Is My Reasoning To Invest in The Olympus 17mm f1.8 Sound? (Insight into Prime Lens Strategy).

tkbslc

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
7,554
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
I would say that of all the lenses discussed, the 12-32 makes the 14/2.5 redundant. It's not THAT much brighter, and there are better primes than the 14. The 12-32 is more versatile.
Kind of hard to dismiss 1.25 stops as "not THAT much" if you ask me. In the dark, that's the difference between ISO 3200 and ISO 8000. Or in other words, usable vs noisy garbage on most m4/3 cameras.

The 14mm is also the smallest lens for the system by a good margin. It's seems significantly smaller than the 12-32mm holding them in my hand together (not that the 12-32 would ever be called big!:))

And it's kind of nifty that you can turn the 14mm into a 10.5mm f2.5 lens with affordable WA converters. 10mm f2.5 is not something you can easily get elsewhere.
 

kevinparis

Cantankerous Scotsman
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
3,912
Location
Gent, Belgium
I would say that of all the lenses discussed, the 12-32 makes the 14/2.5 redundant. It's not THAT much brighter, and there are better primes than the 14. The 12-32 is more versatile.
Maybe for your uses.. but not mine :)

the fact that you have to unlock and extend the 12-32 is a distinct disadvantage for me when I am doing street and candid style photography. I am often not even looking at the LCD or through a VF when I am shooting. As long as the camera is on, its ready to shoot instantly

If you want the 14mm FOV, as far as I know, it is the only prime option available.. And as for 'better', well again for my usage it delivers more than enough quality !!

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
P5130007 by kevinparis, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
PB180023 by kevinparis, on Flickr

K
 

Julia

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Messages
509
Location
Dresden, Germany
I had a similar dilemma recently where I discovered that the Oly 25mm was too tight for me indoors (family during Christmas, cooking with friends, etc). I used to have the Oly 17mm lens and got some really nice images from it and I felt that it was a good lens. I went ahead and bought the Pana 15mm simply because I wanted it to be a bit wider and because everyone was raving about the image quality).

But I think that the Oly 17mm will be a good choice for you – it's fast when it comes to AF (MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH faster than the Pana 20mm), it gives great image quality for the price, and you can get a lot of light through it.

I would not recommend the 20mm. The image quality is amazing, sure, but if you want to capture family/friends in low light conditions, be prepared to weep because of the terribly slow AF. That was the single reason I didn't get another one of the 20mm (used to have one years ago). If not for that, I'd have been my first pick.
 

tkbslc

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
7,554
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
I would not recommend the 20mm. The image quality is amazing, sure, but if you want to capture family/friends in low light conditions, be prepared to weep because of the terribly slow AF. That was the single reason I didn't get another one of the 20mm (used to have one years ago). If not for that, I'd have been my first pick.
Since the OP has a GX80, with Panasonic DFD, I can say that the above will not be true. The only real AF limitation on the 20mm f1.7 on a DFD body is for continous AF - which simply is not an option. For regular single AF, the 20mm f1.7 is quite fast.

I did have a similar experience as you with the 20mm on a non-DFD camera.
 

Matt Drown

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
324
Location
California, USA
But I think that the Oly 17mm will be a good choice for you – it's fast when it comes to AF (MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH faster than the Pana 20mm), it gives great image quality for the price, and you can get a lot of light through it.
Just adding that this is my impression also. The P20 I found incredibly frustrating to use for anything that wasn't stationary due to the slow focus hunting. I would not suggest it for street/candid work at all, unless you are pre/zone focusing. My caveat is that I only used it on an em1.1, so if there was any "pansonic-isms" associated with it mounted on a pany camera, I don't have any experience.

If you are still debating, the used market on the O17-1.8 is quite steady last I checked, so "renting" a used one for a couple months shouldn't cost you much more then shipping and a little time on the forums.
 

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
6,638
Location
Boston
the fact that you have to unlock and extend the 12-32 is a distinct disadvantage
You don't have to do that. Not sure what the means. You do have to extend it, but there is no locking mechanism.

As for "better" -- the OP never said they had an especial affinity for 14mm. IMO, the 15mm is indeed a much better lens, and not that different. but horses and courses. There's nothing wrong with the 14, and while you like it, the OP is clearly not finding it as dear, or else they wouldn't be asking about other choices. But I could be wrong about everything. It happens with some frequency.
 

