Lens for the PEN-F

Ste_S said:

I use the 17mm f2.8 for street and quite like it as it's cheap and so compact. Even in combo with an ageing e-p3 I like the results and makes the camera jacket pocketable. Don't notice too much of a difference in af speed compared to a Panny 25mm f1.7 which I also use

Click to expand...

I really like this one...great capture!

It proves that in the hands of a good photographer, even a combination of an old Micro 43 camera and the so-called "weakest" M43 prime lens can deliver a great image!

--
'Photography is not art. It's pressing buttons. People take it up because they can't draw.' Lord Snowdon

I think this was the original kit for the Pen-F. Very versatile, MSC, WR, semi-macro is more than enough for almost any use. And it doesn't extend, so you can get an underwater housing and take it scuba diving in Mexico in the middle of winter (damn you!)

Fast, silent focus too! Another Zuiko gem.

I'd go with the Oly 17 / 1.8 over the 2.8. Also consider the Panasonic 14 / 2.5. I think it's a lot better than the Oly 17 / 2.8 without being any larger.

You will not waste money if you first get the Panasonic 12-32. They are cheap on ebay as de-kitted kit lens. The 12-32 is optically a marvel for it's size. You can use it for a while, to find out what focal length you would like best in a prime. And later, it will remain a very useful daytime zoom lens when you need as small as possible.

Think about it, this cheap lens can save you from buying and selling again at a loss several primes (12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 25mm).

teejaywhy said:

I'm attracted to the Olympus PEN-F to have as a carry-around and as a camera to take when I'm not wanting to pack a whole kit of gear.

. . . The idea of simplifying to a single prime lens intrigues me as well. 35mm equivalent would seem the logical choice.

Click to expand...

Yes, 35mm makes a lot of sense.

teejaywhy said:

. . . . The [17/2.8] pancake lens attracts me as it seems to fit well with the compact nature and retro look of the PEN-F. But the f/1.8 is not that much bigger.

Click to expand...

And is a much better lens. The other choice - similar focal length and speed - is the 20mm f/1.7 from Panasonic. The 20 is a pancake lens and takes excellent images, BUT is awkward to focus and may not be the best looking lens (if that matters). You might also consider the Panasonic 15mm f/1.7. From all reports it produces excellent images and is small, but at a focal length that is harder to use (30mm instead of the 35mm that you mentioned; but you could do it - learn to get close to your subjects! and then for wide angle opportunities it is really good).

teejaywhy said:

Then there is the M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 EZ zoom lens. Also a "pancake" lens, slower, but offering the versatility of a zoom.. . .

Click to expand...

Why? it's a slow lens (3.5 at the fastest) and not noted for its image quality. It's o.k.

Masefield said:

James Pilcher said:

The first lens I purchased in 2011 during my switch to m4/3 was the M.Zuiko 12mm f/2. I still have it and it is my favorite lens on my Pen F. It’s small, fast (I consider f/2 fast), and it renders scenes very nicely; there’s just something special about it. On top of that, a silver Pen F and silver 12mm f/2 look so classy together...

Click to expand...

Wow, what a gorgeous looking combo!

If you love the very wide 12mm focal length for landscapes/cityscapes...this prime is no doubt the best match for the Pen-F (albeit pretty darn expensive, compared to the Pen -F and 17mm f1.8 kit)

However, I think 12mm is a bit of a specialist focal length - basically, if only able to own one prime - this 12mm lens is best for someone who already knows they love this very wide angle view.

Click to expand...

I could live at 12mm and find plenty of subjects to fill my SD cards. I do have the M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro (terrific zoom), but when I want small, out comes the 12mm f/2.

Masefield said:

Yes, I'm glad to have 12mm covered with my 12-32mm Panasonic zoom lens...but if I could only have ONE focal length, the 12mm would be much too wide for me.

Click to expand...

I could be happy with anything between 12mm and 25mm as an “only” lens. As long as it’s fast. I could travel the world with a single prime in that range. If it’s only a day trip, I can safely say I would be happy with any single focal length, from 8mm f/1.8 fisheye through 300mm f/4. Sometimes its just fun to have only that single lens and focal length. It makes you think differently.


Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Living above life at 9100 ft

Thanks everyone for the thoughts and advice.

Just some general comments on my thinking why a prime and why 35mm (and why a PEN-F for that matter!)

