Reading mode: Light Dark

Wide prime lens (Oly 12mm vs Pana 15mm)

Go to last post
T

Tamelick

New member
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
Hi all,

At the moment I have the following lenses on my EM5ii:

Panasonic 12-32 f/3.5-5.6

Panasonic 20 f/1.7

Olympus 14-150 f/4-5.6

The one I am using the least is the 12-32 as I find the 20mm more fun and achieving better results for general street photography (plus obviously indoor). I use quite a lot the 14-150 particularly for wildlife or when hiking (and I want to carry one lens only).

As an additional lens for the near future, I was looking for another prime lens but wider. This would be mostly for astrophotography (instead of the 20mm I currently using) and landscapes and perhaps general street photography / indoor.

As options I was considering the Oly 12mm f/2, the Pana 14mm f/2.5 and the Pana 15mm f/1.7.

The 14mm is obviously the cheapest and smallest option, but aside for astro I understand that it wouldn't be much an upgrade from the 12-32 which is can go as wide. Also f/2.5 is not ideal for astro I think.

Any suggestion between the 12mm and the 15mm? There is an obvious difference in focal length which I need to give some more thought to. In that regard, I have the impression that the 12mm would be perhaps too wide for street photography (so I would end up using it only for astro) while the 15mm would be perhaps too close to the other prime I have (20mm), although I could sell that if I really wanted/needed.

Many thanks in advance

p.s. at this stage I have excluded the Samyang alternatives because of the lack of AF which I am not sure I would get used to outside of astro (and also due to size, to an extent)
 
I think you would get more use out of the 12mm. Great lens for Astro, and I think you would be pleasantly surprised in trying it out for street. The 15 is an excellent lens too, but personally I found I used the 12 more than the 15, and ended up selling the 15.
 
Tamelick said:
Hi all,

At the moment I have the following lenses on my EM5ii:

Panasonic 12-32 f/3.5-5.6

Panasonic 20 f/1.7

Olympus 14-150 f/4-5.6

The one I am using the least is the 12-32 as I find the 20mm more fun and achieving better results for general street photography (plus obviously indoor). I use quite a lot the 14-150 particularly for wildlife or when hiking (and I want to carry one lens only).

As an additional lens for the near future, I was looking for another prime lens but wider. This would be mostly for astrophotography (instead of the 20mm I currently using) and landscapes and perhaps general street photography / indoor.

As options I was considering the Oly 12mm f/2, the Pana 14mm f/2.5 and the Pana 15mm f/1.7.

The 14mm is obviously the cheapest and smallest option, but aside for astro I understand that it wouldn't be much an upgrade from the 12-32 which is can go as wide. Also f/2.5 is not ideal for astro I think.

Any suggestion between the 12mm and the 15mm? There is an obvious difference in focal length which I need to give some more thought to. In that regard, I have the impression that the 12mm would be perhaps too wide for street photography (so I would end up using it only for astro) while the 15mm would be perhaps too close to the other prime I have (20mm), although I could sell that if I really wanted/needed.

Many thanks in advance

p.s. at this stage I have excluded the Samyang alternatives because of the lack of AF which I am not sure I would get used to outside of astro (and also due to size, to an extent)
Click to expand...
I would say buy for focal length first, quality second and aperture third.

If the focal length is one you are comfortable with, or get comfortable with, you will usr it a lot.

I have both the 15/1.7 and the 20/1.7. If I was foced to downsize I would sell the 20/1.7.

The 15/1.7 is a very sharp lens with good contrast. So is the 20/1.7, but the AF of the 15/1.7 is much better.

For me the two lenses have quite a different use. The 15/1.7 is a wide angle that I use for groups of people or big landscapes.

The 20/1.7 has a quite a narrower angle of view (my perception) and I find it useful for more tightly cropped images, e.g. portrait of someone I am talking to.
 
I have the 12-40pro, the 15mm and 20mm. The 20mm comes out when I want a portrait-ish look, which is uncommon for me. The 15/1.7 is most often on the camera when doing either street or astro stuff. I still tend to shoot to early when using the 15, as I used the 20 for years, but I'm getting used to it.

Here's an astro shot from a hotel balcony in Switzerland. It's not the best night shot, but there was a ton of streetlight coming from below. Its shows that the 15/1.7 is great for wide angle astro work (imagine being in a place without the streetlights!):

https://flic.kr/p/2gqAPcA

Here's some street shots with the 15/1.7:

https://flic.kr/p/2gkBGjF

https://flic.kr/p/27ZDB3m

My street work tends to be wider-angle. If you are more interested in the portraity-style stuff, I'd stick with the 20mm. It's a great lens, though you'll be manually focusing at night.
 
Tamelick said:
As an additional lens for the near future, I was looking for another prime lens but wider. This would be mostly for astrophotography (instead of the 20mm I currently using) and landscapes and perhaps general street photography / indoor.

