1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Sell Olympus 17mm/1.8 and 12-50mm for 12-40mm/2.8?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by RobDMB, Oct 2, 2013.

  1. RobDMB

    RobDMB Mu-43 Regular

    48
    May 12, 2013
    I have a EP5 with the 17mm/1.8 kit lens and the 12-50mm zoom. I find that generally I like using the zoom but find that I do use the 17mm in lower light. With the new 12-40/2.8 coming out I am wondering if it would be worthwhile for me to sell both lenses and upgrade to the 12-40mm. I know the 12-50mm would be easily be replaced, but would I miss the 17/1.8 - versus the 2.8 aperture on the 12-40? Any opinions are appreciated. Thanks.
     
  2. daum

    daum Mu-43 Veteran

    340
    Aug 26, 2011
    if you likes zooms more, sell it. Me personally, I don't want to make my camera any bigger so i'd keep the 17 and it's faster.
     
  3. homerusan

    homerusan Mu-43 Regular

    130
    Dec 25, 2012
    izmir, TURKEY
    its up to you. i prefer to get most with less equipment. and also its easy to carry.
    i can sell all my lenses for 12-40mm
    and 2.8 is fine most situations i think
     
  4. hrsy1234

    hrsy1234 Mu-43 Regular

    72
    Mar 29, 2013
    East London
    1.8 to 2.8 is a massive difference in usability when low light/available light photography is brought into play. I'd stick with the 17mm, but I prefer primes and to move with my feet.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    I would...I generally don't like FL overlaps in my kit.

    Also, sure...you lose a stop and a third of light at 17mm. But you gain two-thirds of a stop to over *TWO* stops everywhere else in the zoom range. That's massive.
     
  6. hazwing

    hazwing Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 25, 2012
    Australia
    do you shoot a lot of low light with the 17mm, and find your often at f1.8 ISO 3200 or above? If so I'd stick to your current set up. If not, get the the 12-40.
     
  7. Replytoken

    Replytoken Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 7, 2012
    Puget Sound
    Ken
    f/2.8 to f/1.8 is a one and one-third stop difference. If this difference important to you?

    --Ken
     
  8. tdekany

    tdekany Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 8, 2011
    Oregon
    If I tried to zoom with my feet, I'd have fallen off cliffs a long time ago. I say get the zoom. :tongue:
     
  9. BAXTING

    BAXTING Mu-43 Top Veteran

    806
    Aug 5, 2012
    Los Angeles SFV, CA
    Bradley
    You need both!
     
  10. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    Very true...I love my primes, but I value my zooms as well. Zooms can give you a different perspective (ie: something shot from close at 9mm will look different from the same thing shot from 5x as far at 45mm), and they help you work around physical obstacles (lack of space, distracting stuff behind/in front of your subject, etc).
     
  11. bigal1000

    bigal1000 Mu-43 Veteran

    337
    Sep 10, 2010
    New Hampshire
  12. sagar

    sagar Mu-43 Regular

    28
    Jun 7, 2012
    If you can afford both, I would suggest to keep 17mm/1.8 apart from being 1.8 it does make overall camera very compact compared to 12-40
     
  13. mister_roboto

    mister_roboto Mu-43 Top Veteran

    637
    Jun 14, 2011
    Seattle, WA, USA
    Dennis
    That's basically what I did with the 12-35. I really liked the 17mm and never thought I'd end up selling it ever- but a fast zoom covering wide to slightly longer than normal is pretty nice for less lens swapping. The weather sealing also is a reason why I sold my 12-50 as well since it was redundant.
     
  14. tdekany

    tdekany Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 8, 2011
    Oregon
    You are right and of course our recommendations are more miss then hit because it really depends on what one shoots. I do landscape and for me a zoom makes more sense.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. zensu

    zensu An Old Fool

    Aug 8, 2012
    Southeastern USA
    Bobby
    I thought about selling my PL 25mm f1.4 but it's such a fantastic lens I don't want to give it up, so I've decided to wait until I can save enough for the 12-40 zoom and after shooting with both for awhile, decide then. I wouldn't be surprised if I kept both.:2thumbs:
     
  16. Swandy

    Swandy Mu-43 Veteran

    362
    Dec 15, 2009
    What is your definition of "massive" - we are talking a bit over 1 stop. Not what I would consider a "massive difference" considering how good today's sensors are.
     
  17. Swandy

    Swandy Mu-43 Veteran

    362
    Dec 15, 2009
    I did exactly that - sold the 12-50 and 17mm 1.8 and pre-ordered the 12-40. I did keep the Pana 14mm 2.5 for those times I want something smaller (I have the EP5) for the time being. Also still have the 14-42IIR - but might sell both the 14mm and the 14-42 if the rumored Panasonic 12-35 small lens has good quality and a reasonable price.
     
  18. hazwing

    hazwing Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 25, 2012
    Australia
    Do you mean the new rumoured 12-32 pancake zoom? The 12-35 is pretty big (well comparable to the oly 12-40)

    I feel the difference between ISO1600->3200 and 3200->6400 very significant differences.