I want to talk about "35mm" and a questionable (bad?) idea

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by mrjr, Nov 22, 2013.

  1. mrjr

    mrjr Mu-43 Top Veteran

    518
    Sep 25, 2012
    EDIT: I fear the thread title may be misleading. By saying "'35mm'", what I mean is "35mm equivalent". I hate talking about "equivalents", which is why I titled it that way, but now I'm thinking that was a confusing, poor choice. Sorry.

    I've been dying to get a fast 35mm equivalent lens, and I'm having a hard time deciding what to do.

    What I really want to do is buy a 17mm f1.8, of course. My budget's tight, so it would definitely be a bit of a stretch, but, man! It seems like a great pairing for a two lens kit with a 45mm when a PL25 isn't flexible enough. And great as a walkaround prime. And as a restaurant lens. But especially as an indoor, snapshot lens with fast AF for chasing a speedy toddler. And for videos of said toddler—the PL25 just feels too tight and maybe a bit unnatural for this.

    Now, because of my budget, I have considered settling for picking up a 17mm f2.8, and just dealing with the compromises in AF speed, aperture, and CA (those are my only problems with this lens). I'm sure it's sharp enough and seems to have nice rendering. But I know it doesn't buy me anything tangible over either my 14 or my Sigma 19... except that it's the focal length I'm chasing.

    This brings me to an idea, which I know to be utter madness, and I think I'm hoping you all will talk me out of it. I'm thinking about picking up one of those bargain EOS Ms with that sweet 22mm f2 lens. It would be cheaper than the Olympus 17mm F1.8, and by all accounts, that 22mm Canon is a cracker of a lens. I'd just use the EOS M as a fixed lens compact. Slow-ish focus notwithstanding.

    I understand that all this constitutes a certifiable case of you-know-what-that-rhymes-with-mass. Still having a hard time shaking it, though. :) So I'm hoping to hear both from enablers and from the saner crowd: does the Canon make sense, or is it a terrifically bad idea? Should I spend the extra for the Olympus f1.8? Or maybe even pick up a 17mm pancake?


    Sent from my iPhone using Mu-43 mobile app
     
  2. szanda

    szanda Mu-43 Regular

    Definitely stay with Sigma 19 and save money for 17 1.8, EOS isn't toddler friendly camera.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. mrjr

    mrjr Mu-43 Top Veteran

    518
    Sep 25, 2012
    Haha, yeah. I told myself Sigma 19 is the "poor man's Olympus 17" to justify buying the Sigma and to attempt to discourage myself from buying the Olympus. That was a few months ago (when the OG Sigmas were supercheap). Guess that idea didn't stick.

    It just kills me how small and cheap and good that Canon lens is. Evidently I'm a sucker for a good deal.

    Thanks for the input.
     
  4. twokatmew

    twokatmew Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 1, 2012
    Lansing, MI, US
    Margaret
    Wait till you can comfortably swing the 17/f1.8. It's worth the wait. It's my most used lens and great for capturing my speedy kitties. :smile: I've wasted so much $$ settling for gear that comes close to but just isn't what I really want. Then I end up with the hassle of selling....

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. mrjr

    mrjr Mu-43 Top Veteran

    518
    Sep 25, 2012
    That's sounds like the voice of reason. Thanks!
     
  6. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 14, 2012
    New Mexico
    Larry
    If fast focus indoors is your goal, and your text implies it is important, the Canon won't help you. Neither will the original f2.8 Olympus 17mm. You've probably got the best you can have with the Sigma until you can manage the 17mm f1.8., which I hear is wonderfully fast, and which I also want -- when I can afford it.

    It's only a deal if it fulfills a need, and it doesn't sound like it does. (I have to tell myself that all the time when I'm "motivated" to buy something.) On the other hand, if you are just itching to try the Canon then go ahead. But then it will be pure GAS, not fulfilling a need. Sorry to shoot down your justifiction, but that seems to be the consensus. And if you get it anyway, well, who among us hasn't done that?
     
