Oly 17 1.8 vs Pan 20 1.7 for Street

[MoonMind]

The good old 17f2.8 is quite good optically IMO. I upgraded to f1.8 for better low light use and the better build. I found that I really missed the f2.8 version's rendering and nice transition of out of focus areas. If there is one word to describe the good old 17f2.8, it would be "organic", whatever that means.

I have no problem believing that, but I wonder if RAW shooters like this lens equally well as JPEG shooters - the 17mm f/2.8 is reported to produce some serious chromatic abberations that can be hard to correct (without sacrificing copious amounts of image detail). I like the size and sure like a lot of the JPEGs I see from that lens, but I'd like to know how those images process ...

FWIW, I still own both the Panasonic 20mm (first version) and the 17mm f/1.8 - both good lenses I like for their respective merits; for street, I'd choose the 17mm (FOV, fast focusing, rendering, skin tones), but some of my favourite street shots were done with the 20mm (some from the early days when it was my only lens anyway ) - I tend to convert the shots from the 20mm to B&W a lot more often, btw. Both lenses are very, very versatile - and the 20mm still wins in terms of size vs. performance.

M.

 

[Debbie.Cato]

I currently have O17 2.8, O25 1.8 and O45 1.8. For years I shot weddings with 35L and 135L. My ideal kit may end up being the O17 1.8 and O75 1.8 when $ permit because I am accustomed to that fov. Deciding on the best lens is something we all debate I am just in the process of building an M43 kit as well. I don't know enough about shooting street to know if the faster aperture is needed.

 

[MoonMind]

I am just in the process of building an M43 kit as well. I don't know enough about shooting street to know if the faster aperture is needed.

Not necessarily - but it helps if and when the light fades. In fact, many street shooters love to use f/8.0 (or thereabouts - for , f/5.6 is more like it) and zone focus anyway. I myself do try to focus and rather like shooting wide open (or only slighty stopped down) - that's when the 17mm f/1.8 comes into its own.

M.

 

[Debbie.Cato]

Unfortunately I will not get to try street shooting due to the current crime rate. A woman was just mugged during broad daylight within 2 blocks of my office and 2 people have been fatally shot in the apartment complex I last lived in which is also near my office. My husband is a 6'5" expert martial artist who used to work as a celebrity bodyguard (Farrah Fawcett, Pat Benatar, Prince, etc.). He worries about my security to the extent that he has twice left work to make sure I was ok when he couldn't reach me by text. I have asked him to back off and not take the fun out of photography for me but I also try to respect his concern and stay safe. Thus the reason for the floral and pet photography I have posted recently.

Not necessarily - but it helps if and when the light fades. In fact, many street shooters love to use f/8.0 (or thereabouts - for , f/5.6 is more like it) and zone focus anyway. I myself do try to focus and rather like shooting wide open (or only slighty stopped down) - that's when the 17mm f/1.8 comes into its own.

M.

 

[MoonMind]

Unfortunately I will not get to try street shooting due to the current crime rate. A woman was just mugged during broad daylight within 2 blocks of my office and 2 people have been fatally shot in the apartment complex I last lived in which is also near my office. My husband is a 6'5" expert martial artist who used to work as a celebrity bodyguard (Farrah Fawcett, Pat Benatar, Prince, etc.). He worries about my security to the extent that he has twice left work to make sure I was ok when he couldn't reach me by text. I have asked him to back off and not take the fun out of photography for me but I also try to respect his concern and stay safe. Thus the reason for the floral and pet photography I have posted recently.

I see - and under those circumstances, your decision to put safety first is understandable and sensible to say the least. I think that we're pretty blessed around here ... All I occasionally have to worry about is someone who is unhappy with me photographing him/her ...

M.

 

[astrostl]

Have both. 17 is sharp enough, 20 is fast enough. But if you're sweating focus over sharpness, I'd go for the 17.

