Originally Posted by David A

...don't think cost, think use. Then make your choice. If the 45 is going to be too long a focal length for you and the 25 is too expensive, then consider the Panasonic 20mm. It will capture anything the 25 would capture, has very good image quality, and it's cheaper than the 25. It's only 2 problems are slower autofocus than either the 25 or 45 which may or may not be an issue for you depending on what you're shooting and there's currently a banding problem with it on the E-M5 which Olympus is aware of and say they're trying to fix. At the moment I'd regard the banding problem as a deal breaker but if it gets fixed and the 45 is too long, then the 20 will be a very viable alternative to the 25 at a more affordable price.

Originally Posted by David A

The 45mm is nearly twice the focal length of the 25mm. What that means is that if you want to capture exactly the same area in front of you with both lenses, you're going to have to be almost twice as far away with the 45 as you will with the 25. To be precise, you'd need to be around 9' away to get exactly the same area in the frame as you would get with the 25 at 5'.

It doesn't matter if image quality is the same, that is a big difference. If you can't move your location you'll get more into the frame with the 25 than you would with the 45 and you can always crop to make things tighter with the 25. With the 45 from the same point, the only way you can get more in is to take overlapping photos and stitch them together into a panorama. You can do that with a landscape but you'll want to be carrying a tripod to do it well, but you won't be able to do it with a lot of other types of photography.

Take a look at Don's shot of the badlands above taken with the 25. Cut that frame into 4 quarters and what you would get from the 45 from the same spot will be a bit more than what you see in one of those quarters. Take a look at the shot of the dog. To get the same area in the frame that Don did there, you'd have to move nearly twice as far away with the 45. If you're photographing people in the street, that means you're much more likely to have people walking between you and your subject while you're trying to take the shot. That's why I say the difference in field of view is a big difference. It can be the difference between getting the shot you want and not getting the shot you want.

That's why people say that standard lenses are more generally useful than longer lenses. You simply have more options with the shorter lens in many ways.

I've got the 25 and the 45, along with a few other lenses. Of the 2 I'd take the 25. It spends a lot more time on my camera than the 45 does. The 45 is a lovely lens but I usually find myself wanting to get more into the frame than it captures.

Yes, the 25 costs more than the 45 but that added cost is worth it if it spends more time on your camera and gets you more of the shots that you want. Spending less and getting a lens, no matter how good that lens is, which has too long a focal length for the things that you are shooting and doesn't let you capture the shots that you want is false economy. The reason to buy a lens is because it lets you shoot the sorts of things you want to shoot in the way you want to shoot them. There's no point in buying a lens, no matter how fine it is, which won't do the job you want it to do.

So, don't think cost, think use. Then make your choice. If the 45 is going to be too long a focal length for you and the 25 is too expensive, then consider the Panasonic 20mm. It will capture anything the 25 would capture, has very good image quality, and it's cheaper than the 25. It's only 2 problems are slower autofocus than either the 25 or 45 which may or may not be an issue for you depending on what you're shooting and there's currently a banding problem with it on the E-M5 which Olympus is aware of and say they're trying to fix. At the moment I'd regard the banding problem as a deal breaker but if it gets fixed and the 45 is too long, then the 20 will be a very viable alternative to the 25 at a more affordable price.

Originally Posted by ryanlogic

I considered your advice and that of others for a few days. Ironically your advice brought me to want both the 45 and the 25. The kit lens I have has good image quality for landscapes and wide angle shots, but the only thing it severely lacks for that purpose is a wide aperture. I really need to invest in lenses that allow effective low light photography.

I really hope to buy the 25mm because it will allow me to take nice street shots. I will certainly find a million uses for such a fast lens.

But what what worries me about the 25, and what I am really lacking with my current lens is the ability to take portrait shots with pleasing bokeh without getting into people's comfort zone. I keep ending up way too close and annoying people trying to achieve the widest aperture on the kit lens. I actually prefer to take portraits from a distance because people act way more natural, and it give me some distance to keep things comfortable.

Price is obviously a factor, and if I could buy both lenses now, I would... But I decided to order the 45 for portraits.. Because I should really try to get some use out I the kit zoom before I jump for the 25.

I was going to wait a while before buying either, but I ordered the 45 from Korea. It's the first time I've ever imported anything, and I really hope it goes smoothly. I'm providing a link to the item as a few people on this forum have reported smooth transactions with this seller. Can't beat the price @ $335 US http://bit.ly/LZrkKO


I really appreciate everyone's advice.