Fact is, I already have two kits with multiple zoom lenses (see signature). I even have the 12-60 Panasonic kit lens that was suggested (although it's not really fitting my vision of what would pair with the PEN-F). I'm just a casual hobbyist, shooting DSLR since 2008, SLR film in the 80's and 90's. Point being, I'm familiar with focal lengths and what works for which situation.

Do I really need another camera? Probably not. But what appeals to me about the PEN-F is the compact size and the retro look. I'm thinking it could be something I could have with me as a full time carry-around when I'm not explicitly "going out on a shoot." As well, having a minimalist setup with the single prime lens, might perhaps force me to be more creative.

Brings me to the 17mm prime lens (35mm equivalent). A single prime must be a compromise obviously. I think my style tends to more wide angle captures. My years of SLR film I had but two prime lenses, a 50mm and a 28mm. Once I got the 28, I rarely used the 50, it was just too narrow for the types of scenes I was capturing.

So that's what leans me to the 35mm equivalent. It just seems like it could be the right balance. And with 20MP, some room for cropping is available.

So thanks again. Based on feedback, I think I can eliminate the 17mm f/2.8. And the pancake zoom as well.

I was just thinking (duh), maybe I can go out this weekend and do some shooting with the zoom set to (35mm) and see if it feels like the right FL.

Try your zoom at 30mm; if it works, you should consider the Panasonic 15/1.7. I know you're committed to 1 lens, but I always carry the 25/1.8 as well (which is very small), and I've been able to handle most situations with the 15 & 25 combo extremely well. I keep small kit with a Pen-F, 15, 25, spare batteries and Peak Design Leash Strap in a Temba BYOB 7, which I grab and drop into any bag or pack I happen to be using that day.

Gary Martin said:

Try your zoom at 30mm; if it works, you should consider the Panasonic 15/1.7.

Click to expand...

This one has been mentioned several times and does seem like an interesting choice.

The 17mm f/1.8 is the perfect lens for your purpose and it matches the camera very nicely. The only problem is its mediocre optical quality.

Its sharpness is unimpressive, while it also has a field of curvature issue making it a poor choice for landscape and distant objects. Lenstip found it ill considered and not something to be proud of. This is very disappointing for a prime lens. The full review is here:

https://www.lenstip.com/357.1-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_17_mm_f_1.8.html

This is a very old lens, known for its average quality, a lens most in need of an update. The Panasonic 15mm is a much better lens but very expensive.

Here's a shot taken with the 17/2.8 on the E-M1 i



And a 100% crop, unsharpened



F1.8 or 1.2 would be better but it's good enough for most uses.

Masefield said:

Ste_S said:

I use the 17mm f2.8 for street and quite like it as it's cheap and so compact. Even in combo with an ageing e-p3 I like the results and makes the camera jacket pocketable. Don't notice too much of a difference in af speed compared to a Panny 25mm f1.7 which I also use

Click to expand...

I really like this one...great capture!

It proves that in the hands of a good photographer, even a combination of an old Micro 43 camera and the so-called "weakest" M43 prime lens can deliver a great image!

Click to expand...

Excellent picture but terrible lens quality. Even for a black and white photo, the limitation of the lens is clear if you check the image quality. More details in the wrinkles and hair would have added so much more to the picture. If this kind of quality is good enough, fine, but then you can also use a 1 inch sensor or smaller sensor camera, or one with a zoom. Why bother with a prime lens.

Alexis D said:

Masefield said:

Ste_S said:

I use the 17mm f2.8 for street and quite like it as it's cheap and so compact. Even in combo with an ageing e-p3 I like the results and makes the camera jacket pocketable. Don't notice too much of a difference in af speed compared to a Panny 25mm f1.7 which I also use

Click to expand...

I really like this one...great capture!

It proves that in the hands of a good photographer, even a combination of an old Micro 43 camera and the so-called "weakest" M43 prime lens can deliver a great image!

Click to expand...

Excellent picture but terrible lens quality. Even for a black and white photo, the limitation of the lens is clear if you check the image quality. More details in the wrinkles and hair would have added so much more to the picture. If this kind of quality is good enough, fine, but then you can also use a 1 inch sensor or smaller sensor camera, or one with a zoom. Why bother with a prime lens.

Click to expand...

Check the details on my 17/2.8 shots

Sergey Borachev said:

The 17mm f/1.8 is the perfect lens for your purpose and it matches the camera very nicely. The only problem is its mediocre optical quality.

