1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Should i take 17mm f1.8 or 45mm f1.8? Need Advise

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by rezatravilla, Oct 3, 2013.

  1. rezatravilla

    rezatravilla Mu-43 Top Veteran

    529
    Aug 7, 2013
    Indonesia
    Reza Travilla
    Hi all,

    Lately i want to buy fixed lens for my lovely EM-5. I kinda confuse between 17mm f1.8 or 45mm f1.8.

    In term of sharpness and bokeh which one is better? i do love 17mm focal length but i heard it has weaknesses and not sharp compare to 45mm.
     
  2. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    What do you want to do with it?
     
  3. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    505
    Jul 2, 2010
    Arizona
    Both are nice lenses. What do you currently have? And what focal length are most of your images currently shot with?
     
  4. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    What's a better vehicle, a pickup truck or a Mustang? Two different products for two different purposes, and no one can answer this question but you. Both kind of do the same thing, but in very different ways. You aren't going to be using the 45mm as a general purpose lens, as it's a short telephoto.

    In terms of sharpness, the 17mm was a little bit of a letdown when it was released, although the focal length is a very nice classic field of view. Slightly wider than normal, without causing the distortion that you'd get from the perspective of other lenses. The bokeh of the 45mm is nicer, and is easier to see due to the shallower depth of field caused by a lens with over 2.5x greater focal length than the 17mm.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    Bingo...both lenses are great...buy whatever suits your needs, not whichever one edges the other out slightly on a test chart.

    Bokeh will be better on the 45...all things being equal, the longer FL always gives better bokeh...but...if it's not the right lens for you, then it doesn't matter. ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. BAXTING

    BAXTING Mu-43 Top Veteran

    806
    Aug 5, 2012
    Los Angeles SFV, CA
    Bradley
    If i could only have one FL between the two regardless of sharpness Id get the 17mm. Just seems so much more useful. Really depends what lenses you have already got as well and what you plan to shoot. Johnny5 need more info!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    Sheesh... the 17/1.8 and the 45/1.8 are dramatically different lenses. I can't see either being considered as even remote alternatives to the other.

    You apparently don't understand the most significant differences between these lenses, which is focal length.

    Choose the focal length that suits your purpose and go with whatever you have that satisfies that.

    The 17mm and 45mm focal lengths are no where near reasonable alternatives to each other. Sharpness and bokeh aren't even considerations in this comparison. Work on your understanding of focal length and then, your choice will become much clearer.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. monk3y

    monk3y Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 14, 2013
    in The Cloud...
    Steven
    Both lenses compliment each other and would be a great combo one for general use and one for portrait.

    Like Don said you can't really compare both lenses.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. rezatravilla

    rezatravilla Mu-43 Top Veteran

    529
    Aug 7, 2013
    Indonesia
    Reza Travilla
    Thanks all. Yes the dilemma also the focal length. I prefer 17mm since i want it for all purpose kind of shots. But what makes me doubt is the bokeh quality. The price also more expensive than the 45mm.

    With your help and advises now i can make up my mind and pursue the 17mm f1.8. For portrait i already have Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f2.8 Red T 12 blades. I know although it's not sharp as 45mm f1.8, it has it's own bokeh's character.
     
  10. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    the 17 can give you a shallow DOF/bokeh effect... but you do need to compose for it...get real close and have some depth to the shot.... which the wide angle makes possible, and you can get some nice results


    9218819359_f7683835be_b.
    P7050075 by kevinparis, on Flickr

    8491856250_54531b990b_b.
    P2200110 by kevinparis, on Flickr

    9880636875_5dff1b477b_b.
    P9220098 by kevinparis, on Flickr

    on the other hand, at 10 feet from your subject wide open at 1.8 and you have many feet of DOF and you get good sharp images

    9909788785_9ab3177583_b.
    P9240015 by kevinparis, on Flickr

    K
     
    • Like Like x 6
  11. BAXTING

    BAXTING Mu-43 Top Veteran

    806
    Aug 5, 2012
    Los Angeles SFV, CA
    Bradley
    With AF on, I'm really surprised how close the 17mm f/1.8 can focus. Doesn't work as well with manual though. Still pretty cool.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. zeropoint

    zeropoint Mu-43 Rookie

    18
    Jun 24, 2013
    Nagano, Japan
    Sean
    I bought the 45mm along with my EM-5 because I knew I was going to want to take some portraits at a friend's wedding. But I find that it's not really versatile for much else. I tend to do a lot of my shooting indoors in low light, and while the max aperture beats the kit lens under those conditions, the focal length is inconvenient (though it can inspire some creative compositions). I'm considering adding the 17mm because of that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    I beg to disagree! I've been finding it VERY versatile...for everything from street candids to landscapes to semi-macro shots! :)

