'ello I'm battling myself - 35mm or 50mm eqv. I've had both before, 23mm on my Fuji X100s and 35mm on my D7000 - roughly the eqv. mentioned before. That's not the question here, only I can decide that - need to look though my backcatalog and see what I favor most. Anywho, while the 17mm gets trashed and loved, the 25mm gets mostly love. And it includes a hood. And it's cheaper. And I get more DOF and less perspective distortion. So what I'm getting at is.... is it worth getting the 25mm for the opticals alone or is the 17mm plenty good? I'm a pixel peeper from hell and I'm really afraid that with the bad reviews I'll be let down. I'm having trouble finding raw sample files from the 17mm. What does a poor guy do?
Get the PL25 1.4 and call it a day. :smile: Seriously different FOV questions are hard to answer and there are so many good lenses for m43 around these FLs.
Shoot, I forgot to mention that.. I need the MSC engine from Oly due to video shooting. Good suggestion otherwise Yeah it's tough. I mean, if they were identical optical/price wise, I think I'd jump on the 17mm due to FL. I think I do tend to favor that FL a bit more. But there are also times where I favor the 50mm eqv. And I know I on each shot favor the best IQ. Another boone from the O17 is the manual focus clutch and scale - so nice. I really loved my D7000 with 35mm on it - shot an entire London trip with it. But I also loved the 23mm on the Fuji - perfect indoors for my toddler. Anywho, FL wise I'll decide some time. I'm just very afraid of the possible let down on the O17. I found a few samples in the meantime, and frankly I'm not impressed :-( I need to search more to find more of them.
I've got both. I really like both. The reviews talk about differences in image quality but I get images I'm very happy with from both and whatever differences there are in image quality don't matter to me. The 1.8/17 spent a lot of time on my camera as my "standard" lens until I got the 1.8/25. I've had the PL 1.4/25 for a couple of years and liked it but never quite come to grips with its colour rendition which I find a little cold compared to what my Oly lenses deliver and the 1.8/17 gives me the same kind of colour that my other Oly lenses do. I got the Oly 1.8/25 to see if it would give me a similar result and it does, and it's pretty much lived on the camera in the few months I've had it. So my take on choosing between these 2 Olympus lenses is simple: forget about test reports and what people say about sharpness. Both are more than good enough. Pick on field of view and how that suits what you're shooting and how you want to shoot it.
I guess you're right, David. I need to make my desicion based on the FL (and other factors, like eg. the manual cluth) and pick what I need and then forget about if the former is sharper than the latter. O25: Sharper, cheaper, bayonet hood, less perspective distortion, more shallow DOF. O17: Sharp enough, not much more expensive, no hood (and a darn expensive one in the catalog..), great FL for street, manual clutch with scale - great for street. So which one will it be? I have no clue It's bedtime now here, so I think I'll use the weekend to look back on my images and see what FL I favor most and pick from that. I will have to say though, should I pick this moment, I'd go with the O25. The saved expense will get an upgrade of Lightroom, I never use MF with automated lenses, I do a lot of portraiture, especially of my toddler which the O25 will be better for and I like the hood so I can just leave my gear cap-less in the bag ready to shoot. And I've proven that I can use 50mm eqv. for street, hence the aformentioned London-trip, so it's not that I _need_ 35mm eqv, but I just love it. But do I love it enough to pick the O17? Geez... why all the options?
Im not sure if u got any longer fast lens but if this is your main lens to go with then I would choose the 25. It's nice to have the opportunity to create thinner dof... And I don't know about you but I used to end up cropping a lot of my photos anyway so the tighter fov from 25 could be ideal for some...
I have the 14-42 EZ kit and an adapted 105mm Nikkor for makro. The newcoming addition to my bag will be my main lens for all my shooting. The zoom is then for vacations where it's convenient with a zoom for the landscapes and such without having to switch lenses all the time. Also it's smaller, lighter, yadi yadi, every gram counts You mention something I need to take into account - I might have a lot of 35 eqv. shots, but how are they cropped? Good tip!
Hi, the JJC hood for the O17 is metal, well made, and is much cheaper (I paid $23 last month but now it's $18)... http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BMBCJP0/ Some JJC hoods are plastic, fyi, such as the one for the O45. Barry
I'll keep the JCC in mind. There'll be two thursdays in a single week before I pay Oly's price for the OEM hood. Thanks.
If you are a self described "pixel peeper from hell" you might be disappointed in the 17. Although it renders nicely, DxO shows it as one of the softest primes.
I am... It's sad. I'd much rather pay more attention to composition and lines, than perfect pixels. I'm getting there
Are you talking about the original 17mm F/2.8 pancake or the much newer 17mm F/1.8? The pancake is considerably softer but does render nicely. The newer F/1.8 is a very different lens and I don't think most people would call it "soft".
Get them both on the used market; run them back-to-back for a few months and then sell the one you don't want. You'll lose almost nothing in the deal.
As fransglas mentioned in his reply, if this is going to be your primary lens, then I'd go with the 25 for its ability to give you thin DOF. I have both the 17 and 25, but I'm in the process of selling the 25 because I prefer the 17/45 combo more than the 14/25/45 combo I was running. I love the 17's FOV, but I don't think I'd be happy with it by itself if I didn't also have the 45 for when I want subject isolation. The 25 is versatile enough to handle a lot of different situations with its FOV, speed, and DOF.
For bokeh and sharpness is almost similar with 45mm f1.8. But 17mm is also sharp but not as sharp as 45mm.
I'm talking about the 17 1.8. DxO shows the 17 1.8 as being soft for a prime. Many people feels its sharpness is sufficient, and it renders great, but I wouldn't recommend it to a self described "pixel peeper from hell".
I can be a bit of a pixel peeper as well. they're both fantastic, get the focal length you prefer. [buy from a retailer with easy returns/exchanges, I hear of softer 17s, but mine was very sharp]
If you're looking at one fast prime to complement the kit zoom, I think it has to come down to deciding which focal length you prefer since they're both excellent lenses. I imagine you'd be quite happy with the zoom and 25, although the 17/45 two prime setup seems popular as well. I can't speak to the O25, but I've been pleasantly surprised by how the O17/1.8 renders and it seems plenty sharp. If you do go with the O17, this metal hood [ebay link] is the same diameter as the lens body - I've used it on the P14, P20, and now O17...
Buy the focal length that you prefer shooting with. In the end, you'll probably end up with both of them anyways.
Thanks so much for the responses. I'm there now that I'm reviewing my previously shots with the 35 and 50 eqvivalents and then I think I'll choose the one which FL matches my style. No matter what I get I know it'll be sharper with way better micro/macro contrast than my EZ-zoom.
