I guess I'm still having second thoughts on the lenses setup

BruceRH wrote:

I am very happy with my Oly 17, I think the negative comments are overblown. I doubt that you will be disappointed. I love the click ring to go to manual focus and the overall build quality is excellent. I have the 45 and rarely use it. The 17 is much more useful IMO.

I bet I'll enjoy her a lot, too!

TY for your patience.

LS

peppermonkey wrote:

If you 'Must' have a 35mm equivalent lens, then go with the Oly 17mm 1.8. It's a fine lens. Actually, there isn't really any dud lenses in m43 land. Sure, there are ones that are worse than others, like the other Oly 17mm 2.8 but even that one can and does produce great images (I have one).

It's not that I MUST have, it's more I'm USED to shoot (film) with a 35 for 20+ years.

With that said, the Pan Leica 15mm, from what I have read is a better lens optically. On the top of the list of lenses I want. No real negatives that I can see.

Yes, you guys seem to love this beautiful lady, I'm afraid I will fall for her, too!

TY!

LS

Sorry, I meant to post this graphic for the portrait/ vertical orientation comparison, a better illustration:

3dwag wrote:

My walk around prime kit is the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 on EM5ii and the 60mm f/2.8 macro. I find my 17mm's center to corner sharpness and overall IQ to be very fine. Not quite as sharp as the 60mm, but these are two very different lenses and I really like my 17mm. One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is the 17mm's manual focus ring and depth of field scale - just like on my 12-40mm and 7-14mm f/2.8 Pro zoom lenses!

That's quite a nice setup, mate. During daylight, I'll probably go with the 12-40 and the 75-300, if needed. But for quick street shooting, I'm planning to go only with the 17!

Before I get into your specific 17mm vs 15mm lens choice dilemma, some background information might be helpful. In my 135 full-frame film days, when photographing for travel and pleasure I carried two Pentax Spotmatic II bodies, one with a 35mm f/2, the other with an 85mm f/1.8, and in my pocket a 21mm f/4 (I may be a little off on that last focal length and aperture, was it 21.5mm and f/4.5?). The 35mm was my most-used lens, so I have a deep connection there. 28mm was too wide for me (and not wide enough for some "special" shots), and especially in closer-ups with people the 28mm had too much rectilinear projection distortion towards the edges of the frame. Also of note, I rarely needed the extra aperture for shallower depth of field on both the 35mm and 85mm, but mostly shooting Kodachrome 64 I needed the lens speed, though was always wanting a deeper depth of field.

Now, the PL 15mm is still too wide for me, but it depends on your own preferences and subjects, so you may prefer it to the 17mm.

No, no, you're right -- I'll go with the 17mm, that's what I'm used to!

However, there is one more thing to consider, and that is how you intend to use your photos, including what aspect ratio you tend to work in, since the "equivalent field of view" when comparing μ4/3 to 135 full-frame format is always calculated on the diagonal field of view, whereas the horizontal (or vertical) angle might be the more important to you.

I realize that this may be "splitting hairs", but this may help you to make your decision.

It's never 'splitting hairs', I'm just like you, too! Every explanation is a valid one!

When I shot film on my Pentax Spotmatics, in 95% of my photos I was thinking in aspect ratios closer to the 4:3 ratio (same as μ4/3!), not the native 3:2, because I was printing 8x10 and 11x14 inch prints of my best. So, I generally cropped the sides of a landscape orientation print for my final image, making the effective diagonal field of view angle slightly smaller than the calculated lens native angle. So, already for me today on μ4/3 the 17mm may be just a bit wider angle than my film 35mm, and the 15mm is just too wide.

On the other hand, if you tend towards the 3:2 aspect ratio, for μ4/3 you will have to crop the vertical, so the effective diagonal angle will be slightly smaller, and this may push you towards the PL 15mm.

When shooting with wider lenses, I'd like to go with a 16:9 aspect ratio, so I can use the final result as a slideshow on my OLED TV. I'll crop top and bottom to fit the screen.

When shooting normal, I'll just go with the normal aspect ratio of 3:2.

I tend to print little to none, mate, so I don't think the composition will matter that much, just the upper and bottom crops.

To help visualize this, the following screenshots from my iPhone compare the 17mm of μ4/3 to the 35mm of FF, with equivalent diagonal, vertical, and horizontal imaging angles used for crop factors and showing imaging area overlays:

Diagonal field of view comparison.

