Would a native 17mm f/1.4 replace both the 14 and the 20 for you?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by zucchiniboy, Sep 4, 2012.

  1. zucchiniboy

    zucchiniboy Mu-43 Regular

    136
    Oct 13, 2010
    San Francisco
    Just wondering - I currently use a trio of primes - the 14, 20, and 45 f/1.8. I love that I can fit it all in a bag barely even noticing. It covers basically all the situations I need. I've pondered swapping the 20 for the 25, but haven't gotten myself to pull the trigger, mainly because it would add bulk.

    It got me thinking though, instead of putting the money toward something like that, would I be happy with a two prime kit, a mythical 17mm f/1.4 and the 45? I think I would - and I figure the cost of the 17mm would be somewhere in the range of the 25. Does this describe anyone else here? Would a fast, native 17mm eliminate the 14 and the 20/25 for you?

    Curious for your thoughts.

    Thanks.
     
  2. shizlefonizle

    shizlefonizle Mu-43 Veteran

    372
    Apr 21, 2012
    If the rumors the for PL 17mm f1.4 I would grab one and would probably use it as a two prime kit with a 45mm (PL in my case) like you suggested. But looking at lenses from other manufacturers, it will be chunky and expensive if they decide to do a f1.4. Im perfectly fine with a f1.8 though.
     
  3. blue

    blue Mu-43 Veteran

    280
    Jun 1, 2010
    UK
    What sort of photos do you do ? Going from 17mm to 14mm you lose significant width, but if that doesn't matter then why the 17mm at all, stick with the 20mm.
     
  4. Mijo

    Mijo Mu-43 Veteran

    220
    Jan 23, 2012
    San Francisco, CA
    I have both the 20 and 25, but I rarely use the the 20 anymore since I purchased the 25. I probably should have sold the 20 awhile ago but it's got sentimental value as it was the only lens I had for a long time. I got rid of the 14 when I upgraded to the 12. If or when the PL 17 does come out that will probably force me to finally sell off the 20.

    IMO, the FOV between the 20 and 25 is close enough to not really make a difference which is why I prefer the 25 (as it's AF is faster). I guessing the difference in FOV between the 12, 17 and 25 will be enough for me to justify purchasing the 17. my primes would then be; 8, 12, 17, 25 and PL 45.
     
  5. zucchiniboy

    zucchiniboy Mu-43 Regular

    136
    Oct 13, 2010
    San Francisco
    Mainly people in their environment, urban/street, and kids/family. Two lenses could mean my GX1 in a case and my lowepro small lens case in the backpack or wherever.
     
  6. blue

    blue Mu-43 Veteran

    280
    Jun 1, 2010
    UK
    What I'm getting at, is which lens would you miss. If you went out without the 14 or 20 for a week/next few shoots would you be wishing you still had it with you, are you still able or not able to get the shots you want ?
     
  7. Mellow

    Mellow Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2010
    Florida or Idaho
    Tom
    The 14mm, and to a great extent the 20mm also, is all about size to me--so I'm not giving them up (unless, of course, someone were to make an updated version of the 20mm that focuses more quickly and quietly--hint, hint Panasonic!).

    I love the 17mm FL, but have been put off by the Oly 17mm's relatively low quality. If it had the same IQ as the 14mm I'd snap it up.

    So . . . a 17mm f/1.4 would interest me, but not as a replacement for either the 14mm or 20mm.

    However, I fear that a 17mm f/1.4 would probably cost an arm and a leg. I'd be quite happy with a 17mm f/2 or f/1.7.

    EDIT: just saw your second question. The lens I'd miss most is the 14mm--put it on my GX1 and I have a truly pocketable camera with a great FL. The 20mm is a great lens, but just a tad bigger and quite a big slower, so I don't use it as much.
     
  8. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    zucchiniboy, the question is very personal to the shooter. From my perspective, while I love the idea of a 17/1.8ish lens, I don't think I need it. I'm very happy with the 25mm and the 14. In fact, I often find myself using the 12-50 instead of the 14 to get just a bit wider. No way I'm compromising up to the 17, though I may save my pennies for the 12.

    But for you it may work perfectly.
     
  9. zucchiniboy

    zucchiniboy Mu-43 Regular

    136
    Oct 13, 2010
    San Francisco
    Good question. If I had to pick just one of the 14 or 20, I'd probably go with the 14. I think I'd miss the wideness of it, although I'd miss the f/1.7 of the 20.
     
  10. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    702
    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    Having owned the 14, 20, and 25 all at once, I still prefer the 20 over the 14 and 25.

    For me, a PL17.5 would replace both my 20 and 25 IF and only if it is smaller than the 25. The 25 is a little too chubby for my tastes.

    Even though the PL25 has much better contrast than the 20, I still use the 20 for its slightly wider FOV and compact size.
     
  11. Salc64

    Salc64 Mu-43 Regular

    40
    Aug 24, 2012
    New York. USA
    Sal
    The only way it would replace the 14 is if it was the same size and any bit faster. The mane reason I keep the 14 is because it's the only lense I can comfortably keep on the camera body and put in my pocket.
     
  12. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    I'd trade the P20 for a fast focusing 17 f/2, even. Assuming the 17's optics were good, which doesn't seem likely to be a problem.
     
  13. Linh

    Linh Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 14, 2009
    Maryland, US
    Possibly. I'd much rather have a 17/25/45 3 lens kit. However, with that said, ideally I'd have a better 20 1 lens kit for day to day. Right now, my issues are slow, buzzy, and iffy in higher ISO dark scenes on my E-M5.
     
  14. capodave

    capodave Mu-43 Top Veteran

    514
    Jul 4, 2010
    Southern Cal
    Dave
    6871929063_9d814a9199_b.
    Heading Out by CapoDave, on Flickr

    This was taken with my E P3 and Oly 17.
    I like the 17 in bright conditions.
    I mostly use my 20, but the 17 gives those nice oly colors.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    it may do for the 14 and 20, but not the 25 IMO

    so I'd guess the 17, 25 and 45 would make a great combination
     
  16. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    12, 17, 25 & 45 would the ultimate prime collection for me.
     
  17. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    Bob
    If it was really good optically I might replace the 20 simply because it would be a bit faster - but I would keep the 14mm because it's small and flat. I like having a pancake for walking around.
     
  18. zucchiniboy

    zucchiniboy Mu-43 Regular

    136
    Oct 13, 2010
    San Francisco
    Now that the 17mm f/1.8 is real, I was wondering if anyone is considering trading their 14 and 20 for it. I'm still on the fence because of loss of versatility, but like the idea of simplifying my kit and getting faster focus. Anybody else?
     
  19. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    If I was to choose between having a kit of 14/2.5, 20/1.7, 45/1.8 or a kit of 17/1.8, 45/1.8. I would go with the 17/1.8, 45/1.8.

    I'm actually not sure what to do about my PL 25/1.4. It's such a good lens, best 50mm-e I have ever had. What do I do with that??
     
  20. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Ad
    I prefer 20mm over 17mm. I once considered buying an Olympus OM camera if I got lucky enough to find an OM 40/2 and I was very happy when the Panny 20mm came up; the 35mm on 135 film format was always a bit too wide for me. And 14mm is my preferred wide-angle focal length, alongside with something around 10mm. So no, a 17mm cannot replace that for me.