One advantage of a wider lens is, that you can always crop a bit in post, but you can't make any lens wider than it is. I'm talking about a small crop, not a complete reframing😀
That is true. It is not only about the lens. It is about seeing the world with a certain focal length. Like you have said. When you have a certain lens you start seeing opportunities that are good with that particular filed of view.
@@JiiV3e Sure, you can do many things, but that's not a single exposure any more and also much more work than a simple crop. Relatively speaking, of course. It also requires, that you plan it ahead and take all the necessary photos.
@@JiiV3eI tried this. Traveled during cloudy weather. Took about 20 pictures of a building with a 25mm, hoping to stitch it and have a full view of the building in post. But the light was changing through the photos. (it took me 5-10 seconds to take all of them). Nothing I could do in post to make it look nice. Now I'd pick either a standard zoom or a 15/17mm for travels.
It's pretty much a personal choice. Both lenses are small enough to pack both of them, but if I had to choose I'd pick the 17mm. I love that lens so much I own two copies of that lens.
I loved the 17mm F1.8 on my EM5 back in 2013 when I first started shooting Olympus. But the 25mm 1.8 does have better IQ. The look reminds me of my 45mm 1.8. However the 12-40mm F2.8 really has become my go to travel and street shooter. Super sharp and fast focus and all in one focal length coverage :)
I skimmed the comments and saw a lot of votes for the 20/1.7. Add mine to that - being able to stick my GX9 in a coat pocket but still have a bright aperture and very good image quality is awesome. Of course it splits the difference on the focal lengths, and I've come to enjoy that as well.
I just got yesterday Olympus 25mm 1.8 for my GM1. One of my first prime lenses. Until recent years I have use extensively zoom lenses for my Canons. Thus prime lenses are new to me. I had tried 35mm for EOS M6 and liked it back then. I look forward to start learning what my style will be. Appreciated you showed same location with two different lenses. Really shows what type of images you will get from each lens. Also liked how you didn't push certain lens over other because of you own personal preferences or mandate.
I love the manual focus clutch on the 17mm and paired with my ‘old’ E-M1 it makes a fairly compact setup for travel. I think, when I go out with my family it also signals that I’m not primarily out to take photographs but that I’m out with them as I won’t need a camera bag.
An interesting video, Peter. I own the whole suite of f/1.8 primes and find that the 17mm is my "go-to" lens. I find that when shooting at night in dark areas at ISO1600 on the PEN-F, the 17mm finds focus immediately whereas, on occasion, the 25mm may need a couple of attempts to find focus. In addition, I find the 17mm more versatile due to its wider angle of view. While I have used the 17mm for street portraits I have been turning to the 25mm more as I like the additional "compression" it provides to the images. Like you, I couldn't distinguish between the two in image quality. I'm glad I have both but if I was forced to keep only one, it would be the 17mm.
The 17mm 1.8 is always on the E-P5 because it looks so cool (both in silver). It's quick and unobtrusive in the city. The 12-50mm is my travel lens on the E-M1 when I know for sure that it will be wet and dirty. That's pretty much good for everything that comes up. I use the 25mm 1.8 less than I initially thought, but the 45mm 1.8 more often.
My favorite prime? Effective 35mm. It is nice to show a bit of width, without pulling apart straight lines. And it means less work later trying to fix it in post ;) That and it is a very natural one with a very natural feel. Allows you to get closer to something to still get some Background Blur going on with a nice soft falloff.
Great thoughts. Thank you. I've been using 17/1.8 and 45/1.8 for years. But recently I felt tired changing lenses while traveling. Bought 12-40/2.8 and wowed. Ultimate travel partner.
Hi Peter, great video, I travelled, Canada to Germany in 2019 just before Covid and I carried the EM10 mk ii with two lenses, a 17mm prime and a 40-150 zoom. I'm planning a Europe trip next year and will add the 25mm to this kit. On most of my outings I keep my gear to 3 lens only. My EM-1 mk ii kit is always one prime 12mm and two zooms 12-45 and 75-300. I find that if I have less gear I take more time to "see, think & compose" my shots, the message bag is light & small, and I don't fuddle around with kit. My every day true pocketable camera is an old Olympus XZ-2. I love the all in one lens, adjustable aperture ring on the front, flip screen, auto zoom, I shoot then the camera goes back into my pocket, no packs and no other gear needed. The XZ-2 is not as high tech or as the Ricoh GR but it works for me. Limitations make you better. :) Thanks.
Even though - like many - I haven't been doing much traveling lately, I'd probably take the 17mm F1.8 as faster prime (along with the 12-45mm F.4 Pro as versatile zoom lens) on my next trip. Sofar, I find composing with the 17mm F1.8 comes more natural to me, then with the 25mm. Going through my photo's, the 17mm has given me a lot more keepers then the 25mm. Up until now. it pretty much lives on my E-M5 III along with the 12-45mm F.4 Pro. Also....the Pana Lumix 25mm F1.7 I own, appears to suffer from focus-shift ever so slight around F4/F5.6 (admittedly not that much, but being spoiled a bit by the image quality my Oly lenses give...The Pana 25mm doesn't always cut it.
My typical kit is the Tamron 14-150 F3.5 for general usage, Laowa 7.5mm f2 because I love those strong perspectives and the Olympus 17mm f1.8 for low light with a more normal view. I did just get a black Friday kit with the EM5 mk3 and 12-45 f4 Pro. With the extra 5 Mp and a pro level lens, I will see how I like using this instead of the 14-150 as my go-to lens.
I think I would go for the 17mm Peter as I would use my legs to zoom in and out. Fortunately, I have the 8-25mm f4 zoom so don't have this problem. However, I understand this lens is in very short (or no) supply at present due to chip shortages. On the other hand, either of these fast primes would be better in low light.
8-25mm f4 is a good travel lens too. I have the lens also, but have not used it for my travels. I might take it with me for my next trip. (Do not know when that is).
Peter, interesting video. I have the 17mm 1.8 on my OM10 mkII as my first lens and liked the photos it produced. I tend to use the 12-40mm 1.8 a lot now especially for family photos. I too like the MF clutch, great idea that Olympus came up with. Geoff
I'm a Nikon shooter, 53 years this year. That said, I got into the M43 system about 3 years ago and now have two Olympus bodies (M1-Mk III & Pen-F) and one Panasonic (GX85). I love the M43 system as travel or 'fun' cameras but the Mk III regularly demonstrates it's immense prowess and, coupled with Olympus and/or Panasonic-Leica lenses delivers amazing quality. All that said, you're talking travel here and honestly, I love the Pen-F for that. Great camera and it usually finds my Panasonic-Leica 15mm f/1.7 lens attached, a great pair. A single prime is a great way to 'refresh' your skills as a photographer. It makes you move about, think more about what you're shooting and how you shoot it. Thanks Peter, stay safe and healthy.
Thanks for sharing. I totally agree that restricting your self to one lens will help to get better. Have yuo ever tried to use something else than 17mm as your only lens?
The 25 f1.8 was the first lens I got, after switching to m4/3. I still use several of my older 4/3 lenses, including the 9-18, and that has served me well for wide angle, but at times it is slow. I don’t use the 25 a whole lot, but it is perfect for events and family. I recently got a Laowa 7.5mm f2, and there have been a few times when I have brought both the 25 and Laowa with me, and combined, they take up a lot less space in my bag than the 9-18 with its adapter. Cropping the Laowa shots to narrow its coverage has worked pretty well for me, too.
