Debating: EP3 with 14-42 or 17mm

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by WT21, Jul 23, 2011.

  1. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    EP3: with the 14-42 or with the 17mm?

    14-42 Pros:
    Available now!
    Keep the EP1, and maybe the kit lens can be used by other family members
    Try the Fish Eye attachment for the kit lens for some cheap FE fun

    14-42 Cons:
    Personally, I've never liked kit lenses
    Only worth about $95 used
    I already have the 14-150, so this is a pretty heavy overlap
    If I keep the kit lens, then I'm buying the EP3 for the full price ($899) which is steep for me

    17mm Pros
    Worth more used when sold (thereby dropping the effective price of the EP3)

    17mm cons
    Have to wait for the EP3 kit to ship with the 17mm

    I tried the 17mm lens already as a lens. It's not for me, so I won't keep it. I just see it as a way to get back a bit on the EP3 kit purchase.

    I guess I should wait, but all these EP3 review threads are leaving me drooling to try that new touch screen and fast AF.
  2. Pelao

    Pelao Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 3, 2010
    Ontario, Canada
    What type of photography do you enjoy? Under what conditions do you shoot?

    If it were me I would go with the 17, because I prefer primes, not because I don't like kit lenses, or this one in particular. But think about the photography you enjoy and go from there.
  3. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin .

    Oct 9, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    Real Name:
    Are the 14-42s really only worth $95 now? It was a while ago now but when I sold one over here I got about $170 for the MkI on eBay last year.
  4. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    It doesn't sound like you want either lens at all to USE, so the only consideration at this point is whether its worth waiting a little longer to get the 17 so you can sell it for more. FIgure you'd get about, what, $200 for that vs $100 or so for the kit zoom. Not a tough comparison, just a matter of whether its worth waiting a couple of weeks for the $100 difference.

    • Like Like x 1
  5. Kosta

    Kosta Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 29, 2010
    get it with the 17mm. maybe the faster focussing and better iso performance will make it a nice combo.
  6. Pan Korop

    Pan Korop Mu-43 Veteran

    Mar 31, 2011
    Phare Ouest
    Agreed : the 17 could make a nice compact package with the 45/1.8, with the same minute 37mm filter size.
  7. thearne3

    thearne3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 28, 2010
    Redding, CT USA

    My own research on the 14-42 II is that it's much closer in value to the 17mm than you indicate. The older 14-42 is ~$100, but the newer routinely gets $160. The 14-42IIR remains fairly scarce, though some retailers are offering it on eBay for $275 (HK). My guess is you'd be able to get about the same ~$200 for either lens in the near term.

    Hope this helps...
    • Like Like x 2
  8. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Thanks Tom. This does help. Ray's points too are well taken.

    Also, if I get it from Olympus, I can use the discount code and save about $40 (after discount, but including sales tax).
  9. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    OK. I ordered the silver. It also seems you can order white, which I double-clutched on (I think it looks pretty cool in white). When you go to order the silver body, it says you have to choose a color -- silver or white. When I put white in the shopping cart, it didn't say "out of stock" but I decided to order the silver instead.
  10. rkelac

    rkelac Mu-43 Regular

    Feb 15, 2011
    I ordered the white that way. The 17 was too close to the 20 for me to think of keeping a 17. I don't use the 14-42 very often but it is very small for a zoom. Much easier to carry than the 14-150.

    Now I wonder how long it will take for them to ship it.
  11. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    I ordered the 12mm 2.0 from them last week, and they shipped out of NYC. Given that I'm in Boston, it ended up being 2 day. They shipped FedEX no signature required (i.e. they dropped the package at the door). This is fine in my neighborhood, but may not be for others.
  12. CarlB

    CarlB Mu-43 Veteran

    On the 17mm vs. the 20mm, I actually use them both.

    20mm for crisp, indoors, and night. Also, force the aperture to 1.7 for great portraits.

    17mm for landscape and shots where you want that bit more open feel, it's a great lens for that.

    No-brainer on the 17mm vs. the 14-42mm. I've never been able to say anything more than, "meh" on either the first or second gen of the 14-42mm. If it didn't have to telescope out to even use it, I'd probably like it a lot more.

    Chose the E-P3 with the 17mm for me, so I'll probably sell the silver one I have of those. Or give it to my dad.
  13. Tomhe

    Tomhe New to Mu-43

    Jul 30, 2011
    Hi, I would like to know if the 17mm lens on the ep3 is new or it is the same as the other 17 mm used in the pen series such as ep2 and epl series.
  14. pictor

    pictor Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 17, 2010
    It's the same lens. However, the 14-42mm is a newer version than the 14-42mm of the E-P2.
  15. Tomhe

    Tomhe New to Mu-43

    Jul 30, 2011
    Thanks for the reply Pictor.
    I recently purchased the Ep3 with the 14-42mm lens. That kit was the only one available. I am thinking of getting the panasonic 20mm or the olympus 17mm. Is the 12mm really worth it? I shoot mostly street and objects. Which lens would be most suitable for me?
  16. starlabs

    starlabs Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 30, 2010
    Los Angeles

    Go out and take a lot of pictures with your new E-P3 and kit lens.

    Then take a look at your pictures and examine what focal length(s) you used for most of them.
    If it's 14mm, take a note - on those occasions did you feel you needed even more coverage? If the answer's yes, then you should start considering the 12mm.

    Most people prefer the 20mm over the 17mm due to the much faster f/1.7 on the Panny Lumix than the f/2.8. If you also like to take photographs at night then having one low light lens in your repertoire would be helpful. Then there's also the new Panny 25mm f/1.4... But that's $$$ :tongue:
  17. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Another vote for the 17mm here ...
  18. ckrueger

    ckrueger Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 16, 2011
    Why would you want the 17/2.8 when you can get the 20/1.7? I know the 17 is wider, and I do really like 35mm-e. But f/2.8 is pretty slow for a a prime in this range. Even the 14-42 is only 2/3rds of a stop slower than that at 17mm.

    I'd get the 14-42. Its focal range is very useful, its image quality is good, it's pretty compact (and collapses to become even smaller in your bag), and it focuses very quickly on the EP3. You can always get a 20/1.7 later, but it's doubtful anyone will ever make a better compact zoom than the 14-42. Better, surely; we'll see and f/2.8 zoom one of these days. But a better compact zoom? I doubt it. The 14-42 is a keeper if you like small lenses.
  19. avidone

    avidone Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jun 24, 2011
    Rome, Italy
    Another vote for the 17

    I know everyone likes the pana 20... And PL 25/1.4.... And Nokton 25/0.95 better, but guess what? They cost a lot more and some of us do not have that luxury

    I got an E-PL1 with kit lens then later got a good deal on a 17 and, though the 17 is obviously less flexible on composition, I really LOVE the pics it gives compared to the kit lens. I just went on holiday and took both, thinking I would mostly use the kit for tourist-style flexibility, but ended up mostly using the 17 because to me the pic quality is just so much better

    So if the choice is for using rather than resale value, I honestly think the 17 is a good choice

    Sent from my iPad using Mu-43 App
  20. psun786

    psun786 New to Mu-43

    Jul 30, 2011
    Oly 14~42mm MK II has "better" IQ than 17mm prime wide open in term of sharpness. Not to mention the resale vaule is also much higher than 17mm prime which is only selling $199 brand new on

    I honestly wouldn't get 17mm over 14~42mm MK II.. whether it is for personal use or resale vaule. On the contrary, the pana 20mm f1.7 is a decent choice with excellent sharpness.

    Pana 20mm f1.7 > Oly 14~42mm MK II > Oly 17mm