Need some advice (validation)

dixeyk

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,475
I am a big fan of manual focus legacy lenses and up until recently it was pretty much all I used on my EPL-1 (in fact it was the reason I bought an EPL-1 in the first place). Now I am faced with some vision issues that are making me realize that it would be good to have at least a few AF lenses to play with so I have been selling off most of my keeper MF lenses and keeping only the a few that I cannot bear to part with (a couple of Pen-F lenses, Super Taks and a Helios 44).

I have an Olympus 17/2.8 that I really like and I picked up a 14-42 kit lens that is proving to be more fun that I would have guessed.So here is my question...the sale of my lenses means I can probably pick up a Panny 20/1.7 if I'm patient (and quick on the draw). That said, I have the 17 and I have never felt that I NEEDED a 20/1.7. I know its supposedly an outstanding lens but I like the 17. I even started a thread talking wondering why the little Oly lens wasn't more well liked.

My other option would be picking up an m.zuiko 40-150. Now, this is another lens that does to seem to be particularly popular but as I recall the same lens on 4/3 (I took one to Spain and Portugal last Summer) was pretty nice to have. Finally (again from my Spain trip) I used an Olympus 4/3 14-54 for most of my shots and I have to say I think that is one hell of a lens. It's the ONLY thing I miss about my E520 compared to my EPL-1. I suppose I could adapt one to my EPL-1 but that doesn't seem like it would work that well.

Any suggestions?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot...what I want is to have nice little flexible kit for travel. I'm going for my doctorate and aside from being a penniless researcher I expect I'll be doing a fair bit of traveling. Portable is going to be very important. Good image quality is important but I'm happy with the 14-42 and the 17 so the bar isn't set all that high.
 

Streetshooter

Administrator Emeritus
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
5,138
Location
Phila, Pa USA
I'm a different kinda guy... I use the 20 & 14 and that's all I need. Talk about portable....
I would trade the 14-42 and get the 14-45 Panny...that's real good lens. I know the focal lengths are about equal but the IQ is not.
 

OPSSam

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
134
Location
NC
Most side with the Panasonic because of the F1.7. If the lowest F number is king, that is the main reason to go that direction. So if you don't 'need' it then there would be no reason to buy it.

Now, I am curious if your 14-54mm lens is the mark II version. If it is, that lens was specifically optimized for CDAF (contrast detect auto focus) which is a technical way of saying it focuses faster in live view than the 12-60mm can. The non-mark II version would focus, just not as fast. But in the end it will give you a bit more of an aperture than the kit.

In the end though, an autofocusing telephoto will be a good invesment if you find yourself wanting more flexibility. The 14-54 mark II adapted would be good if you want to sell the kit lens to make up for the cost of the adapter; but let's be honest, the 14-54 is not very compact.
 

dixeyk

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,475
Most side with the Panasonic because of the F1.7. If the lowest F number is king, that is the main reason to go that direction. So if you don't 'need' it then there would be no reason to buy it.

Now, I am curious if your 14-54mm lens is the mark II version. If it is, that lens was specifically optimized for CDAF (contrast detect auto focus) which is a technical way of saying it focuses faster in live view than the 12-60mm can. The non-mark II version would focus, just not as fast. But in the end it will give you a bit more of an aperture than the kit.

In the end though, an autofocusing telephoto will be a good invesment if you find yourself wanting more flexibility. The 14-54 mark II adapted would be good if you want to sell the kit lens to make up for the cost of the adapter; but let's be honest, the 14-54 is not very compact.

The 14-54 is long gone. That said, it was a mark I. Also, that was not a small lens. I doubt it would be a good fit on the EPL-1. As far as the Panasonic 20...I have yet to find a situation where the 17 didn't serve my needs (not that it will always be the case, but so far it has).
 

dixeyk

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,475
I'm a different kinda guy... I use the 20 & 14 and that's all I need. Talk about portable....
I would trade the 14-42 and get the 14-45 Panny...that's real good lens. I know the focal lengths are about equal but the IQ is not.
That IS portable. I had thought about getting a 14-45. I wish I had thought of it BEFORE I bought the 14-42. That said, the 14-45 is not exactly cheap and for that money I think I'd rather spend just a bit more and get the 20 (if I manage to snag one).
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
454
Location
~1hr north of Portland OR
Real Name
Jim R
I've heard the 17 is faster to focus, so if speed (focus-shoot) is more important than speed (light-grasp) the 17mm is great. For myself, I prefer the wider view of the 17 more than the 20.
I'd gladly take one :smile: but one one is swapping for my "not-particularly-popular" micro 40-150.
 

dixeyk

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,475
I've heard the 17 is faster to focus, so if speed (focus-shoot) is more important than speed (light-grasp) the 17mm is great. For myself, I prefer the wider view of the 17 more than the 20.
I'd gladly take one :smile: but one one is swapping for my "not-particularly-popular" micro 40-150.
Funny...I think I'll keep my 17. I do like my 17 quite a lot and as I said earlier I really haven't ever felt that it was too slow. I don't particularly like to manual focus it but that's more because I don't care for that focus by wire feel.
 

s0nus

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
424
Location
Chicago
I have the Olympus 14-42mm kit, the adapted 4/3 40-150mm you're considering, as well as the 20mm you're also considering.

Considering (my high school English teach would have a s**t fit) you already have the Oly 17mm, the 20mm seems redundant. I went with the 20mm due to it being brighter, but I have read very good reviews about the 17mm.

I bought the 40-150mm to have some reach that I was missing with the kit lens. I traveled with both the kit and 40-150mm recently, and was able to pack it into a pretty tight package. However, I was getting a bit annoyed with the process of changing lenses (this is my first interchangeable lens camera), especially when shooting in urban environments and architecture, where I desire both wide and long tele perspectives. I vowed to sell the 2 to get the 15-150mm, but I've since calmed down, busied by my newer 20mm.
 

dixeyk

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,475
Matter solved

I've decided to go with the 20/1.7. I like fast lenses and despite not feeling particularly constrained by the 17/2.8 I think I'll get more use from the 20 than anything else. If it turns out I don't like it, I'm SURE there will be someone that will be willing to take it off my hands.
 
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