Its sharpness is unimpressive, while it also has a field of curvature issue making it a poor choice for landscape and distant objects. Lenstip found it ill considered and not something to be proud of. This is very disappointing for a prime lens. The full review is here:

https://www.lenstip.com/357.1-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_17_mm_f_1.8.html

This is a very old lens, known for its average quality, a lens most in need of an update. The Panasonic 15mm is a much better lens but very expensive.

Click to expand...

Here is a very detailed real world review of the Olympus 17mm f1.8 with a lot of sample images:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/01/27/the-olympus-17-1-8-lens-review-on-the-e-m5-by-steve-huff/

Steve Huff is a very experienced photographer, he's reviewed tons of gear, and he rated the 17mm f1.8 very highly indeed. He also addresses the negative reviews of the 17mm f1.8 that he strongly disagrees with.

If you read the comments on that page, it seems to indicate that a very early batch of that lens may have suffered with quality control issues, which led to mixed reviews, including the lenstip one you posted above.

IIRC, the Steve Huff comments section included some owners saying that they'd had an early copy of the lens and IQ was mediocre, but a later copy they owned was absolutely fine. I believe that this is what led to some of the disappointing early reviews of the 17mm f1.8.

A purchaser of ANY new lens (shop bought or second hand) should always check it for IQ in the first couple of weeks to make sure there are no problems with it. If there are, then exchange it.

All I can say is that my own copy of the Olympus 17mm f1.8 is a great little lens and one of my favourites in all of Micro 43.

--
'Photography is not art. It's pressing buttons. People take it up because they can't draw.' Lord Snowdon

Here is another glowing review of the Olympus 17mm f1.8 from a seasoned professional photographer:


David Thorpe is a great reviewer, I highly recommend his no-nonsense videos. He really knows his stuff, and he prefers the Olympus 17mm f1.8 over the Panasonic 20mm f1.7. He says he'd never sell his Oly 17mm.

Thorpe is an honest reviewer who isn't afraid to criticize Olympus when he thinks they've gotten something wrong.

With detailed real world reviews from experienced pros like these, highly praising the lens, it simply can't be a poor performer.

As I said, I think that the problem stems from poor quality control with a very early batch of this lens.

Also read the dpreview thread I linked to earlier, where many posters who've used both the Olympus 17mm f1.8 and the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 strongly prefer the Olympus.

--
'Photography is not art. It's pressing buttons. People take it up because they can't draw.' Lord Snowdon

Masefield said:

Here is another glowing review of the Olympus 17mm f1.8 from a seasoned professional photographer:

David Thorpe is a great reviewer, I highly recommend his no-nonsense videos. He really knows his stuff, and he prefers the Olympus 17mm f1.8 over the Panasonic 20mm f1.7.

Click to expand...

This is a little bit disingenuous comment stated like this. He said he prefers the FOCAL LENGTH of 35m instead of a 40mm

but he also said the Panasonic is sharper and cheaper

In the end though I assume that the sample variation is probably bigger than the IQ difference between both lenses

I think the biggest difference between the two lenses is indeed the focal length. I never liked the 35m equivalent ( not a real wide angle and not really a normal lens either) . 40mm has always been my favorite normal focal lengthn

so in the end it is about deciding which FOV you like better

Harold

Harold66 said:

Masefield said:

Here is another glowing review of the Olympus 17mm f1.8 from a seasoned professional photographer:

David Thorpe is a great reviewer, I highly recommend his no-nonsense videos. He really knows his stuff, and he prefers the Olympus 17mm f1.8 over the Panasonic 20mm f1.7.

Click to expand...

This is a little bit disingenuous comment stated like this. He said he prefers the FOCAL LENGTH of 35m instead of a 40mm

but he also said the Panasonic is sharper and cheaper

In the end though I assume that the sample variation is probably bigger than the IQ difference between both lenses

I think the biggest difference between the two lenses is indeed the focal length. I never liked the 35m equivalent ( not a real wide angle and not really a normal lens either) . 40mm has always been my favorite normal focal lengthn

so in the end it is about deciding which FOV you like better

Click to expand...

No, I don't think I'm being disingenuous. I think I'm being fair in my assessment of Mr Thorpe's review.

He prefers the Olympus 17mm f1.8 over the Panasonic 20mm because of A) Its design, build, style and handling, B) Its much faster and more useful auto focus performance and C) Its wider focal length.

