I’ve forced myself to keep the zoom lens on my new Olympus at 20mm for a while to test whether the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 would be a suitable addition for me w.r.t. field of view.
Result: I think 20mm on MFT works quite good for me. I’m not yet fully convinced, though, that I actually need a prime of if the zoom lens I already have is just good enough…
Note: I posted in the showcase category but feel free to critique if you want :).
What zoom are you using?
Olympus M.14-42mm F3.5-5.6 EZ. Widest aperture at 20mm is 4.2, so 1.7 would be quite an improvement. But of course at the cost of being less flexible.
Hmmmm, All shown photos are good. But none of them would have profited from aperture 1.7.
I have the 20mm 1.7. Not only you get better indoor images, the image quality is also better.
I also have the 14mm 2.5 and I dont use it as much.
Is the 20mm full-frame-equivalent, or equivalent to 40mm on full frame?
40 mm full frame equivalent
Hi @luator
I think you will like the 20 mm. It will be small and lightweight, making the camera even easier to carry around. The f/1.7 will help with low light, and if you get close you will have a relatively shallow depth of field, at least for an MFT camera.
Here is a shot I just took with my 25 mm f/1.7 (50 mm FF Eq.):
You would need to be very close with the 20 mm to get a very shallow depth of field.
Depth of Field Calculator
That’s why I’m wondering if I actually need it.
The biggest benefit for me would probably be the better indoor-performance. I guess there it would make quite a difference.
I think that for outdoor shots, 25mm (50mm eq) works equally well because you can just move away a bit. In fact, the Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 is my favorite walkaround lens. I only find it constraining indoors, but I always end up taking intimate, portrait-style photos of people that convey the atmosphere, so it works out great (but don’t ask me for a group shot in a room 
)
But for indoor I would guess 14mm are more useful than 20 mm.
Well, of course there is no one focal length that is perfect for everything. But I think that the 20mm (40mm FF eq) is a reasonable compromise between the classic full-frame 35 and 50mm.
I selected the 25mm f/1.7 like Tamas, and it is now my favorite lens. Cost was around 1/2 of the 20 mm.
There are a number of YT videos on this topic, here is one:
My experience is that if I have a prime lens on the camera, I take the kind of photos with it that fit the angle of view, and this results in very different compositions and even subjects. I find it interesting to challenge myself for unusual compositions with a lens that is not considered ideal for some subject, eg walking around in a city with the Olympus 45mm f/1.8; which, incidentally, looks like a child’s toy lens to the uninitiated.
I want a pancake lens since the camera is supposed to replace my old compact camera, so that rules out the 25mm.
And as @Doug-Phoenix says, I think that 20mm is a good compromise when I don’t want to carry multiple lenses with me.
Well, I’ll probably scout eBay for a while in the hope for a cheap offer but no need to hurry.
Indeed. I bought a 60mm macro lens for my APS-C camera (so same fov as 45mm on mft) some time ago and had quite some fun using it as a general purpose prime lens for a while.
The resulting photos where different to what I would otherwise have done in these situations but not necessarily worse (except that many where blurry as that lens only has manual focus :D).
Hi
thinking outside the box here but instead of buying a new lens why not buy a flash and wireless trigger? That would be way more versatile and open up more photographic opportunities - good indoors too. No idea of the relative costs but guessing with the change you could also buy a lightstand and softbox…
I like the photos. They have a consistent vibe to them which makes it interesting. I have two issues:
The honest answer is “to deal with bad composition” :D. There is a colourful fence going diagonally through the foreground (still visible a bit at the bottom), that was drawing too much attention. So I had to rotate to be able to crop it away.
I agree that the angle doesn’t really work well in this picture and is probably rather confusing. I like these doors, thought, and haven’t been able to get them in a frame without the fence.
Next time just say, “I used a Dutch Angle for this shot to emphasize the subject.”
