What is the advantage of this 17mm lense over the stock 14-42 lense? Is it wider angle than the low end of the 14-42? Is it that it's more compact?
354385
It has a slight advantage in low light, but the main advantage is that it is sharper, and has more contrast. If you're shooting RAW mode images and producing 8x10 or 11x14 prints, you will definitely see the difference. If you're shooting compressed jpegs in order to get the greatest number of photos on one SD card, or just displaying your photos on the web, you won't see any difference.
354386
I wouldn't say that it is a wider angle than the low-end 14mm, but the image clarity is higher than a zoom lens at 17mm being a dedicated prime. It is certainly more compact.
354387
The lens is definitely more compact, but remember it is not adjustable you cannot attain it in or out.
354388
The 14-42 covers 28mm to 84mm. The 17mm covers 34mm. Lower the number the wider of the shot. The advantages are it's smaller and has a faster aperture. Which means a shallower depth of field and it's better in low light. You can't zoom with the 17mm as it's a prime lens. The two lenses compliment each other, not replace each other. Each serve a different purpose.
354389
The main reason to get the 17 Mm lens over the kit lens is the 2.8 aperture which is much better for lowlight or blurred background it is also more compact which is great for indoors when I bought my OMD I chose not to purchase the kit lens instead I bought the 17 mm 2.8 and the 14 to 150 zero lens. I have been very happy with this combination for most situations.
354390
For me - I liked the smaller size and the faster general shutter speed in lower light situations. it works very well for a travel all purpose lens - great with landscapes.
354391
Hi Richard Yes it is a wider lens and very sharp minimal distortion. I use it a lot for landscapes etc. it's very small and light and for the price I think it's worth it
354392
The 14-42 covers 28mm to 84mm.The 17mm covers 34mm.Lower the number the wider of the shot. The advantages are it's smaller and has a faster aperture. Which means a shallower depth of field and it's better in low light. You can't zoom with the 17mm as it's a prime lens. The two lenses compliment each other, not replace each other. Each serve a different purpose.
354393
I bought it to replace the 14-42 that was damaged. 17mm is included in the range of the original lens. It also is f2.8 over the f3.5.GeneK
1354146
It depends on how close you're talking about. 17mm isn't extremely wide like say a 10mm but it should unless you're standing really close to them. With any focal length running in that range you're still apt to get the occasional focal distortion such as rounded edges. To me it's still maybe my favorite lens that I've ever owned.
1011662
This lens is of course wider angle. The main advantage resides inside the Zeiss lens. In fact, with the 24f1.8 you can take really great shots with an uncomparable sharpness. I moved from the 35mmf1.8 to the zeiss one, i do not regret the choice but, in contrast, i am really happy of that.
557614
Hi, It didn't make such a big difference. I thought it would let in more light and also help with taking closer shots, but it did marginally. I never ever use my other 14-42mm lens though, because this one is so small and does the job of the other one anyway. So I would get it if you also want to have a smaller lens that you will keep on for most of the time.
346742
Its a faster lens and a different field of view. Two different lenses. The 25mm focuses faster in dim light. If you're trying to figure out which to buy, first figure out which FOV you prefer. Both are excellent. Also check out the oly 17mm, another fine lens if you are considering the 20mm, but with a slighty wider FOV, and focuses instantly.
2278161
This lens works good in low light, but of course one stop faster would better. However, the 14mm lens is a wider angle lens, so better for tight interior shots.
1292337
It is not a close up lens. It is a telephoto lens which means it will make distant object look closer. The 14-42 lens should have a close up function.
1139205
I would generally use the 85mm f1.2. The only use I could imagine for the 14 mm in wedding photography would be at destination weddings where you want to combine wedding party and landscape. However, the lens will give plenty sharp images hand-held unless you are shooting in the dark or have a tremor. Please note that there is significant edge distortion despite a sharp image. If you want the entire wedding party on the beach in front of Diamond Head, this is your lens. Otherwise, not so much.
228339
I felt the same way when I got mine. It definitely has more resistance than the 18-55, but I think it's by design. With a more shallow depth of field at f1.2 you want a tighter focus ring for better control. Whether yours is abnormally resistant I don't know.
1577241
Not really, its about .5 inches longer and it has a 72 mm filter tread vs the 67mm of the 14-54, this gives you 2 mm more on the wide end and 6 on the longer end, as for weight it its heavy but quite comfortable to handle, so if you have the budget go for it, it will mean not having to buy another wide lens (as the 11-22) and that means some important weight savings
2029245
Hi Pablo, I have a similar camera (and lens set). I have the GF5 with the X series (compact) 14mm-42mm and I recently got the x series 45mm-175mm. After a ton of reading all the reviews and comments and factoring price and everything (for me) I decided this was the best 2nd lens for me. That said, it is no good UNLESS one is 20+ feet away from what you basically want to shoot. When I take a group shot I have to switch back. I will say the 45x175 is a superb lens, but if you were going to mount one and leave the other home, you would really want the 14-140 (IMO). When I chose the 45-175 I figured why get a lens that was already a range of one I had but in practical use I now see the 14mm-140mm There were a few other factors, one was the price was significantly higher (I got my 45-175 for one hundred ninety two using "like new" on warehouse deals) the other was I really wanted a "X" series lens and the 14-140 is a "G" series only. Two other factors were the 14-140 was almost 8 years older and twice as heavy. I have a GF5 and LOVE how with the 45-175 mounted I can hold it like a soda can in one hand when not using it. I am sure the 14-140 is a great lens, and with the GH2 being a much bigger and heavier camera, I am not sure the increase weight would be an issue. Next time I get another lens my quandary may be similar to your, but it would be the 100-300 vs the very useable 14-140. I already get "Wow" comments with the 45-175 mounted on my tiny red GF5 camera. I can only imagine the comments the humongous 100-300 (zoomed out) would get. I do like how the 45-175 it totally internal and am a tad fearful of the 'zooming/slide' tube feature of the 100-300. I know they have to do it, but it's a tad scary. Overall I really think if you are going to REPLACE (meaning sell or no longer have access the 14-42mm lens) you should opt for the 14-140. That way you ONLY change if you want CRAZY zoom potential! Take care!
