Image courtesy: Robin Wong.
Lenstip is the first website to post a full review of the new Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens. And that sentence kills the lens completely: “This lens is not exactly a successful construction and it should have been thought out better – I write it without scruple. I could even call it ill-considered.”
Of course this is just on opinion. You can read different reviews at Ming Thein, Robin Wong and Pekka Potka. But one thing they have in common. No One is really super excited about the lens.
—
The new Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens can now be preordered at Adorama, BHphoto and Amazon DE.
171 Responses
Are we talking about the 17mm or the 75mm? Your posting refers to the 75mm, though your headline and article are for the 17mm. Might want to correct your post.
something it tells me it was intentional “typo” 😉
I think admin made an error..he is talking about the 17mm being mediocre definitely not the 75mm….I just got one of those and that hunk of glass is sensational!
Yeah admin is a bit ADHD with his posts sometimes 😉
Sorry! Freudian lapsus 🙂
But it comes in Silver, it must be great.
After ‘trashing’ it, they then speak positively about it :p
It never says it’s a really bad lens. It says basically that it’s mediocre, so coming from Olympus, being expensive and having already a similar focal length one that’s sharper, smaller and cheaper (and a tiny bit faster), the lens just adds nothing to the m4/3 system.
Yes, the build quality is good (though not weather sealed) and the AF is fast. But otherwise just a very average-to-low quality lens.
I do hope that Oly will surprise us with a really good 25mm f/1.2, with great image quality and either cheap and with small faults (vigneting, distortion, plastic), or expensive but weather sealed, metal and without faults.
BTW, lenstip.com also tested the 60mm macro with complete opposite conclusions: “I don’t write a lot about the lens itself because there is no need to go on about it. Firstly it doesn’t have any competition in the Micro 4/3 system, secondly it is so good that you can recommend it to anybody, as we are doing right now.” That one IS a sharp lens!
That is not correct. I have used the 20 mm Panny on the EPl5 and the GH2. On the GH2 it is a consistent, fast focusser. The 45 mm 1.8 does not focus faster on that body. On the EPL5, the 45 1.8 is faster than on the GH2 and on that body the 20 mm 1.7 is slower and far less inconsistent. At least under indoor lightning (which was reasonable). AFAIK this 17 mm lens is a bit faster than the 45 mmm. For people with an Olympus cam and who want a fast and consistent focus, this lens does make sense I think.
Also, the 20 mm may be a bit better but it is not a night and day difference. It is a slight difference from the various pics and reviews I saw.
But some other tester pointed out that the 60 is NOT as sharp as the 75 at medium to long distances. So there you have it. There is always different opinions among testers.
Shame.
When I first heard of this lens I was excited about it. . .
Then I saw it wasn’t a pancake. . but I could live with that. .
Then I heard the price . . . that was more of a stumbling block . .
Now I’m hearing that the optics won’t match my trusty Panny20 . . .
Looks like i’ll pass.
although i hate LOLympus silver barrel marketing bullsh…>>
one question: – did they ONLY TEST !!ONE!! LENS? perhaps it as a bad monday example?… and whith with body? hääh? the outdated ep xx??
thats not serious nor objective!!!!!!
pfff…not so great news, I’m very disappointed. I will keep my 20mm and wait for a professional lens, we desperate need a sealed lens for OM-D.
Well I guess Olympus thought if SLRmagic can do it, they can too. 🙂 Bit expensive for being “not-so-much”. Its not easy taks to design 17mm f1.8 lens, actually its pretty hard and if it should be good, it would be really expensive. With this result, dunno.. was it even worth making?
On other hand at f2.8 its sharper than old 17mm f2.8, so you can say its real upgrade.
35mm is a dumb focal length anyway, only good for vacation snapshots
@Anon – what the hell are you talking about? 35mm is arguably the perfect focal length for street photography. Ever heard of it? Combine 35mm equivalent with Olympus’ blazingly fast AF with Snap Focus for distance focusing and this lens is the MFT street photographer’s dream.
I also call BS on this article. Robin Wong raved about this lens.
I call bs on robin wong, he pees on himself with anything olympus. Lenstip is a reputable lens tester with actual software to do so. If they say its soft, its soft
Robin did not like the lens either. Read his blog
I did read his blog (both posts) – twice. I cannot find an instance over the tremendous gushing of him finding one fault with the lens. His complaint is the focal length. Robin’s street technique is portrait which lends itself to 50-90mm (equivalent) lenses. 35mm (equivalent) is more for close quarters and hardcore street. Haters everywhere!
Robin doesn’t shoot charts, he shoots street shots and examines the overall picture. When pixel peeping shooting charts, it’s easy to find the faults in a lens. Truth be told, if we don’t have these reviews few of us would ever notice the difference between the panasonic 20 f1.7 and olympus f1.8 in our shots, other than the POV.
But if you can’t see the difference, it makes MUCH more sense to get the smaller, cheaper Panasonic!
Well, you CAN see the difference if the lens missed focusing or was too slow focusing and missed the decisive moment.
20mm’s legendary slow focus is overdone. Yes, its not the fastest sligner out there, but its fast enough. Fact is, in two years having had it, 99.9% of the shot I missed, I blame the photographer, me, not the AF.
