Need some ideas

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by dixeyk, Apr 27, 2011.

  1. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I have a newly acquired G2 (very happy with it) and in trade I am getting an Olympus E-P1. I have over the past years had a nimber of lenses and settled on the Panasonic 20 and 14-45 as my kit. My intent was not to have a second body and if I did I thought it might be a GF1. I have no issues with the E-P1. In fact I had an E-PL1 for most of this past year and liked it quite a bit. I ma excited to get the E-P1. I figured I'd use it as a walk around lens set to AF and that would be that.

    I had originally thought I'd pick up an Olympus 17 and call it good. Now I'm starting to think I might be better off with the Panasonic 14 instead and that way it could make it's way to the G2 as well. I don't see much use in having the 17 and the 40 as they are so similar in FOV and the 20 is a much nicer lens. Despite not being that fast the 14 however opens up a whole slew of possibilities.

    Any advice?
     
  2. turbodieselvw

    turbodieselvw Mu-43 Veteran

    321
    Jun 29, 2010
    Ottawa
    I'd get the 14 and stick it on the EP1.
     
  3. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    Yep, I'm leaning in that direction. I think I'm hesitating because the 17 can be gotten for half the price of the 14. The 14 is a better lens but I'm struggling with the price difference. Then again I struggled with the price of the 20 before I got it and now I wouldn't give it up for anything.

    hmmm...
     
  4. Which focal length do you like more, or would you use more? I personally don't care for wider prime lenses, but that's just me. I find the 17 to be an ideal wide/normal lens.
     
  5. mauve

    mauve Mu-43 Top Veteran

    892
    Mar 9, 2010
    Paris, France
    I hesitated too and went for the 17 - now that I have it, I use it, I like the FOV, but otherwise this is a disappointing lens. AF is slow as molasse, CA is worse than can be described, and the image is generally soft except dead center (and even there, it's nothing to brag about). If you can afford the difference, I'm sure the 14 is a much better choice. I had several reasons besides price to take the 17 (mainly, I wanted to complete my e-p1 setup with the other 'original' lens), but I'm not happy with it. Sure, it takes images, and even some good images - but it needs a lot of PP pampering to achieve a somewhat pleasant result while the images created with the 20 just scream to be looked at even before any processing. Mixing images of both lens during a shooting afternoon on a card is sure to drawn enthusiasm when downloading the pics to the computer, so blatant is the difference of quality between both.

    Cheers,
     
  6. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I like both FOVs. I recently had an LX3 and liked the WA quite a lot. In fact, I shot it almost exclusively at WA. I also like that the 14 can close focus to around 7 inches (I think the 17 is around 10 inches). When I had the 17 I found it acceptably sharp but then again I had never used the 20. I suppose now I wouldn't be so charitable.

    The 17 as I recall was slow as all get out. The rumors of the speed of focusing on the 14 are MIGHTY tempting.
     
  7. turbodieselvw

    turbodieselvw Mu-43 Veteran

    321
    Jun 29, 2010
    Ottawa
    If you think the 14 is right for you then, in my opinion, it would be wiser to save up for it and get it a little later rather than getting something that you may eventually regret. It would cost you more to purchase the 17 then selling it at a loss in order to get the 14 at a later date.
     
  8. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    The 14-45 zoom is better image quality than either the 14 or 17 ...
     
  9. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    That's what I was wondering about...the 14-45 is a great little lens. I've been resisting that idea because I don't like to use a zoom on a body with no VF but I already have the 14-45. It could work. The 20 is almost permanently attached to the G2. It WOULD give the 14-45 a regular home.
     
  10. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    The problem with the 14 2.8 on the ep1 is that you will have allot more CA, as oly does not correct for that. And optically the 14 2.8 is not the greatest in the CA department.
     
  11. mauve

    mauve Mu-43 Top Veteran

    892
    Mar 9, 2010
    Paris, France
    The olympus 14-42 mkI set at 17 is at least as good as the 17, and just half a stop slower. The only meaningful difference is weight and handling. The 17 is much more satisfactory to use, and even to focus manually. It's the closest to a traditional MF lens you can find in :43: - by comparison, the focusing ring of the Pany 20 is too stiff.

    Cheers,
     
  12. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Or you could sell the 14-45, which would give you most of the money to buy a 14/2.5.
     
  13. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I think the 17 is out of the running. Now to decide weather the 14 is what I want or just throw the 14-45 on the E-P1 and call it a day.
     
  14. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    No can do...unlike you who bravely went all primes I like the 14-45 too much. besides I have already sold enough gear to get the 14 money wise...the question is whether or not I want to dump it into the 14. I'm frugal.
     
  15. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    Yep...I think the 14 is better suited to being on the G2 than the E-P1. Maybe troll around for a 14-42 mk II for the Olympus and reserve the 14 for use on the G2. If so, that would definitely require waiting a bit.
     
  16. turbodieselvw

    turbodieselvw Mu-43 Veteran

    321
    Jun 29, 2010
    Ottawa
    Since you already have it, why don't you try the 14-45 on the EP1 for now. If you find that it fits well then you can save your money and not get the 14. I have the 14-45 and like you, I like it too much to sell it.
     
  17. Mauve, I wonder if you have a less than stellar copy of the 17mm. I'm not going to claim that my copy is amazing but I find it to be a nice enough little lens.
     
  18. mauve

    mauve Mu-43 Top Veteran

    892
    Mar 9, 2010
    Paris, France
    Perhaps I had too high expectations from Olympus. The lens I have isn't unusable, and as far as I know, it performs as it should. It's just that all Olympus lenses I've had in the past were excellent performers, very sharp, very contrasty, and this one isn't. Not awful in isolation, but it doesn't bode well into a mix of pictures from various sources. As I said, optically, it's not very different from the kit zoom - it's not bad considering the zoom is quite good, but it's deceiving to see a prime not having a clear edge over a zoom !

    Cheers,
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. I think you make a good point that if you go back through the Pen F and OM lenses there was really not a bad (prime) lens amongst them and they were all built to a high standard of finish. The 17/2.8 definitely feels like it is built down to a price.
     
  20. mauve

    mauve Mu-43 Top Veteran

    892
    Mar 9, 2010
    Paris, France
    My reference point regarding this specific lens, or to put it better, the standard I expected it to reach, was the 35mm f/2.8 of the XA. considering the crop factor, and the targeted market segment, mutatis mutandis, it was the closest I could think of; but all things considered, Olympus wasn't even close in the end. The XA lens is a far better performer.

    Cheers,