17 f1.8 vs 25

[nickthetasmaniac]

.......wow.....

Just from my opinion since I often use this lens. When I shot on JPG, the camera automatic correct the distortion. Although not entire but it really helpful. When I shot on RAW the distortion quite noticeable.

But then again 35mm lens always has distortion. I don't see this as a weaknesses or faulty. In fact if there's none, the photo will look flat. The skillful photographer can control distortion and make photo looks beautiful with it.

I think you have have missed the point... A fully corrected wide-angle lens will 'suffer' from perspective distortion in the corners - this is a characteristic of the lens type. The camera does not correct this distortion, it corrects 'geometric distortion' (ie. barrel distortion), thus making straight lines stay straight.

If you photograph people with a wide-angle lens, and put someone's head in the corner of the image it will be 'stretched' - this is a product of the very correction that you're seeing in your jpegs. An uncorrected wide-angle (ie. a fish-eye) will actually be more natural in this sense.


By the way, what RAW processor are you using? With Micro Four Thirds the lens correction data is embedded in the file and should be picked up by the RAW processor (it is for all the bigger ones) and automatically applied. It's not just for jpegs.

 

[rezatravilla]

I think you have have missed the point... A fully corrected wide-angle lens will 'suffer' from perspective distortion in the corners - this is a characteristic of the lens type. The camera does not correct this distortion, it corrects 'geometric distortion' (ie. barrel distortion), thus making straight lines stay straight.

If you photograph people with a wide-angle lens, and put someone's head in the corner of the image it will be 'stretched' - this is a product of the very correction that you're seeing in your jpegs. An uncorrected wide-angle (ie. a fish-eye) will actually be more natural in this sense.


By the way, what RAW processor are you using? With Micro Four Thirds the lens correction data is embedded in the file and should be picked up by the RAW processor (it is for all the bigger ones) and automatically applied. It's not just for jpegs.

ah sorry my mistake due to bad understanding english. I'm using Olympus Viewer 2 so it needs to be corrected. I heard using lightroom 4 or 5 the RAW file will be automatic adjust like you said but i saw on youtube the color also will be chance.

 

[silver92b]

Well, the lens came in tonight and I shot a few pictures with it so far I'm very impressed with the 17mm f1.8

Here is the thread with the pictures:

https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=38371&page=50&p=563879#post563879

 

[wjiang]

I'm using Olympus Viewer 2 so it needs to be corrected.

Both OV2 and OV3 (I use both) can auto-correct, but you have to tick it for each raw. It's under something like distortion correction, then just choose auto/use lens information.

 

[silver92b]

OK, here are some comparison shots of the 17mm and 25mm of the same subject. These might give you an idea of the qualities of each lens. I used the same aperture in both cases (f2.2)

This is the 17mm:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

This is the 25mm

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

This is the 17mm:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

This is the 25mm

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[jamespetts]

Interesting. Those pictures appear to show that the 17mm has higher contrast.

 

[silver92b]

It's very difficult preparing and conducting a proper comparo situation. These photos were taken with a tripod to minimize operator error, but since I had to move the set up to change lenses, etc., this is by no means a definite evaluation of the lenses. Interestingly enough, the 17mm "seems" somehow to work just a tiny bit better in some undefined way. Could it be that it's an Oly lens and somehow better suited for the E-M5?

 

[mievil]

The first set makes the 25 seem to destroy the 17. Second set....hard to call.

I've got the 25 and would really like to try the 17. But I really, really like the 25. Even though I feel like I need to take 2 steps back all the time.

 

[jamespetts]

One interesting facet of the comparison between these two lenses is this: at maximum aperture, both lenses are sharp in the centre and soft on the edges/corners. The 25mm f/1.4 becomes extremely sharp accross the frame from f/4 upwards, whereas the 17mm f/1.8 remains soft away from the centre at any aperture. If sharpness is important and the lens will be one's only lens at around a normal focal length, the 25mm would have an advantage. But if one is using one of these lenses to supplement a high quality standard zoom that covers both of these focal lengths, then one is likely to be using it at or near maximum aperture a great deal of the time in any event (and/or be wanting a faster standard lens in part as a smaller/lighter lens than the standard zoom). In these circumstances, the 17mm would seem to be more useful.

 

[bigboysdad]

It's certainly true that the 17/1.8 isn't the sharpest, I can't use mine without some specific lightroom editing after taking the shot.

 

[kevinparis]

The first set makes the 25 seem to destroy the 17. Second set....hard to call.

I've got the 25 and would really like to try the 17. But I really, really like the 25. Even though I feel like I need to take 2 steps back all the time.

I don't get the current trend for comparisions between cameras and lenses to be defined in cagefight terms - destroy....killer etc

17 and 25 are two distinct focal lengths, offering FOV's equivalent to focal lengths that have been popular over the last 70 years at least of camera manufacturer.

The either/or choice between these lenses is not about whether one is sharper than the other, but whether one suits your type of photography better than the other. A Normal lens with perhaps better light gathering, but a shallower DOF or wider angle with a greater DOF for a given aperture

A comparison between lenses of the same focal length in terms of sharpness MAY be valid, but event then I doubt that the differences at similar f/stops would be that noticeable in actual photographic use.

K

 

[pix530]

would 17mm be good for portraits indoor only?
my 35mm is too long for some situations, 25mm I had and it is nice lens, but as I have 35mm already and 45 and plan for 75, I guess 17 might be wise choose.