I have the 12-40 2.8 zoom lens, the 17 1.8 & the 45 1.8. A very interesting question. I use the 12-40 when I don't want to change lenses and use it more in daylight and to have the 12mm wide angle. The 17mm is a compromise for me between a 12mm and a 25mm lens and I like to use it much in low light conditions. Interssting and informative video! A part of my family lives in Karlskoga and other regions in Sweden. I am from Germany.
Great video, I take my EM5 MKII + 12 1.8 - 25 1.8 and 45 1.8 and find that most pictures are taken with the 12 and 25 about 40% each and 20% with the 45 I have thought of taking just the 25 but the extra space and weight of the 12 and 45 is so minimal I take them all.
Thanks for another interesting video Peter. Lovely shots by the way! I agree about the convenience of the 17mm f1.8 which I pair with the SIgma 30mm f1.4 DC DN. Silent focus, tack-sharp and an ideal focal length for stolen portraits in the street or in bars. I still have the original Panasonic 25mm f1.4 which I decided to keep after testing the Olympus option a while back.
Thanks for the video! For travelling I usually take 9-18mm zoom, and fast 25mm 1.8 for evening photos. Both are pretty small, and their combination makes me totally happy))
Also Panasonic 14mm f2.5 or 20mm f1.7...I am not necessarily brand loyal in regard to lenses. I've had both Olympus and Panasonic cameras. I now have the Olympus 45mm f1.8 and 14mm-150m Olympus compact zoom. A good video Peter. Hallo from Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Leica 15mm and Zuiko 45 mm were the only two lenses I was taking with me when I had em5 and I can recall that switching lenses were a bit painfull. Now I have Em1.3 but not traveling yet for obvious reasons...but when I do start traveling I'm thinking to get a pro zoom lens this time or even 14-150mm kit lens.
I just bought a used 17mm last week thinking that it might be more useful than the 25. I have to test it out but my default is to use the 25mm and the 12-45. I love the scale of the cities in Finland and Sweden - so pretty! Thanks for the video
When I was using em5 i prefer 17/1.2 as my everyday lens due to it gave me a chance to take cool environmental portraits with subject/background separation and instead of 25 this lens was usable indoors in tight spaces. I really recommend to every m4/3 owner if you need only one lens which can give you everything in one - buy 17/1.2 instead of 12-40/2.8 or 25, at least try to use 17 and you'll get why it's a great lens. Yes you need some time to get used to this focal but it takes not long time. 25 has to be your second or third lens. First lens is 17/1.8 (1.2 if you have money), the second one is 45/1.8 (you don't need to spend more money buying 1.4 or 1.2, coz 1.8 works absolutely fine) and only after that you have to look at 25 mm (but i recommend to look at something wide like 12 or 9 mm)
I appreciate the normal perspective of the 25mm but vastly prefer wide angles because that is simply the way my eye sees and remembers scenes. So the 17 mm for me of these two. I noticed I usually clearly preferred your 17mm shots. For me the 28mm equivalent is the Panasonic 14mm is my favourite walking around lens for street photography day and night. I did just get a 25mm from Olympus here in Australia as part of a promotion when buying the OMD EM5 Mark lll. I’ve been carrying it and the 45mm on walks to get a feel of the difference between normal and short telephoto. Thanks.
I like to go out with just the one lens, either the 17mm or the 25mm usually, but lately I've surprised myself by using the Lumix 14mm as well. I've had some intersting results and also find it a very compact set-up on my Pen f.
Yeah, that's what I need to do. One zoom and one prime, just to test myself. I usually take too many lenses and complicate life. I need to teach myself to move to or move away from an image, which is why your comments resonated with me.
My gear for travelling: E-M5 mark III and all olympus lenses:12-100 f4, manual 24 f2.0 with adapter, for city wildlife 40-150 f2.8 incl teleconverter mc-14
I actually like to bring the 25mm 1.8 and the 45mm 1.8. I never feel like the 25 isn't wide enough for most of my photos and I can still get some good subject separation at f2. I bring the 45 because it is also very small and I always end up taking pictures of family. I usually bring the EM10 II or GX9 with me, but on this next trip I'm planning to try using the E-PL10 for an ultra-compact solution.
For me, travel means light, compact lenses, so no PRO. Not being a professional, the extra quality and speed costs too much. Standard I tend to use 17mm and for more cropping, the 45mm. For extra light weight, I only take the 14-42, although it is a bit slow. Hopefully, stabilization will save me.
I think if you're travelling to a new city, the 17 is ideal. If you *live* in the city, I like taking the 45 for a different view of a familiar place. ...which means I leave the 25 at home. ;)
I use always the 17mm 1.8, reason one : because it fit with my em1 III, grip higher level and ready to catch in my peak sling 6L LoL reason two : I did my best photos with it, and I have the best primes of m43 reason tree : is the easiest to use between this and my 25mm
17mm for me for an all-round prime. If I had a 12mm prime, maybe the other would be a 25mm. I do have a 19mm which is regrettably a f2.8, which is fine unless it is really dark but can’t justify changing it for the Olympus 17mm. The main reason being that I own two full frame primes of 24 and 28mm [12 and 24mm field of view in m4/3], the 28mm being a fixed lens f1.7 camera.
I used to be more in to 35 mm ish angel of view….bought the Olympus 25 1.2 mm and that lens is fantastic…best lens I ever had ..and I began photography in the mid 1980…I recently got the 25. 1,8 to use on my OMD 10 …smaller lens…very nice lens for street I combine it with Panasonic 15 mm 1.7
I have the 14-150 zoom, the 25mm and 7.5mm Laowa for traveling. These three lenses fill all my needs from landscapes, indoor, street, and portraits. I prefer the tighter perspective of the 25mm over the 17mm. I also heard the 25mm has better bokeh and is a bit sharper than the 17mm. The MF clutch though would have been nice to have on the 25mm.
I started out in the late 70s with a Zenit E, 56mm helios, cosina 28mm and a Hanimex 135mm. I've slways regarded the 50mm, 28mm, and 135mm to be the best beginner set up.
I love my Olympus 17mm f1.8. It is a very underrated lens. Excellent performer, and I love the manual focus clutch. I always think it a great shame that Olympus reserved manual clutches for the gigantic pro lenses, and we are lucky to have it in this smaller lens. My 25 is the Lumix f1.7. I would have prefered the Leica, but the 1.7 came for free as a promotion when I bought the GH5 II. I prefer a 17 to a 25 for my normal lens, and if traveling with two primes I woulds always take a 17 Olympus and a 42.5 Lumix or 56 Sigma, although, realistically, I would pack the 12-35 f2.8 and the 17 for low light.
20mm f1.7 plus the 12-32mm pancake is a good travel combo; the 20mm isn't strictly necessary but the shallow dof and wide aperture is sometimes nice to have.
Thanks for the video. Based on my 35mm film experience with 35mm lenses vs. 50mm lenses, I know that I preferred the 17mm over the 25mm for a single travel lens with a micro 4/3 camera. However, when I vacation travel with only one prime lens and one micro 4/3 camera body, I actually prefer the 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic lens.
