jeffharris
Forum Pro
Me, I’d get the 17mm. 25mm? MEH.
I wonder if OMDS will release a weatherproofed version of the 45mm f1.8?
45mm and the 17mm would make a nice walkabout set.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Ordering Om-3, should i get 17 or 25mm lens?
- Thread starter cayshi
- Start date
I wonder if OMDS will release a weatherproofed version of the 45mm f1.8?
45mm and the 17mm would make a nice walkabout set.
Allan Brown
Senior Member
I have the 15 and I hardly ever use it. I find it either too wide or not wide enough. For a walk-around prime, I am finding the TTArtisan 25mm f2 to be good.You have the Nikon ZF, and said "I dont like the plastic look and feel of nikon 40mm f2".
In m43, 20mm would be the theoretic equivalent FL. Maybe a tad wider, because of the quite wider aspect ratio in m43. If you do not need weathersealing and a narrow DOF, have a look at the Panasonic Leica 15/1.7. It would also have a bigger FL difference to a second 25mm lens you are planning to buy.
The 15 is a very nice looking and feeling metal build, yet not heavy at all. One of the sharpest small primes in the system. And it comes also in silver to match your OM3:
However, I am more likely to go out with a zoom.
Allan
MCMLXXIII AD
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 319
- Reaction score
- 229
That's unfortunate and I thought it was the lenses. I noticed some green orb on the vehicle lights when I tried OM3 with 17 and 25mm.
Isn't this meant to be one of key selling points of OM3 that jpegs could be made with various simulations?
Isn't this meant to be one of key selling points of OM3 that jpegs could be made with various simulations?
This should have ended the thread before it became the usual popularity and opinion contest.
Asherax
Leading Member
Agreed, the 45 and 75 both need to be weather-sealed. No need updating the optics, they are both superb, although perhaps the 45 could do with a more robust casing similar to the 75. seems the natural progression. A Titanium modelled OM-3 would be good also.
icexe
Leading Member
It's really a matter of personal preference, and that's usually based on what you like to shoot. For me personally, I like the 35mm FOV for street and travel, and the 50mm FOV for indoor shots of pets and family. Or, as I like to put it, 50mm is my "winter" lens and 35mm is my "summer" lens.
NowHearThis
Veteran Member
I use jpg’s often. I don't always have time to put them in software before I send the photos to friends/family.Probably depends what PP software you are using. I thought most PP programs would apply the lens corrections automatically. It may matter if you do only jpg's.It's Achilles Heel is that on Olympus/OM System bodies there is a fair amount of CAs at wider apertures. You can fix this relatively easily, but it's something to be aware of. I forgot about this when I ordered mine. It's sharp, but now I have one more thing to do with every image.You have the Nikon ZF, and said "I dont like the plastic look and feel of nikon 40mm f2".
In m43, 20mm would be the theoretic equivalent FL. Maybe a tad wider, because of the quite wider aspect ratio in m43. If you do not need weathersealing and a narrow DOF, have a look at the Panasonic Leica 15/1.7. It would also have a bigger FL difference to a second 25mm lens you are planning to buy.
The 15 is a very nice looking and feeling metal build, yet not heavy at all. One of the sharpest small primes in the system. And it comes also in silver to match your OM3:
--
NHT
Art_P
Forum Pro
25mm is 'normal' or about how the eye sees, while 17 is slightly wide.
I personally prefer 17 over 25. When I was shooting film I did pick up a 50mm (same field of view as 25 in m43) but never really liked it That lens got more use on a macro bellows on my E-520 than it ever did on my OM-4 film camera.
Thinking back, I had a Ricoh rangefinder w a fixed 35mm lens for years before my first SLR, so that may have affected my vision.
17 is good for street, for landscape, for indoors...
25 might be better for portraits, or you might want to go to 45?
Currently using a 12-200, more under 20 or over 100 than mid range.
But again, it comes down to how YOU see, and what focal length you are most comfortable with. What camera/lens are you coming from?
I personally prefer 17 over 25. When I was shooting film I did pick up a 50mm (same field of view as 25 in m43) but never really liked it That lens got more use on a macro bellows on my E-520 than it ever did on my OM-4 film camera.
Thinking back, I had a Ricoh rangefinder w a fixed 35mm lens for years before my first SLR, so that may have affected my vision.
17 is good for street, for landscape, for indoors...
25 might be better for portraits, or you might want to go to 45?
Currently using a 12-200, more under 20 or over 100 than mid range.
But again, it comes down to how YOU see, and what focal length you are most comfortable with. What camera/lens are you coming from?
But it didn't of course LOL
john isaacs
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 10,439
- Solutions
- 22
- Reaction score
- 9,911
Much as I like the E-M5ii, it does not have PDAF so moving subjects are very iffy, and it is only 16mp and I much prefer 20mp. Which was why I updated mine to the E-M5iii. I would have updated to the OM5 as well, but I want the updated menus to go with my two OM-1's.Don't order the OM-3! Buy an Olympus E-M5ii and both the old 17mm and 25mm and have a ton of change left over. This kit will be sufficient for everything you do!
Olympus OM-D E-M5II - Black, Silver & Titanium
If you want the smallest robust, modern model, then OM3 is the one to get. But I'm not getting one because I rely on a grip.
jeffharris
Forum Pro
Yeah, 75mm, too. 17mm, 45mm and 75mm, that's a perfect trio of primes. All sealed would be GREAT!
I use a similar Voigtländer trio… 17.5mm, 42.5mm and adapted 75mm f1.5.
Skeeterbytes
Forum Pro
OM rep implied without verifying we will see more prime refreshes like these. Didn't coax anything more than just that out of him so take with a grain of salt.
12, 45 and 75 are obvious candidates and the investment is worthwhile because seals, new coatings, hoods and bayonets, plus metal construction for the 45 are all meaningful enhancements.
Already have the excellent 25 and was impressed how much nicer the revised edition is.
Rick
Cafe Racer
Senior Member
Read the last sentence of my response to the OP made bold (note the exclamation mark) and decide how serious you think it is.
john isaacs
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 10,439
- Solutions
- 22
- Reaction score
- 9,911
Very serious.
Cafe Racer
Senior Member
I agree, the 17 and 45mm is a very nice combo I often carry around. Small and good quality. If I'm going for extremely light and it's not too dark, the Pana 12-32mm
Neverland76uk
Well-known member
- Messages
- 112
- Reaction score
- 98
I went to see it on one of those try days. I took my own camera for size comparison and had the 20mm f1.4 on it.
the om3 had the 25mm f1.8 on it in the shop and I thought the focusing was not as snappy as I liked it to be. I then swapped the lens for my own 20mm and that was as it ought to be.
maybe I’m biased cause I love the 20mm focal length and not a huge fan of the 17mm. 25 is great but not for everything I find.
the om3 had the 25mm f1.8 on it in the shop and I thought the focusing was not as snappy as I liked it to be. I then swapped the lens for my own 20mm and that was as it ought to be.
maybe I’m biased cause I love the 20mm focal length and not a huge fan of the 17mm. 25 is great but not for everything I find.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum