What fast 35mm eqiv. lens would you recommend for m43?

I'm considering buying a 35mm equiv. fast prime for my m43 bodies. My plan is to shoot weddings with 35mm, 85mm and 150mm primes on three bodies - 2x GX7 and E-PL5. Most times I may be using only two bodies with 35 and 85mm.

My current prime setup is 12mm f2, 25mm f1.4 and 45mm f1.8 (now is 42.5mm f1.2).

I'm seeing three options:

1. m.Zuiko 17mm f1.8 - appears to be tremendously mediocre in terms of sharpness except in the absolute center

2. PL 15mm f1.7 - looks sharper, but I really would have liked it to be further away from 12mm so that I don't feel like I've cropped 5% off my 12mm lens - I'd prefer a 35mm equiv instead of 30.

3. Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95 - as I hear it's very sharp, but weighs way too much and I'd rather have AF instead of straining my eyes with the dynamic nature of weddings.

From the options I seem to have I'm disappointed because the Oly and Pana lenses just don't seem to be what I want. The Zuiko is closest to my preferences but when put next to the Nocticron and the 75mm f1.8 it isn't nearly sharp enough to match them.

My questions are:

1. Am I missing some alternative? Is there any other lens to consider?

2. Do any of the three lenses have any other strengths to consider?

3. Which lens in your personal opinion is best for the job?

I think you might find the olympus 12-40mm f2.8 (24-80 in 35mm terms) would be very useful for weddings. I wish I had it when I used to do weddings. Failing that I would use the following primes

Lumix 15mm (30mm equiv)

Lumix 25mm (50mm eqviv)

Olympus 60mm macro (120mm equiv)

However whilst you are changing cameras, I would have got the shot with my 12-40.

Good Luck

David

Bots_Revenge wrote:

I'm considering buying a 35mm equiv. fast prime for my m43 bodies. My plan is to shoot weddings with 35mm, 85mm and 150mm primes on three bodies - 2x GX7 and E-PL5. Most times I may be using only two bodies with 35 and 85mm.

My current prime setup is 12mm f2, 25mm f1.4 and 45mm f1.8 (now is 42.5mm f1.2).

I'm seeing three options:

1. m.Zuiko 17mm f1.8 - appears to be tremendously mediocre in terms of sharpness except in the absolute center

I don't know where you are getting this "appearance" from, it's a fine little lens. And the one that I would recommend.

From the options I seem to have I'm disappointed because the Oly and Pana lenses just don't seem to be what I want. The Zuiko is closest to my preferences but when put next to the Nocticron and the 75mm f1.8 it isn't nearly sharp enough to match them.

Of course it is not, but you are comparing it to two of the sharpest lenses available for MFT... again, this is far from being "tremendously mediocre"...

My questions are:

1. Am I missing some alternative? Is there any other lens to consider?

Yes, you could rent the 17 1.8 and try it out for yourself, instead of going with hear say...

This is what SLRGear have to say about the lens regarding its sharpness:

"Sharpness
The Olympus 17mm ƒ/1.8 m.Zuiko provided surprisingly sharp results. When used wide open at ƒ/1.8, there is some corner softness to speak of (and more towards the top of the frame), but the majority of the frame is very sharp. Stopping down provides an increase of sharpness, and for maximal sharpness you'll need to stop down to ƒ/5.6. At ƒ/8, diffraction limiting begins to set in, but there isn't a significant impact on sharpness until ƒ/11, and even then it's just a slightly overall decrease. Images start to lose their sharpness at ƒ/16, and become moderately soft at ƒ/22."

@Araldite - Thanks. I should have mentioned that I have the 12-40 f2.8 and the 35-100 f2.8. I love them both for numerous reasons.

The reason I want to shoot primes is that I can get more subject separation especially with the shorter lenses. When I shoot with the 12-40 shoulder to shoulder with my colleague with 5D mk III + 24-70 f2.8, my shots look like they are coming from a compact camera in terms of DoF.

I'm not looking to recreate the DoF of FF primes but at least to be close to the standard zooms.

@biza43 - I'm getting that impression from the image samples in photozone.de and photographyblog.com. What I mean by mediocre is not by m43 standards but in the whole range of competitors from other systems. I shoot alongside people with FF cameras with the highest grade lenses. My 12-40, 35-100, 75mm, 42.5mm, 45mm and 25mm f1.4 hold no punches and produce images that can be indistinguishable from the FF cameras. The 17m f1.8 just looks out of that league. Indeed I shall try it for myself.

I also tried giving some of the image samples some smart sharpening and they do become quite alright but that means I have to separately sharpen them.