Thanks for sharing your analytic thoughts. I did compare OM 17 vs PL 25 F1.4 . For street only maybe the 17 would be better. I sent the 17 back and sticked to the 25 because the distortion of the face in portraits disturbed me.
For urban landscape, may be 17mm. 25mm better for specific images, not necessarily related with where you are, more about images that could have been taken no matter where, more proximity. So if I had to choose only one FOR TRAVEL, it would be the 17mm. 17mm, having a longer perspective, will allow me to see the context of the places I visit, in the end it's a matter of perspective, general urban perspective, ambiance. Also, 17mm on Olympus, also makes artistic "near field" perspectives, like parts of a building, parts of boats, litle boats, one building, etc. 17mm is also more versatil for me, IN MY EXPERIENCE. I hope this is clear... Thanks for the video. 17mm Olympus autofocus or 15 mm Leica dg autofocus if I am with people, 17mm Zhongyi Mitakon if I am alone. Also, I prefer to use 17mm when I want to make a 25mm effect because I go foward with my legs. If I have a 25mm and I need to make a 17mm effect, I have to go back... wich is less comfortable, just in general terms. Finally, with the 17mm I can crop.
When I was on APS-C, My fav lens was a 50mm f1.8, so 75mm equivalent portrait focal length. My first choice when I moved to M43 was the 25mm, but I soon felt the 25 and even the 20mm felt middle of nowhere for some reason. The composition always felt too tight or I don't know what. But I moved to 17mm and it just feels right. It has become by permanent Fav. The field of view was wide enough to be very useful as a general purpose. You could always step closer to subject for a tighter crop. The lens functions exceptionally well on newer Olympus bodies and I could always crop if need be.
If I take my EM5 m2 on a casual trip, I usually take the power 14-42 kit lens (with the auto lens cap) , the 14-150 zoom and the 17mm f1.8 if most of the pictures will be outside and/or in decent light. Mostly I keep the 14-150 on the camera but use the 14-42 for very casual shots (restaurants etc,) and the 17mm for darker environments. I know that kit lenses are generally frowned upon but I actually find the images with the 14-42 quite acceptable and for versatile compactness it can't be beat. I have a 12-40 f2.8 PRO but I reserve that for instances where my focus is on taking the best pictures I can ("special" trips), rather than collecting casual trip memories.
My travel kit… * outdoors: EM-1 & 14-150mm (weather-sealed) * indoors: Pen-F & 17mm and 45mm f/1.8s - the late David Thorpe called these the “Batman and Robin” of MFT lenses 😉
I think you’re right with your comment about adapting your style of photography to the lens you have on your shoot. I’ve been doing a lot of street photography with the Olympus 12mm lens. It gives an interesting perspective. Unless you have a specific job or task in mind, it’s fun to bring along a lens that you may not otherwise have used. It stretches your skills and lets you focus on different things and brings originality to your photography.
Very interesting, Peter. You may want to tell less experienced photographers, how they can analyse which focal lengths they used most. I know how to do it in Lightroom but not everybody uses that.
I don't use Lightroom but I upload my processed photos to Google Photos and the Information button there will show you the focal length. Also the Preview app on my Macbook will show that if you press Command I. I think its a very useful exercise - I looked at all the photos I had taken from a trip earlier this year which were all taken on a kit zoom and analysed them into wide / standard / tele and was surprised by the result - far more wide than I would have guessed, so on my last trip where I wanted to travel light I took only the Panasonic 15mm
The wider lenses have more in the frame, but everything is pushed further back in the image. The narrower lens has less in the frame, but everything is pushed forward in the frame.
I don't currently ahve any fast primes, but I have the 10-25/1.7, and that covers everything I need to landscape/street/vacation stuff. I have the 100-400 for capturing wildlife and semi-macro shots. I wish there were some small, weather-sealed primes for Micro 4/3. There's the Oly 1.2 lenses, and the Sigma 1.4, but none of those are really compact.
On my last trip I took my Lumix G7 with the Olympus 17mm and the Lumix 25mm. Most of my photos were shot with the 17mm. Only once or twice I wished I had taken a longer lens.
Just added the Olympus 25mm f1.8 lens to my collection of MFT gear. One problem I have never had before --- the beauty ring is apparently stuck and will not budge. There is no way to get an hood on it. I guess I use it without a hoodie. ;) Take care, Loren
I'm more the "standard focal length" type, too, but sometimes it's nice to get some more scene into the shot. So as a universal lens, I like 20mm and the Lumix 20mm is a good choice for that. Although it is a bit expensive for it's cheap make and the slow AF. I'm looking forward to the new M.Zuiko 20mm/1.4, which might become the best answer to your question.
It's about what you like to take pictures of. If you like to frame the environment views, the the 35mm is more flexible, especially in interiors when you can't walk back. If you prefer detail and abstract images, then the 25 is more flexible as it doubles as a nice portrait lens which it's still wide enought to get in some of the background, but in the end the two are close. Things gets more tricky if you carry a third lens with you, like a 45mm or a 12: then one of the two previous lenses becomes often redundant. In general I think the pictures with the 25mm are more interesting, but that's me.
I love the practicing with a single focal lengths but generally do that more in my local area where I won’t ‘fear’ that I may not get the shot because of the lack of a zoom lens.
If I'm going to travel I have a few combos. One camera and 12-40mm f2.8, 12-50mm or 18-42. Some other combos 18-42 and one prime or 17mm f2.8 25mm F1.7 and 45mm F1.8. I don't care about high ISO now with DXO PhotoLab 4 Deep Prime. So slow zooms are fine also.
17 mm has a really much better quality of image, I would say. it's nearly pro lens I think. 25 mm is (maybe) the weakest lens in Prime row, I would say. But it doesn't mean it is bad lens. But in Prime lens row there are better lenses.
As a freelance photographer I have the Olympus om-d e-m5 mark ii body with Olympus lenses 14-150mm and 25mm 1.8 prime ...love all Update: for 2023 I updated my camera body to the OM-D E-M1 Mark ii and the 25mm pairs with it beautifully.
I have bought the 17mm 1.8 as 3rd lens after 45mm 1.8 and the 12-42 r kitlens... I use the 17mm 1.8 as standard. Oh it is a gem. For almost any situation... only for portaits i use 99% the 45mm 1.8...
When I travel, basically never visit places or attractions during night. I'm in the hotel, killed by walking all day :) Hence - no prime lenses. I end up using a zoom, because it's very convenient. In Olympus lineup, I had 12-40 and 14-150. The 2.8 is a better lens, but 40 can be too short if you want to make a photo of something in the distance. My choice would be 14-150 or even 12-200, for the wider wide end.
As both the 17 mm and the 25 mm are very tiny there should be no either-or! Both of course! On travels I prefere the 12-100 mm f/4 in the day and the 17 and 25 during night.
I enjoy both these lenses and use them quite a bit. I guess which one I choose is based on my subject and mood. As always, thank you Peter for yet another great video.
I sorta have various small kits, from my smallest 25/1.8 on an Epl7, then my 12-45 on Em5III w/ Laowa 10/2 (expanding to a second body Em10II and 56/1.4) BUT my sweet spot is between 17 and 25...so the lightly rumoured 20mm f1.4 PRO would be a great option.
