Fixed wide angle recommendations?

I keep reading conflicting reviews, so I'll see if I can solicit some more! In my work life, I've got an annoying gap in the lens collection. I have a bag full of vintage primes for my non-work material, but for work I tend to use just three lenses: Oly 45 1.8, Oly 40-150, and Oly 14-42. It's quite clear which of these is the underperformer. I work in a college communications department, and I'm heavy on the portraiture and event coverage.

I'd love to get that 14-42 out of the mix, and replace it with a better wide angle. I'm doing this on my own dime, and right now I can't spend enough to get one of the nicer wide zooms. I've heard lots of different things about the Panasonic 14 2.5 and the Oly 17 2.8, which are both within my price range. That's making it tough to choose.

Any recommendations on those or other wide angles on the cheaper side?

Well, it's too bad you can't spring for the 12-40Pro. Awesome lens but I will leave it at that.

A lot depends on what you are shooting. I would probably go for the wider of the 2 lenses. Though if it were me, I'd look closely at a 12mm lens. There are a bunch of 12mm manual focus lenses for very little money.

By the way, do you mean the Oly 17mm f/1.8? I don't see a 2.8 for sale at B&H? I have the 1.8 and like it a lot.

Thanks! How does the 12-32 compare to the 14?

I wouldn't mind a zoom at all-- I'm primarily interested in an upgrade in sharpness in the wide angle range that I can afford. The 14-42 just ain't cutting it when I look back at my images.

phil from seattle wrote:

Well, it's too bad you can't spring for the 12-40Pro. Awesome lens but I will leave it at that.

A lot depends on what you are shooting. I would probably go for the wider of the 2 lenses. Though if it were me, I'd look closely at a 12mm lens. There are a bunch of 12mm manual focus lenses for very little money.

By the way, do you mean the Oly 17mm f/1.8? I don't see a 2.8 for sale at B&H? I have the 1.8 and like it a lot.

I would spring for that if I could justify it. That's what I'd really like to have!

Where I end up needing this is in covering indoors events, and also shots outdoors that, at least with wide angle, incorporate the lovely Vermont hills all around our campus. A 12 would do the trick too, I suppose, so if you have recommendations, I'd love to hear them. Thanks!

I used my 12-32 as if it were a small 12.  I rarely zoomed it. So I my little "prime" Trinity was 12 20 and 45 and it was quite satisfactory. Then I went to Europe and used it as an excuse to get a 12-35/2.8. I don't use the 12-32 much any more but if I didn't have the 12-35? Probably would use the 12-32 all the time

A good wide angle prime would costs almost as much as the Oly 12-40 Pro, and are normally not weather sealed, and a lot less versatile. 12-40 Pro can be bought used for very reasonable price, and it's one of the best lens in the system. Sharp at all ranges, useful function button, MF clutch and very short close focusing, a truly do it all lens.

Seamus42 wrote:

phil from seattle wrote:

Well, it's too bad you can't spring for the 12-40Pro. Awesome lens but I will leave it at that.

A lot depends on what you are shooting. I would probably go for the wider of the 2 lenses. Though if it were me, I'd look closely at a 12mm lens. There are a bunch of 12mm manual focus lenses for very little money.

By the way, do you mean the Oly 17mm f/1.8? I don't see a 2.8 for sale at B&H? I have the 1.8 and like it a lot.

I would spring for that if I could justify it. That's what I'd really like to have!

Where I end up needing this is in covering indoors events, and also shots outdoors that, at least with wide angle, incorporate the lovely Vermont hills all around our campus. A 12 would do the trick too, I suppose, so if you have recommendations, I'd love to hear them. Thanks!

I've owned or used both 17s, the 12-32 and the 14. Based on your description of use, the 12-32 is probaby your best option, with good range and IQ at what are now fair prices. I got mine when they were new and more costly ($300 us for a dekitted one) and it was worth it to get the 12mm wide end in a small package. The standard lens on my EPM2 for past 3 years. Not perfect but much better than the 14-42iir.

I own the 12-32mm and 14mm (for the second time), and have also had the 17mm f/2.8.

The 17mm f/2.8 is probably one of the worst lenses in the m43 lineup, its main virtue being its pancake size. But it's not particularly wide-angle, not particularly sharp, and not really exceptional at anything except being small.

Of all of these, I think I like the 14mm the best. I sold it once in a fit of downsizing (numbers, not lens size!) and then promptly bought another copy when I saw how much I missed it.

The 12-32mm is great, but it's a zoom lens and isn't as fast. And there's simply something I love about the images from the 14mm that keeps me coming back to it. It's also the tiniest darn thing you can mount on a m43 camera short of the Oly bodycap lenses (which are dreadful, in my estimation).

This seems to come down to the Panasonic 14 or 12-32. Faster would be a nice thing, but at 2.5 versus 3.5 at the wide end, I can hang with either. So, all other pros/cons aside, which is sharper? I'll go peruse some images for sure.

I think the Oly 45 has ruined me! I love what I get with it, and it makes everything else seem a touch shabby in the IQ department.

So I'm pretty much down to the 14 or 12-32 anyway, but what of the Olympus 12-50? Just found a used one near me that's at quite a tempting price. I know little about it, though.

Seamus42 wrote:

So I'm pretty much down to the 14 or 12-32 anyway, but what of the Olympus 12-50? Just found a used one near me that's at quite a tempting price. I know little about it, though.

I saw a listing for the 12-50mm for $99 also, which is quite a deal given the lens retails for $500 new. Much bigger lens than either though. It has a longer zoom range and EZ (useful for video). Also has a focus ring.

I presume you know this already, but I should mention the 12-32mm does not have a focus ring. There is no way to manual focus the 12-32mm on an Olympus body (newer Panasonic bodies can manual focus the 12-32mm using touch screen). Might not matter much though if you mainly use AF.

From the imaging resource test results, in terms of sharpness the 12-32mm beats the 12-50mm throughout the entire zoom range. 12-50mm also has extreme amounts of CA at 12mm. However, 12-50mm appears to still be sharper than 14-42 EZ.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/panasonic/12-32mm-f3.5-5.6-asph-mega-ois-lumix-g-vario/review/

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/12-50mm-f3.5-6.3-ez-m.zuiko-digital-ed/review/

Thanks for all the info. Very helpful!

Seamus42 wrote:

So I'm pretty much down to the 14 or 12-32 anyway, but what of the Olympus 12-50? Just found a used one near me that's at quite a tempting price. I know little about it, though.

I also had the 12-50mm, briefly. The previous post pretty much sums it up--it's HUGE (compared to the other two lenses you're considering), and it's a CA farm at wide apertures. If you lay it next to the 12-32mm you'd burst out laughing to see the difference in size:

As to the difference in sharpness between the 14mm and 12-32mm, I think it's pretty darn close. I wouldn't choose one over the other just for that reason. The 14mm has a slightly different character that I prefer, maybe due to the slight blurring you can get in the background on shots wide open.

Paulmorgan wrote:

The type of work you are doing is not particularly difficult or challenging provided you can understand and use flash.

Personally I would stick with a zoom, Panasonic or Olympus would do , if on a real tight budget try the 12-50mm, those extra couple of mm`s at the wide end make a real difference, I`ve seen these going for as little as 100 bucks.

Try a little harder and even that 14-42 could be better than it already is.

Well, I largely agree with what you say regarding flash, but what happened to me today is indicative of just how little difference that makes at times. Today, I covered a graduation -- indoors, in a very dimly lit auditorium. I was one of two photographers. We compared notes, and we were both shooting at a minimum of 3200. And that was WITH flash. But because of the tight spacing, much of the shooting had to take place at a distance that made flash useless. And the ceiling was probably 40 feet up, so no bouncing could happen in that direction. It's usually not very challenging work, I agree (and didn't mean to claim otherwise), but this was quite hard.

The other photographer found a smart solution for part of the ceremony where every subject would be in exactly the same place -- she bounced at a weird angle on a nearby wall. But where I was? No dice.

And I can tell you I was aching for something other than my 14-42, which was giving me far less than what I needed in terms of ability to resolve faces at a distance. I am not entirely sure what trying harder might have looked like. I do believe equipment is only as good as the person behind the camera and their eye, but today was a perfect example of not having the tool that would have made for better results. That said, I got a few shots I like. Mostly, however, the ones that I got with a 45 1.8.

Like this one. It will get more PP attention, and yes, it has its demerits, but under the circumstances, I'll take it: