Oly 17mm f1.8 or Oly 25mm f1.8

I just received my new O-Md E-M10 Mark ll a few days ago and want to add a new Oly lens to my arsenal. I have the Oly 45mm f1.8 already, and love it. My other prime lenses consist of a Sigma 30mm f2.8, OLy 12-50 f3.5-6.3, Pany 14mm f2.5 and a Pany zoom lens, as well as 3 legacy lenses. Taking those lenses into account, which of the 2 lenses I mentioned in my title would be a good fit?

Kevin.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/106345762@N04/

The 17.

Michael M Fliegel wrote:

The 17.

Thanks Michael. That's what I am leaning towards.

Kevin.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/106345762@N04/

kevinboyer wrote:

I just received my new O-Md E-M10 Mark ll a few days ago and want to add a new Oly lens to my arsenal. I have the Oly 45mm f1.8 already, and love it. My other prime lenses consist of a Sigma 30mm f2.8, OLy 12-50 f3.5-6.3, Pany 14mm f2.5 and a Pany zoom lens, as well as 3 legacy lenses. Taking those lenses into account, which of the 2 lenses I mentioned in my title would be a good fit?

Kevin.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/106345762@N04/

I really like using the 17 f.18 on my EM-10II  - it depends on which field of view you like - go out and limit a day to just using 17 or just 25 on your 12-50 zoom - sooner or later you'll get them both!  

I have both. I think the 17 is more useful even though I like the sharpness on the 25mm a little bit more. I almost think I might trade in my 25 for a 45 just because they are so alike sometimes. If in a pinch and I want to just bring one prime, I usually lean toward the 17 though.

This is a pretty subjective thing, to the point that other's opinions might be meaningless... The 17 does slot in more neatly between your other two slower primes; giving you 28, 34, and 60 in EFLs (bigger difference between the former two than between 50/60 IMO). But if you tend to gravitate more towards the 30mm for instance, then you may very well prefer the 25mm.

Some people like their 15-20mm primes better, some like their 25mm... Doesn't seem like there's a ton who use both equally but I'm sure they probably do exist. I prefer my 20mm over a 25mm most of the time, though not always, and I do borrow a PL25 occasionally (although in large part for reasons unrelated to FL).

Given what you have already, the 60 or 75 would perhaps make more sense? If you have to have either the 17 or 25, then I'd favour the 17.

All 5 star reviews of the 17mm Oly on the Oly site. Here is the only non 5 star review on the Oly site for the 25mm f/1.8, and it is a bit misleading or oddly worded...

Pros: Faster than the 12-40mm f2.8 pro
Relatively cheap
Light, your EM1 feels like a Point and Shoot with this lens
Cons: Sharpness is not better than the f2.8 pro
DOF is not better than the f2.8 pro
Bottom line: if you already own the f2.8 pro, do not buy this one.

I purchased this lens along with the OMD-EM1 and the 12-40mm f2.8 pro. Before I got this lens, I also test the Nikon 50mm f1.4 on the Nikon D750 body. I really enjoy the DOF of the Nikon combination and was hoping to achieve the similar effect by using this prime lens. However, the result was quite disappointed. This lens is just not fast enough to get close the isolation effect like the Nikon combo. It is not much different than the f2.8 pro lens at 40mm. In term of sharpness, it is as good as the f2.8 pro but not better. Now to the pros, it does faster than the f2.8 pro so you do not have to rely on higher ISO to shot indoor photos.

daleeight wrote:

Before I got this lens, I also test the Nikon 50mm f1.4 on the Nikon D750 body. I really enjoy the DOF of the Nikon combination and was hoping to achieve the similar effect by using this prime lens. However, the result was quite disappointed. This lens is just not fast enough to get close the isolation effect like the Nikon combo. It is not much different than the f2.8 pro lens at 40mm.

I don't think it is very surprising that an f1.8 lens on MFT does not give you the same thin DOF as an f1.4 lens on full frame.

To the OP - you already have a 14 and a 30 prime. Why do you do you want to add the 17 or 25? Faster? Better? Just bolstering your lens collection?

Peter Mathews wrote:

kevinboyer wrote:

I just received my new O-Md E-M10 Mark ll a few days ago and want to add a new Oly lens to my arsenal. I have the Oly 45mm f1.8 already, and love it. My other prime lenses consist of a Sigma 30mm f2.8, OLy 12-50 f3.5-6.3, Pany 14mm f2.5 and a Pany zoom lens, as well as 3 legacy lenses. Taking those lenses into account, which of the 2 lenses I mentioned in my title would be a good fit?

Kevin.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/106345762@N04/

But that's me.

Since the 25mm lens is a longer focal length, you get more background isolation ability. The 50mm equivalent field of view is considered a standard. If it's not wide enough, you take two steps back or two shots and stitch them together. The 25 is sharper as well. In fact, it's ding dang sharp!

If I was you, I'd keep the 45/1.8, get the 25/1.8, get the 12-32 and sell the rest of your lenses, they are useless. But that's me.

I agree with the above. If you have one body, unless you love swapping lenses, you're going to choose a favourite in a range, and not use the other. The 30/2.8 won't have a use if you chose the 25, and likewise for the 14 if you choose the 17. The 12-50 is slow and awkward, with the 12mm end and the close focus ability (and weather sealing) about the only redeeming qualities for me. I sold it and got the 12-32. You have the 45 for the long end, which is light years ahead of the 12-50 at the long end, and the 12-32 will match or beat the 12-50 in its range, at 1/3 the size and weight.

Plus, if you get the 12-32, you still have a pancake when you want the small size, so the 14 can go, regardless of if you choose the 17 or 25. (again the 12-32 will easily match the 14). The 12-32 can be found for $250 or so, new or nearly new on ebay. The 17 is harder to find, at around $300, so probably better to buy new, same as with the 25.

But first, do as others have suggested and force yourself to use each FL on your 12-50 for a day, then compare results.

All of these are good lenses, and no choice is permanent, so you can't really go wrong.

In terms of optical quality, the 25mm wins hands down.

In terms of usefulness, to me they are about even, but I switch to the 17mm when I have less space indoors.  As one other person says, it really depends on what you like to shoot.

kevinboyer wrote:

I just received my new O-Md E-M10 Mark ll a few days ago and want to add a new Oly lens to my arsenal. I have the Oly 45mm f1.8 already, and love it. My other prime lenses consist of a Sigma 30mm f2.8, OLy 12-50 f3.5-6.3, Pany 14mm f2.5 and a Pany zoom lens, as well as 3 legacy lenses. Taking those lenses into account, which of the 2 lenses I mentioned in my title would be a good fit?

Kevin.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/106345762@N04/

Sell everything (you may keep the 45mm) and buy the Oly 12-40 2.8. Since I have the 12-40 I never miss the 17 or 25 primes

I wouldn't get either. I'd get the Panasonic 15/1.7 and the Panasonic 25/1.4 to go along with your 45/1.8.

kevinboyer wrote:

I just received my new O-Md E-M10 Mark ll a few days ago and want to add a new Oly lens to my arsenal. I have the Oly 45mm f1.8 already, and love it. My other prime lenses consist of a Sigma 30mm f2.8, OLy 12-50 f3.5-6.3, Pany 14mm f2.5 and a Pany zoom lens, as well as 3 legacy lenses. Taking those lenses into account, which of the 2 lenses I mentioned in my title would be a good fit?

Kevin.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/106345762@N04/

I have the P14mm and O25mm (to duplicate my 35mm film Zuiko 28mm2.8 and 50mmf1.8).  Those are my favorite FL's.   I have a wide-converter for the 14mm giving me ~10.5mmf2.5.

I also have the pancake O17mmf2.8(I don't have the f1.8) for street photography with my GM1 when the 14mm is too wide and the 25mm too narrow.

However, I use the 14mm and 25mm much more than the 17mm.