Which fast wide/normal lens

<p>Looking for advice form m43 users. I have added an OM-D EM-10 (with the 14-42 R lens) to my E-PL1. I also have the two kit lenses that came with the E-PL1. <br>

Mostly I shoot travel and family stuff, and the "travel" is trip documentation as I almost always travel with 1-3 other people whose interest in photography ranges from "let's document the trip" to "nil".<br>

With that in mind, I'm thinking about getting a fast, wide to normal prime, for use inside cathedrals and museums where flash photography isn't allowed. In my film days, I shot entire week long trips with either an Olympus Epic (35mm), a Canonet QL-17 GIII or Canon Demi EE-17 half farm with the 30mm lens.</p>

 

<p>I am very happy with the Lumix 14mm f2.5 - it is small, light, quite sharp and reasonably priced (used).</p>

<p>If you can carry a small tripod, that may be another option to use with your current lenses.</p>

Lets see, in the fast/wide/normal category: from Panasonic there is the 15mm f1.7 (newly released), 20mm f1.7, and 25mm 1.4. Olympus has the 17 f1.8 and 25 f1.8. I have the Oly 17 f1.8, but could certainly find happiness with many of the other options listed above (especially the Oly 25mm). There should be reviews on most of these lenses available on various web sites.

<p>Why not get the <a href="http://laurphoto.blogspot.com/2014/02/olympus-zuiko-12-4028-pro.html">12-40/2.8</a>? Yes, it's not a prime, but it has excellent image quality across the focal range, right from wide open aperture, and it can replace a bag of primes. According to dxomark, at 12mm it is even better than the 12/2 prime lens. I've shot with it in available light conditions and I am very happy with the results - the post I linked to contains a link at the end for all my images shot with this lens.</p>

<p>If you really want a prime lens, I found normal lenses to give me the best tradeoff. The new 25mm f/1.8 appears to be pretty good.</p>

<p>A note on the above mentioned 14/2.5 - I have that lens and while I use it and will continue to do so, it is mainly because of its compact size (I bundled it with the E-PL2 and made that my B&W combo). Optically, I don't see a big improvement over the kit lens, so I'd recommend investing elsewhere and maybe bringing the kit zoom along as well.</p>

<p>I think Kenneth already summarized the various options available on the market.</p>

<p>I probably didn't phrase the question well. What I was hoping for was some input from actual users.</p>

<p>I can only provide input on Oly 17 mm f/1.8. I've been quite happy about it, it's the kind of lens that made me choose Micro 4/3, fast, good AF (even in low-light), small and very light weight. Image quality has been good for me, better than what I would expect after reading the reviews, but it's worth saying I usually don't do landscape and don't care about corners.<br>

I quickly tried Panasonic 20 mm, definitely a sharp lens, but I wasn't happy about its AF (slow and a bit noisy, especially poor in low-light), at least on E-M1. I heard it performs better on Panasonic's bodies.<br>

<br />I can't comment on other lenses since I don't have direct experience. Hope it will help.</p>

<p>I can recommend the 20mm Panasonic but whether it will suit your shooting style and idea of field of view - only you can tell. For me it is slightly too wide (I tend to crop in PP) but the lens' physical size is more important to me as it means I can take the camera with me in my bag almost everywhere I go. <br>

Its nice and sharp, good colour, and I get very little problems with flare. Unlike Massimo I can't say I have personally had any issues with slow AF even in low light. But it is considered on review sites (if I remember correctly) as being slow in that department. But for me it is fine.<br>

I also have the Olympus 45mm which is an excellent lens and super sharp - but hardly wide or normal field of view.<br>

You might want to look at the Olympus 25mm that Kenneth mentioned. I don't have any personal experience with it though. Here is a link you might find useful - a hands on review of this lens rather than a technical review.<br>

http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2014/02/olympus-mzuiko-25mm-f18-review-part-1.html<br>

Laurie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unlike Massimo I can't say I have personally had any issues with slow AF even in low light.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Different people have different expectations. Micro 4/3 is a "second" system for me, I use Canon 5D Mk III and 7D too, so I tend to be somewhat picky when it comes to AF speed :-)</p>

<p>I have both the 12 - 40 2.8 Pro, and the newest version of the Panasonic 20mm 1.7. I can't distinguish between the two from an IQ standpoint; however, I mostly carry around the EM-1 with the 20mm. Much smaller and lighter. I'll use the 12 - 40 extensively on actual photo "trips," but the 1.7 is great for walking around.</p>

<p>Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 is indeed an amazing lens, it delivers image quality up to the best primes (I use it together with Oly 12 mm and 17 mm). It's one of those rare zooms, like Canon 70-200 2.8 II, 24-70 2.8 II or Nikon 14-24 2.8 that do that. Of course, it's still "just" f/2.8 and since the OP mentioned "fast", I ruled it out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“…I'm thinking about getting a fast, wide to normal prime, for use inside cathedrals and museums where flash photography isn't allowed.”<br>

<br>

“I probably didn't phrase the question well. What I was hoping for was some input from actual users.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I actually use the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and the Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 on an Olympus E-p3 and E-p1. I am very pleased with their performance on the E-p3 but the auto focus is too slow in dim light on the E-p1.</p>

<p><a href=" </div>

<p>FWIW I really do like the Pan 20mm 1.7, nice low light capability and very sharp images. Its a little slow in its autofocus, which Panasonic did not address when they updated from the older version. I also use and like the 12-35 2.8 zoom. It focuses quite fast and I like the IQ a lot on that lens. That gives you a range of 24 - 70, a very good lens for events/weddings/street etc., but it is quite pricey.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course, it's still "just" f/2.8 and since the OP mentioned "fast", I ruled it out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, f/2.8 is not that fast for capturing moving subjects, but with churches and museums it can still be fine.</p>

<p>I'm a big fan on the 35mm equivalent focal length, and I think the 17mm f1.8 would be a better choice indoors (you mention interiors) where a 25mm might be a little tight. In fact, in places like this, the wider the better. The 12mm f2 would be great for this, but might not be quite as versatile.</p>