12-40 pro is must Have. 25mm I use less of the 17mm. Probably I buy the lumix 15mm for one little lens travel to use with my zuiko 45mm 1.8 that I love... I Have Olympus and Panasonic body
Strangely enough I usually take the 17/1.8 with my Olympus camera but the 25/1.7 with my Panasonic camera. But that is more to do with the size of the lens matching the body size - the 17 looks a bit odd on a G85 (but works perfectly well, including the focus clutch actuating both enlargement and peaking). Using any single lens, even a zoom, is always a compromise. The 17 is probably my favourite, and it has to be the fastest focusing lens on the planet.
Both... My Rokkor 35mm 1.8 weighs 450 grams with filter and lense-caps. My 85mm 1.7 Rokkor weighs 490 grams with filter and lense-caps. My Zuiko M43 17mm 1.8 and 45mm 1.8 weigh 320 grams with filters, lens-caps and hoods! It's pretty much a no-brainer, isn't it?
Most of the time my Go-to-lenses are 12-40mm f/2.8 and 45mm f/1.8. 12-40 is great allarounder and 45mm is awesome portrait lens. I also have 25mm but it’s a little bit dull for me and don’t use it at all. 17mm could be great tho…
I liked your postcard shots! Fwiw, my style has changed after traveling & using Pen-f with primes vs 12-40mm pro etc. Generally my go to kit was 45/25/12mm, or the 12-40mm in a small canvas bag. Enter a new LUMIX 20mm mk2 f1.7 ! the new LUMIX 20mm is delightful to use and carry! I’ve always liked that perspective and gravitate towards it with other systems- a slightly wide normal view. It’s also a natural fit on the Pen series, IMO. The m Zuiko pro lenses are truly awesome on the pro bodies tho!
I don't shoot Olympus cameras but love these videos. What is the angle of view full frame of those two lenses? Is the 25mm pretty much a 50mm full frame. My "frame" of reference is for 35mm full frame cameras! I guess what I'm asking is what's the conversion factor for focal lengths...... I must admit that I love the small size of the Olympus cameras!
Great video and I’m glad to see a comparison for those indecisive. I will suggest another lens for those that don’t need shallow depth of field with the sigma 19mm f2.8 prime. I switched out my 17 1.8 for it because I like a focal length closer to 40 these days. And it lives on my Pen F when I go out. I use the sigma 1.4 set when I need those blurry backgrounds but of course they’re a bit large to carry every day
Your shot at 2:51 is gorgeous! With your previous travel experience using the 9-18mm Oly, and recognizing its not a prime, which of the 3 would you prefer on a trip or landscape shot?
It is a good question. First I take with me the omd m1 MII for travel. If I know the place to visit, the 17 and de 45mm are my choice , sometimes I take the 12mm with the 45. But if it is a new place, I prefer a zoom lens and take with me the 12-100 f/4, especially for interiors (church, old houses), sometimes I do not to carry a lot, I take the 12-45mm f/4, but It is not stabilized and it is for day time and outside. If I intend to do video, I take the old 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 (because the smooth electronic zoom) and the lumix-leica 15mm f/1.7. You see, 17 or 25 is not an easy choice :{) Saludos from Mexico.
I used 17mm quite a lot but after I got my 12-100 f4, 90% of my photos are taken with it. Sometimes I reached out to my beloved 45mm f1.8 for indoor or low light shots. For some reason 50mm equivalent didn't suit me. I am curious about the new 20 F1.4
My travelbag, A6 l ”Peak” with m10 markIV, Panasonic 25mm, F1,7: Olympus 12-40mm f2,8 and 150, 2,8 with 1,4 ggr. And 2 filter, batteri and my iPhone. So, from 24mm to 420 mm Wiehe 3 lensis East handle. Not bad?😎
nice photos! I can cover 12-40 with my standard zoom lens and I use it most often, especially when I film my channel content, so that I can zoom in on the desired part of the composition. but when it comes to prime lens, I prefer 25mm PRO. it lets me take more candid street shots from a little bit further distance without scaring people and somehow the photos look better for my eyes when taken with 25mm. I actually like to shoot my channel content with tele lens, as it narrows the field, and blurs the unwanted surroundings like messy background or sides
I have 3 primary OLY a 17mm, 25mm, and 45mm f1.8 primary lenses. If I could carry only 1 lens it would be the 25mm. If I could carry 2 lenses it would be the 17mm snd the 45mm. Unless I'm are doing wildlife or sports photography they should cover it all.
Interesting comparison. For some reason I have never warmed up to 17mm. I have always preferred 14mm or 15mm and 25mm. This preference goes back to the days when I was shooting 35mm film using lenses equivalent to those focal lengths in full frame. Obviously 17mm is as good as those other focal lengths. For some irrational reason I just never liked that focal length.
Your style is more towards wider than 17mm. That is totally ok and that is the beauty of photography. We like a different things and that is totally ok, even prefred
![Olympus 17mm, 25mm and 45mm F1.8 - [Which One?]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DfwnhP0szOo/mqdefault.jpg)
![Olympus 17mm, 25mm and 45mm F1.8 - [Which One?]](/img/tr.png)
![Olympus 25mm F1.2 Pro Vs. 25mm F1.8 - [7 Things about Standard lenses]](/img/n.gif)
One advantage of a wider lens is, that you can always crop a bit in post, but you can't make any lens wider than it is. I'm talking about a small crop, not a complete reframing😀
That is true. It is not only about the lens. It is about seeing the world with a certain focal length. Like you have said. When you have a certain lens you start seeing opportunities that are good with that particular filed of view.
You can always stitch images in post.
@@JiiV3e Sure, you can do many things, but that's not a single exposure any more and also much more work than a simple crop. Relatively speaking, of course. It also requires, that you plan it ahead and take all the necessary photos.
@@mattisulanto great point i like micro four thirds for most of my pics. But i was thinking about getting the a9 and 20mm for landscapes
@@JiiV3eI tried this. Traveled during cloudy weather. Took about 20 pictures of a building with a 25mm, hoping to stitch it and have a full view of the building in post. But the light was changing through the photos. (it took me 5-10 seconds to take all of them). Nothing I could do in post to make it look nice. Now I'd pick either a standard zoom or a 15/17mm for travels.
It's pretty much a personal choice. Both lenses are small enough to pack both of them, but if I had to choose I'd pick the 17mm. I love that lens so much I own two copies of that lens.
I want to get the black color 17 1.8...I already have a black 2.8 and a silver 1.8...
I loved the 17mm F1.8 on my EM5 back in 2013 when I first started shooting Olympus. But the 25mm 1.8 does have better IQ. The look reminds me of my 45mm 1.8. However the 12-40mm F2.8 really has become my go to travel and street shooter. Super sharp and fast focus and all in one focal length coverage :)
I am on the lookout for an opportunity to purchase a 12-40 mm lens at a good price if it is smaller and lighter than the Lumix Leica Vario 12-60 mm.
I skimmed the comments and saw a lot of votes for the 20/1.7. Add mine to that - being able to stick my GX9 in a coat pocket but still have a bright aperture and very good image quality is awesome. Of course it splits the difference on the focal lengths, and I've come to enjoy that as well.
I am thinking of the Lumix 14mm f2.5 for my PenF. I can put that combo in my coat pocket or fanny pack easily i think.
