Author Topic: I kind of want the 17mm (Read 1578 times)

voyager · « **on:** February 16, 2011, 07:27:38 PM »

But I've never used a prime before. Any real big disadvantages over a zoom like the kit zoom other than the range?

voyager · « **Reply #1 on:** February 16, 2011, 07:28:14 PM »

Well that's not true, I've had 50mm and 100mm lenses before, both of which were a lot of fun to use (the 100mm was more fun). But I've never had one this wide.

Handheld · « **Reply #2 on:** February 16, 2011, 07:40:30 PM »

Quote from: voyager on February 16, 2011, 07:27:38 PM

But I've never used a prime before. Any real big disadvantages over a zoom like the kit zoom other than the range?

Not really. It's smaller, lighter, faster, and is always ready. Classic street and landscape focal length. That said, the 20mm f1.7 is more useful for low light and is sharper.

Panther · « **Reply #3 on:** February 16, 2011, 07:47:30 PM »

No, you don't want this lens....
I have it & I'm still kicking myself for NOT getting the Panasonic 20mm....

corgifan · « **Reply #4 on:** February 16, 2011, 08:01:49 PM »

Yup, the 20mm f/1.7 is the way to go, I think. I'm really impressed by how sharp the images are.

Doug

voyager · « **Reply #5 on:** February 22, 2011, 08:12:00 PM »

Change that from kind of want the 17mm to definitely want the 17mm.

Untitled by Devon Shaw, on Flickr

Helgen X · « **Reply #6 on:** March 03, 2011, 02:33:06 PM »

It is just about the only lens I use on my E-P1. I hear the Panny 20mm is better, but well, I have used both cameras, and I see very little difference other than autofocus speed, which is not a big deal to me because I am usually manual anyway. And it seems somewhat ridiculous that the 20mm cost almost two times more.

Panther · « **Reply #7 on:** March 03, 2011, 05:00:16 PM »

Panny is a 20mm but to some, the difference between 17 & 20 is like night and day...

bigfoot · « **Reply #8 on:** March 04, 2011, 09:35:01 AM »

On paper the Panasonic 20mm just seems like a funky focal length to me, IMHO. It's not an equivalent wide focal length, and not really normal, either. So (to me) you get the benefit of neither. I enjoy the wider Olympus 17mm lens thanks to the equivalent ~35mm focal length (2.0x factor). From what I remember, a "normal" 50mm lens is considered what your eyes see. So this would be something to the tune of 25mm in micro 4/3's speak.

I went back and looked at the photos I have taken over the last ten years or so. The film and digital cameras used were typically set to (or fixed to) an equivalent 35mm or 50mm setting. There were a few wider shots (~28mm), and a few portrait shots (~85mm), but by and large they were either 35mm or 50mm for probably 90% or more of the photos.

But then again everybody's needs and shooting styles are different...

Helgen X · « **Reply #9 on:** March 04, 2011, 10:24:17 AM »

Quote from: Panther on March 03, 2011, 05:00:16 PM

Panny is a 20mm but to some, the difference between 17 & 20 is like night and day...

LOL I always confuse the sizes on them, doh. And I have did this on various forums, yet own the lens and never look at it hahhaa.

voyager · « **Reply #10 on:** March 04, 2011, 04:51:08 PM »

Damn, this lens was sold for $150 the other day, I wish I got it.

Panther · « **Reply #11 on:** March 04, 2011, 08:41:29 PM »

Quote from: voyager on March 04, 2011, 04:51:08 PM

Damn, this lens was sold for $150 the other day, I wish I got it.

A couple of recent shots with it....

traveler_101 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 05, 2011, 04:21:32 PM »

Quote from: voyager on February 22, 2011, 08:12:00 PM

Change that from kind of want the 17mm to definitely want the 17mm.

What you like is the FL of the lens. There is something about the 35mm equivalent FL: a mild wide angle that can work really well compositionally.

For $150 it is really worth it.

I kind of want the 17mm