–
DxOmark (Click here) published the Olympus 17mmf /1.8 lens test. As you see the lens is almost as good as the Panasonic-Leica 25mm lens. Like so many reviewers before this lens leaves you with mixed feelings. DxO writes:
“In some respects, the new image quality of the M. Zuiko Digital 17mm f/1.8 is not up to scratch, as not only does it have quite high levels of chromatic aberration and distortion but it also fails to impress in outright resolution and acutance. On the plus side, sharpness is much more consistent across the field than the existing 17mm f/2.8 model and if it had used ED glass in the construction it would have been considerably more expensive than the $500 retailers are asking for it. Considering the build, fast maximum aperture and overall imaging characteristics, the 17mm f/1.8 remains an attractive option for the enthusiast.”
Yep, good lens, but not as good as it gets. Let’s see if the rumored 25m f/1.8 can be even better…
17mm price check at [shopcountry 34914].
58 Responses
DxO Mark= Useless
I have the lens..I really like it….I really don’t care about their opinion about it.
Totally irrelevant.
Might as well put on a blindfold and throw the dart…same results! 🙂
how do you feel about the CA problem ?.
I’ve never noticed CA with my 17mm, at least it’s not eye catching in my photos. I shot JPEG + Raw and my JPEGS are in b&w, so I never noticed it chimping the screen (I rarely chimp..). PanaLeica suffers more from it, due to the wider aperture.
Well…I use my MFT as a second camera to my FF. I think the OMD produces great results for when I want/need to travel light…but if I am REALLY serious about something I am using my 5DIII and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (bests the Canon L glass).
That being said..I only shoot in raw and I post process anything that I present to anyone or post on the web…so if I see any CA in a shot I just run it through LR and in less than 60 sec. it is gone..
Now …for all the pix peepers out there…one of my favorite lenses..the Canon 85mm f/1.2L is a $2200 lens…it produces CA out the AXX, especially wide open in certain lighting situations….but I can do the same thing with that. LR clean up. The lens has these other qualities that very few lenses do so it is worth putting up with the downside.
So…on balance…I think that the Oly 17mm f/1.8 (which was on sale for like $400, right?…is well built, small, fast to focus and is everything that a MFT AF lens should be…Could it be a little sharper…I guess…but ya know what…if you have a great image..no one will notice! 🙂
I agree. Every f1.4 (and wider) I tried was suffering from CA, even Leicas ‘cron, ‘lux and Noctilux. So it’s not surprising. As you said, two clicks on LR, or shooting b&w, solve the issue!
Calling it useless is far fetched.
Its a review. One not too wordy on average and very prone to false precisions, but a review nonetheless. To their credits, presumably consistent in their methodology and impartial.
I mean, should I want a 17mm, I would not care that the PL25 has a slightly better overall score. its not the same FoV. Happens to be my favorite lens, but I differ. OTOH, if I want a 17mm, the considerable different score result between the two Olympus lenses would draw my attention.
“Might as well put on a blindfold and throw the dart…same results”
The lens is that bad….? 🙂
No…LOL…referring to DxO’s testing results…They make no sense.
7mpix resolution is close to 10mp? I guess the PL25 is REALLY close to the Oly75 in that case…
the 25 mm is really close to the 75 mm even more so if you compare them at the same aperture . Though frankly I have read a lot of BS about the wonders of the 25mm when in reality it can’t compete with its FF counterparts despite them being less expensive sometimes quite a bit less expensive. I wonder if a lot of the wild claims we here about some mFT gear come from previous P&S owners who think the have discovered a miracle .The Nikon 50 mm f1.8g outperforms it yet costs just over a third the price.
http://www.dslrphoto.com/dslr/space.php?do=jranking&view=all
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/766516-USA/Nikon_2199_AF_S_Nikkor_50mm_f_1_8G.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/768816-REG/Panasonic_H_X025_Leica_DG_Summilux_25.html
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/450/(lens2)/435/(brand1)/Panasonic/(camera1)/0/(brand2)/Nikkor/(camera2)/792
You’re forgetting it’s FF. There’s a lot more glas in there. The more you shrink the lens elements, the tighter the engineering tolerance will have to be. You should at least be comparing the same effective focal length when comparing across systems. Do you think this comparison means anything in real life?