I just got yesterday Olympus 25mm 1.8 for my GM1. One of my first prime lenses. Until recent years I have use extensively zoom lenses for my Canons. Thus prime lenses are new to me. I had tried 35mm for EOS M6 and liked it back then. I look forward to start learning what my style will be. Appreciated you showed same location with two different lenses. Really shows what type of images you will get from each lens. Also liked how you didn't push certain lens over other because of you own personal preferences or mandate.
I love the manual focus clutch on the 17mm and paired with my ‘old’ E-M1 it makes a fairly compact setup for travel. I think, when I go out with my family it also signals that I’m not primarily out to take photographs but that I’m out with them as I won’t need a camera bag.
An interesting video, Peter. I own the whole suite of f/1.8 primes and find that the 17mm is my "go-to" lens. I find that when shooting at night in dark areas at ISO1600 on the PEN-F, the 17mm finds focus immediately whereas, on occasion, the 25mm may need a couple of attempts to find focus. In addition, I find the 17mm more versatile due to its wider angle of view. While I have used the 17mm for street portraits I have been turning to the 25mm more as I like the additional "compression" it provides to the images. Like you, I couldn't distinguish between the two in image quality. I'm glad I have both but if I was forced to keep only one, it would be the 17mm.
Thanks for sharing.
The 17mm 1.8 is always on the E-P5 because it looks so cool (both in silver). It's quick and unobtrusive in the city. The 12-50mm is my travel lens on the E-M1 when I know for sure that it will be wet and dirty. That's pretty much good for everything that comes up. I use the 25mm 1.8 less than I initially thought, but the 45mm 1.8 more often.
My favorite prime? Effective 35mm. It is nice to show a bit of width, without pulling apart straight lines. And it means less work later trying to fix it in post ;)
That and it is a very natural one with a very natural feel. Allows you to get closer to something to still get some Background Blur going on with a nice soft falloff.
12-40 2.8 lives on my EM1 III when travelling, not the smallest but a great all round combo.
I fully agree. The 12-40 is always on my em-1 (overall travel) and the 17mm is standard for my pen-f (city walkaround).
12-40 + 1.8 prime for low light is all I ever need for travel.
The 12-40 also lives on my EM1 2 :]
Great thoughts. Thank you. I've been using 17/1.8 and 45/1.8 for years. But recently I felt tired changing lenses while traveling. Bought 12-40/2.8 and wowed. Ultimate travel partner.
12-40mm f2.8 Pro is a good choice.
Hi Peter, great video, I travelled, Canada to Germany in 2019 just before Covid and I carried the EM10 mk ii with two lenses, a 17mm prime and a 40-150 zoom. I'm planning a Europe trip next year and will add the 25mm to this kit. On most of my outings I keep my gear to 3 lens only. My EM-1 mk ii kit is always one prime 12mm and two zooms 12-45 and 75-300. I find that if I have less gear I take more time to "see, think & compose" my shots, the message bag is light & small, and I don't fuddle around with kit. My every day true pocketable camera is an old Olympus XZ-2. I love the all in one lens, adjustable aperture ring on the front, flip screen, auto zoom, I shoot then the camera goes back into my pocket, no packs and no other gear needed. The XZ-2 is not as high tech or as the Ricoh GR but it works for me. Limitations make you better. :) Thanks.
XZ-2 is an interesting camera. Yes, I agree that limitations can be helpful.
Even though - like many - I haven't been doing much traveling lately, I'd probably take the 17mm F1.8 as faster prime (along with the 12-45mm F.4 Pro as versatile zoom lens) on my next trip. Sofar, I find composing with the 17mm F1.8 comes more natural to me, then with the 25mm. Going through my photo's, the 17mm has given me a lot more keepers then the 25mm. Up until now. it pretty much lives on my E-M5 III along with the 12-45mm F.4 Pro. Also....the Pana Lumix 25mm F1.7 I own, appears to suffer from focus-shift ever so slight around F4/F5.6 (admittedly not that much, but being spoiled a bit by the image quality my Oly lenses give...The Pana 25mm doesn't always cut it.
My typical kit is the Tamron 14-150 F3.5 for general usage, Laowa 7.5mm f2 because I love those strong perspectives and the Olympus 17mm f1.8 for low light with a more normal view. I did just get a black Friday kit with the EM5 mk3 and 12-45 f4 Pro. With the extra 5 Mp and a pro level lens, I will see how I like using this instead of the 14-150 as my go-to lens.
I have both, but like you, I typically use the 25 when I travel. It’s quick and meets every shot I want to make with the results I want.
I do like the 17mm lens but fore travel I tend to use my EM10 mark ii and the 14-42 lens for flexibility more than any other combination.
I think I would go for the 17mm Peter as I would use my legs to zoom in and out. Fortunately, I have the 8-25mm f4 zoom so don't have this problem. However, I understand this lens is in very short (or no) supply at present due to chip shortages. On the other hand, either of these fast primes would be better in low light.
8-25mm f4 is a good travel lens too. I have the lens also, but have not used it for my travels. I might take it with me for my next trip. (Do not know when that is).
Great point
I agree primes are what makes micro four thirds portable
And if you like focal lengths over 80mm they really shine
Peter, interesting video. I have the 17mm 1.8 on my OM10 mkII as my first lens and liked the photos it produced. I tend to use the 12-40mm 1.8 a lot now especially for family photos. I too like the MF clutch, great idea that Olympus came up with.
Geoff
I'm a Nikon shooter, 53 years this year. That said, I got into the M43 system about 3 years ago and now have two Olympus bodies (M1-Mk III & Pen-F) and one Panasonic (GX85). I love the M43 system as travel or 'fun' cameras but the Mk III regularly demonstrates it's immense prowess and, coupled with Olympus and/or Panasonic-Leica lenses delivers amazing quality. All that said, you're talking travel here and honestly, I love the Pen-F for that. Great camera and it usually finds my Panasonic-Leica 15mm f/1.7 lens attached, a great pair. A single prime is a great way to 'refresh' your skills as a photographer. It makes you move about, think more about what you're shooting and how you shoot it. Thanks Peter, stay safe and healthy.
Thanks for sharing. I totally agree that restricting your self to one lens will help to get better. Have yuo ever tried to use something else than 17mm as your only lens?
@@ForsgardPeter, Yes I have. The Oly 25, 45 & 75 f/1.8, 60 f/2.8 micro lenses are in my M43 kit, along with a few zooms.
The 25 f1.8 was the first lens I got, after switching to m4/3. I still use several of my older 4/3 lenses, including the 9-18, and that has served me well for wide angle, but at times it is slow. I don’t use the 25 a whole lot, but it is perfect for events and family. I recently got a Laowa 7.5mm f2, and there have been a few times when I have brought both the 25 and Laowa with me, and combined, they take up a lot less space in my bag than the 9-18 with its adapter. Cropping the Laowa shots to narrow its coverage has worked pretty well for me, too.
I have the 12-40 2.8 zoom lens, the 17 1.8 & the 45 1.8. A very interesting question. I use the 12-40 when I don't want to change lenses and use it more in daylight and to have the 12mm wide angle. The 17mm is a compromise for me between a 12mm and a 25mm lens and I like to use it much in low light conditions. Interssting and informative video! A part of my family lives in Karlskoga and other regions in Sweden. I am from Germany.
