MFT lens setup: 25/1.4 + 20/1.7 or 17/2.8?

[efix]

Let's talk gear! My current Micro Four Thirds setup consists of the Olympus E-P1 and Panasonic G1. I've deeply fallen in love with the latter since I got it a couple months back, its only downside being the weak high ISO. So, I decided to soon upgrade to the 25/1.4 Summilux. It's only a half stop faster than my 20/1.7, but I want the faster AF and a 50mm-equivalent f-o-v.

For my E-P1, however, I want a compact to-go lens that keeps the setup pocketable. I got the 20/1.7 back in 2009 when I purchased the E-P1 because it was the perfect match of overall size, field-of-view and speed.

Now that I am about to get the Summilux, however, I wonder if I still need the 20mm, as it does seem a tad close in terms of focal length and speed to the 25. So I'm contemplating to exchange the 20mm pancake with the 17mm pancake. It's only an f/2.8, but it provides a wider f-o-v and is also a tad smaller, making my E-P1 package even more compact. Also, with the 25/1.4 around, I would have a fast lens for when light gets dim (and I do a lot of low-light stuff.) Thirdly, I sometimes feel the 20mm's field-of-view is not quite wide enough. Another reason to go with the 17+25 combo.

What are your thoughts? I'm especially interested to hear from those of you who use either the 17+25 or the 20+25 in combination. How do the combos work out for you? Would you rather have the one than the other?

Looking forward to your replies

 

[Griffin]

Well, I don't have anything microfourthirds, but in my opinion the 17 (34mm full frame eq.) and 25 (50mm eq.) are too close. I'd get something wider than 35. 24mm full frame would be my preferred.

 

[efix]

Well, I don't have anything microfourthirds, but in my opinion the 17 (34mm full frame eq.) and 25 (50mm eq.) are too close. I'd get something wider than 35. 24mm full frame would be my preferred.

Ah, well, just to clear things up a bit: I also have the 12mm f/1.6 SLR Magic. So the really wide end is covered

 

[Dogman]

Well, I don't have anything microfourthirds, but in my opinion the 17 (34mm full frame eq.) and 25 (50mm eq.) are too close. I'd get something wider than 35. 24mm full frame would be my preferred.

I've always found the most useful lenses I've owned to be in the 35mm and 50mm range (for 35mm format cameras). Wider than 35mm, I used 20mm, 21mm and 24mm lenses, depending on the brand of camera I was using at the time. Today I use 17mm and 25mm on my Olympus micro 4/3 cameras.

The Panasonic 20mm has a great reputation for image quality while the Olympus 17mm tests have only been so-so in that respect. I don't find the 17mm to be bad optically but it's not stellar. For me, it's simply the right focal length to use in conjunction with a 25mm. If your main consideration is the best image quality, you might want to consider keeping the Panasonic 20mm.

 

[efix]

Thanks for your input, Dogman! The 20mm is probably the best choice when it comes to an overall balance of image quality, size and speed, and is perfect for a one-lens kit as I used to have. But I think when I'm getting the 25/1.4, I'll have fast AF, high IQ and low light capability covered. The 17/2.8 will be a nice addition as a wider and more pocketable option, preferrably to be stuck on the E-P1 while the 25 goes on the G1.

 

[vrgard]

Ah, well, just to clear things up a bit: I also have the 12mm f/1.6 SLR Magic. So the really wide end is covered

Efix, I understand that you already have a 12mm lens. Still, if for no other reason than size/pocketability, I would consider getting the Panasonic 14mm pancake lens to complement your PL 25. A 28mm equivalent is a nice two lens pairing in a kit with a 50mm equivalent.

 

[bwidjaja]

i'll second vrgard. since moving from P20, my combo has been P14 and PL25. I dont tihnk P14 and O17 is that much different in FOV, but a little bit faster and better IQ.

 

[efix]

The 14 is in high regard I understand. However, I'm not a fan of the 28mm f-o-v. The 17 will be plenty wide for general shooting. And I'll have the 12mm for when I need to go even wider.

 

[Johann Espiritu]

I've tried many combos, which include the 14/2.5, 20/1.7, and the 25/1.4, among others. I've now settled for a 12-35/2.8 + 25/1.4 "main set", with the 20/1.7, just in case I want something small and light. The AF speed of the 20/1.7 is noticeably slower, especially since I've switched to the OM-D.

Hope that helps!

 

[mh2000]

17 is fine

17 is fine

for a single prime, I think owning both a 35 eq. and 50mm eq. makes perfect sense. The little panny 14 doesn't make sense next to your 12 and similarly, the 20 is pretty close to the 25.

As you will read over and over again, the Oly 17 isn't the sharpest lens in the world, but it is definitely adequate for taking good photos and with the small size and low price I think it makes sense. the P/L 25 is beautiful, but kind of big.

For the record, my 17 is as good as my 14... neither in the same league as a P/L 25 or Oly 45... but the 25 and 45 aren't 14 or 17 either.

 

[efix]

Thanks, mh2000. I think you nailed it there.

 

[dmc]

The 14 is in high regard I understand. However, I'm not a fan of the 28mm f-o-v. The 17 will be plenty wide for general shooting. And I'll have the 12mm for when I need to go even wider.

Sorry for the late post.


Not much difference between the 12 and the 14 IMO.

 

[dmc]

for a single prime, I think owning both a 35 eq. and 50mm eq. makes perfect sense. The little panny 14 doesn't make sense next to your 12 and similarly, the 20 is pretty close to the 25.

As you will read over and over again, the Oly 17 isn't the sharpest lens in the world, but it is definitely adequate for taking good photos and with the small size and low price I think it makes sense. the P/L 25 is beautiful, but kind of big.

For the record, my 17 is as good as my 14... neither in the same league as a P/L 25 or Oly 45... but the 25 and 45 aren't 14 or 17 either.

I agree. For MFT a 15 or 19 and a 25 or a 30 are a good combo. Throw in a 45 and Bob's your uncle, IMO.