It’s not just slow focussing, I also frequently get atrocious shutter lag with it on my GF1. When there’s no shutter lag, its AF is bearable, but combined they make the experience pretty frustrating sometimes. Besides, the AF on it feels very unreliable – very sadly, I literally lost the count of blurred shots I get with it. All this could be bearable if this were a different lens, but I find 40mm is one of those focal lengths (together with long telephoto) where speed is penultimate for getting momentous, unexpected snapshots.
I’ll take your word for it. Even if it’s not my own experience.
I switched to PL25, not because I felt the 20mm was bad, but because it was my goto lens. I figured if I was going to invest into a lens, it might as well be the one most used. As good as the PL25 is, I sometimes miss the 20mm!
Jules, it’s great you enjou your Pleica. It’s a great temptation. I still try to withstand it perhaps for the only reason that I will be unable to choose between the two and will feel guilty for indulging myself into keeping both 🙂 They look substantially different in character and function, and yet the dry, objective technical specifications are close enough to never stop questioning whether I really need both…
In my experience the aperture of the 20/1.7 causes noticeable lag.. the difference in shutter lag between shooting wide open, and stopping down, even if only to f1.8, is significant.
Yes, exactly, your experience confirms mine as well. Other people claim it’s slow “in bright light” which probably also means that they get the lag at high f-numbers in some auto modes (i.e. landscape which maximizes f-number). It seemed pretty sporadic to me, until I tested it last night with the specific goal of getting to feel the lag with different apertures. The issue appears to be “aperture lag” rather than “shutter lag” per se, indeed! It’s bearable at 1.7 but already at 4.0 I don’t feel comfortable at all. Well, at least I’ll know its limits better know, which should help!
The aperture of this lens (and the panaleica 25 as well) is quite audible. There is a very clear delay between pressing the shutter and the click of the aperture being closed. The delay between that and the shutter firing seems pretty constant. There may be a difference in how far you close down the lens, but at least in my experience the biggest difference is between using it wide open, or stopping it down even a little bit.
It doesn’t stop me from enjoying the very nice quality pictures this lens produces tho, but as you say, its good to know the limitations of your equipment.
Bart.
But Robin sure does in general write overly enthusiastic Olympus reviews, glancing quite frankly over some critical issues (E_5 review comes to mind). As pointed above, he is not exactly an unbiased source. The fact Olympus gave him to keep a free E-5 is a conflict of interest as far as reviewing goes (go ahead and read what that means, looks like many people can’t comprehend that no matter how good your intention are, psychologically that will predispose you to be more positive about a particular service or product).
Did you even read Robin Wong’s review? He talked precisely about how 35mm is a bit of a useless focal length, being neither here nor there.
Shezzz. Another not so fab review. I am having pre-order remorse but the 20mm AF system is a joke in low-light. hmmm decision, decisions.
Disappointing, but I’m mostly interested in the improved AF performance over the Panny 20mm anyway. As long as the real world difference in IQ is minimal, it should be fine for me.
Your are right. Away with the slow AF 20mm. 17mm here I come!?
LENSTIP IS COMPLETELY WRONG!
Robin Wong nails it on the review. No other reviews matter.
I call SHENANIGANS!
Yepph and if bokeh not is best in corner can i live by this if bokeh is good in center. The i anyway like, is not ghosting and not too much CA.
an impartial gear test site vs a well known olympus fanboy? yeah, it must be shenanigans
Subjective reports from a paid shill > objective tests from an independent site. News at eleven.
Yeah, Robin does a great job of showcasing what the lens can do, but don’t expect objective analysis.
Robin Wong just proves that even a mediocre lens is fine for a good photographer.
True. The question then becomes why not buy a better lens, when it’s available? Surely the good photographer will benefit.
Anyway very short DOF on this 17mm lens, so i can see on F5.6 is the not more DOF so an 35-45mm lens will have same F stop.
I don’t think you understand DOF.
Olympus LPM chart says a different thing: that it has good resolution across the frame, although Lenstip showed that it has less than the 20mm at the center.
So it’s good for Landscape, not only for Street. Will you buy? Not buy?
I think the decision depends entirely on the price.
To me the 35mm eq. is my most used focal, but I’ll already have two versions, one as part of the 4/3 9-18, so I can wait.
Note that because of native distortion- in RAW – Lenstip slashed the 12/2 too. Did it prevent people from buying it? Hardly.
I find it a most amusing revue of a different lens at times, the comments in it’s focusing are strange in the extreme.
in Autofcus,
“The autofocus is really noiseless (you can’t hear even the quiet whirr of shifting elements) and very fast. While it was attached to the E-PL1 which belongs to our editorial office, running through the whole distance scale took it not longer than 0.5-0.6 of a second which is a very good result.”
Then in summary,
“the Panasonic 1.7/20 – a faster, smaller and better lens”
A contradiction of first order and completely at odds with every other test I’ve read. Can you give Lenstip any credibility for this revue? I think not.
They are not referring to the AF when they call the 20mm ‘faster’, they are referring to the wider aperture. The 20mm also has a higher resolution score in their tests, which accounts for the ‘better’. And obviously the 20mm is smaller. It would seem there isn’t any contradiction to be found; at least not in the example you mention.
OK Zach, I’ll give you that one, I guess I missread it, teach me not to read things when I’m tired. However I very much doubt the difference from 1.7 – 1.8 is hardly a game breaker, I’d say it is so close it would take a test in itself to actually say there is a difference.
