Olympus 17mm f/1.8 Sharpness Series

Amin Sabet · #1 December 23rd, 2012, 08:33 AM

I shot a test series to examine Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 performance throughout the frame across a variety of apertures: f/1.8, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, and 8.

If you prefer a more hands-on approach to evaluation, download the RAW files below and have at it:
http://mu43rawfiles.s3.amazonaws.com...w/PC230001.orf
http://mu43rawfiles.s3.amazonaws.com...w/PC230002.orf
http://mu43rawfiles.s3.amazonaws.com...w/PC230003.orf
http://mu43rawfiles.s3.amazonaws.com...w/PC230004.orf
http://mu43rawfiles.s3.amazonaws.com...w/PC230005.orf
http://mu43rawfiles.s3.amazonaws.com...w/PC230006.orf

Meanwhile, if you don't care about ultimate edge and corner sharpness because you plan to shoot subjects where this doesn't matter so much, ie people, then see this series instead. And if you really don't care about tests and just want to share some of your photos with this lens, we've got a thread for that too.

The zones examined in this test are shown by the yellow boxes below. 100% crops are then presented for each zone at each aperture. All processing was done from RAW in Lightroom 4.3.

Center:

Mid-left-lower:

Mid-right-upper:

Left edge:

Right edge:

Far-upper-left:

Far-lower-left:

Far-lower-right:

As evident from the files, color fringing correction, while easy to do in Lightroom, was not applied. Barrel distortion has been corrected in Lightroom, which robs the image of some sharpness. Also remember that depth of field (DOF) will affect this kind of test. For example, the proximal corners are outside the DOF at the low f-numbers.

The right edge crop shows that my lens has some decentering (lens elements are not perfectly centered, so one edge is sharper than the other). This is true for most lenses, and I consider my copy of the lens to be within specifications (not defective) in this regard. It's no different than most lenses I've bought over the years.

drd1135 · #2 December 23rd, 2012, 08:53 AM

Nice work. I have trouble telling apart the samples from 4, 5.6, and 8, although I could convince myself the 8 was a bit softer.

Microman · #3 December 24th, 2012, 04:58 AM

Thank you for all this work. Build quality of this lens is decent, but performance wise it fails to convince me. After the excellent 12mm, 45mm, 60mm and 75mm, this lens is a disappointment.

NJH · #4 December 24th, 2012, 06:53 AM

Its the mid right upper sequence which is so disappointing to me. On the flip side though I am used to the lens on my X100 which is likely worse at F2 and doesn't really get sharp across the frame till F4 much like this Oly lens. Is it really so bad? Probably a bit overpriced right now for what it offers.

jamespetts · #5 December 24th, 2012, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJH

Its the mid right upper sequence which is so disappointing to me. On the flip side though I am used to the lens on my X100 which is likely worse at F2 and doesn't really get sharp across the frame till F4 much like this Oly lens. Is it really so bad? Probably a bit overpriced right now for what it offers.

I suspect that the lens deserves to be considered decent if it were only at a lower price. I rather suspect that the price will diminish over the next year or so to be perhaps only slightly more than the 20mm f/1.7. I also wonder whether this lens might end up being bundled with the replacement for the E-P3: it would be a good kit lens, I think (people may recall that the E-P3 was offered with the 17mm f/2.8 as a kit lens as well as the 14-42mm). Indeed, I wonder whether that was precisely why it was designed to be small and relatively cheap to manufacture (hence possible compromises on quality)?

Jonathan F/2 · #6 December 24th, 2012, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamespetts

I suspect that the lens deserves to be considered decent if it were only at a lower price. I rather suspect that the price will diminish over the next year or so to be perhaps only slightly more than the 20mm f/1.7. I also wonder whether this lens might end up being bundled with the replacement for the E-P3: it would be a good kit lens, I think (people may recall that the E-P3 was offered with the 17mm f/2.8 as a kit lens as well as the 14-42mm). Indeed, I wonder whether that was precisely why it was designed to be small and relatively cheap to manufacture (hence possible compromises on quality)?

The 12-50mm was released around the same time last year without a body. A couple months later it was announced as the kit lens to the OM-D. The 17mm, could indeed be the kit lens for the upcoming E-P5 or whatever next is coming out.

jamespetts · #7 December 24th, 2012, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan F/2

The 12-50mm was released around the same time last year without a body. A couple months later it was announced as the kit lens to the OM-D. The 17mm, could indeed be the kit lens for the upcoming E-P5 or whatever next is coming out.

Interesting! What was the RRP for the 12-50mm back then, and what does it sell for new now?

Jonathan F/2 · #8 December 24th, 2012, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamespetts

Interesting! What was the RRP for the 12-50mm back then, and what does it sell for new now?

I think it was something ridiculous like $500!

jamespetts · #9 December 24th, 2012, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan F/2

I think it was something ridiculous like $500!

Exactly the recommended price of the 17mm f/1.8 - and the current selling price of hte 12-50mm (£284.95 on Amazon UK) is exactly the sort of price that would be a reasonable price for the 17mm f/1.8...

alessandro · #10 December 25th, 2012, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amin Sabet

... and I consider my copy of the lens to be within specifications (not defective) in this regard. It's no different than most lenses I've bought over the years.

Honestly, seeing your samples I would not say that. It looks under-par.