What are the options for AF 35mm eq?

[994]

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!

 

[nstelemark]

I'm back to the P20. But the 17f1.8 is a great little lens too. Hard to go wrong with either.

 

[Lcrunyon]

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.

 

[994]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Baenwort]

I love my Sigma 16/1.4 and you can see lots of good photos in the lens thread.

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/sigma-16mm-f-1-4-dc-dn.95668/

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.

 

[994]

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?

 

[Baenwort]

I felt the 17/1.2 was front heavy also. The Sigma seems to have more weight at the back of the lens close to the body. The 17/1.2 weight distribution seemed more towards the front of the lens.

 

[ac12]

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.

 

[soundfanz]

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]

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.