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

    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

    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