@Advent1sam - I have thought about the PL20mm f1.7. I had the mk I before and it was amazing in terms of sharpness. Such a joy for the eyes. Unfortunately on my E-PM2 it was indeed quite slow to focus. I shall try it on my GX7 but I have my reservations about the focal length since I will not be using a wider lens when I put this one on.

@SkiHound - thank you for the input! I will try for myself.

Bots_Revenge wrote:

@biza43 - I'm getting that impression from the image samples in photozone.de and photographyblog.com. What I mean by mediocre is not by m43 standards but in the whole range of competitors from other systems. I shoot alongside people with FF cameras with the highest grade lenses. My 12-40, 35-100, 75mm, 42.5mm, 45mm and 25mm f1.4 hold no punches and produce images that can be indistinguishable from the FF cameras. The 17m f1.8 just looks out of that league. Indeed I shall try it for myself.

I also tried giving some of the image samples some smart sharpening and they do become quite alright but that means I have to separately sharpen them.

I also have the 12-40, the 75, and will soon have the 25 1.4. Indeed these lenses are one notch above the 17mm 1.8, but then, they cost a whole lot more. As for FF, well, I also shoot with a Canon 6D and Zeiss 21, so yes, again, a different league.

However, photography is about compromising and in that regard, there are a lot worse "compromising" than the 17mm 1.8. It's a fine little lens on its own, and it is cheap. Should Olympus or Panasonic come up with a 17mm lens that would be on par with some of the lenses mentioned above? Well, perhaps yes, for some users need the absolute best in the format, but then the cost would rise accordingly.

biza43 wrote:

Bots_Revenge wrote:

@biza43 - I'm getting that impression from the image samples in photozone.de and photographyblog.com. What I mean by mediocre is not by m43 standards but in the whole range of competitors from other systems. I shoot alongside people with FF cameras with the highest grade lenses. My 12-40, 35-100, 75mm, 42.5mm, 45mm and 25mm f1.4 hold no punches and produce images that can be indistinguishable from the FF cameras. The 17m f1.8 just looks out of that league. Indeed I shall try it for myself.

I also tried giving some of the image samples some smart sharpening and they do become quite alright but that means I have to separately sharpen them.

I also have the 12-40, the 75, and will soon have the 25 1.4. Indeed these lenses are one notch above the 17mm 1.8, but then, they cost a whole lot more. As for FF, well, I also shoot with a Canon 6D and Zeiss 21, so yes, again, a different league.

However, photography is about compromising and in that regard, there are a lot worse "compromising" than the 17mm 1.8. It's a fine little lens on its own, and it is cheap. Should Olympus or Panasonic come up with a 17mm lens that would be on par with some of the lenses mentioned above? Well, perhaps yes, for some users need the absolute best in the format, but then the cost would rise accordingly.

I personally can put up with the prices if the lenses are as high quality as the 75, 12-40, 42.5 f1.2, 35-100 and so on.

Actually I think the 17/1.8 would be excellent.

One lens you didn't list is the Panasonic 20/1.7. It would be unsuitable on an E-PL5 because of problems with banding - clearly unacceptable on a once in a lifetime event like a wedding. But it would probably be great on a GX7.

I'm not looking to recreate the DoF of FF primes but at least to be close to the standard zooms.

Voigtlander hands down should be the best as it is fast and sharp, rendering is fantastic.  With a little practice, focusing can be very quick with the help of focus peaking.  As long as you're not trying to photograph kids running around you should not have difficulty focusing.  Beyond a few feet the focus range moves quickly on the lens, no need for lots of turning.  Maybe try manual on one of your existing short FL lenses and see how it works for you.

xerophytenyc wrote:

I'm not looking to recreate the DoF of FF primes but at least to be close to the standard zooms.

Voigtlander hands down should be the best as it is fast and sharp, rendering is fantastic. With a little practice, focusing can be very quick with the help of focus peaking. As long as you're not trying to photograph kids running around you should not have difficulty focusing. Beyond a few feet the focus range moves quickly on the lens, no need for lots of turning. Maybe try manual on one of your existing short FL lenses and see how it works for you.

I have tried manual focusing but the "focus by wire" system adapts to the speed I'm turning the ring so if I try to remember where a certain position of the ring puts the focus plane, once I turn the ring back and forth the position will not match. This is an advantage of the Voigtlander indeed.

I have to test it but I'd rather have a lighter lens than that piece of chunky metal.

Bots_Revenge wrote:

I'm considering buying a 35mm equiv. fast prime for my m43 bodies. My plan is to shoot weddings

Many would prefer to use two zoom lenses.  12-35 or 12-40 plus 35-100.  You may want to get a macro lens for close up of rings and other small decorative items at wedding, and the 42.5 for formal head/shoulder shots.

