1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Oly 17/2.8 vs Pan 14/2.5 on E-M5

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by demiro, Mar 22, 2012.

  1. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Nov 7, 2010
    Any reason to choose the 17/2.8 or the 14/2.5 for my future E-M5? I've owned the 17mm previously, and found it to be a solid if not spectacular lens, maybe a bit under-appreciated. All things being equal I'll go with the wider Panny; just looking for some opinions.

    Lens line up will be the 12-50; 45/1.8; 20/1.7 or 25/1.4; and the 17 or 14. If I go with the 20 I will go with the 14, but I am leaning hard toward the 25/1.4 at the moment. Any comments on those two would be appreciated as well!

  2. lowincash

    lowincash Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 6, 2012
    Los Angeles
    I thought about the 17mm lens since I love the 35mm equivalent focal length. However, for me, I want fast primes. But if I were to choose between the 17 and 14 I would get the 17 because I like that focal length =]

    I'm waiting to see how the Nokton 17.5mm 0.95 will perform once it's available =]
    • Like Like x 1
  3. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    The Panasonic 14 focuses faster and is quieter than the Olympus 17.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    Well if you prefer the 14mm focal length, then its a no brainer. If you'd preferred the 17mm focal length, I'd say there would be tradeoffs involved. The 17 is a slower lens both in terms of aperture and auto-focus and also is somewhat audible (but not loud) when focussing. The 14, is very fast and silent while focussing and is a bit faster in terms of aperture too. Neither lens is spectacular optically but both are solid and somewhat under-appreciated because of the 12mm and 20/25mm bling that has them surrounded. You won't go wrong with either, but if you prefer the wider 14mm field of view, there aren't really even any tradeoffs to consider.

    • Like Like x 1
  5. capodave

    capodave Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 4, 2010
    Southern Cal
    Any reason to get both?
    I have a 12 17 and 20, and have been "shopping" for the 14.
    Haven't convinced myself to go for it.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. RussellOlaguer

    RussellOlaguer Mu-43 Veteran

    Feb 12, 2012
    Paranaque, Philippines
    Russell Olaguer
    if you are not planning to buy the 12mm... i would say 14mm.
    17mm is close to 20mm/25mm which you are planning to buy.
    at least with 14mm you have a wide prime.

    you can always move forward. but sometimes in a tight space, you cannot move backward.
    of course if you have the money i would suggest 12mm.

    like you i have the 45mm and the 17mm (from kit).
    my dream lens line up so far is 12/25/45.
    but since i dont have enough money i think i can settle for 14/20/45 (i will sell my 17mm).
    • Like Like x 1
  7. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Nov 7, 2010
    Thanks everyone. Yeah, the 12 would be the way to go I suppose, but that wider FL is not my main concern (I'd prioritize it 25; 45; WA option). Tough for me to spend the money on the 12 given that.

    Ray's and dixeyk's comments make the 14 vs 17 an easy decision, which I am happy about.

    Russell, I may end up with that same set of primes, though the more I look at the 25 the more I like it.
  8. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    Depends on the shooter. I seem to live my life at the wide angles. I have the 12, 14, 17, and a 9-18 and a Rokinon/Samyang fisheye. I also have an X100 at the same field of view as the 17 and both a GXR and GRD3, both only at the same field of view as the 14. If I had to pick one focal length and never shoot anything else, it would be a 28mm equivalent (14mm in m43 terms). I just see very easily and naturally there. I have a 25 and 45 also, as well as a 14-150. I've had telephotos in the past but never ended up using them, so the long end of the 14-150 is more than enough and I don't even use it very much. And I tend to pull out the 25 and 45 for very specific types of uses and I love those lenses, but I never grab them as walk-around lenses. My default is always wide. I probably SHOULD have the 7-14 instead of or as well as the 9-18, but I haven't been able to go for the extra cost, size, and weight for that extra couple of mm, but I know they're significant.

    So, for ME, yeah, plenty of reason to have both / many / all possible wide angles. For most people, that would be insanity and wouldn't fit with their needs. To me, 12, 14, and 17 are all pretty discrete steps and I like using them all, as well as ultra wide.

    So, is there any reason to have both - I'd say its up to you! :biggrin:

    • Like Like x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.