Great video, I take my EM5 MKII + 12 1.8 - 25 1.8 and 45 1.8 and find that most pictures are taken with the 12 and 25 about 40% each and 20% with the 45 I have thought of taking just the 25 but the extra space and weight of the 12 and 45 is so minimal I take them all.
Thanks for another interesting video Peter. Lovely shots by the way! I agree about the convenience of the 17mm f1.8 which I pair with the SIgma 30mm f1.4 DC DN. Silent focus, tack-sharp and an ideal focal length for stolen portraits in the street or in bars. I still have the original Panasonic 25mm f1.4 which I decided to keep after testing the Olympus option a while back.
Thanks for the video!
For travelling I usually take 9-18mm zoom, and fast 25mm 1.8 for evening photos. Both are pretty small, and their combination makes me totally happy))
Thanks for sharing!
Also Panasonic 14mm f2.5 or 20mm f1.7...I am not necessarily brand loyal in regard to lenses. I've had both Olympus and Panasonic cameras. I now have the Olympus 45mm f1.8 and 14mm-150m Olympus compact zoom. A good video Peter. Hallo from Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Leica 15mm and Zuiko 45 mm were the only two lenses I was taking with me when I had em5 and I can recall that switching lenses were a bit painfull. Now I have Em1.3 but not traveling yet for obvious reasons...but when I do start traveling I'm thinking to get a pro zoom lens this time or even 14-150mm kit lens.
Thanks Peter! I normally use the lumix 20mm 1.7 for landscape (evening-night) photo's. For people I use the 25mm 1.8
I just bought a used 17mm last week thinking that it might be more useful than the 25. I have to test it out but my default is to use the 25mm and the 12-45. I love the scale of the cities in Finland and Sweden - so pretty! Thanks for the video
When I was using em5 i prefer 17/1.2 as my everyday lens due to it gave me a chance to take cool environmental portraits with subject/background separation and instead of 25 this lens was usable indoors in tight spaces. I really recommend to every m4/3 owner if you need only one lens which can give you everything in one - buy 17/1.2 instead of 12-40/2.8 or 25, at least try to use 17 and you'll get why it's a great lens. Yes you need some time to get used to this focal but it takes not long time. 25 has to be your second or third lens. First lens is 17/1.8 (1.2 if you have money), the second one is 45/1.8 (you don't need to spend more money buying 1.4 or 1.2, coz 1.8 works absolutely fine) and only after that you have to look at 25 mm (but i recommend to look at something wide like 12 or 9 mm)
I appreciate the normal perspective of the 25mm but vastly prefer wide angles because that is simply the way my eye sees and remembers scenes. So the 17 mm for me of these two. I noticed I usually clearly preferred your 17mm shots. For me the 28mm equivalent is the Panasonic 14mm is my favourite walking around lens for street photography day and night. I did just get a 25mm from Olympus here in Australia as part of a promotion when buying the OMD EM5 Mark lll. I’ve been carrying it and the 45mm on walks to get a feel of the difference between normal and short telephoto. Thanks.
Thanks for sharing.
I like to go out with just the one lens, either the 17mm or the 25mm usually, but lately I've surprised myself by using the Lumix 14mm as well. I've had some intersting results and also find it a very compact set-up on my Pen f.
Yeah, that's what I need to do. One zoom and one prime, just to test myself. I usually take too many lenses and complicate life. I need to teach myself to move to or move away from an image, which is why your comments resonated with me.
Try it and see how it fits your style. Carrying too much gear might take the attention away from the image itself.
My gear for travelling: E-M5 mark III and all olympus lenses:12-100 f4, manual 24 f2.0 with adapter, for city wildlife 40-150 f2.8 incl teleconverter mc-14
I actually like to bring the 25mm 1.8 and the 45mm 1.8. I never feel like the 25 isn't wide enough for most of my photos and I can still get some good subject separation at f2. I bring the 45 because it is also very small and I always end up taking pictures of family. I usually bring the EM10 II or GX9 with me, but on this next trip I'm planning to try using the E-PL10 for an ultra-compact solution.
For me, travel means light, compact lenses, so no PRO. Not being a professional, the extra quality and speed costs too much. Standard I tend to use 17mm and for more cropping, the 45mm. For extra light weight, I only take the 14-42, although it is a bit slow. Hopefully, stabilization will save me.
I think if you're travelling to a new city, the 17 is ideal. If you *live* in the city, I like taking the 45 for a different view of a familiar place.
...which means I leave the 25 at home. ;)
Sometimes a 45mm might be a good choice. That gives you a bit different possibilities. Details and squeezed perspektive.
I use always the 17mm 1.8,
reason one : because it fit with my em1 III, grip higher level and ready to catch in my peak sling 6L LoL
reason two : I did my best photos with it, and I have the best primes of m43
reason tree : is the easiest to use between this and my 25mm
17mm for me for an all-round prime. If I had a 12mm prime, maybe the other would be a 25mm. I do have a 19mm which is regrettably a f2.8, which is fine unless it is really dark but can’t justify changing it for the Olympus 17mm. The main reason being that I own two full frame primes of 24 and 28mm [12 and 24mm field of view in m4/3], the 28mm being a fixed lens f1.7 camera.
I used to be more in to 35 mm ish angel of view….bought the Olympus 25 1.2 mm and that lens is fantastic…best lens I ever had ..and I began photography in the mid 1980…I recently got the 25. 1,8 to use on my OMD 10 …smaller lens…very nice lens for street I combine it with Panasonic 15 mm 1.7
That was very interesting, thanks Peter.
Orebro looks like an attractive place.
Thanks. Yes it is a pretty city.
I have the 14-150 zoom, the 25mm and 7.5mm Laowa for traveling. These three lenses fill all my needs from landscapes, indoor, street, and portraits. I prefer the tighter perspective of the 25mm over the 17mm. I also heard the 25mm has better bokeh and is a bit sharper than the 17mm. The MF clutch though would have been nice to have on the 25mm.
I started out in the late 70s with a Zenit E, 56mm helios, cosina 28mm and a Hanimex 135mm.
I've slways regarded the 50mm, 28mm, and 135mm to be the best beginner set up.
I love my Olympus 17mm f1.8. It is a very underrated lens. Excellent performer, and I love the manual focus clutch. I always think it a great shame that Olympus reserved manual clutches for the gigantic pro lenses, and we are lucky to have it in this smaller lens. My 25 is the Lumix f1.7. I would have prefered the Leica, but the 1.7 came for free as a promotion when I bought the GH5 II.
I prefer a 17 to a 25 for my normal lens, and if traveling with two primes I woulds always take a 17 Olympus and a 42.5 Lumix or 56 Sigma, although, realistically, I would pack the 12-35 f2.8 and the 17 for low light.
Thanks for sharing. MF Clutch is good feature. I wish more lenses had it. It makes switching between AF and MF so easy and fast.
20mm f1.7 plus the 12-32mm pancake is a good travel combo; the 20mm isn't strictly necessary but the shallow dof and wide aperture is sometimes nice to have.
Thanks for the video.
Based on my 35mm film experience with 35mm lenses vs. 50mm lenses, I know that I preferred the 17mm over the 25mm for a single travel lens with a micro 4/3 camera.
However, when I vacation travel with only one prime lens and one micro 4/3 camera body, I actually prefer the 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic lens.
Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for sharing your analytic thoughts. I did compare OM 17 vs PL 25 F1.4 . For street only maybe the 17 would be better. I sent the 17 back and sticked to the 25 because the distortion of the face in portraits disturbed me.
For urban landscape, may be 17mm. 25mm better for specific images, not necessarily related with where you are, more about images that could have been taken no matter where, more proximity. So if I had to choose only one FOR TRAVEL, it would be the 17mm. 17mm, having a longer perspective, will allow me to see the context of the places I visit, in the end it's a matter of perspective, general urban perspective, ambiance. Also, 17mm on Olympus, also makes artistic "near field" perspectives, like parts of a building, parts of boats, litle boats, one building, etc. 17mm is also more versatil for me, IN MY EXPERIENCE. I hope this is clear... Thanks for the video. 17mm Olympus autofocus or 15 mm Leica dg autofocus if I am with people, 17mm Zhongyi Mitakon if I am alone. Also, I prefer to use 17mm when I want to make a 25mm effect because I go foward with my legs. If I have a 25mm and I need to make a 17mm effect, I have to go back... wich is less comfortable, just in general terms. Finally, with the 17mm I can crop.
Thanks for sharing.
When I was on APS-C, My fav lens was a 50mm f1.8, so 75mm equivalent portrait focal length.
My first choice when I moved to M43 was the 25mm, but I soon felt the 25 and even the 20mm felt middle of nowhere for some reason. The composition always felt too tight or I don't know what. But I moved to 17mm and it just feels right. It has become by permanent Fav.
The field of view was wide enough to be very useful as a general purpose. You could always step closer to subject for a tighter crop. The lens functions exceptionally well on newer Olympus bodies and I could always crop if need be.
Thanks for sharing.
If I take my EM5 m2 on a casual trip, I usually take the power 14-42 kit lens (with the auto lens cap) , the 14-150 zoom and the 17mm f1.8 if most of the pictures will be outside and/or in decent light. Mostly I keep the 14-150 on the camera but use the 14-42 for very casual shots (restaurants etc,) and the 17mm for darker environments. I know that kit lenses are generally frowned upon but I actually find the images with the 14-42 quite acceptable and for versatile compactness it can't be beat. I have a 12-40 f2.8 PRO but I reserve that for instances where my focus is on taking the best pictures I can ("special" trips), rather than collecting casual trip memories.
My travel kit…
* outdoors: EM-1 & 14-150mm (weather-sealed)
* indoors: Pen-F & 17mm and 45mm f/1.8s - the late David Thorpe called these the “Batman and Robin” of MFT lenses 😉
Thanks for the video. Great comparison. I personally prefer the 25mm lens.
I think you’re right with your comment about adapting your style of photography to the lens you have on your shoot. I’ve been doing a lot of street photography with the Olympus 12mm lens. It gives an interesting perspective. Unless you have a specific job or task in mind, it’s fun to bring along a lens that you may not otherwise have used. It stretches your skills and lets you focus on different things and brings originality to your photography.
Thanks for sharing.
Very interesting, Peter. You may want to tell less experienced photographers, how they can analyse which focal lengths they used most. I know how to do it in Lightroom but not everybody uses that.
That is true.
I don't use Lightroom but I upload my processed photos to Google Photos and the Information button there will show you the focal length. Also the Preview app on my Macbook will show that if you press Command I. I think its a very useful exercise - I looked at all the photos I had taken from a trip earlier this year which were all taken on a kit zoom and analysed them into wide / standard / tele and was surprised by the result - far more wide than I would have guessed, so on my last trip where I wanted to travel light I took only the Panasonic 15mm
The wider lenses have more in the frame, but everything is pushed further back in the image. The narrower lens has less in the frame, but everything is pushed forward in the frame.
Em10ii with Oly 17&45 f1.8 was my preferred travel kit for a long time. If need zoom I use 12-100 f4 and 25mm f1.8
I don't currently ahve any fast primes, but I have the 10-25/1.7, and that covers everything I need to landscape/street/vacation stuff. I have the 100-400 for capturing wildlife and semi-macro shots.
I wish there were some small, weather-sealed primes for Micro 4/3. There's the Oly 1.2 lenses, and the Sigma 1.4, but none of those are really compact.
On my last trip I took my Lumix G7 with the Olympus 17mm and the Lumix 25mm. Most of my photos were shot with the 17mm. Only once or twice I wished I had taken a longer lens.
Just added the Olympus 25mm f1.8 lens to my collection of MFT gear. One problem I have never had before --- the beauty ring is apparently stuck and will not budge. There is no way to get an hood on it. I guess I use it without a hoodie. ;) Take care, Loren
I have both, but of the two I prefer the 17 for the slightly wider FOV. However, for travelling, I prefer the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 on a small body.
I traveling with a normal Zoom. as 18-55mm on Fuji X-Pro 1
I'm more the "standard focal length" type, too, but sometimes it's nice to get some more scene into the shot. So as a universal lens, I like 20mm and the Lumix 20mm is a good choice for that. Although it is a bit expensive for it's cheap make and the slow AF. I'm looking forward to the new M.Zuiko 20mm/1.4, which might become the best answer to your question.
The 20mm f1.4 is most likely a lens that I will be using a lot.
It's about what you like to take pictures of. If you like to frame the environment views, the the 35mm is more flexible, especially in interiors when you can't walk back. If you prefer detail and abstract images, then the 25 is more flexible as it doubles as a nice portrait lens which it's still wide enought to get in some of the background, but in the end the two are close. Things gets more tricky if you carry a third lens with you, like a 45mm or a 12: then one of the two previous lenses becomes often redundant.
In general I think the pictures with the 25mm are more interesting, but that's me.
Have to say the Lumix Leica 25mm F1.4, it will give you shallow DOF up close, balance it out with the 45mm F1.8 for better background compression...
I love the practicing with a single focal lengths but generally do that more in my local area where I won’t ‘fear’ that I may not get the shot because of the lack of a zoom lens.
Night use is usually in a built up area. 25 is often overwhelmed too quickly. 17 is sometimes too wide but at least you can crop.
I like both lenses. Perhaps that's why I tend to use the 20 mm f/1.4 if I'm only carrying one lens. Principally for city-scapes.
20mm F1.4 Pro is the lens that I am using most of time.
If I'm going to travel I have a few combos. One camera and 12-40mm f2.8, 12-50mm or 18-42. Some other combos 18-42 and one prime or 17mm f2.8 25mm F1.7 and 45mm F1.8.
I don't care about high ISO now with DXO PhotoLab 4 Deep Prime. So slow zooms are fine also.
Hi, I used 25 mm and attached Sony Wide adapter x0.7. So, I have both of 17 & 25 😁
I use the 12-200. The lens makes a great handle for vlogging. I love that lens
17 mm has a really much better quality of image, I would say. it's nearly pro lens I think. 25 mm is (maybe) the weakest lens in Prime row, I would say. But it doesn't mean it is bad lens. But in Prime lens row there are better lenses.
As a freelance photographer I have the Olympus om-d e-m5 mark ii body with Olympus lenses 14-150mm and 25mm 1.8 prime ...love all
Update: for 2023 I updated my camera body to the OM-D E-M1 Mark ii and the 25mm pairs with it beautifully.
I have bought the 17mm 1.8 as 3rd lens after 45mm 1.8 and the 12-42 r kitlens... I use the 17mm 1.8 as standard. Oh it is a gem. For almost any situation... only for portaits i use 99% the 45mm 1.8...
