14mm vs 20mm for low light?

Started Jun 14, 2012 | Discussions thread
Spectacle99 Regular Member • Posts: 120
Re: 14mm vs 20mm for low light?

esuohe wrote:

I find it odd that folks are recommending the 20mm OR 45mm, two totally different FOVs! The 20mm typically requires you to step forward about a meter, while the 45mm might have you stepping out of the room for some shots!

Because the OP was actually torn between the 20 and the 14. It was the whole point of his thread. He was looking for low light performance.

And in my experience, with the OM-D E-M5, the 14mm f/2.5 is an unnecessary duplication of what I already have with my surprisingly good 12-50mm kit lens. The 14mm is essentially a landscape lens that is not sharper than the 12-50mm at the same focal length. And while it is a bit faster, it is not appreciably so, and this is more than made up for by the OM-D's fantastic high ISO performance and its IBIS which allows for great handheld shots at surprisingly long exposures. For me, the only thing the 14mm has going for it is its small size.

Better to save that money (however little) spent on it and put it towards a focal length that might actually provide improved IQ, low light performance, and shallow DOF, such as the 20, 25, or 45. And this applies to the OP's particular circumstances as well, since he stated that it was for taking photos of a newborn. They are, in my experience, quite small.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow