Do I in fact have no options BUT to keep the 20mm?

I hate it's molassesness(sic).

But looking around, I don't feel a 17mm is a sufficient differentiator to the 15mm. 15-vs-20, yeah, definitely a home for both. 15-vs-17, I'm struggling for justification. And at the same time as a prime-first user, there's too big of a gap between the 15 and the 25.

So am I stuck with it as an inbetween to the 15mm and the 25mm?

TheClueless wrote:

I hate it's molassesness(sic).

But looking around, I don't feel a 17mm is a sufficient differentiator to the 15mm. 15-vs-20, yeah, definitely a home for both. 15-vs-17, I'm struggling for justification. And at the same time as a prime-first user, there's too big of a gap between the 15 and the 25.

So am I stuck with it as an inbetween to the 15mm and the 25mm?

Then yes, stick with that lens. You could get the Sigma 19mm but you would be sacrificing aperture speed for AF speed.

Bhima78 wrote:

TheClueless wrote:

I hate it's molassesness(sic).

But looking around, I don't feel a 17mm is a sufficient differentiator to the 15mm. 15-vs-20, yeah, definitely a home for both. 15-vs-17, I'm struggling for justification. And at the same time as a prime-first user, there's too big of a gap between the 15 and the 25.

So am I stuck with it as an inbetween to the 15mm and the 25mm?

Then yes, stick with that lens. You could get the Sigma 19mm but you would be sacrificing aperture speed for AF speed.

I figured as much. If I had something wider than a 15 and then had the 17-25 setup then I'd probably be happy, but I really like using the 15 and that's as wide as an everyday-shooting lens I want, so that's unlikely to be making an exit anytime soon.

I hate it's molassesness(sic).

I agree, on Oly bodies AF is pretty pokey. But I like it on the whole, being so compact and sharp.

So am I stuck with it as an inbetween to the 15mm and the 25mm?

Since you've got a Panasonic body, you probably should just tough it out. However slow you perceive it on your GX8, it's vastly slower on an Olympus body.

It was questions like these that led me to buy a 12-35, which I see you also have. I have the 17 Oly, and what annoys me about it is certainly not the focal length - it's the magic 35mm equivalent. But the IQ is worse than the 12-35, with color fringing and only average contrast and sharpness.

I sold my 20 when I bought a 25, as I never really liked the focal length despite the fact I really liked the optical performance and size. Growing up with 35mm SLRs, I like 14/17/25 combo, but these days I use the 12-35 as the primary shooter and usually only carry one prime in addition to the 7-14/12-35/35-100 trio. In that context, it's not so critical to have every prime made (although I have most of 'em nonetheless).

Steve_ wrote:

I hate it's molassesness(sic).

I agree, on Oly bodies AF is pretty pokey. But I like it on the whole, being so compact and sharp.

So am I stuck with it as an inbetween to the 15mm and the 25mm?

Since you've got a Panasonic body, you probably should just tough it out. However slow you perceive it on your GX8, it's vastly slower on an Olympus body.

urk

It was questions like these that led me to buy a 12-35, which I see you also have. I have the 17 Oly, and what annoys me about it is certainly not the focal length - it's the magic 35mm equivalent. But the IQ is worse than the 12-35, with color fringing and only average contrast and sharpness.

Wow. Really? The 20 is at least OK imaging-wise. I'm pretty sure I had the 17 before but I don't remember it being that bad - mind you, I was never that enamoured of m4/3 anyway (and I'm still not totally convicingly sold) so maybe I just had low expectations.

I sold my 20 when I bought a 25, as I never really liked the focal length despite the fact I really liked the optical performance and size. Growing up with 35mm SLRs, I like 14/17/25 combo, but these days I use the 12-35 as the primary shooter and usually only carry one prime in addition to the 7-14/12-35/35-100 trio. In that context, it's not so critical to have every prime made (although I have most of 'em nonetheless).

I hate to sound like I have muscles of jello but I just feel often encumbered with the 12-35. It's less the all-up weight, it's more the balance of the system. I generally dislike long-ish lenses unless I have to use them - and even when shooting with the 12-35 I actually rarely go 35. I guess it's a Leica habit lol

It was questions like these that led me to buy a 12-35, which I see you also have. I have the 17 Oly, and what annoys me about it is certainly not the focal length - it's the magic 35mm equivalent. But the IQ is worse than the 12-35, with color fringing and only average contrast and sharpness.

Wow. Really? The 20 is at least OK imaging-wise.

The 20 has always been one of the sharpest native m43 lenses. It's got a bit of purple fringing with back-lit subjects and suffers a bit in the corners for being a pancake, but most of its faults aren't terribly field-relevant and its excellent sharpness and contrast certainly are.

That's why the Oly 17 hasn't been a runaway hit. It's not got that killer prime sharpness people have come to expect in any prime these days, and it has pretty serious fringing issues (which are the primary cause of the average sharpness). It does have terrific build and AF, and competent optics. Just not stellar in the way of the 15 or 25mm Panasonics.

I hate to sound like I have muscles of jello but I just feel often encumbered with the 12-35. It's less the all-up weight, it's more the balance of the system. I generally dislike long-ish lenses - and when shooting with the 12-35 I actually rarely go 35. I guess it's a Leica habit lol

I shot with an APS-C Pentax DSLR with their DA*16-50/2.8 as the primary before going m43. In that context the 12-35 is still tiny. I resisted the urge to replace it with a 12-40 Oly for reasons of bulk, however - my bad back precipitated the switch to m43.

you do have the option with the sigma 19 2.8 as you got a modern camera that can handle using a higher iso. it is short. if you need something brighter you got that in another lens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Voy9PylOMY4&feature=youtu.be&t=4m26s

As for the "molassesness", I benchmarked my 20 against my 12-50 at 20 outdoors and indoors and the difference was <0.1 s. Just don't let it hunt.

Tim Reidy Productions wrote:

you do have the option with the sigma 19 2.8 as you got a modern camera that can handle using a higher iso. it is short. if you need something brighter you got that in another lens.

Ehhhhhh... I did say in a previous post elsewhere I'm not totally sold on m4/3, but one thing I'm defo not convinced by is the high-ISO performance of the m4/3rds sensors. If I'm using a prime I'd definitely like that stop (or more).

tkbslc wrote:

TheClueless wrote:

I hate it's molassesness(sic).

But looking around, I don't feel a 17mm is a sufficient differentiator to the 15mm. 15-vs-20, yeah, definitely a home for both. 15-vs-17, I'm struggling for justification. And at the same time as a prime-first user, there's too big of a gap between the 15 and the 25.

So am I stuck with it as an inbetween to the 15mm and the 25mm?

To be honest it seems a little odd that you would want to cover every tiny little step with primes. 15 and 20 are very close.

Not to me. There's definitely a worthwhile compositional difference, and I also just like using the 15 so comparisons / what else to get are drawn from that point.

The goal of primes is not to try to get enough that you have a zoom lens. You generally cover a few key focal lengths and not worry about tiny framing differences.

The goal is to pick the lenses that will suit your intended framing the best. You do not - or at least I don't - have to walk out with your entire collection. There's over-duplication, but there's also having options.

TheClueless wrote:

I hate it's molassesness(sic).

But looking around, I don't feel a 17mm is a sufficient differentiator to the 15mm. 15-vs-20, yeah, definitely a home for both. 15-vs-17, I'm struggling for justification. And at the same time as a prime-first user, there's too big of a gap between the 15 and the 25.

So am I stuck with it as an inbetween to the 15mm and the 25mm?

Enjoy it for what it is, surely not every image requires a lens that snaps to focus in a tiny fraction of a second.

Wellington100 wrote:

TheClueless wrote:

I hate it's molassesness(sic).

But looking around, I don't feel a 17mm is a sufficient differentiator to the 15mm. 15-vs-20, yeah, definitely a home for both. 15-vs-17, I'm struggling for justification. And at the same time as a prime-first user, there's too big of a gap between the 15 and the 25.

So am I stuck with it as an inbetween to the 15mm and the 25mm?

Enjoy it for what it is, surely not every image requires a lens that snaps to focus in a tiny fraction of a second.

Well - it's a case of what I'm used to, having a relatively extremely slow lens like the 20 is jarring.

Try wider.  Get the 12-32😀.

Michael M Fliegel wrote:

Try wider. Get the 12-32😀.

I have a feeling we've met in another thread concerning the GM1 lol

I would look at it differently. 20mm is perfect when you only want to take one lens, and 15 and 25 are perfect when you want to switch it up with two lenses.

General rule of thumb is primes at 2x multiple of focal lengths, so 15 + 25 work well. Unlikely you would need something in between.

Everything old is new again. Whether the 20mm is slow focusing is a subject debated innumerable times in this forum, and 99% of the time the focusing of 20mm is fine. For me anyway.

The issue of focal length is another matter. It would be nice to have a 10.5mm, a 12mm, a 15mm, a 17.5mm, a 20mm, a 25mm, and a 30mm, but as Jonnieb says, the 2x times rule is a practical one. Am looking forward to learning about the new Panasonic 12mm. It might make a good combination with a 25mm. In the meantime, the 20mm is on my carry-everywhere body.

F.