Presently I have the Olympus 17mm f2.8 native mu 4/3 lens and I'm wondering if I would be happy with both the Olympus & the Panasonic pancakes. Does anyone have both of these lenses? I am pleased with the performance of the Olympus; but I would like to see if there is a big difference in field of view between the two... If anyone out there could show me a couple of shots from both lenses taken from the same point of view, it might help me decide... Thanks! Remnant
remnant, have you looked at the image threads dedicated to both? Check this out: Native Lens Sample Image Archive - Micro Four Thirds User Forum it is a sub forum of the Native Lenses forum. I can't help you with your question since I, unfortunately, never had the 17mm. Perhaps someone else can and will later on.
I have both and use both but unfortunately not at the same time. The 17 is a wonderful lens, sharp, contrasty and a perfect FOV. The 20 is a Stellar lens. That's why I have both. Go to my galleries and check the exif data. There are many images from both lenses.
I have them both too. No better or worse here. I find I use the 17 more because I shoot more often in good light than poor light and I find I prefer the wider FOV. But I shoot a lot with the 20 in any sort of low light situation, indoors, evenings, etc. I think some folks feel the need to stage a battle of the pancakes, but imho, that just results in getting a lot of syrup all over everything. Blueberry, peanut butter, its ALL good and if you're lucky enough to own both, you'll probably like them both in the appropriate settings and not set up any sort of competition between them. I guess it comes down to if you don't like shooting with primes, but just want something for low light, the 20 is better. But if you do like shooting with primes, there's plenty of room in any camera bag I've ever seen for both of 'em. -Ray
Thanks BBW, I have. Guess I'm trying to decide whether it makes sense to have both- I do tend to like a wider angle over a more normal perspective, but I wonder if the wider aperture makes sense as well (I dread using flash) when I'm in a low light situation...
Thanks for your reply, Streetshooter! I've seen your work and it's quite good. I just may bite the bullet and get the 20mm as well- for those low-light situations (I'm not fond of flash)...
Hold out for another month or two until the next Panasonic m43 pancake launches. According to the roadmap, it's a 14mm f/2.5 (I think), which would be both wider and a third stop brighter than your 17mm. Rumour has it that Oly might also launch a 12mm pancake.
Thank you for responding Ray. Yeah I'm not into lens competition either, and except in tourist-y situations, I much prefer primes ( I have all the Pentax DA LTDs and I wouldn't get rid of any one of them!) when I'm doing photos for my own art... I'll probably go for it! The worse thing that could happen is that I end up selling one or the other!
To add a little to the above I have both and they are both good - the 17 is cheaper (and small) - making the EP into a pocketable cam - just about) - the 20mm (is bigger) gets rave reviews, (justifiable) - (but) and is (probably) the one to get first - it is great in low light (and also good throughout the range). - in cam IS on the Oly adds to the use of the 20mm - (and f1.7) If you are on a budget 17mm can be picked up very cheaply
I believe it stands for Lens Buying Addiction! When I was starting out in photography I had to be happy with my ol' Praktica and a 50mm f1.8, next came the Pentax ME Super and the M lenses: 28mm, 50mm & 135mm and then.... well, you get the idea!
Thanks Bill. I do have the 17mm already, but was just wondering if it made sense to have both... I'll let you know if it does; today, I just bought one from a MU 4/3s member.... Remnant
I plan on buying two wide primes after Photokina - I prefer them over wide zooms. I am leaning toward the 20/1.7 and planned 14/2.5, but if Olympus comes out with a a nice 12mm then the 17/2.8 and 12 could make a nice pair as well.
I have the 17mm prime, and I had bought the 20mm prime at one point in time too. I ended up selling the 20mm prime because there was not a big enough difference. It was more worth my while to spend the $400 (or what ever) on something more different (like say a 9mm or 50mm). The image quality is "better" on the 20mm but it's not that big of a difference to make me pick one lens over the other. The deciding factor on picking lenses would be the 1.7 or 2.8 aperature. I ended up keeping the 17mm because it was cheaper and smaller.
You must've been really lucky to get most of your money back on the 20mm. If I was in your situation, with both lenses already in my possession, I could never let go of the "better" lens, even if the difference is minor. I will have to say though that the lens most often used on my Pen is the Zuiko 25mm f/2.8 pancake (the Four-Thirds one). I'm perfectly pleased with it.
I only lost about $10 reselling the lens because it was back when the lens was still quite high priced. (maybe it still is). As for the "better" lens, I didn't let go of the "better" lens. The better lens for me is the physically smaller one, the one with a slightly wider FOV which I wanted, it just happens to be cheaper one and faster focusing one too. :smile:
Yes, many user reports say that the 17mm is faster focusing than the 20mm, given the same camera is used for both.
