Olympus m4/3 17mm f/2.8 vs Olympus 14-42 kit lens at 17mm

<p>The 17mm f/2.8 seems to have very mixed reviews. From what I saw, some say it is the bee's knees, but others say to avoid it. Which led me to wonder, is the kit lens better? (i just bought an omd em10 body and am looking to buy a lens. My preferred focal length is 35mm)</p>

<p>There are plenty of solid reviews out there to explore, but my question is which version of the 14-42 kit lens are you contemplating, as there were changes from the original to improve its overall performance? Most photographers using M3/4 lenses in/near this focal length actually seem to prefer the Panasonic 20 over the Olympus 17. If I used Oly's post processing for their raw files, the Oly 14-42 (version II) did fine, less so if I used other programs which had a greater issue with moustache distortion. I haven't used the 17/2.8, as more attractive choices at the short end have become available. For general purpose shooting I found the 2nd version of the kit lens adequate for prints under 9x12 or online posting.</p>

<p>olympus has a newer 17/1.8 which is reportedly better than the 2.8. that's the one i'd get. on m4/3 you need faster lenses. </p>

<p>I opted for the panasonic 20mm f1.7 as a "normal prime" because the 17mm f2.8 didn't offer enough speed above the kit lens, which I find just fine at the wide end.</p>

<p>Not quite wide enough was my concern, but I could leave that lens on all day, and the quality of photos is really really much better than the Oly kit lens. (I got the original one, which focuses noisy, but has, apparently, slightly better image quality).<br /><br />I would think that if you get any of the current lenses that are below f2 you will be happy, but the f2.8 pancakes? Not so sure.</p>

<p>If you don't need the extra speed of the prime lenses the 14-42 is quite sharp. I do own the 17 1.8 and it is a real gem especially shooting it wide open. I have some images that I took using the 14-42 that are more distant scenics and don't think I can tell the difference between the prime. </p>

<p>I would avoid the 17mm f/2.8. It doesn't offer much over the kit zoom. The image quality is only adequate. </p>

<p>The Panny 20mm f/1.7 offers the best value for money. It's a very sharp lens, very compact and has a nice wide aperture. If you must have a 17mm lens then the Oly 17mm f/1.8 is the best but it's considerably more expensive.</p>