasonic 20 1.7. Sharpest lens I ever bought, but I bought the Sigma 30 2.8 and it is almost as sharp with better bokeh, more lifelike colors, and half the price. It also focuses faster, especially in low light. If I had to do it again, I'd get the Sigma 19 and 30 and skip the Panasonic 20. And I'd recommend the same to others.

IcemanYVR · #18 December 13th, 2012, 10:27 PM

This is really an age old riddle and fortunately for me, Panasonic solved it with the 20mm.

I have always found 35mm just a hair to wide, and 50mm just a wee bit too long. The 40mm (effective view) is just perfect, plus it's ridiculously sharp.

The suggestion to shoot or tape one of our lenses to the 17mm or 25mm focal lengths is excellent as is going over the EXIF data from your photographs. The are really very different, and until recently, always had both focal lengths covered. If money was no object, I'd probably have both of them as well as the 20, but this is reality, so my choice was very simple.