1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Do I really need 12, 17/1.8, 25 all together?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by rogergu, Dec 8, 2013.

  1. rogergu

    rogergu Mu-43 Regular

    94
    Feb 11, 2013
    First, apologize if this is a dump question.

    Thanks to the big holiday sales, I bought 17/1.8 in addition to 12mm and 25mm I have already had. I kind of like the form factor, but the build quality, which is not as good as my Japan version 12mm, especially the focus ring; while the black color is nicer. :)

    I have not figured out whether I really will use them all, since I find the FOV gap from 12mm and 25mm isn't that significant. I guess at the end I may end up moving by my feet to adjust rather than switch the lenses.

    Any thoughts?

    BTW, I am also thinking about a zoom 12-40, but really do not know when using zoom, should I fix the zoom first and then move or the other way.
     
  2. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    Honestly, you don't need all 3. I really don't think you'll get much use out of the 17mm. Although If I were you, I'd sell the 25mm and the 17mm, and get the 20mm and either the 45mm or the Sigma 60mm.

    Me personally, I use the 14 and the 25 (but I actually like the 20 better - but for the spacing issue and the fact that the AF is slow on Olympus bodies), and the Sigma 60mm.
     
  3. silver92b

    silver92b Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 7, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    The FOV of the 25 is not too good in small spaces. You just can't back away far enough in many occasions. I am not familiar with the 12mm prime, but I definitely use that focal length with my zoom lenses. I am loving the 17mm f1.8 I just bought. Personally, I do not like the 20mm because it's very slow focusing and I just did not like to shoot with it. The 25 f1.4 is far superior IMHO.
     
  4. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    some people must have different eyes to me if they don't see the significant difference in FOV between the 12 and the 25, or indeed the 17 and the 12 or the 25.

    I suppose some of it must be down to what subjects you prefer to shoot and how you shoot... To me 12mm is way to wide for people shots, or indeed anything apart from interiors, some architectural or landscape, none of which are my particular cup of tea.

    My current go to selection of lenses is 17, 25 and 75, and to be honest the 25 is the one that gets the least use, but it is still in the bag for those times when I need a little more aperture, or something more intimate than the 17

    just my opinions... your mileage may vary

    K
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    If it doesn't hinder you financially, why not? :smile:
     
  6. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    +1 to everything Kevin said.
     
  7. Cruzan80

    Cruzan80 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 23, 2012
    Denver, Co
    Sean Rastsmith
    Were you happy before? Did you miss the gap?

    Sent from my LG-P769 using Mu-43 mobile app
     
  8. rogergu

    rogergu Mu-43 Regular

    94
    Feb 11, 2013
    I kind of agree with Kevin on 12mm. It is too wide for shooting people in a scene. I find this lens really nice when shooting architecture, interior, closer. On the other hand 25mm is a little narrow for shooting people in a scene. That is why I decided to give 17mm a try. The gap between 12 and 25 is significant. What I am saying is the gap between 12 and 17, or between 17 and 25, especially the latter.

    BTW, such a great forum where I can always learn what I am looking for.
     
  9. GFFPhoto

    GFFPhoto Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 24, 2013
    I'll also echo what Kevin said regarding the 17, but add that 35mm equivalent hits the sweet spot for me as a walk around, all purpose lens (although I'm using the slightly tighter 20).

    I'm sure people use a zoom in different ways, but I'll usually move to the angle or position I like, than zoom in or out to frame the shot.
     
  10. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    I found my selection to be the 12, 17 & 45. Unlike Kevin, I shoot architecture and landscapes often. I find the 12 to be very useful indoors from everything to group shots to taking in one side of a room. For me, I love the 35 equivalent FOL and have the 17 on my camera often. The 25 is also my odd lens out.

    Edit: Post-Script: I will carry a short zoom as well, I don't find zooms and primes to mutually exclusive, just different tools.
     
