Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Superstriker#8, Feb 19, 2014.
Is the 17mm f2.8 really that bad? Comments and opinions, please!
I have the 17mm f2.8 and quite like it and it's been my most used m4/3s lens since I got it, it basically lived on the E-P1. It may not be at the pinnacle of optical perfection, but it takes a pretty good picture. I honestly believe that it's a grossly underrated lens.
That Porsche Smile by RedTail_Panther, on Flickr
P2260157 - 'San Antonio Model Eleya Maureen' by RedTail_Panther, on Flickr
Dodge Viper SRT by RedTail_Panther, on Flickr
I'd have to agree with OzRay. While I don't have that lens, I've seen plenty of great shots taken with it. I think it would be a good pancake to have in your arsenal covering that FL. Recently picked up the 17 f/1.8 but I doubt my shots are any better than they would be with the 2.8 - just maybe more useful in some lower light situations.
I'll take that as a joke, seeing as the pictures underneath it are great.
Edited, (because I didn't want to add another post): I think this is anther instance of needing to just go out and shoot, instead of worrying about technical qualities.
Indeed. I have the horrible 18-180mm 4/3 lens and it's been on my E-5 more than the others because of it's versatility. It might be rubbish, but seems to take reasonable photos.
It's not a bad lens, but technically it's not a great lens.
I'm another fan of the lens. I think some of its bad rep comes from being compared directly with the panny 20 - and in a technical sense it does come up short. But I bought the 17 2.8 after I already had the 20 and I immediately developed an affection for it. I personally like the FOV of the 17 - if I have to use one lens, that's my choice. It is also the most compact of all the lenses except for the P 14 - but they're pretty close to the same size. I keep it on my PM1 and it makes a very compact kit. I now have the 17 1.8 and I have to admit that I use it most of the time. The extra two stops or so make it more flexible. But I sometimes wonder if the 2.8 doesn't have a little more character than the newer lens. I think that if you don't need to know that every shot you take possesses maximal sharpness - it's a great lens. It also focuses a little faster than than the P20 - but not as fast as the 17 1.8 . . . .
It isn't bad, I just found other lenses better. The 14mm 2.5 or the Sigma 19mm 2.8 can be had for around the same price. Unless you really like a pancake 34mm equivalent you are better off with the 28mm pancake or the 38mm non-pancake.
And if you have a bigger budget, the 17mm 1.8 and 20mm 1.7 are better lenses. And soon we'll have the 15mm 1.7..
If you really want that 34mm EFL, and like the size, the look, or really need exactly 1 extra stop of light, it's okay. For focusing speed and optical quality, the kit lenses are better. If you can live with 28mm, the 14/2.5 is better and faster focusing. If you do go with the 17/2.8, make sure to get it secondhand. You'll avoid a lot of depreciation.
It's not horrible. Not the best lens ever either. Check out the sample image thread and see for yourself.
It sits on my e-pm2, fits in a pocket and takes great pictures ... I like it, this is SOC
It's not really bad; it's just not up to the high standards of other lenses in the lineup. I had it for a while and took some of my favorite pictures with it, and it was a great complement to a tiny kit (which is how I used it, with a PM2). It's not the sharpest lens, but for most things that really doesn't matter. The great pics posted already attest to that.
Now, however, that I own the Panny 12-32mm I don't think I'd buy it again. The 12-32mm is quite an amazing lens, especially wide open, and you only sacrifice a tiny bit of speed. And the 12-32mm is only 2mm longer than the prime. So unless you have a strong preference of primes, or really value that 1/2 stop, or don't like collapsing lens designs, or really like to MF, I think the 12-32mm wins on all counts over the 17mm.
It was my first m43 lens ... sold it. Missed it so much I bought another. Gets used quite a bit. So easy to slap it on and drop the camera into my pocket and go.
It's a nice little lens, I've no complaints about it, focuses ok, build quality is ok, but most importantly I found I could take nice photo's with it.
Here comes the sun by Darren Bonner, on Flickr
(Excluding the obvious BCL and 3d ones) I don't believe there is a terrible/bad lens in the micro 4/3rds system.. this incudes kit lenses. Could be seen as an indication of how commited Olympus and Panasonic are to the system. However, I wouldn't say that all the micro 4/3rds lenses are outstanding. From my experience the 14mm f/2.5 is another one that falls in this category.
I have done the exact same thing, it may not be perfect but then perfection is over rated any way, its a nice small 35mm equivalent and as I went out today with the 14mm and found it too wide as a walk around but the 17 is the next best thing to a 25.
It's a good little lens, good value, nice and small. I like mine. If you want extra speed, better build and a bit more sharpness the 17 f1.8 is terrific.
Great as compact lens. I use it all the time.
I like mine, it's kinda cutesy and small which means I can fit the E-PL5 in my pocket with it attached. There's not much wrong with it that Photoshop can't put right, it's a good little "walk about" lens. Best thing about it - it was free! :smile: