MJ919

Member
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
Hi,

I am looking for a versatile fast prime lens that compliments or even replaces my 14-42mm. I have shortlisted two: Olympics 25mm f1.8 and Panasonic 42.5mm F1.7. These two are under $300 right now and I do not want to spend more.

Now, I would like to shoot everything from indoor family pictures, wedding photography (potraits + family and groups) as well as landscape. Which of the two lenses above will be better for me if I also keep (or leave) my 14-42 kit zoom?
 
Last edited:
Hi,

I am looking for a versatile fast prime lens that compliments or even replaces my 14-42mm. I have shortlisted two: Olympics 25mm f1.8 and Panasonic 42.5mm F1.7. These two are under $300 right now and I do not want to spend more.

Now, I would like to shoot everything from indoor family pictures, wedding photography (potraits + family and groups) as well as landscape. Which of the two lenses above will be better for me if I also keep (or leave) my 14-42 kit zoom?
The 25mm. No question in your case. And definitely keep the zoom.

42mm is too long for easy use indoors and a bit tight for routine landscapes.

Just try spending a day with your zoom taped up on 25mm and another at 42mm. Shoot representative pictures of your main subjects. Don't worry if you need to push the IOSO higher than you'd like; this is just to get a feel for the focal lengths.

By the way, if you mean weddings as paid gigs the fact that you need to ask this question indicates that you aren't ready yet.

--
Albert
(The one in France)
Every photograph is an abstraction from reality.
 
Last edited:
And I'll say 42.5mm. The long lens will be great for portraits. 25mm is just too wide.

For landscapes, the kit is fine. You don't want or need wide aperture.

For group shots, 42.5mm will be a little too long, but shooting wide, the kit lens will at least be at f/3.5, so you'll be "only" two stops behind. Zoomed in, you'll be 3.5 stops behind with the kit. Plus, you get no motion blur hand holding 14mm for about 1/30s. At 42mm, you need to shoot about 1/90s for no motion blur. So you're more likely to need the extra speed shooting long.
 
Hi,

I am looking for a versatile fast prime lens that compliments or even replaces my 14-42mm. I have shortlisted two: Olympics 25mm f1.8 and Panasonic 42.5mm F1.7. These two are under $300 right now and I do not want to spend more.

Now, I would like to shoot everything from indoor family pictures, wedding photography (potraits + family and groups) as well as landscape. Which of the two lenses above will be better for me if I also keep (or leave) my 14-42 kit zoom?
The 25mm. No question in your case. And definitely keep the zoom.

42mm is too long for easy use indoors and a bit tight for routine landscapes.

Just try spending a day with your zoom taped up on 25mm and another at 42mm. Shoot representative pictures of your main subjects. Don't worry if you need to push the IOSO higher than you'd like; this is just to get a feel for the focal lengths.

By the way, if you mean weddings as paid gigs the fact that you need to ask this question indicates that you aren't ready yet.
 
Hi,

I am looking for a versatile fast prime lens that compliments or even replaces my 14-42mm. I have shortlisted two: Olympics 25mm f1.8 and Panasonic 42.5mm F1.7. These two are under $300 right now and I do not want to spend more.

Now, I would like to shoot everything from indoor family pictures, wedding photography (potraits + family and groups) as well as landscape. Which of the two lenses above will be better for me if I also keep (or leave) my 14-42 kit zoom?
For the most part, a 25mm will practically replace the 14-42. I keep one mounted on a m4/3 body almost permanently for years. I can just do everything with it from landscape. close-ups or any family type situation.

I'd still never part with a 14-42/45. They are just too useful outdoors or when you travel. They work very well with a CPL, flash or AF extension tubes.
 
Hi,

I am looking for a versatile fast prime lens that compliments or even replaces my 14-42mm. I have shortlisted two: Olympics 25mm f1.8 and Panasonic 42.5mm F1.7. These two are under $300 right now and I do not want to spend more.

Now, I would like to shoot everything from indoor family pictures, wedding photography (potraits + family and groups) as well as landscape. Which of the two lenses above will be better for me if I also keep (or leave) my 14-42 kit zoom?
The 25mm. No question in your case. And definitely keep the zoom.

42mm is too long for easy use indoors and a bit tight for routine landscapes.

Just try spending a day with your zoom taped up on 25mm and another at 42mm. Shoot representative pictures of your main subjects. Don't worry if you need to push the IOSO higher than you'd like; this is just to get a feel for the focal lengths.

By the way, if you mean weddings as paid gigs the fact that you need to ask this question indicates that you aren't ready yet.
 