As options I was considering the Oly 12mm f/2, the Pana 14mm f/2.5 and the Pana 15mm f/1.7.
Click to expand...
[snip]
Tamelick said:
Any suggestion between the 12mm and the 15mm? There is an obvious difference in focal length which I need to give some more thought to. In that regard, I have the impression that the 12mm would be perhaps too wide for street photography (so I would end up using it only for astro) while the 15mm would be perhaps too close to the other prime I have (20mm), although I could sell that if I really wanted/needed.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by street photography since some people use the term rather broadly. If you mean the genre characterized by photographers such as Gary Winogrand and HCB then, yes, I think the 12 will be too wide.

I have the 15/1.7, 20/1.7 and a 25/1.4. I use the 20 only when I don't know if I want to use the 15 or 25. ;-) The other consideration is that the 20 is a bit slow to AF for very fast situations although I've used it with reasonable success with zone focusing.

I also find the 15 FoV to be great for indoor photography of friends & family.
 
Tamelick said:
Any suggestion between the 12mm and the 15mm? There is an obvious difference in focal length which I need to give some more thought to. In that regard, I have the impression that the 12mm would be perhaps too wide for street photography (so I would end up using it only for astro) while the 15mm would be perhaps too close to the other prime I have (20mm), although I could sell that if I really wanted/needed.
Click to expand...
I have had several copies of the 12/2 and all of them were decentered/soft. Obviously not all of them are, just a possibility to be aware of. I would also agree that it would be a bit too wide for general street photography, plus I believe it is not especially good for astro.

The 15 is a fine lens for general use, as well as for street photography. One small drawback - some distortions towards the corners, but normally not an issue, and easily corrected in PP. It is a bit close to your 20mm prime, but a really enjoyable lens - small, sharp, well built, and fast&quiet AF.

Specifically for astro, I like to go really wide, and had some good results with the Olympus 8/1.8 fisheye. Also a very special lens, super wide, can be de-fished (in camera with some models), and a great fun factor.

9981f3d4f7d44fcea61b6b41389e840f.jpg
 
Last edited:
I own both the 12/2.0 and the 15/1.7.

I would go for the 12mm over the 15mm.

It's better for astrophotography (you can use longer exposure times with wider-angle lenses) and is also a good lens for shooting indoors.

It's a good street lens as well - sample shots below

Cheers,

Scott

56c2c63f9adb455090a7642a5e29ee24.jpg

d903cc4ba3274354b79266a55fab4a9c.jpg

f194636478e24ed9a89150e31c7a0c93.jpg

e89d2a126f5946d9af90be05ebee2c29.jpg

6ee1f1a5d55d45458b3abac17ca78b5e.jpg



4d666fcbb19645fd8f1e82a75a04eec5.jpg

S

--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottkmacleod/
 
Last edited:
I acquired my 12mm f/2 the moment it became available in 2011. I understand some people have issues with sample variation, but mine is excellent. Shooting at f/2 is a bit softer than smaller apertures, but you have to look closely to notice. By f/2.8 it's quite sharp.

One thing that few folks mention about the 12mm f/2, it's one of those lenses that seems to put a bit of character in its renderings. If I shoot the same scene with my 12mm f/2 and my 12-40mm f/2.8, I almost always seem to prefer the prime's output. It's quite a nice lens. And I'll never turn down a wider aperture when I need it. :-)


Jim Pilcher
Bonita Springs, Florida, USA
Life is good on the Gulf
 
If you want to attempt low light your best choice is the 15mm 1.7 of the 3 lenses you mentioned

the physical aperture of the lens matter more than the f/number and that increases as the lens is longer

i made a table of lenses is in a post here on dpreview

none of your options are amazing the 15 is the one that has some benefit on the others
 
My first prime lens was the 14/2.5 (back in 2015) - still have it, still love it. It's paired with a wide converter giving me a 10.6mm/f2.5 UWA lens.

I bought the 15/1.7 as it's faster than the 14/2.5. It's my most used lens by far - very useful and versatile FL.

12mm is too wide for me as a general purpose lens. I don't do astrophotography. For general-purpose UWA, I use the above-mentioned 14+WC or my 9-18mm.

I'm also looking into the new Laowa 10/2.0 ...
 
I have owned both of those lenses & they each have a great, but different personality & look to their images.

The Oly 17/1.8 is not as sharp or contrasty as the PL yet gives a nice yet softer look to it's images. That does work very well for a more realistic look (in a good way) to images, especially with portraits. This lens has a beautiful rendering to it's images.

The PL 15/1.7 is a very sharp & contrasty lens, almost clinically sharp. While this can be great with scenic type photography, it can be a detriment in portrait photography where softer looking skin & skin tones may be desired,

In making a final decision for which to get, at least for me since I've owned both, I would need to choose based on what my most intended use for it, would be.

I first owned the Oly & sold it when I found how much sharper & contrasty the PL was, but then noticed that, in many circumstances, I preferred the look of the Oly.

If I was looking to buy again, it would be a tough decision. I would need to base my decision on my most intended usage for it. For me, it would probably be the Oly 17/1.8 again.

Good luck!
 