 

[peppermonkey]

Unfortunately I will not get to try street shooting due to the current crime rate. A woman was just mugged during broad daylight within 2 blocks of my office and 2 people have been fatally shot in the apartment complex I last lived in which is also near my office. My husband is a 6'5" expert martial artist who used to work as a celebrity bodyguard (Farrah Fawcett, Pat Benatar, Prince, etc.). He worries about my security to the extent that he has twice left work to make sure I was ok when he couldn't reach me by text. I have asked him to back off and not take the fun out of photography for me but I also try to respect his concern and stay safe. Thus the reason for the floral and pet photography I have posted recently.

Not sure if this applies to your area as it's certainly isn't as bad in my area. It's pretty much like any other major metropolitan city (Toronto in this case), street photography doable as long as you are smart about it. In general, using an Oly camera may not be the best of ideas as they tend to be more 'flashy' ~= "looks more expensive" than their Panasonic equivalents. Also, for the masses who don't know photography, "bigger" ~= "more expensive". So with that in mind, you 'may' be able to get away with street photography if you use black, small, non-flashy cameras with small black lenses. In m43 world, would be black GM1/GM5, and although has silver in it, a black GF8 since it probably looks cheap enough. Pair it with a black pancake lens like a Panasonic 14mm, 20mm or 12-32mm. Should be ignorable to the more deviant side of the city? Albeit, probably better to go with something along the lines of a Ricoh GR (specially the older GR1 to GR4's) and other big sensored, compact cameras.
Of course, go the other extreme and carry a big heavy metal tripod with a large camera (say GH4 or better yet, an old metal slr film camera) on the other end with a metal, large lens (say a tamron adaptall 300mm or other large metal manual telephoto lens) and brandish it like a weapon and so scare any potential evil doers away? Well, okay, that was a joke, I wouldn't test that one out But yeah, small, black, compact camera with small lens may be doable for street photography in an area where crime is a little too high.
This is, of course, assuming, with a large dose of salt, you actually have an interest in street photography.

 

[peppermonkey]

Not necessarily - but it helps if and when the light fades. In fact, many street shooters love to use f/8.0 (or thereabouts - for , f/5.6 is more like it) and zone focus anyway. I myself do try to focus and rather like shooting wide open (or only slighty stopped down) - that's when the 17mm f/1.8 comes into its own.

M.

Dead easy to do with a Panasonic camera and say the Panasonic 20mm. Basically put a 20mm on, set to f8, turn focus to manual focus, turn off camera then on (or press the lens release button but don't touch the lens - this is what I do), and the lens will automatically be set to focus at infinity. In this case, everything 6 feet and farther in focus. No need of focus so instantaneous shots.
GF1 Zone Focusing Technique: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Generally can be done with all Panasonic cameras with all m43 lenses, well, at least Panasonic lenses anyhow, though I believe Oly ones too.

 

[MoonMind]

@peppermonkey Thanks for the explanation, but I actually *don't* use zone focusing on my cameras, mainly because they perform so well in S-AF that I don't find it necessary - when using the 17mm, that is. I like to shoot wide open (or as open as the situation allows for) - and the ability to still autofocus quickly and reliably is something I really appreciate. I've had good success with the 20mm as well - it's just not as quick and reliable as the 17mm, though it certainly is sharper and crispier. I do like the 20mm - but on the E-M10 and, more importantly, the E-PL7 (on which it lives), the 17mm just works better for me, and it enables me to get more shots I'm happy with.

btw. On the GF1, the 20mm is the lens that works best - still one of my favourite setups in spite of its age. Good to know it can be used in even more ways ... I'm really looking forward to using that lens on the GX80.

M.

 

[peppermonkey]

@peppermonkey Thanks for the explanation, but I actually *don't* use zone focusing on my cameras, mainly because they perform so well in S-AF that I don't find it necessary - when using the 17mm, that is. I like to shoot wide open (or as open as the situation allows for) - and the ability to still autofocus quickly and reliably is something I really appreciate. I've had good success with the 20mm as well - it's just not as quick and reliable as the 17mm, though it certainly is sharper and crispier. I do like the 20mm - but on the E-M10 and, more importantly, the E-PL7 (on which it lives), the 17mm just works better for me, and it enables me to get more shots I'm happy with.

btw. On the GF1, the 20mm is the lens that works best - still one of my favourite setups in spite of its age. Good to know it can be used in even more ways ... I'm really looking forward to using that lens on the GX80.

M.

Lol, sorry, it was more of a general explanation to any who might be interested as opposed to a direct response to you I'm an autofocus guy too, albeit, I don't do 'street photography' in general. Mostly because I don't like the idea of annoying strangers on the street (and don't like sneaking around taking photos). What I wrote above does also help in astrophotography or other very low light situations where it's hard to get manual focus right with m43 lenses. Then again, modern Panasonic cameras with -4EV focusing capabilities does make things easier.

As for the 17mm, would love to have it but I have noticed because I already have the PL 25mm 1.4 and the 20mm 1.7, my Oly 17mm f2.8 pretty much goes untouched, even though I do like the lens well enough. Then again, I am lusting for the PL 15mm (and a 12mm Oly/Rokinon/whatever)... In any case, unless I can get it for a bargain, doubt I would ever end up with the 17mm 1.8, though I would love to have the clutch manual focusing...(Panasonic, why, why can't you do the same???). Strangely, from a photographic standpoint, I think I actually do like the 35mm equivalent focal length more than the 40mm of the Panasonic 20mm. I mean, I adore the Voigtlander 35mm color-skopar f2.5 on my Bessa so you would think I would love the Oly 17mm on my m43 cameras... I guess it's just hard to break the connection I got with my 20mm over the years (the 17mm f2.8 was a recent acquisition).

Hmm...my wonderful GF1...not being used much these days (my E-P2 even less so...). I should really pair the GF1 with the 20mm (and 14mm) again and bring it out more often. Yes, the GF1 and 20mm is an awesome combo, that before the PL 25mm came around, was pretty much glued together. Panasonic (and Oly for that matter), really should design another camera + prime together. Scratch that, Panasonic should just update the 20mm with faster focus...(assuming it's possible)

 

[Debbie.Cato]

Not sure if this applies to your area as it's certainly isn't as bad in my area. It's pretty much like any other major metropolitan city (Toronto in this case), street photography doable as long as you are smart about it. In general, using an Oly camera may not be the best of ideas as they tend to be more 'flashy' ~= "looks more expensive" than their Panasonic equivalents. Also, for the masses who don't know photography, "bigger" ~= "more expensive". So with that in mind, you 'may' be able to get away with street photography if you use black, small, non-flashy cameras with small black lenses. In m43 world, would be black GM1/GM5, and although has silver in it, a black GF8 since it probably looks cheap enough. Pair it with a black pancake lens like a Panasonic 14mm, 20mm or 12-32mm. Should be ignorable to the more deviant side of the city? Albeit, probably better to go with something along the lines of a Ricoh GR (specially the older GR1 to GR4's) and other big sensored, compact cameras.
Of course, go the other extreme and carry a big heavy metal tripod with a large camera (say GH4 or better yet, an old metal slr film camera) on the other end with a metal, large lens (say a tamron adaptall 300mm or other large metal manual telephoto lens) and brandish it like a weapon and so scare any potential evil doers away? Well, okay, that was a joke, I wouldn't test that one out But yeah, small, black, compact camera with small lens may be doable for street photography in an area where crime is a little too high.
This is, of course, assuming, with a large dose of salt, you actually have an interest in street photography.

I went downtown (Columbia, SC) some years ago intending to take photos of a beautiful church. I had a Rebel and kit lens. I was immediately surrounded by about 10-12 homeless people. I was alone and am petite 5'2". They didn't threaten me but I did feel uncomfortable. I have used the tripod to fend off an aggressive swan at Swan Lake so will protect myself with gear at hand if necessary My smallest setup is the E-PM2 and O17 2.8 in white/silver.

 

[twokatmew]

Unfortunately I will not get to try street shooting due to the current crime rate...

Sigh, I hear you. I'd love to try night photography and perhaps some street. But it's just not safe, especially for a woman to be out by herself. I know a couple women who do it and have had a few scares. I'm too scared to try it. (I'm 5' tall if I lie about that last 1/4 inch.)

