[shoplink 14798]
[/shoplink]Almost 80% of my pictures have been taken with that cheap and unspectacular lens. It’s not as fast and as good as the [shoplink 14796]Panasonic 20mm f/1.7[/shoplink] but it’s cheaper, lighter, tinier and has a more interesting wider view angle (that’s just my personal opinion). I am glad that someone finally reviewed the lens. That “someone” is Photographyblog (Click here): “Its sharpness and resolving power are pretty good, especially in the centre of the frame, but they are hardly exceptional for a prime lens“…”Overall, we enjoyed shooting with the Olympus M.ZUIKO Digital 17mm f/2.8 a lot – there are few lenses out there that beat it on the portability front, while its angle of view and fast maximum aperture make it an excellent walk-around lens“.
Click those links to check the Olympus 17mm price at [shopcountry 14798].
6 Responses
The 17 mm was also reviewed at dpreview in september 2009:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusEP1/page23.asp
Personally, I don’t even know why the 17mm exists. The kit lens is a 14-42, and this lens is what, one stop faster than the kit lens?
I guess it’s nice and small, so you have that. Still, the 20mm F1.7’s reason to exist seems completely obvious to me. It’s just like my old Canonet’s 40mm F1.7. That was a useful focal length, and a fast enough aperture to be used anywhere lenses are used.
It used to be that really wide lenses would be around 2.8, exceptionally wide lenses would be f4, and the range around standard, from 40-60mm would be dominated by f1.8 at the LOW end, F1.2 at the high end.
We can dial up ISO and probably can’t afford f1.2, but it seems like suddenly f2 is even out of reach. It shouldn’t be, on a body with such a short mount register.
One stop faster is enough to consider to use it: if you use it often in low-light (on parties, for example).
When you have zoom lens, you usually zoom it and then it is more than 1 EV => and then your images will be much worse.
Another reason for consideration is space: it is much smaller than kit lens.
The only “disadvantage” of this lens is existence of panasonic 20mm, which is brighter .. but also more costly.
But have som advantages also:
– better “closeup” shot succes (with Panasonic there may occur wrong focus, at least on my E-P1)
– little faster (but noisier) focusing (on E-P1)
– with F2.8 there are little less problems with low HO: for example snapshot with 2 or more people, which is bigger problem with F1.7. Off course, you can set F2.8 on Panasonic .. but will you?
Agreed. The kit zoom is as sharp and has less CA than the 17/2.8 at equivalent focal length and apertures.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=58,59&fullscreen=true&av=3.667,3.667&fl=14,17&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4
Considering that the kit zoom is already a rather unspectacular performer, the 17/2.8’s performance as a prime is disappointing.
I think it’s one of the most unter-rated lenses. Contrast and color rendition is beautiful, and I really like the 35mm fielf of view. I deeply apologize for liking this lens!
This is small lens. That’s its main claim to fame, not the speed at f2.8, nor the focal length, the equivalent of about 35mm in 35mm photography. But on the small Olympus PEN body, this lens gives you a small package that takes quite good pictures without messing around with a zoom. In particular, it works well as a walking-around street camera, much like an old Leica or a Canon rangefinder of the 1950s/1960s. (See also the optical viewfinder which has image lines specifically for this 17mm lens.)