Vertical field of view comparison.

Horizontal field of view comparison.

I hope this helps.

Wow, crystal help. Thank you, mate! By the way, is it an app?

LS

addlightness wrote:

sellera wrote:

Right now, I'm torn between P15 and O17!

15/1.7

This is my sharpest prime (in my bag of 8 primes which includes 25/1.8 and 45/1.8). I chose this over 12/2 and 17/1.8 and I use it mainly on my GM1 (and occasionally on my EM1).

How does she goes with the E-M1? I known the aperture ring won't talk to the body, right?

She's a little more expensive, too, right?

It was my most used lens during my recent 4-week summer vacation in Asia.

I bet the wider ones are always most used, indeed!

TY!

LS

Jim Salvas wrote:

Except maybe on some esoteric test chart, the 60/2.8 is as sharp as any in the m43 repertoire and it is, for its focal length, a remarkably light, compact lens, weighing only a couple of ounces more than the 45/1.8.

Thank you, Jim! I really liked the 60 review and image samples, but if I take her home, along with the 12-40 PRO and the 75-300, I'll have no 'low light' prime to night shooting.

"You miss 100% of the shots you never take." - Wayne Gretzky

No truer words were ever spoken!

TY!

LS

3dwag wrote:

Sorry, I meant to post this graphic for the portrait/ vertical orientation comparison, a better illustration:

I noticed, but I managed to imagine your intentions by what you just said, mate!

TY again!

LS

peppermonkey wrote:

With that said, the Pan Leica 15mm, from what I have read is a better lens optically. On the top of the list of lenses I want. No real negatives that I can see.

I have actually lusted over this lens, and wanted to replace my already outstanding Olympus 17mm f/1.8 with it.

But then I heard that the aperture ring will not work on Olympus bodies.

If that is true, than that would be a huge negative for me. Since the 17mm really is a fine lens, I suppose I just saved $600.

So perhaps it is a positive?

....than the 40-150 4.0-5.6 R, and it isn't even close.

Marty4650 wrote:

First of all, the Olympus EM5 II and 12-40mm PRO is an excellent kit. You have chosen wisely!

Yes! You've helped me a lot on my first post, sir!

When it comes to lenses, don't think in terms of "overlap" ... think in terms of intended use. Your lens buying decisions should be based entirely on three things:

1. Your needs
2. Your wants
3. Your budget

Ditto!

Advice from other shooters won't mean very much, because they had to deal with THEIR wants, needs and budgets when they made their buying decisions.

So ask yourself... "what kind of photos do I want to take?" There are over 60 M4/3 AF native mount lenses now, and most of them are pretty darn good. You really should be focusing on your own needs and not someone else's preferences.

I'm trying to put on a kit similar to my DSLR, in terms of equivalency!

That 12-40mm PRO lens is an outstanding choice for a normal zoom lens. I don't own one myself, but only because I prefer using primes. But if I had the extra cash, I'd buy that lens too. Because it is that nice.

I know it's a little heavy, but her versatility stands out!

Any 42.5mm or 45mm lens is a specialty lens. Very useful for portraits, and sometimes useful for architectural detail shots, but virtually useless indoors and in close quarters. You really need to go much wider for indoor photography. The 75mm f/1.8 is another great choice for portraits, especially if they are taken outdoors or in very large rooms where you have enough space to get further from your subject. I find the 75mm lens most useful for indoor sports, concerts and theater.

I guess I'll manage some portraits with the 12-40, indeed. As for the 75mm, it's a dream lens, but for me I guess it would be underused.

For indoor photography you pretty much need a wide and fast lens. Especially if you intend to take group shots. This is where the 12mm f/2.0, 15mm f/1.7, and 17mm f/1.8 lenses do best. Those same three lenses are also great for street photography

I'm thorn between the 15 and the 17!

Now.... a word about lens speed. Those f/1.2 lenses are wonderful, but they are bigger, heavier and much more expensive. You really don't need them for low light photography if you are willing to move the ISO up to 1600 or 3200. And all the newer four thirds sensors are very capable at those settings. As an amateur, I find f/2.0 fast enough for me, but to be honest if I had the money I'd buy every f/1.2 lens available.

Yeah! I noticed they are all a little bulky, right? And a lot more expensive! I'll manage the difference in light with ISO.

