Olympus 17mm f/2.8 Lens vs Panasonic LUMIX G 20mm f/1.7

J

johnhizzle

Active member
Hey

I'm looking into getting my first lens for my GH1. I'm trying to choose between the Olympus 17mm f/2.8 Lens and the Panasonic LUMIX G 20mm f/1.7 .

I'm looking for a lens that's fast (which is both I think) and something that works well in low light conditions.

Any thoughts?
 
I love the Olympus 17mm f/2.8, but I already had a 24mm f/1.4 Canon FD L lens which is why I didn't go for the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7. The 20mm does seem to be a better lens, all around and if you need low light, f/1.7 is waaaaaaaay faster than f/2.8, but if you need wider than the Olympus is a fantastic choice, especially since it can be had "used" on eBay for about $200 even.
 
1.7 is a little over one stop faster from 2.8, not thaaaaat much faster.
I have a 17 2.8 that I will pass in a while 'cause I'm all Nikkor on my GH1 now... just need to get my focusing chops better... ;)
 
johnhizzle said:
I'm looking for a lens that's fast and something that works well in low light conditions.
Click to expand...
Um, these 2 requirements sort of mean the same thing. A fast lens is one that lets in more light, thus working better in low light conditions. So if those are your requirements, then the 20mm f1.7 better fits the bill. 1 and 1/2 stops faster than the f2.8, which is significant. You'd be surprised how much better f1.7 will work than f2.8 in average interior available light scenarios.
 
I'm a wedding videographer, and I can tell you, f1.7 is a MASSIVE gain over f2.8. But that's a subjective statement. I consider f2.8 lenses as a "standard" aperture for lenses...not really a "fast" aperture. Just my opinion.

I can shoot natural light with the f1.7 (brighter than what my eye sees), with instant...laser-beam assisted...spot-on...auto-focus with the 20mm f1.7. My 45mm Lumix/Leica 2.8 is an amazing lens, but it's worlds apart from shooting at f1.7 when you need light and don't wanna use a camera light.

It's only money...that's what blood donation centers are for. :)
 
swyzlstyx said:
I'm a wedding videographer, and I can tell you, f1.7 is a MASSIVE gain over f2.8. But that's a subjective statement. I consider f2.8 lenses as a "standard" aperture for lenses...not really a "fast" aperture. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

+1 f/2.8 is pretty much what i consider minimum, you can usually find a way to take *some* sort of good image in most lighting conditions if you've got a f/2.8, but to me f/2 or faster is when you're talking about a truly fast lens.
 
20mm has less CA and Distortion compared to the 17mm.

Both lenses can be had at a pretty good price used these days, so you could almost get both if you found sweet enough deals. But I'd go with the 20mm all the way.
 
20mm f/1.7

Sharpest lens I've ever seen at that price range. 1.5 stops faster is nothing to sneeze at, that's 150% (2.5x) more light! The fact that it's super sharp (at least for what's in focus) even at that aperture is amazing.
 
Yes, a lot of times 2.8 is not fast enought for interiors, etc... sometimes you gotta put the ISO up there...
If the 20mm has more CA than the 17 that's not good, 'cause the 17 is the lens with more CA than all my Nikkors
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top