IQ-wise I suppose its a no-brainer. My most critical usage is portraits of family/friends around the house. But I need some encouragement to pulll the trigger on spending the $$$. I'm certainly a beginner and cautious at spending money on a nice to have item. Also, as a casual user would I be missing out on the zoom? Do you think cropping from the 17mm photo is as good as what the kit zoom would produce? Thanks in advance!
Crop wise you will lose details, but at 17 if you like feel comfortable with that focal length you can get a lot out of it, but the 14-42 lenses don't go for much have you considered keeping both? I only got rid of my Panasonic 14-42 when I got the tiny 12-32 and a 14-140mm, its useful to have a zoom but primes are great for some.
As someone, who barely change 25mm prime, I would still recomend not to sell it, sometimes lens with zoom is just what you need
As I was updating my kit, I sold my old 14-42 (the original that came with the EPL1) and got a 14mm pany and 30mm siggy, but I also bought a 14-42 II R from cameta, a very useful tool for $100 with warranty. Here they go often for $70-$80 and are still a bargain. In reasonable light, I find that the 14-42 and 40-150 are the perfect travel kit. You didn't say what body you are using, but the 16 mp sensors & the high ISO gives new life to kit lenses. And a big plus for me is how fast and silent it focuses for video. Worth keeping I say.
My 2 cents: I have both lenses and I use the 17/1.8 about 90% of the time. It's a little gem. But I have not sold the 14-42 because a few times, I did need the extra reach. I would keep both.
No. You should not sell the 14-42 zoom, as you will be lucky to net $75 from the sale and it is worth that. I think the 17mm f1.8 is overpriced at $499 in the USA, If you are in the USA, watch the getolympus and cameta factory refurbished websites for the refurbished 17mm to show up. At $349, it's more fairly priced.
Like HarryS pointed out the sale with not get you worthwhile money. Save a little longer, then buy it. You definitely will have $75 in value of the shots you would otherwise miss without that range. If you had another lens already, like a 45 or 30 I would say go for it. Just my 2 cents though.
I agree. I sold mine and regret it. Not having it as an option, if only rarely, wasn't worth what I got for it.
If you think the 17/f1.8 is pricey (which I certainly think it is), you might want to have a look at the 25/f1.8. I've always wanted a 17/f1.8 but couldn't justify the high rrp charged for it. So I ended up getting a 25/f1.8 instead and glad that I did. Sure the focal length is different but I get used to it pretty quick. Although I haven't tried the 17 but from what I've seen, the 25 is on par, if not better than the 17.
Another option is the 20mm f/1.7, pretty cheap on the used market. Definitely don't sell the kits lens, you are not going to get much for it.
I remember when I bought my 20mm (first lens I bought/tried after the kit lens that came with the E-P1) It blew my socks off and suddenly made me realise what a great little camera my E-P1 could be. The IQ and Low light Abilities of a prime like this blow the kit lens away (by low light I mean most indoor shots as well as true "low light") If you really can't afford to keep the kit lens (I would if I could) then sell it and get the prime lens. It will show you what your camera can really do.
Have you shot with primes before, and if so did you like it? Some people just do not bond with primes. I like them a lot and my m43 camera has the 17/1.8 on it most of the time. My EM5 came with a 12-50/3.5-6.3 and I only keep it because it is weather sealed for those times when I need it. My core kit is the 17/1.8 and the 45/1.8, then I have the 40-150/4-5.6 because it was inexpensive and shoots better than the price would lead you to believe. I hardly use it though as I can walk to most of what I want to shoot. Really, the decision comes down to what you prefer as your shooting platform.
Ditto Andrew. I too am keeping my 14-42 IIR and 40-150 kit zooms for the odd times when I need the flexibility. They are cheap and cheerful and definitely not bad overall. Unless you can spring for a P12-35 or O12-40 zoom, any Oly or Pany 14-42 kit zoom is a keeper for that it's not worth much selling it. Most MFT prime lenses show you what a MFT body is capable of and what MFT size advantage is all about. If you're not sure whether prime lens is for you, tape your kit zoom on 17mm or 25mm and shoot for a few days.
Thanks for all the responses! Desiring better indoor results was the main reason I wanted a prime lens. Especially after I found that I mostly keep it at the same focal length - 14mm. But the consensus seems to be to keep the zooms since its worth <$100. Also I went ahead and ordered a brand new Olympus 1.8/45mm after a lot of reading on how great this lens is; bang for the buck,etc. Probably an impulse purchase on my end. I was trying to keep my zoom at 45mm and found it challenging indoors. Buyers remorse is already setting in and don't even have it yet!!!
The 45/1.8 is certainly a great lens, but you have to consider where you'll use it. As you yourself mentioned it's not a great focal length for indoor people/group shots. Something like the 17 or 25 might serve as a better complement to the 14-42. That said, if you can swing it why not start using the 45 once it arrives and see where it IS useful, in the meantime start saving up for a while and keep your eye out for a used copy of the 17? The kit zoom with either 17/25 and 45 would be a very nice set that can handle a LOT of photographic opportunities.