I do like what the others have posted.

My suggestion would be 14-42 plus 20mm (or 17) plus 42.5mm. Do not give up the handy zoom! 20 (or 17) would give you more wiggle room for indoor group shots than a 25. Anyways, get the 42.5 first to fulfill your bokeh lust. With a promise to get the shorter prime later.

Kelly Cook
 
Hi,

I am looking for a versatile fast prime lens that compliments or even replaces my 14-42mm. I have shortlisted two: Olympics 25mm f1.8 and Panasonic 42.5mm F1.7. These two are under $300 right now and I do not want to spend more.

Now, I would like to shoot everything from indoor family pictures, wedding photography (potraits + family and groups) as well as landscape. Which of the two lenses above will be better for me if I also keep (or leave) my 14-42 kit zoom?
For the most part, a 25mm will practically replace the 14-42. I keep one mounted on a m4/3 body almost permanently for years. I can just do everything with it from landscape. close-ups or any family type situation.

I'd still never part with a 14-42/45. They are just too useful outdoors or when you travel. They work very well with a CPL, flash or AF extension tubes.
If you think that a 25mm will replace the 14-42 then a 42mm wont? So do you think adding 42.5mm as a second lens will give me more functionality than adding a 25mm?
 
I do like what the others have posted.

My suggestion would be 14-42 plus 20mm (or 17) plus 42.5mm. Do not give up the handy zoom! 20 (or 17) would give you more wiggle room for indoor group shots than a 25. Anyways, get the 42.5 first to fulfill your bokeh lust. With a promise to get the shorter prime later.

Kelly Cook
Good suggestion, if I had budget I would get both 20mm and 42.5mm but then the 14-42mm will become redundant. Somehow I feel I am looking for a "One lens to rule them all" and that is unlikely unless i spend around $1000.
 
I do like what the others have posted.

My suggestion would be 14-42 plus 20mm (or 17) plus 42.5mm. Do not give up the handy zoom! 20 (or 17) would give you more wiggle room for indoor group shots than a 25. Anyways, get the 42.5 first to fulfill your bokeh lust. With a promise to get the shorter prime later.

Kelly Cook
Good suggestion, if I had budget I would get both 20mm and 42.5mm but then the 14-42mm will become redundant. Somehow I feel I am looking for a "One lens to rule them all" and that is unlikely unless i spend around $1000.
You could do that (dump the 14-42) with a 17, instead of the 20. But a 20 is nowhere near as wide as 14mm. It would be great if M4/3 primes were as affordable as crop DSLR primes. They just are not priced that nice.

Kelly
 
And I'll say 42.5mm. The long lens will be great for portraits. 25mm is just too wide.

For landscapes, the kit is fine. You don't want or need wide aperture.

For group shots, 42.5mm will be a little too long, but shooting wide, the kit lens will at least be at f/3.5, so you'll be "only" two stops behind. Zoomed in, you'll be 3.5 stops behind with the kit. Plus, you get no motion blur hand holding 14mm for about 1/30s. At 42mm, you need to shoot about 1/90s for no motion blur. So you're more likely to need the extra speed shooting long.
That makes lot of sense to me. A 42mm at f1.7 will give me much more than a 25mm at F1.7 (3.5 stops vs. 2 stops like you said).
 
Hi,

I am looking for a versatile fast prime lens that compliments or even replaces my 14-42mm. I have shortlisted two: Olympics 25mm f1.8 and Panasonic 42.5mm F1.7. These two are under $300 right now and I do not want to spend more.

Now, I would like to shoot everything from indoor family pictures, wedding photography (potraits + family and groups) as well as landscape. Which of the two lenses above will be better for me if I also keep (or leave) my 14-42 kit zoom?
The two lenses you mention are different tools for different purposes.

The 42.5 will be better at taking flattering portraits of single individuals (though I'd prefer something in the 55-75mm range for head and shoulder portraits when I have room to work) , and at candid shots from a distance. It also probably gives more of a lens speed advantage over your kit lens, which will be f/5.6 at 42mm but probably wider than that at 25mm.

The 25mm will be better for groups of people, or when shooting distance is constrained by tight indoor settings. It is also more useful for general photography.
 
Hi,

I am looking for a versatile fast prime lens that compliments or even replaces my 14-42mm. I have shortlisted two: Olympics 25mm f1.8 and Panasonic 42.5mm F1.7. These two are under $300 right now and I do not want to spend more.