Thorpe had absolutely no reservations about the sharpness of the Olympus 17mm f1.8 whatsoever...although he did say that if budget is a factor, then because of its lower price, the Panasonic 20mm is very worthy of serious consideration.

If the two lenses were priced the same, I think Mr Thorpe wouldn't hesitate to recommend the Olympus over the Panasonic (and he is a photographer who often prefers Panasonic)

I fully agree with you that when purchasing a lens, getting the right focal length for the photographer should be the primary concern.

--
'Photography is not art. It's pressing buttons. People take it up because they can't draw.' Lord Snowdon

Masefield said:

Harold66 said:

Masefield said:

Here is another glowing review of the Olympus 17mm f1.8 from a seasoned professional photographer:

David Thorpe is a great reviewer, I highly recommend his no-nonsense videos. He really knows his stuff, and he prefers the Olympus 17mm f1.8 over the Panasonic 20mm f1.7.

Click to expand...

This is a little bit disingenuous comment stated like this. He said he prefers the FOCAL LENGTH of 35m instead of a 40mm

but he also said the Panasonic is sharper and cheaper

In the end though I assume that the sample variation is probably bigger than the IQ difference between both lenses

I think the biggest difference between the two lenses is indeed the focal length. I never liked the 35m equivalent ( not a real wide angle and not really a normal lens either) . 40mm has always been my favorite normal focal lengthn

so in the end it is about deciding which FOV you like better

Click to expand...

No, I don't think I'm being disingenuous. I think I'm being fair in my assessment of Mr Thorpe's review.

Click to expand...

well i let other peoplewho watch the full review how accurate your previous statement was

Masefield said:

He prefers the Olympus 17mm f1.8 over the Panasonic 20mm because of A) Its design, build, style and handling, B) Its much faster and more useful auto focus performance and C) Its wider focal length.

Thorpe had absolutely no reservations about the sharpness of the Olympus 17mm f1.8 whatsoever...although he did say that if budget is a factor, then because of its lower price, the Panasonic 20mm is very worthy of serious consideration.

If the two lenses were priced the same, I think Mr Thorpe wouldn't hesitate to recommend the Olympus over the Panasonic (and he is a photographer who often prefers Panasonic)

I fully agree with you that when purchasing a lens, getting the right focal length for the photographer should be the primary concern.

Click to expand...

Harold66 said:

well i let other peoplewho watch the full review how accurate your previous statement was

Click to expand...

I am 100% confident to let them.

It is obvious that based on David Thorpe's video, (except for the higher price), he thinks the Olympus 17mm f1.8 is the equal or the superior to the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 in every way.

1) Solid metal Olympus build quality vs more "plasticy" feel.

2) Much faster, quieter Olympus autofocus "head and shoulders" above the Panasonic.

3) He really likes using the Olympus manual focus clutch mechanism that the Panasonic lacks.

And, contrary to your earlier claim, nowhere in his video does Thorpe say he thinks the Panasonic has a meaningful advantage in sharpness! You are misleading the board when you claimed this!

In fact, at 3.30 mins of the video, he presents a "quick and dirty" comparison between the two lenses, and concluded that their sharpness looked identical!!

(Note, he didn't compare the two lenses scientifically, pixel peeping at greatly magnified test charts...where the Panasonic would win, to be fair)

So in conclusion Harold, it is you, not I, who was "disingenuous" in his analysis of David Thorpe's video on the Oly 17mm.

--
'Photography is not art. It's pressing buttons. People take it up because they can't draw.' Lord Snowdon

Masefield said:

Harold66 said:

well i let other peoplewho watch the full review how accurate your previous statement was

Click to expand...

I am 100% confident to let them.

It is obvious that based on Thorpe's video, (except for the higher price), he thinks the Olympus 17mm f1.8 is the equal or the superior to the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 in every way.

Solid metal Olympus build quality vs more "plasticy" feel.

Much faster, quieter Olympus autofocus "head and shoulders" above the Panasonic.

He really loves the Olympus manual focus clutch mechanism that the Panasonic lacks.

And, contrary to your earlier claim, nowhere in his video does Thorpe say he thinks the Panasonic has a meaningful advantage in sharpness! You are misleading the board when you claimed this!

Click to expand...

indeed I stand corrected on this one. This was something i read on both lenstip and opticallimits sites