Need some advice (validation)

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by dixeyk, Feb 15, 2011.

  1. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    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.
  2. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus

    Dec 15, 2009
    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.
  3. OPSSam

    OPSSam Mu-43 Regular

    Dec 18, 2010
    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.
  4. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010

    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).
  5. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    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).
  6. jimr.pdx

    jimr.pdx Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 5, 2010
    near Longview ~1hr from PDX
    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.
  7. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    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.
  8. s0nus

    s0nus Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 13, 2010
    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.
  9. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    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.