the 20 or the 17

[pellicle]

Hi

I was handling the EP-1 and the GF-1 this weekend and it has somewhat cured me of wanting either of them. However I did really like the 17mm and thought it felt faster to focus and nicer to focus on either camera (GF or EP, my G1 was back in the car). My wife did not like the GF for its lack of grip and prefers her A540 and my G1 (in that order). She thought the EP was too heavy so there goes that idea.

This means I can focus on just getting another lens for my G1 instead of another camera to have the camera thrown in with the cost of the lens ...

The 17 feels a much more compact (almost toy like) affair than the Panasonic (which also negatively impressed me with what looked like a clumsy and flimsy mechanism for handling focus ... not that the Oly was much better.

just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on why they like one over the other?

I'm leaning towards the 17mm myself

 

[Vivek]

My thoughts on this are impersonal and very secretive. :ROTFL:

 

[Rawfa]

I haven't tried either but you should decide which FOV suits your style the best. Mine would be the 17mm...but f1.7 REALLY sounds appealing.

 

[Brian Mosley]

My thoughts on this are impersonal and very secretive. :ROTFL:

Quite right Vivek, you wouldn't want to offend anyone by sharing them... would you? :wtf:

Cheers

Brian

p.s. :wtf: seems a bit politically incorrect doesn't it? some folks could take offense at that :ROTFL:

Personally, I like the 20mm f1.7 because it doesn't need quite so aggressive distortion/CA correction and the faster aperture allows more flexibility in dof/exposure.

If you've got the software to correct the 17mm, and you're happy to operate at f2.8 and above then it's lighter, maybe a little faster to focus on an E-P body and the 35mm EFL is perhaps a little more flexible too.

 

[pellicle]

PS I was a bit disappointed with the 20 not having IOS (which I love on my 14-45) especially considering it seemed quite fat ... also it could just be the settings on the GF-1 I was using but it didn't seem to like activating the focus zoom on AF-S after focus aquire ... maybe that's something that can be set.

 

[PeterB666]

I have the 20mm and while it is a versatile little lens, there are times it isn't wide enough, especially indoors. Lack of IS isn't a problem with the Olympus E-P1.

I think the Olympus 17mm lens is better value for money but is generally outclassed by the 20mm lens however the 20mm lens is slow to focus. Slower than the Olympus 14-42 zoom and the 17mm Olympus lens is noticably faster than that.

This shouldn't be an issue when using the 20mm on the Panasonic camera as it pre-focuses but indoors and low light autofocus performance with the E-P1 is dissapointing.

 

[Brian Mosley]

I've disabled prefocus on my G1 - I didn't think the advantage in terms of focusing speed was worth the battery life/motor wear.

Cheers

Brian

 

[Jonas]

With our small sensors we need the speed and resolution we can get. Buying a lens equivalent to a FF 35/5.6 when there is a faster option available sounds just too boring.

To do that the slower lens would need to be much better and I haven't seen that at all, in any image. Rather the opposite. The G20/1.7 build quality could be better but it works good enough for what it is.

Hmm. In the first sentence just exchange "we" to "I" if you so wish. This is about opinions and I can only speak for myself of course.

 

[JBurnett]

FOV: There are times when the extra width of the 17 would be handy. However, I've quickly gotten used to the 20's FOV in urban shooting. For landscapes, I continue to use the 14-45.

Sharpness: I found I was shooting the 17mm at f/4 or smaller to get the sharpness I wanted. The 14-45 is around f/4.5 at 17mm, and seems to be as sharp as the 17 at that aperture. I am fully confident in the 20mm sharpness at f/2 and will use it wide open on occasion.

DOF: The 20 wins for those times when a shallow depth is desired, and the correct conditions allow for it (e.g. close focusing and/or good separation of subject from background). This is especially true when you consider my "sharpness confidence" (f/4 on the 17 and f/2 on the 20).

Auto-focus: I don't often shoot subjects that require fast AF. That would be an important consideration if I did.

CA: Better controlled with the 20.