Now re lenses, I've owned all three you mentioned. I've briefly owned a couple copies of the 20/1.7, and though I loved its sharpness and rendering, my Oly bodies and my technique made it unusable for getting shots of my indoor cats. I owned the 17/2.8 for quite a while and was very happy with it. It took some of my favorite shots. When I moved up to the 17/1.8, I compared both 17s on a tripod, shooting a full book case. Both lenses did very well. The 2.8 has a wider field of view due to it being a pancake and thus shorter in physical length. The 1.7 is brighter at the same apertures and exposures, and perhaps a bit sharper (if looking very closely). I bought the 1.8 for its speed, but otherwise I'd been perfectly happy with the 2.8. I sold it on and kept the 1.8. Once the 25/1.8 was released, I used the 17/1.8 much less and just recently sold it.

Although I certainly don't need any more lenses and have been thinning my collection, I find myself wanting the 20/1.7. Being just slightly wider than the 25 would be useful, and I have other fast lenses for shooting pics of my kitties. But I still own the E-M10, and my last copy of the 20 exhibited terrible banding on this body. I find myself wanting to pick up a Panny body so I can buy and use the 20 outdoors and perhaps with an ND filter so I can shoot shallow DOF in bright light.

But alas, I can do that with my 25/1.8 (and don't), and I'm sure this is a want and not a need. [emoji15]

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[drd1135]

If you are looking at more static subjects, the 20 is sharp lens that produces images that "pop". I like the 17 1.8 for people where the clinical sharpness of the 20 can actually be a drawback. The funny part is that I keep selling my 20s and keeping the 17.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

If you are looking at more static subjects, the 20 is sharp lens that produces images that "pop". I like the 17 1.8 for people where the clinical sharpness of the 20 can actually be a drawback. The funny part is that I keep selling my 20s and keeping the 17.

Ha, I think I've owned the 20mm 1.7 like 10 times already!

 

[Joe Smith]

Don't forget the Oly's manual focus clutch with its depth of field scale. It may or may not matter for you, but the original question was about street photography. That said, I really like the Panny's 20mm angle of view.

 

[Steven Norquist]

One review source that I trust a lot is Lenstip.
They do very empirical tests of lenses and I have found that those lenses that score high are really wonderful lenses and those that score low tend to be poor lenses.
They approach the review from a technical and user standpoint.
If a lens costs a certain amount then it should provide performance based on that price point.
The bigger the price the better it should be, or why buy it?

Here is their review of the Oly 17 F1.8: Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17 mm f/1.8 review - Introduction - LensTip.com

And here is their review of the Pan 20 F1.7: Panasonic G 20 mm f/1.7 ASPH. review - Introduction - LensTip.com

 

[bigboysdad]

Don't forget the Oly's manual focus clutch with its depth of field scale.

In my experience, it doesn't really work nor is effective as, a traditional manual focus lens and I wouldn't consider it a deal breaker when deciding on these 2 lenses.

Ha, I think I've owned the 20mm 1.7 like 10 times already!

Yep, that would definitely be me and is exactly why I haven't sold mine. Doesn't matter if I haven't used it in ages, I feel as if there will always in some point in time be a need/ use for it and it's always nice to bring it out.

 

[David A]

One review source that I trust a lot is Lenstip.
They do very empirical tests of lenses and I have found that those lenses that score high are really wonderful lenses and those that score low tend to be poor lenses.
They approach the review from a technical and user standpoint.
If a lens costs a certain amount then it should provide performance based on that price point.
The bigger the price the better it should be, or why buy it?