  7. Steven

    Steven Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 25, 2012
    USA
    Why aren't you considering 20mm/1.7? Pretty close FoV and cheaper. Never had the slower 17mm but it's widely considered to not be very sharp AFAIK .
     
  8. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    Fast focus indoors.

    To the OP Start saving for the 17/1.8. Keep your eyes open for a used one while you wait. At some point your budget and a lens will intersect.

    Fred
     
  9. Fmrvette

    Fmrvette This Space For Rent

    May 26, 2012
    Detroit, Michigan
    Jim
    Hi MRJR!

    I have to concur with the group think here - you'd be better served by getting the Oly f:1/7 and any halfway measures such as the Canon only eat up funds that could be dedicated to the true goal.

    Also in the States it's the holiday season and Black Friday is fast approaching so Oly or other retailers may discount the lens (even though it's already a popular seller). I recently got an email from Oly that they were knocking $50 U.S. off of the 45mm lens for a limited time. You might find a deal before Christmas, or find a deal after Christmas from someone who is looking to unload a 17mm.

    Patience (not normally my long suit) is a virtue this time of year.

    Just my 2 cents, fully worth half of that.

    Regards,

    Jim
     
  10. mrjr

    mrjr Mu-43 Top Veteran

    518
    Sep 25, 2012
    Ok, thanks for the sound advice, everybody. No enablers here, which is probably a good thing.

    I think I will skip the EOS M. Sure seems like an appealing package, and I consider it like buying a sweet lens and getting a whatever body for free. But I know that it would almost certainly drive me nuts and it wouldn't be worth it. Especially since when the body dies or gets outdated, the lens will be the only thing with value and it will be orphaned unless I buy another Canon body, which I should know better than to do.

    Thanks for the talk, haha.


    Sent from my iPhone using Mu-43 mobile app
     
  11. gochugogi

    gochugogi Mu-43 Veteran

    I bought the Oly 17 1.8 on Black Friday 2012 directly from Olympus for $375. It was a preorder and I had to wait two months before it actually shipped. I'd keep eyes peeled for refurbs and Black Friday specials. You might get lucky.

    I don't have the EOS M--the lack of a VF is a deal breaker--but have played with my friend's a lot. I hate composing at arm's length but I have to say IQ pretty much buries my GX1 and E-P3. AF isn't as good as a DSLR or most M43 but after the FW update it improved to "good enough." I'd buy one if I could rig up a nice EVF albeit finding a bright line OVF to match the 22mm would be easy. The main problem is those OVF cost as much as the discounted EOS M and block flash use.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. kponds

    kponds Mu-43 Regular

    93
    Mar 18, 2013
    Tennessee
    Think about this though: what use will you have for the 25mm if you get the 17mm + 45mm tag team combo? Is 2/3 of a stop really that big of a deal? Do you often shoot the 25mm wide open?

    It seems like one logical option would be to sell/trade the 25mm for a 17mm F/1.8. Personally I couldn't see myself holding on to two $500 lenses that basically have the same use case.

    I have been thinking about doing this switch a lot lately myself. I do love how the 25mm renders, but 17mm + 45mm is a hella sweet 2 lens combo. Then again so is 25mm + 75mm. Sigh.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    What the hell is wrong with your Sigma?
    2mm of focal length too much?
    Get a grip!
     
    • Like Like x 3
  14. Fmrvette

    Fmrvette This Space For Rent

    May 26, 2012
    Detroit, Michigan
    Jim
    Hi Ulfric!

    I think the O.P. is looking to pick up a bit of speed (f/1.8 vs. f/2.8) as well as the extra 2mm (17 vs 19).

    I don't think getting a grip would help, it only adds bulk and weight* :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:.

    There's no explaining GAS... Mrjr is lost, lost, lost and may as well save up for the 17mm f/1.8 :thumbup:.

    There's no saving him now, he's doomed.

    (Kinda like me on that Fuji X100 I keep adding to the cart and taking out; I know it won't improve my photography, my checkbook, or my relationship with the Princess of the Exchequer...nevertheless I think I'm doomed...:redface:).

    Regards,

    Jim

    (*With tongue firmly in cheek...)
     