  11. JeanLucX

    JeanLucX Mu-43 Regular

    60
    Oct 3, 2013
    NYC
    You don't need three primes. I would get 12-40mm/f2.8 and the Panasonic 25mm/f1.4
     
  12. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    just for reference purposes... because I hate photo discussion that talk only in abstract numbers.

    this is a quick test with the 12-50 set at 12, 17 and 25

    to me there are significant differences between the different focal lengths not just in FOV but also the perspective distortions therein

    fov.

    K
     
    • Like Like x 6
  13. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    834
    Sep 30, 2013
    I took the 7-14, 12, 17, 25 and 45 on a trip to NYC recently, and the 17 was the least used by a wide margin. I preferred the 12 or the 25 most of the time, I think I used the 12 more than any other.

    I keep trying to give myself a reason to sell the 17, but then I remember its the smallest lens I own, and would probably be the best lens to use if I went out with the camera and only one lens and wanted it to be as small as possible. But I rarely do that, I can fit a few primes in a small messenger bag.

    I also just got the 12-40mm, so it will be curious to see how many of these primes I really use/need. I will keep the 45 for sure(portraits), as well as the 25(lowlight) but I'll probably get rid of the 12 or 17.
     
  14. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    I think that the top series of pics is really illustrative. No offense to the portraits.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    834
    Sep 30, 2013
    From the same distance to subject, focal length does not alter perspective. In these shots, which look to have been taken from roughly the same distance, the perspective distortion/compression does not change, only the magnification. If you crop all of these so the same content is in each shot, you will see that the perspective is the same in each.

    Now, if you were to move the distance to subject to retain the same basic framing, you would see noticeable differences in perspective, but this is again due to the distance, not the focal length or any optical properties of the lens.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  16. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    sorry about the portraits.... Kate moss was otherwise occupied :)

    K
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    earthquake

    you are correct

    but my main point stands that they are three very different FOV, each with its uses depending on ones particular style of photography

    K
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    If you'd have offered her her regular rate of $10,000 per day plus expenses, she'd have come right on over.
     
  19. carpandean

    carpandean Mu-43 Top Veteran

    827
    Oct 29, 2010
    Western NY
    It's funny, but if we were talking FF, wouldn't 24, 35 and 50mm sound much more different than their :43: counterparts?

    I've been thinking of going back to primes and, in turn, have been trying to decide what set to use. I've actually been leaning toward the 17, 45 and 75mm. I'm in love with the 75mm, though it is very specialized. The 45mm is a more general portrait lens and the 17mm is a nice walk-around lens.
     
  20. spacedogg79

    spacedogg79 Mu-43 Rookie

    21
    Nov 9, 2013
    Vancouver, Canada
    When I first learned to take photos (back in the film days) I had an amateur 35mm to 105mm zoom paired to my Nikon F70. I found that I would shoot mostly at the wide angle (35mm)...but often I really wished I had something wider. I relished the idea of a 28mm focal length but I couldn't afford it on my student budget at the time.

    I have picked up both the 12mm and 25mm recently. The 24mm equivalent of the 12mm is a dream come true. I think the 12mm is perfect for indoor shoots in narrow or tight rooms or for swallowing up entire buildings from short distances. While people keep saying "you can just go wider by walking backwards" I find that often is not the case. Backing up usually adds in a distracting tree, truck or garbage bin which breaks up the shot. No. Better to have a wider angle lens. You can usually walk forward...but not usually back. The 12mm allows for some interesting perspective close up shots as well. So far the 12mm is a keeper.

    The 25mm focuses fast and has a nice shallow depth of field. I haven't had a chance to play around with it much but it seems like a useful all purpose lens. Fast and great for low light. Seems perfect for indoor portraits. Good enough shallow depth of field without being too long like the 45mm or 75mm. Hard to take photos indoors with the 45mm or 75mm. Everyone says 75mm is the bee's knees but I don't see myself needing that focal length often. So the 25mm seems like a keeper too.

    But 17mm or 20mm would be perfect for street photography with a more flatter perspective. 25mm is perfect for closer indoor portraits but might be a touch too close. Both of these lenses are cheap compared to the 12mm or 25mm...so would be a good lens to keep.

    I say keep all lenses.
     
    • Like Like x 1