Last edited:
The 12/2 makes for an ideal pair with the 20/1.7 IMO, but it's grossly overpriced... If you can find it used or refurb tho it's worth a shot, I bought mine for like $384 from Oly's outlet. Very flare resistant, as sharp as the 20/1.7, very nice build with the MF clutch, contrast-y... It's a shame Oly never lowered it's price much IMO. I never tried the PL15 because it felt too close to my 20mm. YMMV

The OEM hood for the 12/2 is ridiculous IMO (and I say that as someone that bought the similar one for the 75/1.8, well, the JJC knockoff)... Old Contax GG-2 hoods work awesome on it tho, Kiwi something or other had knockoffs of those on eBay, the slip on metal cap is a nice touch. The Samyang 12/2 is a solid alternative to the Oly, albeit somewhat larger and manual focus.

In general I think the PL15 would pair better with the PL25, not because they're both PLs but just as far as how I'd use and bounce between the two FLs... You could use the PL15 for astro and stitch for a wider view, it's more work but doable. I'd probably go with one of Laowa's UWAs for single frame/FL astro shots
 
Last edited:
Use the 15 to replace the 20... for faster AF speed, better video support, the wider AoV suits tighter shooting environment more, at a cost of marginal increase in size.
 
Interceptor121 said:
If you want to attempt low light your best choice is the 15mm 1.7 of the 3 lenses you mentioned

the physical aperture of the lens matter more than the f/number and that increases as the lens is longer
Click to expand...
Not true that there's a free lunch here - as the focal length increases, you have to reduce your shutter speed.

For example, to use the 1/full-frame equivalent focal length rule:

1) At 12mm, you can shoot 1/24 second

2) at 15mm, you can shoot 1/30 second

This negates the advantage of the slightly larger physical aperture.

S

--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottkmacleod/
 
Last edited:
For astro and landscape, I would choose the 12mm over the 15mm. For street, I would choose the 15mm over the 12mm

With the E-M5 mark II, I generally prefer to stitch if I need wider than 12mm due to the lower resolution of the sensor. But with the newer 20mp sensors, I like the Laowa 7.5mm f/2 lens for astro, and the 7-14 f/2.8 or 9-18 for landscape (but I'm replacing the 7-14 with the Pansonic 8-18 so I can more easily use filters)

Note that you want a really fast lens for astro, but you don't need one for landscape. As for filters, I use an intensifier for astro, and I use neutral density filters for wide angle landscape (and also polarizing filters for normal/tele angles).
 
You don’t know enough about the subject

The exposure density goes linear with focal but the physical size of the aperture goes with the power

as result longer lenses capture more light

when light drops from billions of photons to few millions exposure density is too low to be relevant
 
Interceptor121 said:
You don’t know enough about the subject
The exposure density goes linear with focal but the physical size of the aperture goes with the power

as result longer lenses capture more light

when light drops from billions of photons to few millions exposure density is too low to be relevant
Click to expand...
so the aperture increases quantity of light captured with area. it also means increased resolution.
 
Resolution is another story.
The exposure system is designed for reflected light but in astro you have incident light so the exposure meters is fooled by the lack of light and the fact it is incident

Incident light depends the surface of the aperture that is a circle so p times radius to the power of two

this multiplied by time gives you the actual exposure factor (save few other constants)

while the shorter lens has a longer exposure to avoid trail that is linear while the area goes with the lower of two

so longer lenses have an advantage

Practically if you want to have a single shot with foreground and background you can’t have too long lens so 12-17mm is where you want to be

the 15mm is positioned well however it is jot particularly fast. The 12mm at f/2 has a smaller aperture

overall the 15mm will have 0.78 stops advantage if you include the two factors it gains 1.11 due to the physical aperture and looses 1/3 due to the exposure time

net effect take the photo with the right settings the 15mm will see more stars

this is why pictures with lenses like the laowa 7.5 unless they go on for minutes show very few stars
 
Interceptor121 said:
Resolution is another story.
The exposure system is designed for reflected light but in astro you have incident light so the exposure meters is fooled by the lack of light and the fact it is incident

Incident light depends the surface of the aperture that is a circle so p times radius to the power of two

this multiplied by time gives you the actual exposure factor (save few other constants)

while the shorter lens has a longer exposure to avoid trail that is linear while the area goes with the lower of two

so longer lenses have an advantage

Practically if you want to have a single shot with foreground and background you can’t have too long lens so 12-17mm is where you want to be

the 15mm is positioned well however it is jot particularly fast. The 12mm at f/2 has a smaller aperture

overall the 15mm will have 0.78 stops advantage if you include the two factors it gains 1.11 due to the physical aperture and looses 1/3 due to the exposure time

net effect take the photo with the right settings the 15mm will see more stars

this is why pictures with lenses like the laowa 7.5 unless they go on for minutes show very few stars
Click to expand...
this sounds like a perfect time to ask this- when stacking, I've noticed that although you can stack many more short exposures to compensate, it will never quite match the detail and colors of an equivalent exposure with fewer subframes, but longer exposure times for each frame.....for example, the Orion Nebula 30 sec exposures and 26 frames vs 3.2 sec exposures and 260 frames.....the former seem to turn out a lot better than the latter.

I'm considering a Pentax K-3 II which has a built in tracker (Astrotracer)- the sensor actually follows the movement of the earth, enabling one to do 30 sec exposures up to 100mm even on a conventional tripod!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top