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tamasv/9719414845/" title="EDITVOM0563 by Tamas V, on Flickr"> 9719414845_8a7a7fb328_b. "1024" height="694" alt="EDITVOM0563"></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tamasv/9558937447/" title="EDITVOM1086 by Tamas V, on Flickr"> 9558937447_fd31cc4125_b. "768" height="1024" alt="EDITVOM1086"></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tamasv/9538421670/" title="EDITVOM1909 by Tamas V, on Flickr"> 9538421670_8d842a958b_b. "1024" height="728" alt="EDITVOM1909"></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tamasv/9561305902/" title="EDITVOM0781 by Tamas V, on Flickr">"768" height="1024" alt="EDITVOM0781"></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tamasv/9298654105/" title="EDITVOM0052 by Tamas V, on Flickr"> 9298654105_b30f43dbc1_b. "1024" height="759" alt="EDITVOM0052"></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tamasv/9535222819/" title="EDITVOM2193 by Tamas V, on Flickr"> 9535222819_4f6ae2d343_b. "1024" height="757" alt="EDITVOM2193"></a>
     
  14. broody

    broody Mu-43 Veteran

    388
    Sep 8, 2013
    Indoors at close quarters is where the 45mm is weakest. You really have to get lucky as you have no freedom to compose with your feet. Even with the 19mm Sigma or my Nikon 35mm 1.8G I find myself wishing for a wider lens in such situations. With some room the longer focal lengths become something special, though.
     
  15. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    If you already have a Zeiss 50 f2.8, get an adapter for it and just start with the 17 f1.8 for now.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. broody

    broody Mu-43 Veteran

    388
    Sep 8, 2013
    Here are a couple taken with an adapted 58mm and manual focus. Had no trouble capturing the environment along with a bunch of people. I did step back quite a bit, though.

    cite37.

    cite38.
     

    Attached Files:

  17. bigal1000

    bigal1000 Mu-43 Veteran

    337
    Sep 10, 2010
    New Hampshire
    Just buy both of them.
     
  18. rezatravilla

    rezatravilla Mu-43 Top Veteran

    529
    Aug 7, 2013
    Indonesia
    Reza Travilla
    already done :biggrin:

    just waiting the adapter arrives though. Buy it on ebay:thumbup:
     
  19. bigboysdad

    bigboysdad Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 25, 2013
    Sydney/ London
    45 is the better one

    I've got both and I'd say if I had to choose then it would easily be the 45. Far more keepers. And more versatile than just a portrait lens, getting used to how to use its focal length will be a pleasure.
     
  20. jameskuzman

    jameskuzman New to Mu-43

    5
    Sep 27, 2013
    Windermere, Florida
    Jim Kuzman
    I'm having the same internal debate, but I'm just trying to figure out which one to buy *first*.

    I bought the EM-5 kit with the 12-50 because I like the idea of having a weather sealed lens and for the price differential between body only and body plus 12-50, it seemed like too good a deal to pass up. It's not a lens I would have purchased by itself or for its asking price as a stand-alone piece simply because of the f/6.3 maximum aperture at the long end. That's crazy slow. Even in fairly bright light you have to slow the shutter speed down or bump ISO much more than I'd like.

    I also bought the 12mm f/2.0 because I love shooting wide and this lens gets a lot of praise for its construction and sharpness. I was hoping it would work as a street lens in addition to being idea for its intended purpose, but the fact of the matter is you have to get really close to your subject to compose a decent street shot with this focal length - sometimes uncomfortably close. For street use, I think the 17 would be a better choice.

    However, since the 12 and 17 are closer in length than the 12 and 45 or 17 and 45, I decided to go with the 45 first. It should be here on Monday. I anticipate it will be good for street shooting from a greater distance but I still think the 17 will be the ideal length for the street.

    Jim
     
    • Like Like x 1