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/435/%28brand%29/Nikkor/%28camera1%29/792/%28lens2%29/532/%28brand2%29/Olympus/%28camera2%29/0
I have used these lenses in real live. DxO’s scores used in this way are NOT representative. This is better:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/435/%28lens2%29/532/%28brand1%29/Nikkor/%28camera1%29/680/%28brand2%29/Olympus/%28camera2%29/0
OLYMPUS. BEATS. NIKON. Oh dear. Do you think that means anything in real life?
I do hope you’ve learned something. Good luck!
Lol…you are comparing a 16 mp sensor with a 36 mp sensor (d800), shure sharpness is better on d800 ! Select d4 which is 16 mp and sharpnesness will be closer to the Panama leica ! But still better that true
+1
Not close to 25mm, rather closer to old 17mm. Look at CA as well…
I never tried the 17mm 1.8 but i am certain i would be happy with its performance , as i was already pleased with the 17mm 2.8 rendering.
Can someone spend them a 16 Mpix testing cam?
The GH2 is a 16MP m4/3 camera (actually, it’s 18MP total, but only because it’s big enough to maintain the same 16MP for multiple aspect ratios.) They also tested it on the GX1, which has a 16MP sensor.
They could have used an EM-5 which the lens is built for.
How would that change the results? Same pixel count.
?!? Did you compare the score between different bodies with the same pixel count, e.g.E-PL1 vs E-P2. Both are 12MP.
OK. Results are not the same.
I don’t understand exactly what’s going on. Same pixel count. Even using same sensor, but different processing. I didn’t think it could change resolution.
The E-P2 has a strong AA filter (the last Oly camera that had one).
It’s a lens system. Lenses are not built for one specific body or sensor.
Agreed, they should have started the tests with the E-M5 and GH-3, instead of the lower-end bodies. There is enough variation in the results to warrant that.
I bet the black one would have been better. All the light reflecting off that shinny sliver finish, next to the glass in the front. It’s just a crying shame Oly can’t figure that out yet. 🙂
Looks more like the 2.8 to me.
Close, but not close enough. How humiliating for Olympus…
They must be feeling terrible right now. I’ll buy another 17mm to console them a bit.
How is it humiliating? 19 is not a bad overall score. The Zeiss 24/1.8 (similar FoV) for NEX has a score of 22; only 3 more but costs 2x more.
Also, there aren’t a lot of 35mm equivalent lenses for APS-C DSLRs. E.g. you could use a 24/2.8 or 28/1.8 EF lens on a 700D but the overall is lower at 16: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/1112/(brand)/Olympus/(camera1)/677/(lens2)/1155/(brand2)/Sony/(camera2)/0/(lens3)/796/(brand3)/Canon/(camera3)/870
i have the 17mm 1.8 and now the much lauded 20mm 1.7 mostly sits at home. these lens test are almost entirely irrelevant if you’re capable of making interesting images to start with . . . . .
^^^^ This.
Amen, Gary! 🙂
So with your logic, nobody would never done any tests and nobody would be interested. It is just not true…
I am all for scientific testing and hard data – I try to be as pragmatic as I can be in life. But for me and how I shoot – the 17/1.8, 20/1.7 and 25/1.4 (I have owned all 3) all are great lenses. Greater than I will ever need. Part of going with an m43 setup, at least to me, is about ‘good enough at the price and size level’. It is why I sold my Canon gear years ago to get a GF1 (which is now my daughters and I own a GX1 – I had a GH2 in there that I sold too). I am a hobbiest and the GX1 with the 17/1.8 and 45/1.8 offer me everything that I want in a camera. I can carry body, both lenses, the EVF, a spare battery and two ND Filters all in a very small shoulder bag http://www.chromeindustries.com/bags/camera-bags/niko-sling
I never loved the 25/1.4. I did not love its size or that focal length. But it was a great lens in terms of any performance metric. But not for me.
Same here: my 20mm will be on ebay soon (as soon as I’m done processing all the pictures I recently shot with the 17mm 🙂
The fov + fast focus (and great looks) is worth it.
The test was done on a GH2. In my experience, the OMD sensor seems to exacerbate pf. I’d like to see these tests done on the OMD/Sony sensor.
I had the 17mm for a couple of months before I traded it and the 25mm in for the convenience of the 12-35/2.8.
The 17mm is a great lens: fast, sharp enough for anyone not named Ed Burtynsky, and beautifully built.
My EM5 is in repair for a busted EVF, and I’ve been using an OM-2 for the past week. Sharp? No. Fun? Yes.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS.
I would have preferred to see a comparison test against the Panny 20mm, not the 25. I have the 20 already and the 17mm is to arrive with my new E-P5 today or tomorrow.
As for your comment about hoping the Oly 25 is better? Not if they don’t use the ED glass. Will probably test about the same.
It’s interesting how DXO has failed to test the 20mm, arguably the most popular M4/3 lens.
Perhaps they will test the 20mm MK2 – they don’t review old lenses.
Except that they reviewed the 14-140mm, the 7-14mm and a (VERY) few other Panasonic lenses.
Then we have to buy a USD 500 lens today, that nobody knows how long it will last or if they will keep producing this formatt in the future. That is the doubt in several MFT users’ heads right now.
m43 has more than enough critical mass by now, I think. Enjoy your Canon or Nikon (DLSR, not mirrorless) if you want more certainty in live.
True. I’m really balanced between upgrading to an OM-D or switching to fuji-X. If fuji release a 23mm soon i won’t be balanced anymore.
The overall score mixed too much stuff, hence it can only be used as a reference.
However, the individual score does tell something – my understanding is that the Oly 17 is not as sharp as Pany 25. 10 vs.7 – pany’s sharpness score is more than 40% higher!
Indeed. My pictures with the 17mm were on average 12.6% worse, but I shot 89.5% more keepers. So it really depends how much you pictures you take, I reckon.
Courious how the 20/1.7 would have changed the equation.
Close but with a 10% difference this is by far not quite the same – and same price and one stop slower! Not a loser?
Admin, why my earlier comment was deleted?
In terms of sharpness score, Pany 25 is more than 40% higher than Olym 17 (10vs.7). Hence my interpretation is that Olym 17 is no as as sharp as Pany 25, not even close. Is there any reason why my comment got deleted?
well, after my second comment, my first one appeared again. Wired.
Sorry for the redundant comment.
If your comment “is awaiting moderation” it will disappear if you refresh the page but will appear again after it was checked.
In any case the admin is wrong about the conclusion. The 17mm had those results at f4 and the 25mm at f2.8. Even at f2 its sharper. And if your gonna use it at f4 you might as well use the kit lens
Enjoy your $500 well spent!
I have all Olympus mFT primes and have tested them. I don’t know about absolute numbers but the relationship between 12mm/2.0 and 17mm/1.8 is simply wrong at dxomark.com. Same goes for 60mm Macro. They obviously test only the center of image? Does anyone know what their perceived sharpness really means, i.e. how is it actually measured and calculated? The idea of perceived sharpness as a combination of various factors is great but it is not easy to determine and describe as a number.
-p-
Fast zooms please, Olympus!
And better yet, ones without so much purple fringing!
There appears to be something very wrong with DXOs overall lens scoring when looking at the individual lens metric scores? The 17mm/1.8 and 17mm/2.8 appear to be very close except for lens transmission while the 25mm/1.4 is way better in every individual test esp. resolution and distortion with exception of being about equal in vignetting?
Looks like the overall score should have been 17mm/2.8 14, 17mm/1.8 15 and 25mm/1.4 21?
I have this lens and I’m totally happy with its performance. It has so much more character then the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 that I used for several years. The rendering is natural and the out of focus areas look very pleasing. Images from the Panasonic are sharp but very, very contrasty. I don’t like the harsh look it gives photos. And then there’s the little thing called autofocus. With the Panasonic I missed shots. It’s that slow. The build quality of the Olympus 17mm is beautiful, I absolutely love it! Sturdy all metal design with the sexy clutch focus mechanism. Manual focus works like a charm and It has a hard infinity stop. I have to admit that I was a little skeptical after reading all the not so glowing reviews of the Olympus 17mm. However, after ttrying one myself, I sold my Panasonic, bought the Olympus and never looked back. It’s a beautiful optic. Not clinically sharp, but surely sharp enough (yes, even wide open) and with a pleasant natural rendering. A perfect all round standard lens. Get one!