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
6,638
Location
Boston
Kind of hard to dismiss 1.25 stops as "not THAT much" if you ask me. In the dark, that's the difference between ISO 3200 and ISO 8000. Or in other words, usable vs noisy garbage on most m4/3 cameras.

The 14mm is also the smallest lens for the system by a good margin. It's seems significantly smaller than the 12-32mm holding them in my hand together (not that the 12-32 would ever be called big!:))

And it's kind of nifty that you can turn the 14mm into a 10.5mm f2.5 lens with affordable WA converters. 10mm f2.5 is not something you can easily get elsewhere.
I didn't do that math on the aperture. At their brightest, I get .958, which is still substantial. You might be calculating the 12-32 when it's at 14. I am not sure of the aperture there, so maybe it is 1.25.

I would still take the PL15 all day long over the 14, so I guess I discount it over all. I would rather have the PL15 with 1.7 and the 12-32 over just the 14. YMMV.

and if anyone else wants to hit me in the head with a stick over my missed aperture calc or my lack of love for the 14, please feel free (it's rare my notifications light up that quickly), but I'll pass on responding further, though I'll also pass on the lens.
 
Last edited:

kahren

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
218
You need 12-32mm, you can think of it as a 12mm prime with a zoom option, or if you want faster get an oly 12 f2...
the 12-32 makes enough difference over the 14 to be noticeable...

and you also need a 20mm 1.7, this is actually really close to the oly 17mm in focal length, i've used them side by side...
the 20/1.7 has a bit better separation than the 17, though to be fair the 17 has a bit nicer rendering for portraits...
 

JG Hall

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
61
Maybe for your uses.. but not mine :)

the fact that you have to unlock and extend the 12-32 is a distinct disadvantage for me when I am doing street and candid style photography. I am often not even looking at the LCD or through a VF when I am shooting. As long as the camera is on, its ready to shoot instantly

If you want the 14mm FOV, as far as I know, it is the only prime option available.. And as for 'better', well again for my usage it delivers more than enough quality !!

View attachment 708987P5130007 by kevinparis, on Flickr

View attachment 708988PB180023 by kevinparis, on Flickr

K
Gorgeous two pictures
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,169
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
A 17 or similar prime is a good GP lens. The actual FL depends on YOUR style, some want shorter, some longer.
BTW, the 17 + 45 is similar to the old 35mm 2-lens kit of 35 + 85/105.

Another "small" alternative is the Olympus 14-42EZ. Small and gives you the flexibility of a zoom, but it is slower than a prime. No "unlocking" involved, turn on the camera, and it extends and is ready to go. Put on the auto lens cap, and it is like using a P&S :) I use this on my EM10 when I want a compact GP setup.
I only wish the zoom was MANUAL vs. power. Having used manual zooms, I feel that I can set a manual zoom easier and more precise than a power zoom.
 

tkbslc

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
7,554
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
I didn't do that math on the aperture. At their brightest, I get .958, which is still substantial. You might be calculating the 12-32 when it's at 14. I am not sure of the aperture there, so maybe it is 1.25.

I would still take the PL15 all day long over the 14, so I guess I discount it over all. I would rather have the PL15 with 1.7 and the 12-32 over just the 14. YMMV.

and if anyone else wants to hit me in the head with a stick over my missed aperture calc or my lack of love for the 14, please feel free (it's rare my notifications light up that quickly), but I'll pass on responding further, though I'll also pass on the lens.
Nobody is "hitting you over the head", just sharing our own opinions. You are allowed to hate the 14mm all you want. :)

my 1.25 stops math was for 14mm f3.7 to 14mm f2.5. it's about a stop at 12mm f3.5 vs 14mm f2.5, yes.

I love the 15mm f1.7, but I always had a big of curiousity about the 14mm f2.5, too. Right now I have both. The compact size of the 14mm is pretty incredible, but yes the 15mm f1.7 is a superior optic in many ways. Of course used prices on the 14mm are about 1/3 of what you might pay for a similar condition 15mm, so that's a factor.

I also have the 12-32, and it's OK. Not sure why people like it so much. Just seems like a regular boring kit lens that folds up smaller.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom