Sigma 19mm, add to or replace with Oly 17mm or Pana 14mm?

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by kingduct, Oct 18, 2013.

  1. kingduct

    kingduct Mu-43 Veteran

    Oct 12, 2013
    Hi folks,
    I've got a G5 with the Sigma 19mm, the Sigma 30mm, the 14-42 kit lens, the 45-150 zoom, and a couple of Minolta MD mount lenses (50mm 1.4 and a Vivitar 105mm macro).

    As you may have guessed by now, I have a budget at the lower end when it comes to lens purchases. Anyway, I'm thinking about my next purchase, and I'd like a pancake with a wider angle.

    Is there any reason I'd consider the Oly 17mm 2.8? It is in my price range, but seems like other than size, it really offers no advantage over the Sigma. Is that correct?

    However, the Panasonic 14mm sounds pretty nice, especially considering its price. In real life, do people find that the 14mm vs a 19mm makes a real difference? Is it worth carrying both around? Or should I put my pennies in the piggy bank until I can afford something wider (and much more expensive)?

    Other possibilities?
  2. flipmack

    flipmack Mu-43 Veteran

    Mar 23, 2012
    irvine, CA
    At one point, I had the Sigma 19/2.8 and the Panasonic 14/2.5 at the same time.

    If you're accustomed to the FOV of the 19/2.8, then the 14/2.5, realistically, is just a *little* wider, but wide enough that it's not (in my opinion) suitable for walkaround use in the same way as the 19/2.8. I'd think that going the 17/2.8 route would be a wash and won't provide enough difference.

    If you truly want wide and compact, I'd save up for the 7.5mm fisheye. It's only a few bucks more than the 14/2.5, and it's WIDE and the fisheye effect can easily be corrected. It's not a pancake though...
    • Like Like x 1
  3. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    kingduct, if I were you I'd comparatively shoot at 14mm and 19mm and figure out for yourself if the 14/2.5 is worthwhile. I can't see flipping the 19 for the 17/2.8, unless you really are putting an emphasis on size. I've owned them both and give the Sigma an edge in performance, though not a huge one.

    You can also consider the Olympus 12-50 in place of your 14-42. I wouldn't pay new prices for the 12-50, but you can grab them used for <$200 usually. A lot of folks seems to think that the extra 2mm at the wide end is a big deal.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. kingduct

    kingduct Mu-43 Veteran

    Oct 12, 2013
    Thanks for the advice. Yes, it'd be pretty easy to test 14mm using the kit lens, you are right. The fact that I haven't even been carrying it around because I have the 19mm, the 30mm, and the 45-150mm may be an unconscious sign that 14mm isn't enough different for me to consider it necessary.

    It is easy to become addicted to camera/lens upgrades. I guess I'll play with what I have, which already includes some pretty nice glass.
  5. gochugogi

    gochugogi Mu-43 Veteran

    The 14 2.5 is one of my favorite walk around lenses. It's almost always on one of my cameras: wide but natural to shoot with. I find it ideal for scenics, city streets and candids. 19 or 20mm is a little narrow for my taste and but I like the semi-wide perspective of 17mm. I have both the 17 2.8 and 17 1.8 so 17 seems to have hit a sweet spot with me. The 17 2.8 is a nice optic: tiny, attractive, smooth MF ring and very sharp in the center. Where it falls down a bit is the mildly pokey AF. I almost sold it a few times but I love taking it to dinner, casino or happy hour with my E-P3 and VF-1 (optical bright line finder). It's so darn compact and stealthy. I disable the LCD, use center point AF, and compose with the always-on VF-1.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.