M.Zuiko 17mm f2.8 vs Zuiko 25mm f 2.8 question

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by johnybgood18, Dec 17, 2013.

  1. johnybgood18

    johnybgood18 New to Mu-43

    Dec 12, 2013
    Val-des-Monts, Quebec
    Hello everyone,

    This is my first post (I am sorry, but unfortunately, I do not have enough time on my hands to post a "Hi, I'm new here!" type of post!) and I am in the process of upgrading my camera from a E-30 to an OM-D E-M5.

    I have both lenses mentionned in the subject and I'm wondering if there is any significant advantage in keeping both. Which is better? I also own a E-PL3 (from which I got the 17mm from) adn I'm planning on upgrading to a E-PM2, E-PL5 or E-P5 for my wife in the next 6 months. Should I keep both or just keep the 17mm m4/3 or the 25mm 4/3?

    I also own the following lenses; Zuiko 75-300mm, Zuiko 35mm macro, m.Zuiko 14-42mm, m.Zuiko 40-150mm and (soon) the m.Zuiko 12-50mm. I also own a m4/3 to 4/3 adapter.

    I'm guessing that the 17mm being native m4/3 would be the keeper, but I can't help but wonder if the 25mm could have some use in my bag.

    I usually shoot for fun, including outdoor pics, birds family, small detailled objects (hence the 35mm macro and family stuff.

    Thanks in advance for your answers,

  2. verbatimium

    verbatimium Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 17, 2013
    Toronto, Ontario
    If you feel that you will be heavily using your Zuiko lenses from from your E-30, then you should really be considering an upgrade to the EM1 and not the EM5. The EM1 will be able to properly autofocus those lenses, while the EM5 most likely will have trouble (AF will be slow and lots of misfocus)
  3. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    I've used both lenses at the same time on one woodland trip.
    The 17mmF2.8 on its trusty e-P1
    a borrowed 25mmF2.8 on the old E-1

    honestly the 25mm didn't impress me, my 17mm has more "pop" and a "nicer" field of view.
    I did not buy a 25mmF2.8 even at a good price ...
  4. LeeOsenton

    LeeOsenton Mu-43 Button Clicker

    Jun 25, 2010
    Hayes, Virginia, U.S.A.
    Lee Osenton
    I have owned both in the past and found them to very similar. The strong point for both lenses is their physical size and having to use an adapter takes away from the 25mm. There are alternatives for both lenses that are better, but size and / or cost are greater.

    Pick a target, set up a tripod, and shoot a few tests. Your results will be unique to you when you consider lens variances and shooting preferences. Take each one on a short "one lens - one camera" outing to see which you prefer. Everything you read online is slanted somewhat by individual preference, don't let that supersede your preference.

    I long ago sold my copies, but coincidentally just bought another 17mm f/2.8 in like new condition because $120 pancake lenses are awesome. There is much good about both of these lenses (for what they are). Neither lens will bring any great sum on the open market, so if you will use them then you should keep them. I have lost more than I want to think about selling gear and then re-buying it later because the grass was greener on the other side,

  5. johnybgood18

    johnybgood18 New to Mu-43

    Dec 12, 2013
    Val-des-Monts, Quebec
    Thanks a bunch for your input everyone. I think the biggest minus for me anyway, is the loss of the camera small print. I will sell the lens as I don't think I'll ever go back to 4/3, especially if I'm getting the E-M5.

    For the record, the E-M1 is out of my price range as I can get an E-M5 kit for 1000$ with the 12-50 lens and the E-M1 is 400$ more, body only!

    Again, thank you for your inputs,