    • Like Like x 3
  15. Pecos

    Pecos Mu-43 Top Veteran

    776
    Jan 20, 2013
    The Natural State
    The 14/2.5 is plenty sharp, and not much different FOV from the 17. Also you could crop the 14 to a 17 FOV without any significant loss of detail or quality. The 17 + 45 would be a great pair (as I think would the 14 and 45; Sam Abell used the 28 and 90 on film.)
    I used to have a Leica 35mm f/2 and 90mm f/2.8 - nice combo. When I added the 50 f/2 I didn't really use it much. Some of my favorite shots are with the 35 and 90.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Colorbright

    Colorbright Mu-43 Regular

    Here is a link for a discounted 17mm 1.8 for Can $ 379.99 at Henry's Camera in Canada (according to them, it is marked down approx. $120). I don't know where you are located, but thought I would pass this info on to you just in case it is helpful. I think that they may also have it in black as well as silver, but not completely certain :smile:

    http://www.henrys.com/75296-OLYMPUS-17MM-F1-8-LENS-SILVER-M-4-3.aspx
     
  17. mrjr

    mrjr Mu-43 Top Veteran

    518
    Sep 25, 2012
    Still kicking myself for not grabbing one last year at that price. And yeah, the EOS M is just screaming to be used with a bright line finder. Almost certainly what I'd do if I bought one.

    I'm not at all worried about the difference in f1.4 and f.8. I do sometimes shoot the PL25 at f1.4, but much more frequently, I choose f1.8. With the shorter 17mm, I'd be much more willing to shoot wide open.

    You have read my mind. I've definitely been considering this. I share your feelings on justifying two $500 lenses, particularly since both would be primarily used for family snaps.

    It would be really hard to sell my 25mm, but I suppose I could re-buy it if I just couldn't get along without it. The PL25 is my most used lens, for sure, and it definitely covers a similar use case. Hard choice, that.

    And... to strengthen the case for replacing the PL25 with the mZD 17 even further, I vastly prefer shooting with a two lens kit. For instance, when hiking, my P14 and mZD45 are almost always the only lenses that get any use, even though I generally have all my lenses with me. Something about having to choose between more than just two options.

    Haha. I hear you, for sure.

    What's wrong with the Sigma? It's not silver a shiny. ;) And it doesn't have that sexy snap focus ring.

    But honestly, I have no problems with the Sigma in general. But I've found the AF a bit sluggish in low light, and I've also found that shooting f2.8 instead of f1.8 means ISO 6400 at home in the evening. And, as I mentioned just above, I'd love to get into a two lens kit that I feel like I could live with for a wide variety of scenarios, and the 19mm definitely feels tighter to me than shooting 17mm with my kit lens. I know for certain I'd hate for my widest lens at hand to be a 19mm. Although, that doesn't justify buying the 17mm given that I could use the 14mm which I already own.

    There's no real justification for purchasing that 17, and I know it. So, thanks for calling me out on it and for making me laugh. :)

    Spot on. It sounds like you know me quite well on all points, haha.

    Right on. You definitely get my line of thinking here, in terms of getting into a versatile two lens kit, with as few compromises as possible. The 14 + 45 kit gets a lot of mileage, for sure. And I've seen several articles validating our preference for a two lens, 28 or 35 + 90mm equivalent, kit.
     
  18. mrjr

    mrjr Mu-43 Top Veteran

    518
    Sep 25, 2012
  19. broody

    broody Mu-43 Veteran

    388
    Sep 8, 2013
    That's a fantastic bargain... At this price the choice is a no brainer, as the 17mm is possibly the fastest-focusing M43 lens, the little Canon has no way of competing with that.

    I saw this deal on Amazon a few weeks ago and I passed on it because my head is made of concrete. Sadly now I have no money to take advantage of the offer.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Slim

    Slim Mu-43 Veteran

    298
    Nov 7, 2013
    I feel ya.. the 17mm is sexy... just go and get it.. you can sell it later.. once you are done with it...

    Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk
     
    • Like Like x 1