 

[wjiang]

would 17mm be good for portraits indoor only?

Are you asking
a) is it good for indoor portraits, or
b) is the only type of portraits that it's good for indoor type.

As for a), I would say that it's good for social shots with people in the environment, but not necessarily ideal for portraits in general as you'll have to be careful not to distort faces too much. I shoot with a PL25 and it's great for individual/tight groups indoors, but it wouldn't be as good for getting a wider group or for getting more of the setting compared to the 17.

With b), it's as good outdoors as it is indoors for environmental people shots.

 

[bigboysdad]

If I had to choose between the 2 I'd say get the 17, and subsequently get the 45 which is cheaper than the 25 and captures social gatherings such as folks in restaurants brilliantly, better than the 25 can IMHO. You also have 2 primes which do different things and don't clash so to speak.

 

[pix530]

that it's good for social shots with people in the environment, but not necessarily ideal for portraits in general as you'll have to be careful not to distort faces too much..

- I dont need to shoot group of people at all. I need to shoot portraits indoor where space is a constant issue. So I cant go back with 35mm enough sometimes, even I enjoy the results. Also 35mm is not working for some shootings where model is posing on the ground, so I dont have such long ladder to use to shoot up-down.
- However, I used 25mm and I was happy.

So now I probably need to take 17mm or 25mm for such work. The problem for me is that I had 25 and love it, but its too close to my 35mm.
From another hand 17mm might not be right one as you said based on distortion.

 

[pix530]

Also as I hate changing lenses on the fly, another option is to take 17 and 75, or 25 and 75.
So I really don't want to carry 4 lenses. HUH. I take 35-100 with me anyway...

 

[phl0wtography]

I don't get the whole "indoor portrait" problem when discussing focal lengths.
35, and 50 are two distinctivly different focal lengths, and shouldn't be chosen based on "indoor" shots
I don't know what closets some must live in, that "indoor-portraits" always come up as an argument/ problem. You can easily fit 2 heads in a 50-frame (equivalent) from just 1m away. That said, indoors, I'm more concerned about all the crap in the background because I usually don't wanna stage shots when meeting family, and friends, and rather go for candids. The O45- as has been mentioned - thus lends itself much better for indoor portraits because at 1.8 you can throw away background way more effectively than with both the 17, and 25.
Also, the ability to crop a 17 to 25 doesn't count. A lens' focal length is so much more than its mere angle of view. The more important factor to choose a (moderate) wide-angle like the 17mm for is the compression of depth of space - or in that matter lack thereof. Crop a contextual shot (street, landscape, road,...) with a distinct vanishing point from a 17 to the field of view of a 25, and you get two very different photographs. With the former conveying the impression of spatial depth, and the latter not so much. Same is true for a portrait taken with the 25, cropping it to the field of view of the 45.
While I'm in no way implying that you should let a lens' FL dictate the way you shoot (much like Laforet, and Meyerowitz advocate emphatically). It's just that some FL are better suited for certain situations than others.
There's a reason, why 35-50-90 mark photography's classic trinity

TL;DR: It's not an either-or question, but a which should you get first. Feininger suggests everybody should start with a 40-50mm, then move to a close-up mid tele, and dive into wider field of views the last. Simply because it's so much harder get strong compositions with a 35, let alone a 28mm without including crap, or have pictures that say nothing.

 

[DynaSport]

I am struggling with this very question right now. I have always been a zoom shooter, but when I moved to m4/3 I decided to give primes a try. Part of that decision was that I could not afford the P12-35 and I wanted something faster than my kit 14-42. So, I started with the P14 and O45. I found out pretty quickly that I was terrible at using the P14 for people shots. Even though I understand the distortion issue is distance to subject related, I found myself always getting too close, even to small groups, and ending up with horrible shots that made the people look terrible. But, as much as I like the O45, and while I tend to shoot tighter than most on here, I often couldn't get small groups in the frame with the 45. So, I am hoping to get a new lens soon to have for the holidays and have been thinking the 25 is best for me. A part of me is concerned I will sometimes find it too tight, but I am also afraid that the 17 will be too close to the 14 and retain too much distortion. I have thought about compromising and getting the 20, as I continually see great shots from it, but I want a lens that focuses fast in low light and I hear bad things about the 20 in that regard. So...I think I am going to go with the 25. It is really over my budget, but if it is the lens I really need to take the photos I want, then I'll have it a long time and the difference in money won't be so great over the life of the lens. If there are holes in my thinking, please let me know. Otherwise, if I can bring myself to pull the trigger on a pricey lens (for me) then I will have one soon.

All this rambling leads to this simple advice to the OP. Get the one whose focal length best suits your desired shooting style. Go to the photo sample topics and look at the photos of both lenses for a long time. That should help you decide.

Best of luck to you.

 

[GFFPhoto]

I don't get the current trend for comparisions between cameras and lenses to be defined in cagefight terms - destroy....killer etc

Welcome to America! We don't do subtlety. We have winners… and we have losers. You want to make sure you are aligned with the winners!


And for what its worth, the recently announced Panasonic with 4k video will DECIMATE the EM1.

 

[wjiang]

And for what its worth, the recently announced Panasonic with 4k video will DECIMATE the EM1.

Totally different product. Panasonic even consider it a different tier to their GH3, a bit like E-M1 and E-M5. As far as video goes, Panasonic have been way ahead of Olympus for a long time, but with 4K they'll be ahead of almost everyone.