I hesitated between the 17mm and the 25mm, with the 20mm there is no more hesitation, and F1.4 Pro seems a very good compromise.
My next purchase.
Good choice.
When I travel, basically never visit places or attractions during night. I'm in the hotel, killed by walking all day :) Hence - no prime lenses. I end up using a zoom, because it's very convenient. In Olympus lineup, I had 12-40 and 14-150. The 2.8 is a better lens, but 40 can be too short if you want to make a photo of something in the distance. My choice would be 14-150 or even 12-200, for the wider wide end.
I prefer the 17mm, especially in the city. Love your images!
Cool, thanks!
As both the 17 mm and the 25 mm are very tiny there should be no either-or! Both of course!
On travels I prefere the 12-100 mm f/4 in the day and the 17 and 25 during night.
I enjoy both these lenses and use them quite a bit. I guess which one I choose is based on my subject and mood. As always, thank you Peter for yet another great video.
Glad you like them!
Personally I prefer the 17mm lens for city photography. It helps composing better pictures.
I sorta have various small kits, from my smallest 25/1.8 on an Epl7, then my 12-45 on Em5III w/ Laowa 10/2 (expanding to a second body Em10II and 56/1.4) BUT my sweet spot is between 17 and 25...so the lightly rumoured 20mm f1.4 PRO would be a great option.
Thanks , Peter... 👌👍🙏
"SALUDOS... 👋🙋😃 "
Many thanks
12-40 pro is must Have. 25mm I use less of the 17mm. Probably I buy the lumix 15mm for one little lens travel to use with my zuiko 45mm 1.8 that I love... I Have Olympus and Panasonic body
Strangely enough I usually take the 17/1.8 with my Olympus camera but the 25/1.7 with my Panasonic camera. But that is more to do with the size of the lens matching the body size - the 17 looks a bit odd on a G85 (but works perfectly well, including the focus clutch actuating both enlargement and peaking). Using any single lens, even a zoom, is always a compromise. The 17 is probably my favourite, and it has to be the fastest focusing lens on the planet.
Both...
My Rokkor 35mm 1.8 weighs 450 grams with filter and lense-caps.
My 85mm 1.7 Rokkor weighs 490 grams with filter and lense-caps.
My Zuiko M43 17mm 1.8 and 45mm 1.8 weigh 320 grams with filters, lens-caps and hoods!
It's pretty much a no-brainer, isn't it?
Most of the time my Go-to-lenses are 12-40mm f/2.8 and 45mm f/1.8. 12-40 is great allarounder and 45mm is awesome portrait lens. I also have 25mm but it’s a little bit dull for me and don’t use it at all. 17mm could be great tho…
I liked your postcard shots! Fwiw, my style has changed after traveling & using Pen-f with primes vs 12-40mm pro etc. Generally my go to kit was 45/25/12mm, or the 12-40mm in a small canvas bag. Enter a new LUMIX 20mm mk2 f1.7 ! the new LUMIX 20mm is delightful to use and carry! I’ve always liked that perspective and gravitate towards it with other systems- a slightly wide normal view. It’s also a natural fit on the Pen series, IMO. The m Zuiko pro lenses are truly awesome on the pro bodies tho!
Thank you.
A great comparison video Peter, thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks.
I don't shoot Olympus cameras but love these videos. What is the angle of view full frame of those two lenses? Is the 25mm pretty much a 50mm full frame. My "frame" of reference is for 35mm full frame cameras! I guess what I'm asking is what's the conversion factor for focal lengths......
I must admit that I love the small size of the Olympus cameras!
Yes the equivalent field of views are 34mm and 50mm.
A good combination for traveling: 17 f1,8, 25mm f1,8 and 40-150 f4-5.6.
Great video and I’m glad to see a comparison for those indecisive. I will suggest another lens for those that don’t need shallow depth of field with the sigma 19mm f2.8 prime. I switched out my 17 1.8 for it because I like a focal length closer to 40 these days. And it lives on my Pen F when I go out. I use the sigma 1.4 set when I need those blurry backgrounds but of course they’re a bit large to carry every day
Sigma lenses are quite good. They have a nice line up of lenses for MFT.
J'ai les deux optiques. Elles ont chacune leurs spécificités et elles ont des rôles différents.
Je vais me procurer un 12mm 2.0
Your shot at 2:51 is gorgeous! With your previous travel experience using the 9-18mm Oly, and recognizing its not a prime, which of the 3 would you prefer on a trip or landscape shot?
It works well as a travel lens. The only downside is that it is not very fast. I would need one of these anyways for the lowlight moments.
@@ForsgardPeter Thank you for your reply!
It is a good question. First I take with me the omd m1 MII for travel. If I know the place to visit, the 17 and de 45mm are my choice , sometimes I take the 12mm with the 45. But if it is a new place, I prefer a zoom lens and take with me the 12-100 f/4, especially for interiors (church, old houses), sometimes I do not to carry a lot, I take the 12-45mm f/4, but It is not stabilized and it is for day time and outside. If I intend to do video, I take the old 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 (because the smooth electronic zoom) and the lumix-leica 15mm f/1.7. You see, 17 or 25 is not an easy choice :{) Saludos from Mexico.
I used 17mm quite a lot but after I got my 12-100 f4, 90% of my photos are taken with it. Sometimes I reached out to my beloved 45mm f1.8 for indoor or low light shots. For some reason 50mm equivalent didn't suit me. I am curious about the new 20 F1.4
My travelbag, A6 l ”Peak” with m10 markIV, Panasonic 25mm, F1,7: Olympus 12-40mm f2,8 and 150, 2,8 with 1,4 ggr. And 2 filter, batteri and my iPhone. So, from 24mm to 420 mm Wiehe 3 lensis East handle. Not bad?😎
. My 25mm panasonic beacuse second hand and the Price. Under simple photowalk I only use 25mm lens.
Do you like the performance of the panasonic 25mm mm f1.7 on your e-m10 mark iv? I'm considering to buy it because of the price but am still not sure.
Very clear, Peter
nice photos!
I can cover 12-40 with my standard zoom lens and I use it most often, especially when I film my channel content, so that I can zoom in on the desired part of the composition.
but when it comes to prime lens, I prefer 25mm PRO. it lets me take more candid street shots from a little bit further distance without scaring people
and somehow the photos look better for my eyes when taken with 25mm.
I actually like to shoot my channel content with tele lens, as it narrows the field, and blurs the unwanted surroundings like messy background or sides
I have 3 primary OLY a 17mm, 25mm, and 45mm f1.8 primary lenses. If I could carry only 1 lens it would be the 25mm. If I could carry 2 lenses it would be the 17mm snd the 45mm. Unless I'm are doing wildlife or sports photography they should cover it all.
I always go with my 12-40 pro version and my 75-300.
Interesting tips thanks
Interesting comparison. For some reason I have never warmed up to 17mm. I have always preferred 14mm or 15mm and 25mm. This preference goes back to the days when I was shooting 35mm film using lenses equivalent to those focal lengths in full frame. Obviously 17mm is as good as those other focal lengths. For some irrational reason I just never liked that focal length.
Your style is more towards wider than 17mm. That is totally ok and that is the beauty of photography. We like a different things and that is totally ok, even prefred