thinking of OMD, body only... but a lens is needed

Started Jan 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
number_6 Regular Member • Posts: 104
Re: thinking of OMD, body only... but a lens is needed

saulgood wrote:

a bit of dilema, hoping folks with more experience might be able assist.

basically, i'm pausing at picking up the OMD with the 12-50 lens kit. thinking of taking advantage of the $150 rebate, going body only($960), and getting the 17 f2.8. ($180 after rebate). doing the math: $1140 (17mm) vs $1219 (12-50mm).

i know that i would rarely use the telephoto capability of the kit lens. i would prefer a wider angle lens, so i'm more concerned with whether i might be, you know, missing something by going with the 17mm lens. that is, does the 17mm prime out-perform the kit lens at 17mm? my thinking is that even though it's not super-fast/bright at f.28, it oughta' be somewhat 'better' than the kit lens. am i even remotely correct in thinking this?

thanks in advance for any thoughts.

I don't know much about the 17/2.8, but the kit lens is:

1. Weather sealed

2. Macro capable

3. Overpriced when bought standalone

I bought the body only, but if I had to do it again, I'd get it with kit if for nothing else than to have a general purpose weather sealed lens (for less than $1,100).

 number_6's gear list:number_6's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +4 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow