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

Looking for a ~35mm equivalent.

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Brodie337, Jun 27, 2012.

  1. Brodie337

    Brodie337 Mu-43 Regular

    63
    Jun 1, 2012
    Hi all!

    After spending some time on the streets with my 60D and 20mm lens, I've fallen in love with the 35mm equivalent focal length. I'd very much like a similar lens for my GX1 when it returns from warranty repairs.

    It seems that the obvious choice is the Olympus 17mm, but I've heard less than favorable things about its performance. Ideally, I'd want something f2.8 or faster and reasonable auto focus performance.

    What are my options?

    Edit: for what its worth, I don't mind if the focal length is a tad longer, but definitely not wider. Price is also a pretty major concern (broke uni student :p).
     
  2. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    I haven't used that Oly 17 2.8 but from what I've read it lacks the sharpness there's supposed to be for a prime, and has no issue with focus and other performance; if cost is the issue I would recommend Sigma 19 2.8, otherwise think about panny 20 1.7 as there are already so many positive reviews, but it focuses slow.
     
  3. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    In the world of 24x36, 28mm and 35mm are (in my opinion) awfully close...which would mean you might find the 14mm Panasonic pancake worth considering, too? I had a Leica 40mm and it always felt more "normal" than "wide" to me, while the 28mm and 35mm were pretty close and both definitely mild-wide.
     
  4. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    I would say the difference between 28mm and 35mm is a big step in 35mm terms. And 43mm is normal in 35mm.

    I have used the Oly 17mm lens and it is a nice lens--I have one. Check the image thread devoted to that lens on the forums. The 20mm is an excellent lens and preferred by most over the 17mm, but it is a normal.
     
  5. kevwilfoto

    kevwilfoto Mu-43 Veteran

    294
    Sep 23, 2011
    Colorado
    I guess the obvious but expensive Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 lens is out of the question.
     
  6. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
  7. Brodie337

    Brodie337 Mu-43 Regular

    63
    Jun 1, 2012
    Where does the Sigma 19mm fit into this? I can get dealer pricing on Sigma so I know I can get o e for a very good price.
     
  8. capodave

    capodave Mu-43 Top Veteran

    514
    Jul 4, 2010
    Southern Cal
    Dave
  9. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    It's a nice lens IMO. I don't know why some people bad mouth it, I feel something similar that with Canon fans constantly bashing Sigma and Tamron lenses for their system.

    The onlly "problem" I had with mine was that it is slow to wake up from sleep on the E-PL2. Haven't tested it extensively on the OM-D (will do really soon). If you don't mind the bigger size, it has good AF speed, is sharp even at f/2.8 (quite sharp end to end at f/4.0) and at a great price. There is a thread in here where you can see sample images taken with various cameras and there are discussions about its performance also.

    Oh, and the 38mm equiv. length seems very nice to me. Slightly wider than normal, which is quite good for Street photography, for example.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. dre_tech

    dre_tech Mu-43 Veteran

    314
    Jan 31, 2012
    For the size, IQ and f/1.7 I went with the Panasonic 20. Sigma gives faster AF, but it's also significantly bigger.

    On the GX1, the 20mm is great IMO.

    P.S.: Broke uni student with a 60D & GX1... :confused:
     
  11. Brodie337

    Brodie337 Mu-43 Regular

    63
    Jun 1, 2012
    Correction: A semi broke uni student who abuses dealer pricing schemes :p
     
  12. silversx80

    silversx80 Mu-43 Veteran

    229
    Apr 27, 2012
    North Carolina
    Yup. Considering you can even pick it up for ~$150 US or less, it's a stellar performer.

    To tell you the truth, I like it better than the Oly 45.
     
  13. riverr02

    riverr02 Mu-43 Veteran

    258
    May 2, 2011
    New York
    Rafael
    Another vote for the 20mm 1.7- it's truly a fabulous lens, and is probably the one I use most.
     
  14. Brodie337

    Brodie337 Mu-43 Regular

    63
    Jun 1, 2012
    Ill have to call Panasonic and see what sort of deal I can get on the 20mm. The f1.7 aperture is very appealing, though.
     
  15. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    I prefer the FF 50mm field of view and my favourite lens in many ways is the PL 25mm. It takes superb shots if I get things right. I have one big problem with it, however, and that is its size. I usually carry my camera everywhere with me in a Tom Bihn Ristretto shoulder bag when I'm not specifically out shooting. I can fit either my E-P3 or E-M5 in the bag with the 25mm mounted (actually easier with the E-M5 if I've got the VF-2 on the E-P3) but it's a really tight fit and I can't fit anything else in, and fitting other things in is why I tend to carry that bag.

    On the other hand, either camera slips in easily with the Oly 17mm mounted so it's really become the lens that spends more time on my camera simply for that fact. When I got it I bought it because I wanted the FF 35mm field of view, not the 28mm field of view of the 14 or the 40mm field of view of the 20mm pancakes. I didn't have great expectations for it given the reviews. I've been surprised.

    The other M43 primes are all sharper, there's no doubt about that, but that doesn't mean that the 17mm isn't "sharp enough". On sharpness, compared to all of the lenses out there for all formats, it's probably average but average isn't bad. It's the worst of the M43 primes as far as sharpness goes but that really has more to do with M43 having some really good performers amongst its primes than the 17mm being a dog. Yes, shoot with some other M43 prime and you'll get sharper results but the 17mm has always delivered sharp enough results for me provided I get the focus right.

    On the other hand it delivers great colour and contrast and I've got more than a few shots I really love from the 17mm. It surprised me, and it keeps surprising me. What's more, I think in many ways it delivers even more on the E-M5 than it does on my E-P3. I expected the higher resolution of the E-M5 to show up the lower resolution of the 17mm but it hasn't seemed to do so and the colour rendition and contrast are even better on the E-M5.

    Here in Australia it sells new for around 40% less than either the Panasonic 14mm or 20mm lenses, making it a bit of a bargain compared to them. It's certainly given me my money's worth and I'm happy to keep using it though I sometimes wish it was faster than F/2.8. I suspect that will worry me less with the E-M5 with its better high ISO performance.

    In my view the 17mm is certainly worth considering and if you can borrow or rent one for a couple of days for the type of shooting you want to do with it, I'd recommend doing so. You may be very pleasantly surprised at what it delivers. It's not a great lens but it's a good lens that somehow manages to keep delivering better than I expect and about the only reason I ever regret having it on either of my bodies is when it's the only lens I have with me and I want something much longer.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. MarkoV

    MarkoV New to Mu-43

    2
    Mar 17, 2012
    Finland
    I thought nobody has the 19/2.8. :biggrin:

    I've had the Siggy for a week and I really like it. It's inexpensive, sharp and everything With_Eyes_Unclouded said. It's not like it's huge, either - about the same size as 45/1.8, but a little fatter. And 19mm on :43: has the same 37.8° vertical angle of view as 35mm lens on film, so it feels like a 35mm lens with some cropping on the sides.

    I do wish it were f/2 and had a distance scale for manual focusing, but you cannot get everything for this price, I suppose...

    Same here on my OM-D. It takes about three seconds for the viewfinder to come alive after turning the power on, but I can live with it. It takes me almost as long to get to OM-D's power switch and then lift the camera to my eye, anyway. :smile: