14mm 2.5 vs 17mm 1.8

Started Jan 31, 2014 | Discussions thread
Steve_ Senior Member • Posts: 2,869
expectations are not an optical quality

What you've found is the truth. The 14mm Panasonic is a pretty good lens and the 17 Oly is, well, also a pretty good lens. But no better. All the qualities of the 17 are really good, save one - resolution. It isn't a terribly sharp lens in the context of lenses that are strong in all other respects.

The 14, while poo-poo'ed around here to no end, is actually a pretty darn good lens. Sure it's got CA, but no more than the universally lauded 20/1.7 does, and it has much better autofocus than does the 20. I've always found Lightroom's CA processing effective with either. Plus, the 14 is tiny and cheap.

The 14 was sold in a kit with bodes, but it is not a 'kit' lens. No more than the 12-35, which I believe is also bundled with some bodies in some markets. The 17/1.8 Oly was also bundled with E-P5 bodies, if memory serves.

If what you found was not true, I'd have bought the 17/1.8 four or five times over. 35mm equivalent FOV is my thing, and as mentioned in all other respects the lens couldn't be much better. But it isn't quite the knockout that even the 45/1.8 is, from an sharpness perspective. And I, like many, feel it should be better on this count, being a modern prime and all.

 Steve_'s gear list:Steve_'s gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +13 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow