Hypothetical question regarding 17mm 1.8

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by heli-mech, Dec 28, 2012.

  1. heli-mech

    heli-mech Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Mar 9, 2012
    Vancouver Island, Canada
    Andrew
    Just one of those useless hypothetical questions but I often find myself questioning Olympus's choices in what/how they make lenses. The 17mm 1.8 appears to be a average lens, not as bad as some people make it out to be but also not as good as most hoped for (45,60,75 standard). Therefore why the metal body? I think a weather sealed body similar to the 60mm macro would have been better and made a great outdoor combo with the 60mm.

    So the question is:

    IQ/Price staying the same would you have preferred a plastic weather-sealed body over the metal (snapfocus) one Olympus went with?
     
  2. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    IQ/price staying the same, I would prefer a metal weather sealed lens with the snap focus feature. Why shouldn't the metal bodies lenses also be capable of weather sealing?
     
  3. heli-mech

    heli-mech Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Mar 9, 2012
    Vancouver Island, Canada
    Andrew
    It's not that it shouldn't its that if it did it would likely add even more cost to a lens that many find already overpriced. The snap focus feature would also likely be a little more complicated to weather seal.
     
  4. mister_roboto

    mister_roboto Mu-43 Top Veteran

    637
    Jun 14, 2011
    Seattle, WA, USA
    Dennis
    Ah I find it be more than just average. Where it gets the "hate" or "disklike" :wink: is because it gets compared (justifiably so) to the 20mm, which has fantastic resolution.

    I think it has to do with Oly's 3 tiers of lenses; Standard Grade, High Grade and Super High Grade- which they are kinda seemingly getting back into (the 4/3 lenses stuck pretty well to the classifications), so the 17mm f2.8 is the standard grade, and the 17mm f1.8 is the high grade. I assume/hope that some day there will be a pro camera for SHG lenses which I'd assume would all/most be weather sealed.

    For me though, there's more to a lens that just resolution. Keeping costs down is one thing, but a lot of the build qualities of µ4/3 lenses kind of leave a bit to be desired, the metal build is a nice throw back to lenses of old. I sold the 20mm (blasphemy!) for pay for the 17mm, and couldn't be happier. The fast auto focus, perceptible "about as sharp" (I'm not much of a pixel peeper), build quality, I have a 25mm that I would go to more than the 20mm, and my preference for 17mm over 20mm FOV- pretty much sealed my 20mm's fate. It's also nice to have a pancake, but the 17mm isn't exactly a monster in size.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. mf100

    mf100 Mu-43 Regular

    95
    Aug 26, 2012
    Sawbridgeworth, England
    Matthew
    From what I can understand the Oly 17m f/1.8 might not match the Panny 20m in terms of resolution, but it does a better job on other IQ considerations, such as CA. Added to that it looks awesome!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    Any change affects cost, that's a fact of life. You asked what people would prefer if there were no change in IQ and cost, and said it was a hypothetical question which it most certainly was. I answered the question and said what I would like if it could be done with no change to IQ and cost. I know that's not going to happen and I know why, but it doesn't change the fact that if IQ and cost stayed the same, I'd prefer a metal, weather sealed lens with the snap focus feature. That remains what my preference would be if it could be done with no change in IQ and cost.
     
  7. heli-mech

    heli-mech Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Mar 9, 2012
    Vancouver Island, Canada
    Andrew
    Sorry my "hypothetical" question was meant to be which build between the two would you prefer if there cost and IQ were the same? Not what you would want if there was no limit as to what you could have for the same price.

    It may be hypothetical and pointless but at least I am trying to keep it realistic :biggrin: My "assumption" is that metal vs plastic/weathersealed would be a even cost tradeoff.
     
  8. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    I didn't say what I would want if there was no limit to what I could have for the same price. I stated what I would want if I could have a different version of the same lens at the same price. If I were to suggest a no limit version, I'd ask for an F/1.4 17mm with better optical performance along with the metal barrel and weather sealing. The 45mm has a plastic barrel, the same speed, costs less, and performs better. If there's to be no gain in speed and performance a plastic barrel 17mm at the same price doesn't interest me, weather sealed or not.

    In my view a plastic barrel, weather sealed or not, should cost less than a metal barrel. I don't find your hypothetical choice appealing. On the other hand, a choice between the current metal barrel and a $50 cheaper plastic, weather sealed barrel, would be a meaningful choice in my view. If you're going to keep price constant, you need to offer more than just weather sealing in a cheaper body in my view.
     
  9. yekimrd

    yekimrd Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 14, 2012
    Cincinnati, OH
    Mikey
    +1

    I have a few samples up on the 17/1.8 image thread. Not shabby at all. Some of those shots I wouldn't have been able to focus in time with the 20/1.7.
     
  10. Naftade

    Naftade Mu-43 Regular

    48
    Nov 23, 2012
    Munich, Germany
    For me it would depend on the quality of the plastic. If this hypothetical
     
  11. Naftade

    Naftade Mu-43 Regular

    48
    Nov 23, 2012
    Munich, Germany
    Oh crud! Using a phone to type forum posts may not be a good idea. Sorry.

    So again: if the built quality of that sealee 17 mm was like the 12-50 kit lens, I wouldn't even consider to buy it for 500 bucks. Sealed or not. But with a quality standard like the pl 25 1.4 I would at least think twice. Especially if I could then get in black. :)
     
  12. efoo

    efoo Mu-43 Regular

    91
    Jun 5, 2012
    Sydney, Australia
    Eddie
    What's wrong with the built of the 12-50mm kit lens? Other than being plastic, I find mine very well built, it felt solid and sturdy. But I do agree with you not willing to pay $500 for the lens unless it is metal.
     
  13. uci2ci

    uci2ci Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 22, 2012
    Los Angeles, CA
    Sam
    I dont see anything wrong with plastics to keep the price and weight down. 500 for a native f1.8 even if plastic, is fair.

    I agree with the lack of black coloring though. I really don't get what Olympus is doing here. If they make their silver bodies with black trim, they look really good with black lenses. Unfortunately, the black bodies just don't look right with silver lenses, especially the 45mm.