There could well be a bigger difference in light transmission – of course also the Oly could be better. There’s more light transmission in my Panasonic 20mm f 1.7 than in my Olympus 45mm f/1.8 – i think about a half stop.
I also unimpress with the 17mm lens .
It just too ordinary .
Banking on the next summilux is more promising than this one .
LOL, you think?
It’s not pan-cake. Nuff said.
It’s an objective review with an opinion attached at the end. With high expectations, 17/1.8 fails to impress. Its somewhat high price is not justified, especially when there are formidable competitions around. Robin Wong isn’t impressed by it either! Is it a good lens? Sure, but is it worth $600 when you can get both Pany’s pancakes for the same or less? Probably not for most people. Perhaps people are spoiled by the high quality offered by the 45, 60 and 70 from Olympus and expected more from the much hyped new 17. Fair or not, that’s life.
What a dissapointment Oly was on such a roll with latest lens releases. It seems like the price tag is not justified…
Agree it’s a pity – but means I can stay happy with the Panny 20mm – despite its slow auto focus. Help control my GAS a little.
This goes to show hoe resolution seems to mean too much in todays optics.
Personally, since my 17mm focuses quite slow, and is only f2.8 I have two areas where I can easily justify a new purchase.
The 20mm f1.7 at my local stor is $499, this lens is $599… So is the $100 worth better AF, quieter AF, and a unique and high end construction over the 20mm, or do I prefer greater resolution?
Personally, I need the faster AF for catching moments, not resolution, of which this lens has more than enough.
Actually, the 17mm is the same price as the 20mm, makes my decision even easier!
Yeah.. in that case, I’d go the Oly. But already having the Panny… think I’ll just stick with it.
where in the hell are you people buying lenses? I got my 20mm for 315$ new, and its currently 345$ at the most expensive place i could find it. It certainly isnt no 500$.
I am sure you are aware how large the world is, and how much variety exists.
Here is where I buy my lenses:
http://www.henrys.ca
And sure enough, my pricing is accurate for my market.
Abraham
Just to add, because the 20mm is $500 here, do I get to be a little whinge about Panasonic lens pricing like so many here?
The Oly 45mm f/1.8 is $510 in a store here. I don’t whine because there is this thing called the internet, and you can mail order stuff from it, starting with a bride from Thailand and ending with, believe it or not, lenses.
Never having purchased a ‘mail order bride’, can you tell me would I have to pay the same 20% duty on her???
Not only 20% VAT, but customs too!
At Amazon, Germany, the Panny 20/1.7 is 319 EUR, the Oly 17/1.8 is 552,43 EUR.
LOLYMPUS
Well, they were using an E-PL1 for testing while Robin used the E-PL5. Guess this lens is not “optimal” on older PENS?
Hope to see more reviews soon.
this lens probably needs latest firmware in the camera to show it’s potential
“No One is really super excited about the lens.”
No one but the Olympus Fanboys at 4/3 rumors.
very agree!!!
I have to agree with Lenstip, the distortion is high, the 20 mm, even with its goddamn useless manual focus ring, and worthless video autofocusing, beats the 17 mm in almost every other way. The 20 mm is brighter, sharper, has less distortion, more magnification, better at close-ups of people, it is lighter, smaller and better priced.
The Olympus appears to win in only build quality, manual focus ability, autofocus ability and color.
The 12 mm is such a better fit within the MFT system.
Well, photo sites are becoming like political pundits and they will have the same fate: loved by the opiniated, left alone by the rationally minded. With all due deference to lenstip, their opinion of lens design is not that informed and they think too highly of themselves. If they care so much about lens design, I suggest they build lenses…
v. nice answer. Yes, I think that they think a bit too much of themselves.
BTW the only way to check resolution is to use a test target, and make some experiments. No reviewer uses the same, I bet.
Here:
http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/
You will see that the reviewer has a different opinion. The new 17mm is very similar to the 20mm in the center, and is better at the edges. It also has much less aberrations.
So people really extrapolate on the basis of v. little: a Polish reviewer that gets in a fit because the lens is too expensive in his country.
The lense is not less or more expensive in Poland than in other countries in the EU. The Lenstip site is managed and tests are conducted by a person who is a member of the Polish Academy of Science, specializing in Astronomy and Optics – and a photography enthusiast at the same time.
amalric is a racist and doesn’t care. To him a polish opinion is a polish opinion, and therefore can be discarded when it doesn’t align with his ignorance.
That doesn’t mean that the scientist doesn’t complain about the price:
“To sum up, in my opinion it wasn’t senseless to launch such a lens on the market, it is needed, but certainly not at a current price. When the price tag is reduced by two or even three times the users of the Micro 4/3 will get a cheap, well-made and optically decent “prime” which can be a nice supplement of the 14-42 kit lens.” (Lenstip Review)
BTW I do complain although not as much as he does. It’s Oly pricing in the EU which stinks.
So Admin, please consider banning this smearing troll.
Luckily you never ever get a fit about prices, resulting in long totally off-topic rants about economic theory and politics and such…
No sir, you are not in any position to comment here.
Please guys! It’s Thanksgiving and we have all to be nice to each other. Focus on arguments and facts. No perosnal attacks allowed ok? I really hate it to remove comments or ban people!!!
