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

New Olympus 17.5 1.8 or M.Zuiko 9-18

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by Naftade, Dec 6, 2012.

  1. Naftade

    Naftade Mu-43 Regular

    48
    Nov 23, 2012
    Munich, Germany
    Hi everybody,

    Could you help me out with some advice here? I know the two lenses do not compare as apples to apples but on the other hand:

    both are small, both are light, both are about the same price, both cover the traditional 35mm FOV.

    So I ask myself why not compare them.
    I'd like to to have a small and light lens that covers the 35mm FOV. Since in MU43 the DoF isn't that shallow at 17.5mm no matter how fast the lens, I'm asking myself wether or not the zoom could be an alternative for the 17.5 prime. Of course I would not get the same speed with the zoom. But other than that? Do you think the iq of the prime will be that far superior?

    After all: Apart from the 35mm thing the zoom would widen my possibilities quite a bit.
    What do you think?
     
  2. elavon

    elavon Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 1, 2012
    Tel Aviv Israel
    Ehud
    It depends on what you want to shot.
    For indoor low light the prime is better. For anything else the zoom is probably more useful. For the prime there are two other alternatives the P20 and the P14.
    The P14 that is very cheap can complete the zoom for indoor.
     
  3. LeeOsenton

    LeeOsenton Mu-43 Button Clicker

    297
    Jun 25, 2010
    Hayes, Virginia, U.S.A.
    Lee Osenton
    I have the 17mm f/2.8 and the 9-18mm. I carry both along with the 45mm. I love the 9-18 and use it most of the time, but at 17mm the max aperture is f/5.6. Not the best for indoor or low light photos without a tripod. I have not decided whether I will bother with getting the newer 17mm, it is a big purchase for a lens I don't use often.

    Lee
     
  4. Naftade

    Naftade Mu-43 Regular

    48
    Nov 23, 2012
    Munich, Germany
    Thanks you so far.
    Yes, shooting indoors with an aperture of 5.6 might not be a good idea. However, I can use either the kit lens or the Panasonic 25 1.4 for that purpose. While the 25 might be a little tight for group-shots indoors the kit lens offers only f3.5 at 12mm, but that could be sufficient for me I guess. I used to own the Sony 16mm 2.8 wich is not that much faster and it worked out quite fine.

    But may I ask you, Lee, about your experiences with the 9-18? It the sharpness more like "good enough" or "really good" in your opinion?
     
  5. LeeOsenton

    LeeOsenton Mu-43 Button Clicker

    297
    Jun 25, 2010
    Hayes, Virginia, U.S.A.
    Lee Osenton
    I love the lens. It is a very compact wide angle and not optically perfect, although color and contrast is excellent to me. the E-PL5 allows use of higher ISOs without excessive noise so the aperture of the lens is not much of an issue.

    I stopped shooting with my other lenses after getting the 9-18 and subsequently sold them to make my kit as small as possible. My bag is smaller than a child's lunchbox and contains 2 batteries, E-PL5, VF-2, 9-18, 17, 45, FL300R, and a Raynox 150 close up for use on the 45.

    I feel like I can work effectively in most situations without excessive lens swapping. I don't have a long lens and not sure I care (I have a 40-150 on the buy-sell forum). It took me years to try a wide angle and I found a perfect fit in the m.Zuiko 9-18.

    Lee
     
  6. Naftade

    Naftade Mu-43 Regular

    48
    Nov 23, 2012
    Munich, Germany
    cool. That sounds good to me.
    Thank you!
     
  7. vinay

    vinay Mu-43 Regular

    137
    Mar 18, 2012
    Toronto
    If you're going to be in good light (i.e. outdoors) most of the time, the 9-18 would do well

    Otherwise, the primes have their place.
     
  8. yekimrd

    yekimrd Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 14, 2012
    Cincinnati, OH
    Mikey
    For landscape and archi shots, the 9-18 will do you well. For group shots indoors, the 17mm will add a pleasing bokeh to your background. So I would still get both.