Normal prime choices...

<p>Thinking of what normal prime to get for a new OMD setup, to complement Oly 12/2, 45/1.8 and 60/2.8<br>

I hear good things about the Pana 25/1.4 and also the Pana 20/1.7<br>

I'm tending towards the latter due to size, cost and good reviews. But some people swear by the former.<br>

I'd also like to know whether the Oly offerings at 17mm and 25mm really are as mediocre as the reviews suggest, or whether I should consider those too (especially the 17/1.8)<br>

Cheers</p>

<p>I've been very happy with the 20/1.7, and it pairs well with the 45/1.8 for landscape, both close and wide views; shame there is no 10mm prime yet.</p>

The Olympus 25mm is a four-thirds lens so isn't really worth considering. The Panasonic 25mm DG-Summilux is pretty large as m-4/3

primes go, but it is a superb lens - it's fast, sharp, focusses quickly, and renders the out-of-focus areas beautiful. Replace the ridiculously-

oversized hood with something more svelte and it's close to perfect (I may be exaggerating slightly).

 

By all accounts the 20mm is a fine lens, but I have no experience with it so couldn't really say. It is much more compact than the

PanaLeica.

 

Personally I'd choose the 20mm only if cost and/or size were an issue; under any other circumstances I'd do what I have already have,

which is pick the DG-Summilux.

<p>Forgetting cost and size for a minute, it might also depend on where you see your prime line up finishing...<br>

If a 35mm <strong>and</strong> a 50mm lens would make up your ideal line up in full frame terms, then I would opt for the 25mm with a view to getting a 17mm when you feel there is one good enough. The 20mm would be the compromise to cover both these focal lengths.<br>

Looking at Oly's line up, they have a fast 12mm, 17mm (recently released) and 45mm, so it wouldn't surprise me if a fast 25mm was released soon as this would provide a comparable line up to a traditional full frame set of primes (24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm).<br>

I also bought the Pana-Leica 25mm and am very happy with it, but I have not used the Pana 20mm so I'm afraid I can't provide you with a direct comparison.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Maybe in days to come we shall hear about the Nokton 25/0.95.</p>

<p>Me ... I got the 14-140 and don't have to bother about changing lenses and the expense of buying a stable ... just becuase one has a camera with interchangable ability doesn't mean you have to. <br>

I have other uses for that feature, very occasional but nice to have and makes my DSLR redundant.<br>

But I guess coming from principly bridge cameras I have different priorities to somebody coming from a DSLR.</p>

<p>I own both. Do not base your decision on "sharpness". Which is sharper will depend on which two samples are compared. The bokeh or the 25/1.4 is nicer. The AF of the 25/1.4 is vastly faster (this is the biggest performance difference). The 25/1.4 is big and expensive. I would suggest picking up a used 20/1.7. If you don't like it, you can sell it for what you paid for it.</p>

<p>The Oly 17/2.8 doesn't have a great reputation, and it also has slow AF, but I've seen very nice work done with it. Two other options are the Sigma 19/2.8 and Oly 17/1.8. The Sigma is on the large size, but has very good optics and is selling now for $150. The new Oly 17/1.8 is something of an unknown quantity right now. Some people who have shot with it loved it and someone who measured it wasn't very impressed. If it turns out to be a winner, and you like the VOF it would fit between the 12 & 45 very nicely.</p>

<p>Yes, I had a chance to play with the new 17mm f1.8 while at Arlington Camera this past Saturday. The Olympus rep was there with everything to try. It's a really cool lens. Great size. Super-fast AF. Based on the images in the link below, I don't really care what the "numbers" say. I went ahead and reserved a copy when they get their first shipments, which is supposed to be some time the next several days.<br>

<br /><a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/17/olympus-zd-17-1_8/">http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/17/olympus-zd-17-1_8/</a></p>

<p>I can't find anything to not like about the Lumix 20mm 1.7. It was my standard most used lens on a trip to Oregon a year ago and- for the modest price and normal for my tastes focal length, it does the job well and I will hang on to it, makes a small package together with camera. It has no built in stabilization as a as you know... I did not want to shell out at the time, -limited selection of zooms- for the Panasonic 25mm micro, which I have never tried. You could splurge and buy the fine zoom Lumix 12-35mm 2.8 which I heartily recommend for the zoom fanciers. Both keepers.</p><div></div>