Does anyone else have an issue with the ridges at the base of these olympus lenses? On these small bodies my fingers\knuckles are always raking up against them. Boo.
20mm is the street photography champ. Speaking of which, I wonder what happened to those that sold their 20mm’s for this lens.
Wondering if they’re kicking themselves.
If Panasonic updated their 20mm with a faster auto focus, would anyone buy this in all honesty?
I haven’t got the 20mm as it’s too close to the PL 25mm and the AF is slow, but it seems like it isn’t worth getting the 17 f1.8 from Oly as this isn’t the first review that wasn’t exactly blown away by it, and I need people blown away by it for lenses in this price range.
This Lens is just crap, Oly has already 17mm F2.8,so second 17mm must has Good IQ.
But It’s not. We need to wait third 17mm lens from Olympus?.
i wish Panny is going to launch 17mm F1.4.
Thank Lentips
That’s why I keep saying that we don’t have to be in rush buying this lens. The more we can wait, the more we will see more facts and helpful opinions from various website.
Cannot wait to see how SLRGEARS and PHOTOZONE.DE think about this lens. !!!!
Robin Wong tolds us that this lens is stellar, and that’s enough. This 17/1.8 is not only far better than 20/1.7 but it may be superior to Voigt 17/0.95 too. Let’s see.
youre joking I hope…first off robin wong is nothing but an olymous fanboy, he’ll like a piss covered piece of shit from olympus. Second, that new 17 is notably softer than the 20mm at any focal length. Proven not only by the site’s tests, but by their samples too. and the voigt eats them both for breakfast are you kidding?
At any focal length… you are aware both are primes? Not so sure we should take your opinion serious when it contains such basic errors.
Did you read what Pekka said about the Voigtlander? From memory his response was that the Olympus 17 was better for general photography.
Having said that it looks like I wil get the 12and 45. After reading his review on the 60 I am having second thoughts
Voigt is overrated. It’s not that great if you use it every day. This Oly 17/1.8 will be much better than Voigt undoubtedly.
Think positive!
The lens is sharp if stopped down to f4.0.
The metallic build is so solid it cannot hold black paint.
The price is cheap because the hood is optional – you save $300.
The resolution is not as good as the competition but the MICROCONTRAST is BETTER!
All reviewers had great FUN with this lens!
LOL
Olympus now equals scam marketing. This black paint BS premium is a great way to make massive margins and then find customers not buying the product down the road. What idiots there think consumers are sheep? This is a rookie marketing move that will backfire with target buyers.
Its something thzt has a very long history really. I have a large collection of classic cameras and lenses… in most cases a non silver body was more expensive, as were other non-standard color accessories.
No I don’t like that either, but the opinion you voice comes down to talking shit because of not having a bloody clue about marketing.
I consider LensTip to be ‘ill-considered’. I mean really, slamming a Micro Four Thirds lens for uncorrected distortion and then making no mention that it’s part of the system and all mainstream RAW converters automatically make the correction?
LensTip – welcome to today.
I’ve downloaded and viewed Robin Wong’s full sized photos. Real world shots. This lens is very sharp and fast to focus. That’s all I want and more than I need. I will be buying this lens. It will be a jewel beside my 12mm, PL25, and 45 f1.8.
Its a sick attitude to produce crappy lenses and expect LR/PS to correct for all aberrations. Post will never give you the same result, than a good glass. There are good lenses btw. Adapt a FT 14-54mk2, buy a 1.8/45, samyang 7.5…
Great lens kit!
Kudos to Lenstip for the stinkin Olympus 17mm review. Let’s all thrash the new 17mm together! Does the new 17mm really suck so bad? Probably not and I’d wager that it’s probably pretty good too in the real world. So why thrash it? Because Olumpus could have charged less for this. But with the help of Lenstip it may just happen in a few months time! US$299 for the new 17mm anyone?
Altogether now… The new 17mm sucks!!!
The 20mm Panasonic is the reason I came to m4/3 in the first place. It’s the standard to which many of us measure other lenses in this format.
I just can’t understand how Olympus would release a lens in direct competition with the Panasonic mainstay, then give it a slower aperture, make it larger in size, and then more expensive. ?
Even with the consideration of the potentially lacklustre optics aside, I just don’t understand this release. At all.
Well – maybe because the Pan is slow to focus and poor at it in low light – and looks horrible on an Oly body. These new Oly silver lenses look fantastic (I have the 45 and 75 so far and will probably get the 12 , 17 and hopefully they will launch a 25 (f1.4 please).
Also, for me I don’t really like the pancake thing (except if you really need to put the camera in your pocket) – it makes handling difficult.
You shouldn’t post negative product assessments. It’s not ok. And you know it.
Well, I generally don’t buy my lenses based on how they look on my camera body… And if the size of your camera gear isn’t one of your top concerns I’d say you’re shooting in the wrong format.
For me, is that new 17mm F1.8 from Olympus very interesting, realy for the very short DOF this is big difference from 12mm F2 and 17mm F2.8 pancake. And that i can use this lens more creative special in street but also to landscape and nature.
I just hope with all the negativity of this lens reviews, olympus will lower the price 🙂
then I will buy it without hesitation …..LOL
I can not think Olympus drop price on 17mm F1.8 before i have get my lens, and now is the 15-16 day again! 😉
Hi there,
I expected a littlebit more of this lens too – especially for that price. You’re mostly talking about the Pana 20mm in comparison here. What about the Sigma 19mm? The only feedback I can find about this lens is pretty positive. It’s cheap, comes with a hood and a small bag and 3 year warranty (at least here in germany). Does someone have experience with this lens?