Here is their review of the Oly 17 F1.8: Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17 mm f/1.8 review - Introduction - LensTip.com

And here is their review of the Pan 20 F1.7: Panasonic G 20 mm f/1.7 ASPH. review - Introduction - LensTip.com

2 things. First, if I were comparing 2 lenses of the same focal length then yes, I would expect the more expensive one to be better. That's because one of the determinants of the price of a lens is the focal length since focal length has implications for the actual design. If you want to hold to the view that more expensive lenses should perform better while ignoring differences in focal length, especially when the more expensive lens has a shorter focal length, then you're going to find that in general you aren't going to buy shorter focal length lenses unless you're prepared to give up something the other lens has such as maximum aperture, autofocus, or build quality. Wide angle lenses tend to be more expensive than standard lenses of similar quality for a number of reasons and the 17mm is a wide angle lens while the 20mm is a standard lens or close to standard in focal length. If you're going to compare quality relative to price then you need to compare lenses of the same focal length, not lenses of different focal lengths. I wouldn't even try a comparison of that sort between the 20mm and any of the 25mm lenses even though they are all standard lenses, or between a 17mm and a 15 or 14mm lens even though they are all wide angles. Focal length can't be ignored when it comes to performance or price.

Second, Lenstip say both lenses have high distortion, very high distortion in the case of the 17mm, and list that as a con factor in both cases but both lenses are designed to be used with software correctionand the comments on distortion are based on performance when that correction is not applied. I really don't rate it as a fault if a lens designed for use with software correction doesn't perform well uncorrected. What counts is how well software correction works and according to Lenstip both actually perform well with the intended software correction. Could these lenses have been designed to perform better without software correction? Yes, they could but then they would have quite different optical designs and a much higher price than they presently have. A Ferrari doesn't have a performance problem if it can't tow a mobile home and a truck doesn't have a performance problem if it can't do 200 km/hr. Performance is an issue if something can't do what it is supposed to do when used as intended. Performance should be judged on how well a lens does what it's supposed to do when used as intended and neither of these lenses have distortion problems when used that way so Lenstip is not making a valid assessment when it bases distortion performance on results without software correction. You may trust their reviews but I don't have a lot of faith in reviews which place a greater emphasis on how a lens performs when it isn't used as intended than they do on how the lens performs when it is used as intended.

I've got both Olympus 17mm lenses and the Panasonic 20mm and of the 3 lenses my favourite is the 17mm f/1.8 because of field of view and the fact that I prefer the results I get with Olympus lenses on my 2 Olympus bodies. For me, the 17mm is worth the higher price but that's a personal assessment based on my use and what I want to photograph. Others prefer the field of view of the 20mm and the results it produces and that's fine by me. They're different lenses with different fields of view and different rendering characteristics and those things affect the images they produce. One is a wide angle at the long end of the wide angle range and the other is a standard lens at the wide end of the standard focal length range. It really doesn't matter how well a lens does what it does if it's not doing what you want it to do. Test reports and opinions can give you very useful information but they only have value if you know what you're looking for. If that 3mm difference in focal length makes a difference to you then one of these lenses is not what you're looking for, regardless of any issues of image quality or price. That 3mm difference in focal length means that they aren't going to be interchangeable for everyone and that's a factor that shouldn't be ignored. If you need a 17mm field of view don't buy the 20mm, if you need a 20mm field of view don't buy the 17mm, and if you could get by with either field of view then buy the one which delivers the sort of image you like because they both do some things differently and you may prefer one over the other for some other reason.

 

[hazwing]

In my experience, it doesn't really work nor is effective as, a traditional manual focus lens and I wouldn't consider it a deal breaker when deciding on these 2 lenses.
.

I totally agree with this point. The distance markings are not very good for zone focusing. The points are fairly close together

 

[SojiOkita]

Second, Lenstip say both lenses have high distortion, very high distortion in the case of the 17mm, and list that as a con factor in both cases but both lenses are designed to be used with software correctionand the comments on distortion are based on performance when that correction is not applied. I really don't rate it as a fault if a lens designed for use with software correction doesn't perform well uncorrected. What counts is how well software correction works and according to Lenstip both actually perform well with the intended software correction.

The only drawback is that sometimes when distorsion is too high (uncorrected) the corner sharpness (corrected) can be affected.

That 3mm difference in focal length means that they aren't going to be interchangeable for everyone and that's a factor that shouldn't be ignored. If you need a 17mm field of view don't buy the 20mm, if you need a 20mm field of view don't buy the 17mm.

Exactly. You won't make the same images with the 2 lenses.
I thought I'd prefer the 17 FOV, I had to test both to conclude I was more at ease with the 20.