Now, I would like to shoot everything from indoor family pictures, wedding photography (potraits + family and groups) as well as landscape. Which of the two lenses above will be better for me if I also keep (or leave) my 14-42 kit zoom?
For the most part, a 25mm will practically replace the 14-42. I keep one mounted on a m4/3 body almost permanently for years. I can just do everything with it from landscape. close-ups or any family type situation.

I'd still never part with a 14-42/45. They are just too useful outdoors or when you travel. They work very well with a CPL, flash or AF extension tubes.
If you think that a 25mm will replace the 14-42 then a 42mm wont? So do you think adding 42.5mm as a second lens will give me more functionality than adding a 25mm?
Just by taking a step or two forward or back, I could duplicate anything I'd normally do with a 14-42 with the benefit having the 2 to 4 stops wider aperture available. I wouldn't have to have the 14-42 with me at all times.

I couldn't do that with a 42.5mm prime. I'd use it more for creative close-ups or portraits of people/pets where I needed the distance. It's not nearly as versatile as the 25mm.
 
Just by taking a step or two forward or back, I could duplicate anything I'd normally do with a 14-42
No you couldn't. The perpective would change, and in portraiture, perspective is important.

There is a reason why ID photos are usually taken at about 1.2 - 1.6 m distance, why formal portraits are usually taken from 2.5+m and why fashion shoots are often taken at > 4m.
 
That's only true if you don't mind big noses. Some day, you will discover perspective distortion, and figure out why none of your portraits at 25mm look particularly good.

dpreview won't let me link to petapixel, but the following article there is nice (add petapixel dot com at the beginning):

/2013/02/16/dont-zoom-move-a-video-on-treating-your-zoom-as-a-series-of-prime-lenses/

Or here's a working link (although not as good):

https://bakerdh.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/face-distortion-is-not-due-to-lens-distortion/

Portraits should be shot at 135mm on full frame, 85mm on crop, and ~70mm on MFT. 42.5mm is adequate. 25mm is not. There is debate about whether longer is always better, or if people start to look flat if you go too long.
 
And I'll say 42.5mm. The long lens will be great for portraits. 25mm is just too wide.

For landscapes, the kit is fine. You don't want or need wide aperture.

For group shots, 42.5mm will be a little too long, but shooting wide, the kit lens will at least be at f/3.5, so you'll be "only" two stops behind. Zoomed in, you'll be 3.5 stops behind with the kit. Plus, you get no motion blur hand holding 14mm for about 1/30s. At 42mm, you need to shoot about 1/90s for no motion blur. So you're more likely to need the extra speed shooting long.
That makes lot of sense to me. A 42mm at f1.7 will give me much more than a 25mm at F1.7 (3.5 stops vs. 2 stops like you said).
Say what???

Alphoid was saying that either of the f/1.7 lenses you are considering will be 2 stops faster than the kit lens at its (the kit lens) largest aperture of f/3.5, at the short end of its focal length range. When you zoom the kit lens out to its longest focal length (42mm), its fastest aperture goes down to f/5.6. At that focal length the kit lens is now 3.5 stops slower than an f/1.7 lens.

He was NOT saying that the 42.5mm at f/1.7 gives you any advantage over the 25mm f/stop-wise, as your comment suggests. At f/1.7, either lens will have the same advantage(s) over the kit lens, with respect to f/1.7 being two stops faster than f/3.5, and three and a half stops faster than f/5.6.

You need to pause and figure out what you really want the prime lens for. If the purpose is mainly to allow you to take indoor photographs of your friends and family, rooms and decorations etc. that would otherwise turn out too dark with the slow kit lens, the 25mm f/1.7 would be preferable because it has a wider angle of view and you can fit more things into the image (e.g., the family group seated on the couch, everyone seated at the dinner table, the three cousins in front of the fireplace etc). The 25mm is also a more usable focal length for outdoor walkaround use as well.

On the other hand, if your purpose is to get a lens primarily for portrait use (head and shoulder shots of one person), then the 42.5 would be preferable.

Perhaps you might want to consider buying an external flash and bounce card instead of a new lens, until you get things sorted out a bit more? That way you could get well lighted, nice looking shots indoors with the kit lens you already have. And, you'd have the flash for use with whatever lenses you end up with down the road.

Just a thought
 
I have kind of moved away from Oly 25mm to Panny 20mm because of its size relatively wider FOV. So from what I have gathered so far the 20mm (or 25mm) will be better for indoor/street/family photography while giving me a decent enough bokeh as well. Portraits is a whole another level for me and I feel I am not quite there yet.

I do like the suggestion that getting both 42.5mm and 20mm should do the trick. However, as a beginner I am leaning towards starting with 20mm as my first prime.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top