Olympus 17mm f/1.8 or Panasonic 20mm f/1.7

Jake

Jake

Suspended / Banned
Messages
569
Name
Jake
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys,

Currently I use the following...

Olympus EM5-II with Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 & 12-40mm f/2.8

I'm hankering for a prime. I'm currently in Japan and have been looking around, I can pick up an Olympus 17mm f/1.8 for around £220 - this would be my preferred choice due to missing my 35L from full frame days.

However, I have found for sale for £150 a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7.

First of all the end resulting focal length is very similar, 35mm v 40mm. Also they're both nice and fast. The Panasonic is also smaller and weighs less, it's a pancake lens.

I've looked at a couple of reviews of said Panasonic and they're good. Images from it look nice apart from it apparently generated a lot of CA. If I used a Panasonic body it would auto correct this and it wouldn't be an issue, but alas I'm not. I'd have to set something up in LR.

But something is bugging me...the 35mm prime look is what I'm after and I just feel that I'll get annoyed with the Pano in the long run...can anyone offer any input? Have you used either lens or both? Compared them?

What would you do?

Thanks in advance!
Jake
 
I personally don't think that the difference between 17mm and 20mm is worth worrying about. Other than that...

I have both lenses, I've owned a 20mm f1.7 since the lens first came out but I haven't used it since getting the Olympus 17mm f1.8 for a few reasons...

- The Panny can give noise banding at higher ISO's, this is something that no lens I've ever owned has done. If you don't shoot at high ISO then it isn't an issue but I thought I'd mention it.
- The Oly 17mm focuses faster.
_ The Oly lens is beautifully made and has a nice pull / push manual focus mechanism, all FBW lenses should be made this way :D

The only advantage I can see for the Panny is that it's a pancake but other than that I'd chose the Oly every time. I have read on line that the Panny is sharper but honestly, I've never noticed any difference and I do pixel peep at times :D
 
If you want a 35mm then buy a 35mm, problem solved :p

In all seriousness unless you are pixel peeping you won't really notice CA in 99% of cases so don't worry about it.
 
JYC said:
If you want a 35mm then buy a 35mm, problem solved :p

In all seriousness unless you are pixel peeping you won't really notice CA in 99% of cases so don't worry about it.
Click to expand...

Just to save any confusion... 35mm on MFT = 70mm full frame equivalent FoV which is not quite the same experience as a 35mm FoV :D
 
woof woof said:
Just to save any confusion... 35mm on MFT = 70mm full frame equivalent FoV which is not quite the same experience as a 35mm FoV :D
Click to expand...

Thanks mate, but what I meant was if you want 35mm (17.5mm) then don't buy a 40mm (20mm).
 
I have the 20mm mkII, it's a superb lens, but I do prefer the 35mm focal length, I know there isn't much in it. but the 35mm f/2 lives on my D700 95% of the time..
 
Picked up the Olympus yesterday. Spent today with it, such a lovely little lens! Lovely bokeh, great AF. So light compared to the 7-14mm thats normally attached to the camera :)

Paid £180 in total. Thanks all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top