Pulled the trigger on the 17 1.8

Started Feb 6, 2013 | Discussions thread
bimmerman Senior Member • Posts: 2,402
Re: I'm not getting it...

burnymeister wrote:

Fair points, but having owned both the 17 f/2.8 and now the 1.8 and the 20mm panny I can honestly say that they're not even in the same ball park in either operation or FOV (field of view).

The 20mm has great optics and for the current price it's a worthwhile investment but it's not quite the same as the 17 f/1.8 with it's great build, fast AF and wide angle (34mm vs. 40mm). The old saying still holds true; "You get what you pay for".

-- hide signature --

Vern Dewit
Calgary, Alberta Canada

Good points Vern. You get what you pay for is for certain. I do like the 35mm FOV because I do like Cartier Bresson's style and 35mm is one of his most used FOVs. The other being 50mm. So 40mm is a little bit oddball in that sense.

But in practice I find that 40mm can often stand in for both 35mm and 50mm quite well and maintains a pocketable and stealthy profile with my OM-D. AF speed could be faster but it's accurate and quite workable.

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