I own a 75-300mm II lens, and I find it useful for outdoor wildlife shooting in good light. The lens is pretty slow, and less than idea at the longest end. If you are serious about long telephoto shooting, then start saving for a PanaLeica 100-400mm lens, or better yet, an Olympus 300mm f/4.0 PRO lens.

I'm not serious at all, it's a hobby and I'll have to go with what I have. I just can't spend that much!

Finally, lets talk about those fast normal prime prime lenses in the 20-25mm range. These might seem like they are redundant because you have a 12-40mm lens, but they really aren't. These lenses are faster, smaller, sharper and more discrete, so they are better indoors than a zoom lens, and draw less attention outdoors for street shooting.

I own a 25mm f/1.8 and think it is a great lens.

Between the 17 and the 25, who won your heart?

The whole family!

Someday mine will grow like this

In related news: what kind, brand and size of bags do you reccomend?

TY!

LS

Marty4650 wrote:

peppermonkey wrote:

With that said, the Pan Leica 15mm, from what I have read is a better lens optically. On the top of the list of lenses I want. No real negatives that I can see.

I have actually lusted over this lens, and wanted to replace my already outstanding Olympus 17mm f/1.8 with it.

But then I heard that the aperture ring will not work on Olympus bodies.

If that is true, than that would be a huge negative for me. Since the 17mm really is a fine lens, I suppose I just saved $600.

So perhaps it is a positive?

I actually find this not like a true dealbreaker, but more as a small inconvenience, as we use to set the exposure through the rings, right?

RealPancho wrote:

....than the 40-150 4.0-5.6 R, and it isn't even close.

I'm pretty sure you stand correct on this matter, mate!

sellera wrote:

haslo wrote:

LMNCT wrote:

There is also the 12mm f2 Olympus, but I have no first hand experience with it. If you are shooting in really cramped interiors, that may be a consideration.

I own both the 12-40mm f/2.8 and the 12mm f/2, and I never have both with me at the same time. There are situations where I prefer the prime (faster, smaller), other situations where I prefer the zoom (more flexible, weather sealed), but carrying both at the same time is unnecessary. And as a consequence, buying both as part of a three lens setup is unnecessary, too, I think.

Me too!

I do like the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 a lot. It's not the sharpest lens there is, and yet it does outresolve the sensor (but not high-res shots of the E-M5ii) in my experience. Handling and size are great; I often use that one indoors or for family and street shooting.

I've shot film for a lot of time before migrate to digital (Nikon DX body), and my prime of choice was the 35mm -- that's why my first choice was the 17mm 1.8!

LS

Hmm...if you were happy with the the 35mm on a DX body (52mm Full Frame Equiv FOV). then you might want to consider the Oly 25mm, 1.8 (50mm equiv FOV). Excellent little lens for indoors or out. However it is too tight for those family-around-the-table intimate shots, stick with the 12-40 for those.

the app is called "Lens Exchange"

sellera wrote:

addlightness wrote:

sellera wrote:

Right now, I'm torn between P15 and O17!

15/1.7

This is my sharpest prime (in my bag of 8 primes which includes 25/1.8 and 45/1.8). I chose this over 12/2 and 17/1.8 and I use it mainly on my GM1 (and occasionally on my EM1).

How does she goes with the E-M1? I known the aperture ring won't talk to the body, right?

Apologies - typo.  My OMD is a EM10.

Yes, 15/1.7 aperture ring doesn't talk to the body but I'm so used to using the dial on my EM10 that I don't think about the ring whenever I pick up my EM10.  That plus the 15/1.7 lives on my GM1 almost all the time.

She's a little more expensive, too, right?

I bought mine from an amazon/hongkong seller for less than $400.

It was my most used lens during my recent 4-week summer vacation in Asia.

I bet the wider ones are always most used, indeed!

On that trip, I also have my 9-18mm and P14/2.5 + wide converter.  But I chose the 15/1.7 because it's really that good and would only revert to the 9-18 or 14/2.5+wide when there is not enough room to zoom with my feet.

On a similar note, I would recommend the O40-150 R - I use it more than my 75-300 II because I find the 40-150 much more useful.  The 75-300 only comes along when I need the 300mm end which is not very often.

sellera wrote:

Jim Salvas wrote:

Except maybe on some esoteric test chart, the 60/2.8 is as sharp as any in the m43 repertoire and it is, for its focal length, a remarkably light, compact lens, weighing only a couple of ounces more than the 45/1.8.

Thank you, Jim! I really liked the 60 review and image samples, but if I take her home, along with the 12-40 PRO and the 75-300, I'll have no 'low light' prime to night shooting.

"You miss 100% of the shots you never take." - Wayne Gretzky

No truer words were ever spoken!

TY!

LS

An f/1.8 lens will only gain 1-1/3 stops for night shooting. If you want to shoot in available darkness,  you'll need at least a 2-stop gain, at f/1.4. That is generally pretty expensive.

Meanwhile, the good IBIS on your camera gives you a lot of low-light versatility, as long as the subject is not moving.

I often wonder what people are shooting in the dark. At f/2.8, 1/30 and ISO 1600, you can shoot by candle light.

But, sure, if you want to shoot in something darker than this, the 2.8 lenses won't do.

sellera wrote:

Between the 17 and the 25, who won your heart?

The whole family!

If you look at this photo you will notice the 17mm lens stays on my EM1, while the 25mm lens is off to the side. Sitting with the 45mm and 75mm lenses.

Based on my own type of shooting, the 17mm is my most used lens.

No text.

sellera wrote:

larsbc wrote:

sellera wrote:

[snip]

The 45mm 1.8 is becoming the elephant in the room. I love the shots, the sharpness all along the frame, but I'm worried about the space needed to shoot with her indoors.

I agree. IMO that focal length is too long for indoor shooting unless you're primarily after head & shoulder shots.

My point exactly!

My first choice for primes was the O17, but I've read a lot of reviews about the expected sharpness that was never delivered. Plus, I didn't want to overlap ranges, as I'll get the 12-40, too.

I wouldn't avoid overlapping focal lengths if there are other advantages that are important to you, such as size and aperture size. I have a 12-35/2.8 which I love but for street shooting I prefer my 20/1.7 because it's small, it's got a fast aperture, and it simplifies the process of street shooting.

Yes, there are, indeed. Street photography in low light condition, for example. I guess the 17mm is more discrete than the 45mm, and MUCH more discrete than my D5200 + 35mm.

I also read about the old faithful P20 1.7, but focus hunting in low light is an issue that worries me, as the reported noise when focusing.

For me, focus noise is only an issue if shooting video. It's AF speed is also fast enough in low light on my GX7. On my EM5 II, well, I try to avoid using the 20/1.7 in low light on my Olympus...the AF is terrible. Even when using the 12-35/2.8 on the GX7 vs EM5 II, I find the latter to be less able to AF in low light.

I'm planning to shot some video, nothing professional, but I would not like to hear anything but the captured audio.

What to do? Which prime to get? Should I stick to the 45? How does she handle street photography? too narrow?

IMO it would be too narrow. I'd look at the Olympus 17 or the PanaLeica 15.

I'm thorn apart between those two!

I have a 9-18 zoom but since getting the 12-35, I've used the 9-18 less. In fact, I find the very modestly priced Samyang 7.5mm fisheye to be more appealing for those times when I need wider than 12mm.

That's a nice fill-in, as another mate suggested, too.

My typical travel kit is one or both bodies (GX7, EM5 II) with:

Panasonic 12-35/2.8

Panasonic 35-100/2.8

Panasonic 20/1.7

Samyang 7.5

Mine would be like:

O12-40

O75-300

O17

S7.5

I'm considering replacing the 20 with the Leica 15/1.7 but am still struggling to mentally overcome its price (I'm in Canada).

Imagine it for me -- I live in Brazil!

TY!

LS

Go for it IMO, it's a nice varied setup... You've got something really wide, something really long, a good all around zoom and a faster & more discrete prime as an alternative to it.

The little Samyang/Bower/Rokinon fisheye (all 3 are the same btw, buy whichever is cheapest) is pretty versatile. You can mask fisheye distortion when pretty well by keeping the horizon level and centered, and you can go a step further and defish in post for an end result still wider than the UWA zooms (tho it's challenging to compose for that)...

OR you can embrace and leverage the fisheye distortion in other cases, whether it's because you're shooting in nature (few straight lines so it's kinda masked) or you're shooting something that fits that kinda distortion...

I actually use mine along the 9-18 and I find them complimentary, but I kind the little Rokibowyang so fun I've thought about reaching for the Oly f1.8 fisheye (for the weather sealing, and for astro).