Greetz
Yes, I have experienced the Sigma 19mm, all beit a test at my local dealer, I shot about 15 frames, to take home and examine before purchasing it. Glad I did, very disappointed with the level of barrel distortion, if you are only going to shoot lanscapes with very little or no verticals go ahead IQ is good but if you are ever likely to shoot atchitecture, forget it or be ready for quite some time in front of your PC, as you’ll need it. As it is 19 (38mm) I feel it is a bit narrow for landscape work, so the choice is yours, it is a cheap lens (cost wise) and the rattles hardly imbue any confidence in it’s construction.
Hi there,
thanks for your reply! According to the Lenstip review the Distortion of the Sigma Lens seems to depend a bit by the body that is used:
http://www.lenstip.com/338.6-Lens_review-Sigma_19_mm_f_2.8_EX_DN__Distortion.html
The Level of Distortion in the uncorrected RAW is 1,44% according to their review and is not corrected any further in JPG. This is only slightly worse then Oly 12/2.0 (1,17% after correction and 5,97% before) or the actual Oly 17/1.8 (1,50% after correction and 5,80% before). So the numbers of the Sigma don’t sound bad to me. But I think I have to do a practical test.
Thanks again!
Your welcome, I can only pass on what I discovered and in the case in question I would not consider that lens. As a point of interest the standard lens on my E-1 is the Sigma 18-50 EX DG Macro, so no grouse with Sigma.
SLRgear tests also confirm the 19mm’s distortion is not totally insignificant:
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1484/cat/30
It looks very good in other respects though.
why is there no SMALL POWER ZOOM, e.g.: 12-40mm ???
-> compare to Sony !
There is one for panasonic.
I hope Oly does not waste ressources for a crappy pancake zoom.
Decent sharpness and high distortion simply is not good enough for a prime lens.
It doesn’t have high distortion. LensTip is just too retarded to test Micro Four Thirds lenses properly.
Lenstip’s conclusions are somewhat out of line with their measurements. It’s not a bad lens: good, harmonious sharpness from f/1.8, decent control of aberrations, solid construction and a nice solution for zone focusing in a small optic. Perhaps the expectations were high given Oly’s recent releases, but quite objectively it is not easy to design a small, fast 17mm with sharp corners. The 45, 60 and 75 are simpler optical constructions with less compromises.
That said, I am disappointed with this lens. First, it’s not weather sealed despite its designation for outdoor use. Second, its strong geometric distortion is troubling. I would easily accept a longer structure if it were better corrected. As mentioned above, this lens should see a 10-15% drop in price within a year or so.
Personally, the new 17 appeals to me. I use this FL a lot (I have the 20/1.7 and don’t like it very much) so I will eventually buy it despite its shortcomings. After all the sample images I have seen are quite satisfactory and that’s what really matters.
All i have to say is this:
“To sum up, in my opinion it wasn’t senseless to launch such a lens on the market, it is needed, but certainly not at a current price. When the price tag is reduced by two or even three times the users of the Micro 4/3 will get a cheap, well-made and optically decent “prime” which can be a nice supplement of the 14-42 kit lens.”
For its money, this is not that good of a lens. If this lens was priced at,lets say, half the cost it is now, everybody would rate it higher, as it does not offer much more than the competition and it is lightly worse in some features.
Patience is a virtue by the way…
Exactly what I wanted to say. The biggest flaw of this lens is that it’s overpriced. Once the price goes down to 250-300 euros, it’ll be an OK lens for the price.
After speaking negatively about it, that was Pekka’s response too, he has bought it
I have been waiting for this lens (Fast AF 35mm Equal) for a while so I am going to test it out for myself.
BIg question is: WHEN IS THE SHIP DATE???
Thar’s also my question! I’ve been checking amazon.jp and it’s changing almost everyday. Yesterday they were planning it for december 20th and today it changed to ‘usually ships within 5 to 8 days…
http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/switch-language/product/B00A7QIHCK/ref=dp_change_lang?ie=UTF8&language=en_JP
I’m in south america and plan to get mine in NY but only if it’s available before december 10, that’s my deadline for personal reasons… so fingers crossed!
I don’t understand why the review is so negative. The lens has decent resolution. The lens is slightly wider than the Panasonic 20/1.7, AND has a faster, quieter AF motor.
It’s probably a bit too pricey for me to swap my 20/1.7 for it, but if I were shopping for a new lens in this range, I’d give it serious consideration over the 20/1.7.
Q. out of 17mm topic…does PL 25mm has fast AF ?
There is always the Sigma 19mm F2.8 which is excellent value for money.
PL 25 is fast. Not as fast as my OLY 12. But much faster than the 20 on an EM-5. I just swapped out a 20 for a 25 due to the uselessness of the 20’s autofocus.
Optical midle class, not bad, but average. 45/1.8, 75/1.8 are much, much better. 17/2.8 is worse, but 17/1.8 is too expensive for such optical quality. The same price as Panasonic-Leica 25/1.4 which is faster and optically better. 350$ will be better price than 500$ for such optical quality. Panasonic 20/1.7 is optically beter, but has worse AF.