<p>Do not discount the fantastic Sigma 19mm and 30mm lenses. They are so sharp and very reasonably priced.</p>

<p>The Sigma lenses should be sharp. They're not pancake designs, so no compromises to fit everything in a tiny profile and they're slow at f2.8 for primes at those focal lengths. It would be more of a story if they were not good and inexpensive. They're great lenses for the system and those where the price makes the most sense, but if one wants an f2 or faster prime, they're not going to make the list of options being considered.</p>

<p>This pre-occupation with 'fast' lens is a relic of film days and with editing is much less important a consideration with digital. If you are one of those who like to work with minimal depth of field there is posssibly something to be said for the f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens, though usually the effect can be obtained in editing whatever stop you are working at, and can be better. Likewise if it is to obtain results in low light situations the good editor comes into play again. I was shooting in low light at 1/30 f/6.3 awhile back using only 6400 ISO with quite acceptable results. My lens is f/5.8 at full zoom so it is easier to work at an aperture which covers the whole range. I didn't need to use the editor either. I now have 12800 ISO if I want it. but 25600 ISO is effectively posssible with the editor. It is the same process done at a different stage, amplification of a given signal.</p>

No, it is a pre-occupation of still liking to stay at the lowest ISO possible, no matter how "good" ISO 6400 now is, ISO 400

or 800 is still way, way better, and f2 lets me stay there much longer than f6.3.

<p>Anything beyond base ISO degrades the image. Amplifiers amplify signal and noise. You can dress up crap with software, but it still looks like crap.</p>

<p>It does depend on the subject and f/6.3 is no hinderance and people also have an absurd objection to a little bit of noise ... technicians rather than artists.</p>

<p>Noise is only part of problem with high ISO with early generation µ4/3 Pens. I guess if you're used to "bridge cameras", camera phones or other imaging devices made by Fisher Price, it looks ok.</p>

<p>I've almost bought the Panasonic 25/1.4 on a couple of occasions but I continue to be very happy with the pictures made with the Olympus 25/2.8 with a Panasonic adapter. It does double duty on my Olympus DSLRs as well. It doesn't get much respect in reviews but the lens does lend a very nice look to photos. The downside: slow AF.</p>

<p>Take a look at Robin Wong's website for some examples of photos done with the Oly 25. However, he does use it on Olympus DSLRs so slow AF is not an issue.</p>

 

<p>Wow.. this is the 1st time in my life I seen someone refer to f2.8 lens as slow, for any focal length. But to each their own;<br>

I would say go ahead and get the Voightlander 17.5mm and the Voightlander 25mm if you have the money. I am fairly certain no one can consider them slow lenses. And they are sharp.<br>

But for the rest of us penny wise Photographers, f/2.8 can be plenty fast on a good reliable sharp lens.</p>

<p>An f2.8 prime that has an equivalent field of view of 38-60mm.....is slow. The 35mm f2.8 Nikkor was slow. That's why everyone wanted the 35mm f2 or f1.4, Nikon stopped making the f2.8 and never offered it in AF mount. A 50mm f2.8 prime for a 35mm camera would be slow. The two f2.8 Sigma primes ARE slow for the focal lengths they are. If the 19mm Sigma was a wide 12mm f2.8, that'd be a different story. If the 30mm f2.8 was 100mm or longer, that would be a different story, but neither are. About the only brand-name f2.8 primes you can find today in this range (35-90mm or so equivalent 35mm FOV) that have f2.8 maximum apertures are specialty lenses like macros or pancake lenses, and the two Sigma lenses are neither.</p>

<p>However you chose to dress it up.....penny-wise, cheap, whatever you want to call it, the two Sigma lenses are slow for what they are. That's why they cost what they do.</p>

<p>@Jean</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Replace the ridiculously- oversized hood with something more svelte and it's close to perfect (I may be exaggerating slightly).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which hood do you choose instead? </p>