2165328
Not apples to apples. L lenses are designed for serious photographers who understand that they will need 4 or more lenses. That is why they have such a short range. The 15-85 is wider and still has twice the zoom. I would rather have one lens that is very good quality, that a bag full of pro lenses sitting at home. In other words, in my opinion, the 15-85 is one of the best walk around lenses out there (and I have gone through a bunch.) If you are a pixel peeper and have no regard for money, go with a couple of L lenses. Also look at the 24-105mm L. That is more of fair comparison. Value wise the 15-85 is hard to beat. Not apples to apples. L lenses are designed for serious photographers who understand that they will need 4 or more lenses. That is why they have such a short range. The 15-85 is wider and still has twice the zoom. I would rather have one lens that is very good quality, that a bag full of pro lenses sitting at home. In other words, in my opinion, the 15-85 is one of the best walk around lenses out there (and I have gone through a bunch.) If you are a pixel peeper and have no regard for money, go with a couple of L lenses. Also look at the 24-105mm L. That is more of fair comparison. Value... » Read More Not apples to apples. L lenses are designed for serious photographers who understand that they will need 4 or more lenses. That is why they have such a short range. The 15-85 is wider and still has twice the zoom. I would rather have one lens that is very good quality, that a bag full of pro lenses sitting at home. In other words, in my opinion, the 15-85 is one of the best walk around lenses out there (and I have gone through a bunch.) If you are a pixel peeper and have no regard for money, go with a couple of L lenses. Also look at the 24-105mm L. That is more of fair comparison. Value wise the 15-85 is hard to beat. « Show Less
2014123
If you can afford it I'd recommend the 17-55mm IS 2.8. This a basically an L quality lens but doesn't carry the L in it's name because it is a EF-S series lens. It is very fast and the sharpness and overall IQ are comparable to the 24-105L IS. The range on the 17-85mm IS is really great and it is about $400 less but the images are softer and the varible aperature starting at 4 will not be nearly as fast. the 17-55mm IS 2.8 is a GREAT walkaround lens and will rarely leave your camera.
41290
I have both lenses and prefer the 12MM. It is faster, and produces a sharper image. I especially like the depth of field markers that appear when the focus ring is snapped back into manual mode. I use both, and favor the 17MM when I want to carry the camera in my pocket, but tend to keep the 12MM on the camera most of the time.
173411
If it were me, and if I I had to choose between them - I'd begin with the 14-45mm that you can still get new from Japan if you look around and get it for a reasonable price when they pop us from certain sellers. IMHO the 14-45 is a MUCH sharper lens than the 14-42. There is usually one or two 14-45 available "used" as an Amazon Warehouse deal, but I've found them to be new item returns in excellent condition and have had good really luck when I've ordered "used" from Amazon Warehouse on these lenses (especially when ordering micro 4/3 vs. taking a chance on a used Canon or Nikon lens).
501123
Congrats on the nice lens! I have the 17-85. It's better than my 18-55, but I would love to get the 17-55 someday. Heck, I'd like to get a lot of different lenses someday! But being completely new to dslr, I think what I have now will suffice until I get going.
2154579
IQ wise the 28-135mm is the superior lens. There is less barrel and pincushion distortion, and FAR fewer chromatic aberrations. And sharpness is more consistent across the focal range. I had the 18-135 on my T3i and then the 60D, and in order to get a sharp image, the lens had to be stopped down to at least f8 on the wide end and f11 on the tele end. And even then, at some focal lengths, the pictures were just plain soft no matter what. There was a significant amount of corner and edge blurring, especially at the wide end. And at the tele end, my oh my, the CA! Not just at the edges, either - color fringing was very noticeable well into the frame. The 28-135, on the other hand, is pretty sharp at its widest apertures throughout the range and quite good stopped down one stop narrower than its maximum opening at any given focal length. And pictures have very good corner and edge sharpness across the entire focal range. While image stabilization is superior on the 18-135mm, by the time you stop it down enough to get a sharp picture, you're still running up on using slower shutter speeds (which equals motion blurred images), using high ISOs and/or flash. The 28-135 lets you avail yourself of more light, so you can shoot at lower ISOs or increase the shutter speed a tad to compensate for its less sophisticated image stabilization. By the way, image stabilization on the 28-135 is effective. It's just not quite as effective as the 18-135. About the 18 vs 28mm at the wide end--unless you're shooting indoors in smallish rooms a lot, you probably aren't going to notice the difference. Looking at the EXIF data of 18-135mm sample images on the web, I've noticed that most of them are shot toward the tele end of the zoom. I certainly tend to zoom at least a little with nearly everything I photograph. I much prefer the 28-135. It focuses faster and more quietly, I can shoot at wider apertures for better bokeh and more light, and it produces great pictures with a minimum of distortion and CA.