What are the options for AF 35mm eq?

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
7,082
Location
Boston
I am trying to figure out the right 35mm +/- eq for me. I'd like a fast lens for: indoor use, family-sized group shops, environmental portraits and general shooting.

Did I miss any options?
  • P20 - very nice lens that I've had many times, and may again, but AF consistency is always an issue
  • PL15 - lovely lens, but maybe a bit too wide for me
  • O17/1.8 - This is one I am thinking of going back to. It might be the one, but want to consider other options
  • O17/2.8 - too slow aperture for what I want
  • Sigma 16/1.4 - have not tried this one. Is it good from wide open?
  • O17/1.2 - have not tried this one, either, but I feel it's a bit bigger, heavier and a bit more money than what I am thinking. Still, not ruling it out yet. I have seen some used ones go in the $600s, which is a more justifiable price. Maybe I should do the O17/1.2 + O17/1.8. One for around the house, the other for travel!
 

Lcrunyon

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
2,084
Location
Maryland
Real Name
Loren
Seems like you tried many lenses you didn’t like enough to keep. I do think you might be underestimating the 17 mm pro. It isn’t that large, but it is the sharpest, and arguably the nicest, lens in the entire system. If you can find it for $600, that’s highway robbery.
 
Last edited:

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
7,082
Location
Boston
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
Seems like you tried many of these lenses I didn’t like them enough to keep them. I do think you might be underestimating the 17 mm pro. It isn’t that large, but it is the sharpest, and arguably the nicest, lens in the entire system. If you can find it for $600, that’s highway robbery.
I was just comparing it to the sigma 16. It’s smaller and lighter, which is crazy given it’s 1.2, but also makes sense given the sigma is designed for apsc. Yeah, if I can find it at a good price point, that might be the main one for me
 

algold

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
483
Location
Israel
Real Name
Alex
Sold Pana 20/1.7 - optically great, but didn’t really like the FL and the noisy AF was annoying. Picked up 17/1.8. Nice and small, quite sharp with nice rendering, sharper than the reviews tell us.
Went in the Pen-F bag.
Found a 17/1.2 for a really good price, almost new with 1.5 years warranty left. Just brilliant, even though it is quite large and heavy.
Get one - you won’t be disappointed.
 

phigmov

Probably Not Walter Kernow
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
4,881
Location
Aotearoa
I've been impressed by the 17mm f1.8 - I was expecting it to be a little sub-par compared to my 20mm (which I love but the AF speed can be super frustrating) but I really like its rendering. Also I've been jonesing to try the MF clutch ever since the 12mm f2 and this seemed like the most cost effective way to do it.
 

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
7,082
Location
Boston
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
I love my Sigma 16/1.4 and you can see lots of good photos in the lens thread.

The cost difference, the fact that it balances so well on the EM1.2, and that the size is great for my hands made me pick it over the 17/1.2 for my kit.
Just wondering -- what about the balance did you like better? Did you try the 17/1.2 mounted? I'm wondering because I did try the 17/1.2 and found it front heavy. If you tried both - was the Sigma not-as-front-heavy?
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,887
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I went with the Olympus 17/1.8.
To me it was a balance.
  • The smaller size and weight vs. the bigger heavy pro lens.
  • f /1.8 was "good enough" for me. I did not need to go down to f/1.2.
  • Finally the cost difference.
 

Arundo Donax

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
643
I bought a 17/1.8 in 2013, and it quickly became my most used lens. It is VERY sharp, light, and focuses quicker than any other lens I have owned.
When I travel with one lens, this is the one.

The 17/1.2 pro is a great lens, but the size and cost led me to stay with the 1.8.
 

soundfanz

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
569
Location
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Real Name
Chris
I'm always mystified when I read that people consider the Olympus 17mm 1.2 too big, or too heavy. I'm an average sized guy with average sized hands and have never ever considered the Olympus Pro primes too big.
To me the Olympus 17mm 1.2 balances brilliantly with the EM 1 II. I get that it is expensive, but to me it's performance easily justifies the higher price.
I also did own the Olympus 17mm 1.8, but it was used exclusively on my Pen F.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,887
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I'm always mystified when I read that people consider the Olympus 17mm 1.2 too big, or too heavy. I'm an average sized guy with average sized hands and have never ever considered the Olympus Pro primes too big.
To me the Olympus 17mm 1.2 balances brilliantly with the EM 1 II. I get that it is expensive, but to me it's performance easily justifies the higher price.
I also did own the Olympus 17mm 1.8, but it was used exclusively on my Pen F.
There are two sides to that.
One, the guys that go with m4/3 for the small size.
Two, the guys the don't mind the larger pro gear, because overall m4/3 is still smaller than a comparable FF kit.

I do both, depending on the particular shoot.
But as I get older, the lighter stuff is used more often.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom