Hello! I have been shooting with my OM-D and 12-50 combo for some time and time has come to buy my first m43 prime. Problem is that I'm not sure what to choose. I've been eyeing PL 25/1.4, 20/1.7 and Olympus 17/1.8. I'm unsure if one of these lenses is clear winner or not as I'm new to m43 and haven't owned OM-D for a long time. All I know is that I want to own fast prime alongside with the 12-50mm. Is there something to look out with these lenses? I've heard that 20mm has some problems with shooting video and autofocus. Is this true?
20mm autofocus is slower than the 25mm, and some have a banding problem with the OM-D and high ISO shots.
25mm is "large" for a m43 lens but still fairly small (think old 50mm lens, about that large without a hood). It will also "rattlesnake" sometimes, making quick aperture changes in response to light. Not a big deal for most people.
17/1.8 not many people have used, so no real concensus on this lens yet.
I have the 25mm, excellent lens with great rendering. I plan to probably also get the 20mm just because it's a pancake, but I will be shooting it with the GX-1.
The PL25mm f/1.4 is a must-have lens. You will believe it IS a Leica. Guarantee that if all you have used is the 12-50, an hour with the PL25 and you will be saying "Oh. My. God!" I have other really good lenses but the 25 still is on one of the E-M5's almost all the time. The Pany 20mm pancake -- well, it is small, and it is a lens, but ... it just never impressed me in the image quality department. After getting the E-M5's and selling my GF1 I realized I no longer had a use for it so it went to B&S too. On the other hand if "small" is all that is important to you, and you are considering a smaller m43 body as a companion for your E-M5, the 20mm is arguably the best of a so-so tiny prime bunch. IMO you would be wasting a really good camera by putting the Pany 20mm on your E-M5.
Thanks a ton for advice! I'm starting to lean towards the 25mm. It's pricy, but I could first try to find used ones. Shame it isn't weatherproof (which was one of the reasons I got OM-D). After the Pana-Leica I'll get 60mm macro for sure. Seems like another great lens.
The 20mm has been criticized a bit too hard here. It might not match Leica 25mm but it is a very good lens. Also personally I prefer the slightly wider view for my "normal" lens. Specially so in m43 because with its 4:3 aspect ratio, the view is already less wide and more tall.
curious80 wrote:
The 20mm has been criticized a bit too hard here. It might not match Leica 25mm but it is a very good lens. Also personally I prefer the slightly wider view for my "normal" lens. Specially so in m43 because with its 4:3 aspect ratio, the view is already less wide and more tall.
My thoughts too, though I haven't personally used it so I can't say with any sternness behind it haha.
I've seen AF tests between the 25 and the 20 so I know the 25 is faster, and I know the 25's rendering is awesome but I've seen plenty of nice 20mm examples, and truth be told I wish the PL25 was a PL20 instead when it comes to comparing just focal lengths.
Honestly, it's not like the P20 is a bad lens, in fact it's very sharp. It's just that every picture I've taken with it, I know would have looked much nicer with the PL25 if I had been using that instead and considering it's only $100 - $200 more, it's kind of a forehead slap. Why didn't I get it sooner!
I own both the 20m and the 25mm. The 20mm bashing is pure silliness in my view. The 25 1.4 is faster and offers more subject isolation due to the longer FL and slightly larger aperture (which I often appreciate), but other than that I don't see much difference between the two IQ wise. I think the differences are mostly figments of people's imagination...... ......
Here's the 20 vs 25 head to head.....both on an OM-D....both wide open.....
Bif - are you smoking something? You think the 12-50 is just as good as the PL 25/1.4? Not only does the 12-50 come nowhere NEAR the level of resolution that the PL 25 can achieve (not to mention bokeh), it's at least three full stops slower at 25mm. That's not 'slightly', nor is the difference in resolution and rendering anywhere close. I like the 12-50...it's a versatile zoom, but as good as the 25/1.4 or 20/1.7 it is not.
michael49 wrote:
I own both the 20m and the 25mm. The 20mm bashing is pure silliness in my view. The 25 1.4 is faster and offers more subject isolation due to the longer FL and slightly larger aperture (which I often appreciate), but other than that I don't see much difference between the two IQ wise. I think the differences are mostly figments of people's imagination...... .........
When comparing side by side I can see that the PL is sharper and has better bokeh. Notice the OOF background in the back left of the frame (dog pillow; bokeh) and the dog's front leg, right past the paw (sharpness). But this is only comparing side by side. I'm sure the difference is less noticeable, especially at web sizes.
I think the problem people are experiencing with the 20mm is that its an older lens (longer production run, slight variances over time), there may be a bit more variation in sample quality because is cheaper (used to be even cheaper when released), more on used market with unknown history. Just some hypothesis. IMHO, I'd get both or the answer the question do I want slightly better quality or a pancake.
Jman13 wrote:
Bif - are you smoking something? You think the 12-50 is just as good as the PL 25/1.4? Not only does the 12-50 come nowhere NEAR the level of resolution that the PL 25 can achieve (not to mention bokeh), it's at least three full stops slower at 25mm. That's not 'slightly', nor is the difference in resolution and rendering anywhere close. I like the 12-50...it's a versatile zoom, but as good as the 25/1.4 or 20/1.7 it is not.
OK, I'll have to take your word for it. The little I've seen of those three they were the SAME at same apertures and focal lengths. Generally eliminating the need for those particular primes unless speed and DOF were the issue.
Yeah, the center of the 12-50 at 25mm isn't as sharp as the far edges of the 25/1.4 at the same aperture (a little beyond f/4, which is where the 12-50 is at 25mm). The 25/1.4 is sharper wide open than the 12-50 is at any point.
Lenstip puts the 25/1.4 at about 58 lp/mm in the center at f/1.4, and over 70 lp/mm by f/2. Peaking at around 75 at f/4, with edges around 68 lp/mm.
Meanwhile, the 12-50 at 25mm peaks at 54 lp/mm in the center (wide open) and about 40lp/mm at the edge.
This jives with my personal experience as well. The 12-50 is sharp enough to get the shot, and produce decent results, but it has nowhere near the image quality of the 25/1.4 (or 20/1.7). The 12-50 is a very useful lens for convenience, with a decent macro mode and passable image quality throughout the range, but for critical image quality (especially the longer you go), it's left far behind by the primes. I use the 12-50 a fair bit, though.
I don't see a huge difference between them. If money's tight, or you want the smallest package, go for the Panny 20mm, though some had said is AF is slow. If you want the best optical quality go for the Panny-Leica (would be my vote, though I have none of these lenses).
Whatever you chose, you will probably end up using it a lot. I know I did with my Voightlander 25mm (no complaints at all. Excellent optics - never been disappointed with any shot that's in focus, and probably the best of the several m4/3 primes I own, to include the Oly 60mm. Excellent Bokeh, wonderful controls. It works well with the OM-D's pseudo-"focus peaking" feature for street photography).
but I've seen plenty of nice 20mm examples, and truth be told I wish the PL25 was a PL20 instead when it comes to comparing just focal lengths.