17/1.8 has not bad resolution, but not very good – it can be accepted in the center and in the corders from f/1.8. But CA is too big. It is strange that pancake from Panasonic (20/1.7) is better than bigger and little slower, normal (not pancake) lens.
75/1.8 is superb lens, 17/1.8 only ordinary (and not cheap). Optically worse then 12/2, 20/1.7, 25/1.4, 45/1.8, 60/2.8 and 75/1.8.
Oly, please make 17mm f/1.2 without optical compromises.
The is word, optical compromises is point by this lens that i look the. The is a lens so have view to a 17mm and DOF to 45mm the is a fantastic combination to me.
Not every lens could be a new highlight, if you know Nikon lenses you know, that just a few of them work really good with the FX kameras they are made for.
And the price is much higher!
I am glad that i found a system with very high quality but less prices, so i can have the 1,8/45!!!
And the weight is perfekt, i don’t need more pancakes but more good lenses.
I think the only trouble is the price tag.
It is not a bad lense, but if the manufacturer wants
a premium price the customer wants premium quality.
It is a good lens, the it need a good price.
A quick list of all the lenses with fast AF available from 14-20mm (comparable focal length range) that are sharper (based on Lenstip testing only):
14mm f/2.5
And it is not all that much sharper.
I am not a fan of the price, but if the AF is fast then they just need to drop the price a bit and it would be a very viable option.
I find the review useful. The review supports the indication that this is not Olympus’ best lens…
I am, however, surprised that they use the E-PL1 for the test. In particularly in the AF speed, that seems like an odd choice.
They set their “decency” level of resolution at 50, which the lens supports up to f=11 — both in the center and on the edge. But then they suggest the resolution is only decent in the center. Somewhat strange.
I don’t know whether the other parameters of the lens are influenced by their choice of test camera. But giving Olympus the grace of doubt, I’d wait for more reviews before making the final decision.
HaHa i know, the is for crazy like me so use old E-P1 and E-P2 also can few info by AF speed. 😛
I do find it curious as the new 17mm has some exotic glass therein such as aspherics and bla-bla ultra reflective index glass all that jazzy stuff but why can’t it perform at least as good as a PanaLeica 25mm if not at least significantly better than the Pana 20mm 1.7? Is it the design? Have the Olympus designers run out of mojo? I’m guessing they’re charging so much for the new 17mm because of the glass and metal barrel.
It seems that olympus has a problem with the 17 mm focal length !
First the soft shitty 17 mm f2.8…
Then a not very sharp and expensive 17 mm f1.8…
Next…
Oly, small advice:
– remove 17/2.8 from the offer
– decrease price of 17/1.8 to current price 17/2.8
and you have very good factor price/quality for 17mm lens.
And create 17mm f/1.2 with the same optical quality as 75/1.8 with the same price as 17/1.8 (or higher).
Disappointing. The 20mm F1.7 has become a classic lens and for many represents the reason why we have invested in m43. Image quality and portability, a seemingly unbeatable compromise. The only comparable lens out there is the 30mm Samsung Pancake.
I hope Panasonic can update this lens and speed up AF, without compromising the stunning IQ. Not that I find the AF particularly slow, it’s just the latest lenses have moved on.
Rather than duplicating an already well-covered focal length, I’m still after a 35mm F1.8 prime.
Hello,
if you’re still after a 35mm F1.8 prime, check this one :
http://snapshooter.jackarlens.com/eng/pageOverview.php
seems interesting.
I saw the samples, not for me. There are plenty of manual options, not least the CV 35mm F1.4.
AF pancake please.
I thought that the whole point of m43 was smaller cost.
At this price point I just cannot justify it.
Reducing cost was never the intention of mFT.
Generally speaking, the more miniaturization, the higher the cost will be.
Size is the determining factor, that is why it is called micro.
That implies that using m4/3 will continue suffering from cost VS size and that APS-C mirrorless system is the best optimum choice since It’s not too small in terms of cost optimization.
I don’t know about the cameras, but the lenses should definetely be cheaper. If it is mre expensive because of the size, then I’m afraid there is no point in investing in it.
At this moment in the UK a GX1 is still over £400. Not really attractive any more.
As someone said, APS-C is the way to go if this pricing persists.
FIRMWARE
Este resultado decepcionante tiene una explicacion, el firmware de la cámara. Uso una E-PL1 sin actualizar. ¿Olympus suministrara un firmware actualizado, para que la E-PL1 funcione correctamente con los objetivos futuros?
Olympus diseño estos ultimos objetivos pensando el conjunto cuerpo + lentes + firmware.
Que esto iba a suceder ya lo habia advertido DSLR MAGACINE
http://www.dslrmagazine.com/pruebas/pruebas-tecnicas/sobre-lo-crudo-y-lo-cocido.html
This “sharpness obsession” is becoming plain stupid!
Watch this video and educate yourself about what a pro street photographer think about what is a brilliant lens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RfwNCtd4vA&feature=player_embedded
Your goal is to shoot resolution charts? Get the sharpest lens on earth and happy pixel peeping!
+1000 muchas gracias
FRIMWARE
This disappointing result has an explanation, the camera firmware. Use an E-PL1 without updating. Olympus will supply a firmware update for the E-PL1 work properly with future lens?
Olympus design the last lens thinking the set body + lens + firmware.
That this would happen was predicted by DSLR Magacine
http://www.dslrmagazine.com/pruebas/pruebas-tecnicas/sobre-lo-crudo-y-lo-cocido.html
finally… a negative review! =D
now, let’s hope that Olympus is reading this!
… bring the price down!
so… i can buy the lens! LOL! =P
I’m with you on a lower price. A lower price will definitely be in line with the lower performance and will make the lens appealing again.
But alas, with the expensive materials used in this lens I wonder if they can price it lower. And if so, how much lower can they go?
I’m thinking heads will roll at Olympus for this boo boo.
I think more this lens make roll stone and rock roll, so roll head. 😛
Is this oranges to apples comparison?? The Canon 35/1.4 EF sells for $1400 and ‘seems to be’ far behind the oly’s 17 in MTF50 charts:
http://www.lenstip.com/170.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_35_mm_f_1.4L_USM_Image_resolution.html
http://www.lenstip.com/357.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_17_mm_f_1.8_Image_resolution.html
Am I missing something?? Please experts give us the clues!! 😉
And i know that Canon EF 50mm F1.0L, so need we not talk more by hight price and bad IQ. 😀
You can’t compare cross-format on Lenstip tests (or anyone elses unless they convert all results to the same standard). The Canon lens even gets different numbers comparing APS-C to 135 Full Format. This is explained in detail if you look further down the page of the Canon 35 f/1.4 review.
This difference as it relates to the 135 and m4/3rds is discussed in the 20mm f/1.7 review here:
http://www.lenstip.com/269.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_G_20_mm_f_1.7_ASPH._Image_resolution.html
Also, here are the 12mm results:
http://www.lenstip.com/310.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_12_mm_f_2.0_ED_Image_resolution.html
You will notice that the new 17 is just as sharp at f/2.8 as the 12mm (averaged across the frame), and from f/2 to f/8 its overall average is only 2 lpmm lower. So if the 17 is a crap lens then the 12 couldn’t be more than barely adequate.
Lenstips “issue” seems to be that this lens isn’t as sharp as the 20mm. Yes, if you compare sharpness alone the Panasonic 20mm is better, but all the sharpness in the world is useless if you need an 8 degree wider angle of view and can’t shoot the subject as a panorama. The sharpness is also useless if your subject is out of focus because of how slow the AF system is on the 20mm. I would suggest instead comparing it to other 17mm lenses, in which case it is ridiculously sharper than the Panasonic 17 f/2.8:
http://www.lenstip.com/183.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_17_mm_f_2.8_Image_resolution.html
and is obviously way faster focusing than the all manual Voigtlander 17.5 f/0.95.
I am sure many people will pass on this lens in favor of the 20mm they already own, but the existence of that 20 does not make this a bad lens… Not even close.
Here comes the Germans to spoil the party with some gesundheit on the new 17mm. Well mostly gesundheit except for some randabdunklung!
Looks like prices might stay lofty with more reports like these:
http://www.digitalkamera.de/Meldung/Olympus_17_mm_1_8_mit_Labortest_vorgestellt/8033.aspx
Google translated:
“A first shared a laboratory test series, we were able to copy digitalkamera.de laboratory test on the Olympus Pen E-PL5. Sovereign is the high sharpness, which extends from the center to the edges is easily big for A4 prints. Only stopped down to F22, the image is diffraction-limited minimal soft, especially at the edges. Amazingly, we were able to measure virtually no distortion, this is most likely correct in the camera. A slight contrast Randabdunklung is available, but it runs very smoothly and at maximum aperture only one stop on the extreme edge of the image is (equivalent to 50 percent loss of light). To F4 reduces the Randabdunklung which then remains at a half f-stop. Equally important are the A4 to easily visible chromatic aberration (see chart from the lab test below).
At the pixel level, they are always more than one pixel wide, take the low beam to further and beyond in extreme cases, the limit of 2.5 PixelnDie resolution at 50 percent contrast at maximum aperture with nearly 45 line pairs per millimeter (lp / mm) well and reached at F2, 8 and F4 with nearly 51 lp / mm, its maximum before the diffraction provides a decline. But even at F8, the resolution is still slightly higher than the value at open aperture, which will not fall below from F11, but still more than 40 lp / mm at the center. Only with F16 and F22, the resolution decreases rapidly to each well 10 lp / mm, more than F11 should not be so dim, and the highest resolution (optimal aperture) is F4. Wide angle is typical of edge drop the resolution, which is the 17mm always around 20 percent. This value is for a wide-angle right, falls into the non-negative weight, but also stands out from the crowd is not positive. One reaches a border resolution of just over 40 lp / mm, but so does the Olympus Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:1.8 at F4 is an excellent lens for landscape and architectural photography, photojournalism, it is also due to its compact size (36 mm suitable length and 58 millimeters in diameter) and its light weight of 120 grams of a pen or OM-D models.”
Booooo! Some kid with a computer offended your toy! And now?
??? Are you talking to admin ? Just reporting news … The now is up to you.
First: learn English
Second: stop playing with toys, be they attached to your body or attached to a camera
Third: go out and shoot.
It’s funny how everyone said the pany 20mm was the best thing since sliced bread. Now it’s a piece of crap??
I have the 20mm and I will not be changing it for the small improvements oly did. My pany is still great, a pancake and is black.
Sure faster af would be nice, but I’m not ready to accept all the compromises of the 17.