My current prime setup is 12mm f2, 25mm f1.4 and 45mm f1.8 (now is 42.5mm f1.2).

If you already have a 25 mm lens, do you really need a 20-15mm lens?

I'm seeing three options:

1. m.Zuiko 17mm f1.8 - appears to be tremendously mediocre in terms of sharpness except in the absolute center

As many have said this "tremendously" misrepresents the capability of this lens.

1. Am I missing some alternative? Is there any other lens to consider?

Pannasonic 20/1.7.

G1Houston wrote:

Bots_Revenge wrote:

I'm considering buying a 35mm equiv. fast prime for my m43 bodies. My plan is to shoot weddings

Many would prefer to use two zoom lenses. 12-35 or 12-40 plus 35-100. You may want to get a macro lens for close up of rings and other small decorative items at wedding, and the 42.5 for formal head/shoulder shots.

My current prime setup is 12mm f2, 25mm f1.4 and 45mm f1.8 (now is 42.5mm f1.2).

If you already have a 25 mm lens, do you really need a 20-15mm lens?

I'm seeing three options:

1. m.Zuiko 17mm f1.8 - appears to be tremendously mediocre in terms of sharpness except in the absolute center

As many have said this "tremendously" misrepresents the capability of this lens.

1. Am I missing some alternative? Is there any other lens to consider?

Pannasonic 20/1.7.

The 12-40 f2.8 offers an admirable closeup ability. I also have extension rings for extreme closeups. I do like the flexibility of the zooms (that I have) and the 35-100 also gives me quite satisfying defocus control. The 12-40, although a stunningly good lens, has depth of field that is sometimes too large. That's why I'm aiming at two well balanced primes in terms of FoV and DoF. 35mm equiv. seems right on the money as it is not too wide or narrow for my wider lens.

I'm also trying to move away from the PL 25mm f1.4 because on my Pens I often have issues with missed focus. I'm also not too pleased with the accuracy I get with the 12mm f2.

I must say that I've always used the touch screen to place a small AF point instead of choosing one of the available 35 small points on the E-PM2/E-PL5. Perhaps on the GX7 the accuracy will be higher and I could keep the 12mm f2 and the 25mm f1.4.

Still I want to move from using three narrowly spread focal lengths (24, 50, 85mm equiv.) and use 35 and 85mm. Since I plan on using two GX7s and at times the E-PL5, I can put the 35mm equiv. on it and use 85mm and 150mm on the two Panasonics.

So now I'm about to try out the m.Zuiko 17mm f1.8 and the Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95. The price of the Voigtlander is 2.5x higher and it weighs 4.5x more so it'd have to perform spectacularly to justify me carrying that weight, paying so much money and bothering to manually focus.

Thank you all for your input! I appreciate your advice and will consider all that's been said.

You say you want a shallower DoF for subject isolation, but you really aren't going to get much with either the 17mm 1.8 or the 15mm 1.7 on m43's without serious subject distortion. Your best bet is to have the 12-40 on one camera, 35-100 on another and then a portrait prime (45mm or 75mm). If you want just primes... your setup is already as good as it gets for the most part: 12/2, 25/1.4, 45mm/75mm.

Bots_Revenge wrote:

xerophytenyc wrote:

I'm not looking to recreate the DoF of FF primes but at least to be close to the standard zooms.

Voigtlander hands down should be the best as it is fast and sharp, rendering is fantastic. With a little practice, focusing can be very quick with the help of focus peaking. As long as you're not trying to photograph kids running around you should not have difficulty focusing. Beyond a few feet the focus range moves quickly on the lens, no need for lots of turning. Maybe try manual on one of your existing short FL lenses and see how it works for you.

I have tried manual focusing but the "focus by wire" system adapts to the speed I'm turning the ring so if I try to remember where a certain position of the ring puts the focus plane, once I turn the ring back and forth the position will not match. This is an advantage of the Voigtlander indeed.

I have to test it but I'd rather have a lighter lens than that piece of chunky metal.

You could try the snapback focus ring on your 12-40. It's still focus-by-wire, but I believe that it keeps the physical ring lined up with where the focus is.

biza43, I have the pany leica 15mm f1.7, I sold my 25mm f1.4 as I find the extra width better for me. It's just as good as the 25mm. I bought the 15mm for indoor shots of buildings

Henry Richardson wrote:

If you don't like the Olympus 17mm f1.8 you can look at the Sigma 19mm f2.8 and Olympus 17mm f2.8 also.

Thanks! I would avoid f2.8 lenses because I already have some of the best and also because f2.8 doesn't provide shallow enough DoF with short lenses. If There was a 17mm f1.2 lens and it was good, I'd buy it.