The 17 is a good little lens -- IME better than the "reviews" suggest. But the 20 suits me well.

 

[Vivek]

Brian,

Just because there is a smiley to use, I do not have to use it.

Standards and tastes differ.

Nothing remotely connected to politics at all.

AFAIC, I could care less about Oly or Pana.

If people take offense at what I post about gear, I am unapologetic about it as well.

In fact, I don't even have to post anything anywhere. More time and peace for me.:thumbs:

 

[Diane B]

I think I pretty much concur with John on this. I have both lenses but find that the 20 is the one I usually have on my GF1--it seems to suit most of the needs of shooting most of the time in that FL. If I only had the 17 (which I did all summer), then that would likely be the lens of choice for the same circumstances.

Diane
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/temp_g1

 

[Streetshooter]

I concur with everyone.
I can't be without the 20 or the 17. Right mow the 20 is teaching me how it sees.
It's actually exciting.
If I could only have 1, it would be the 17.

 

[Amin]

I use the 20/1.7 more because of the speed and greater potential for shallow DOF, but I enjoy the 17 as well!

 

[Godfrey]

I prefer the speed and field of view of the 20mm.
It needs to be fitted with a proper metal lens hood, of course.

 

[Tsutomu]

Lens Hood Question

Hello Godfrey,

I've been enjoying your photos and posts for a while. I've ordered a GF1/20 mm and it is supposed to arrive in a couple of weeks. I was wondering what lens hood you are using and any information I should know about how best to attatch it. I vaguely remember a post about this in the past, but I couldn't find it when I tried to search for it. Thanks!

Tsutomu

 

[s.agar]

I don't think that these 2 lenses are direct competitors. In terms of equivalent 35mm focal lengths, one is a 34mm, and the other one is a 40mm lens. That makes quite a lot of difference.

Then the other factor is that one is f1.7, while the other one is F2.8.

There are different uses for each. These may be more important than even the technical differences like AF speed etc. Therefore it's quite normal to have very different user preferences.

I use the 20mm, but sometimes wish that I would have bought the 17mm, when a wider angle is required. While for night shots the F1.7 works well.

 

[Paratom]

I dont have any of both but for me I believe as a general lens I would prefer the focal length of 17 clearly over 20mm. I have a dp2 and find the lens slightly to long as an all purpose lens, so I guess I could have the same problem with the 20mm.
Then there is the speed and optical quality where the 20 seems to outperform the 17.
This is not an easy decision.

 

[Diane B]

I dont have any of both but for me I believe as a general lens I would prefer the focal length of 17 clearly over 20mm. I have a dp2 and find the lens slightly to long as an all purpose lens, so I guess I could have the same problem with the 20mm.
Then there is the speed and optical quality where the 20 seems to outperform the 17.
This is not an easy decision.

I do have both--but carry the 20 more. The racking focus of the 17 slightly annoys and the focus on the 20 seems faster--to me-because it doesn't rack each time--though speed of focus with these lenses is more or less irrelevant to me. But--I've decided not to sell my 17 as I do sometimes like its FOV. In the end though, the 20 probably suits me better overall--I like 40-50mm FOV on my 5D (my 2 favorite lenses are the 50 f/1.4 and 45 f/2.8 TS--when I shot with a 1.6x I shot quite a lot with a 28 and 35mm) so the 20 fits my style of shooting quite well.


Diane

 

[Streetshooter]

Diane,
Funny, I find the 17 to focus faster on the Pen.
On the G1, they are about the same.
1/2 a lifetime ago I would carry an M4 with a 35 Cron or Lux and a CLE with that great 40 Cron. So now with the 17 & 20, I'm right there again.

Back to the OP, it's great to have both.
Dazed & Confused.... shooter

 

[Jonas]

For me the 20 is a tad wide, just as 40 was a tad wide in the old days. But better crop a little than a lot, lol.

I think this just goes to show how personal it is - and why threads of wish lists for new lenses always end up with a hundred different wishes with regards to focal lengths, speed and other features.