The is only other lens from Olympus and Panasonic so is reason for this. 😉
Premature Ejaculation is how I would define the mood here and in other forum.
Indeed it might well be that the firmware is not optimised yet, and so resolution.
No wonder with such nicks like Ren Kockwell 🙂
Well Almanac, despite all the negative press the new lens is getting, I still would buy it if it were priced according to it’s abilities. Performance is lower than the PL25mm so therefore it should be priced less. Nobody complains about the Pana 14mm pancake because its not priced at a premium.
+1
The price on this lens does not look right to me. The lens is all right even with its less than stellar sharpness, just nothing special optically so far. I wish it delivered some color and contrast magic to match the Pleica and SHG Zuikos which would justify its price.
Nobody has denied so far that the 17/1.8 has v. good resolution across the frame. 17mm has a wider angle than a 20mm, it can be used for Landscape, so the feature is important.
At the time it was launched the 20mm was almost as expensive, and prices have risen.
I believe that most of the criticism in the forums come from the 20mm fanbois, which probably used the lens to take portraits of their brats in lowlight. So what do they complain about? The brat didn’t grew up healthily? 🙂
Keep your 20mm and gives us a break. BTW I am not in the market for a 17mm. I already have 2 separate versions.
I am trying to understand what Oly tried to achieve. And if price is a consideration, well the Lens is v. expensive in the Eurozone, while it is cheap, for the resolution, in the US.
So the American Kockwells have v. little to complain about 🙂
Just keep shooting your grown ups with the 20mm and ignore the wider angle for Landscape…
Your comments would be somewhat believable if you hadn’t been trashing the 20mm/1.7 all the time yourself, going as far as claiming that the 17/2.8 is a much better lens that has stood the test of time where the 20/1.7 hasn’t.
You do the exact things you are accusing others of. Maybe you think others are too stupid or blind to notice this, but they are not.
Sometimes this has to be pointed out, mister trollmaric.
Premature ejaculation? So Mr Genius Almanac, what would your expert opinion be on the matter? Are we holding it wrong?
RIP 17/1.8. I will miss you.
Lenstip recently reviewed the 60mm f2.8 macro and they nwere generally positive, despite the fact that there is quite a large difference in resolution between the edges and the centres.
If you look at the resolution performance of the 17mm f1.8 compared to the 60mm macro, the 75 mm, or several other mft lenses, it does look a bit low.
Considering the price of the 17mm f1.8 lens I think lenstip are right to be a bit disappointed. Furthermore I would argue that the odd somewhat negative review makes the positive ones more credible.
I was looking forward to it too but also wanted to wait for the Schneider Kreuznach 14mm f/2.0 Super-Angulon. Now it looks like it won’t be a hard decision between the two. Especially because the Schneider lens will be weather sealed.
…yes, weathersealed, with incredible optical quality.
However, expect at least the double price, which might impact your decision.
This shitty review is the result of using an E-PL 1 with old firmware. For practical purposes its pretty useless – I have had a preproduction 17 on my OM-D and took pictures with it (no, they are not available to show), and ordered it the day after. BTW: I had a 20 mm which I sold a couple of months ago for not using it anymore for the relative slow AF.
if you look at lenstips reviews of the Pana 20 and the 17/1.8, look for coma & bokeh. Despite the rather negative tone in the 17 review, its quite clear that something very special is going on at the 20, which most likely is a side effect of the very sharp rendering of the lens.
Fact is, that on Panasonic the 20 mm stays a great lens, and it also will be soon very obvious that on a OM-D or PL-5 the new Olympus 17 beats it hands down.
I re-read P. Potka and in fact he said something similar. M. Thein is also very articulated. But it might be that they use an OM-D while Lenstip uses a PL-1, with adverse effects.
I have pleaded to wait for further tests, because I was impressed with Wong and Thein pictures. Lenses with strong FW correction cannot be judged as is like Film lenses. They have a component that might be updated even after introduction.
Then of course we are also dealing with 20mm fans and trolls, that don’t accept easily that their 20mm Panny lens is suddenly made obsolete. A lens they paid the same price of the 17mm at introduction.
One can understand but not excuse their petty smear campaign going on in all forums. Establishing negative memes is better than the truth in their sad world.
we all know that Ming Thein, Robin Wong and Pekka Potka are quite “affiliated” w/ Olympus and if they are not “really super excited about the lens” from Olympus that simply means that it is not really something special… granted it is better than O17/2.8, but that’s it… just a decent lens.
From the lenstip article: “At the maximum relative aperture the brightness loss in the frame corners reaches 49% (-1.97 EV)”
What kind of arithmetics is this? Isn’t 1EV is power of 2, i.e. -49% is about -0.97EV, not -1.97EV?
“No One is really super excited about the lens”? I didn’t get that impression at all from the other three reviews…they seemed rather positive, actually…
Well, I definitively not exited about it. The Olympus 17mm f/1.8 is a failure. Olympus has made some excellent optics, but it missed the target here. And what are they thinking asking so much money for this lens?!
I love the 60mm f/2.8 macro lens, because of it’s excellent image quality. I wonder why Olympus couldn’t pull it off with the 17mm f/1.8. Images are soft and there’s a huge amount of vignetting going on. Too bad, but if Santa brings me this little failure, he can shoot it straight back to the North Pole.