1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 Sharpness Series

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Amin Sabet, Dec 23, 2012.

  1. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    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:

    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.








    Left edge:


    Right edge:








    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.
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2016
    • Like Like x 12
  2. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    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.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Microman

    Microman Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 16, 2012
    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.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. NJH

    NJH Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 8, 2012
    South West England
    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.
  5. jamespetts

    jamespetts Mu-43 Top Veteran

    May 21, 2011
    London, England
    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)?
  6. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, USA
    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.
  7. jamespetts

    jamespetts Mu-43 Top Veteran

    May 21, 2011
    London, England
    Interesting! What was the RRP for the 12-50mm back then, and what does it sell for new now?
  8. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, USA
    I think it was something ridiculous like $500!
  9. jamespetts

    jamespetts Mu-43 Top Veteran

    May 21, 2011
    London, England
    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...
  10. alessandro

    alessandro Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 29, 2010
    Honestly, seeing your samples I would not say that. It looks under-par.
  11. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    If by "par" you mean "average", then I agree with you that it seems like it has more than the average amount of decentering. 50% of lenses will have more than the average amount of decentering. When a lens has more decentering than the vast majority based on what I've come to expect from years of buying lenses, I consider it to be out of spec/defective. This copy of this lens is a bit disappointing, but I don't consider it to be defective.

    If you look at SLRGear's blur plots for various lenses, you'll see that this amount of decentering is within the statistically normal (where 95% of lenses perform) range. For example, here is their Canon EF 50/1.4 putting in a pretty rough upper right corner even after being stopped down a couple of stops:

    • Like Like x 2
  12. McDark

    McDark Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 26, 2011
    Methinks it's so soft at larger apertures just due to DOF... Am I right Amin, what do you think? And where was the focus point?

    Excellent work BTW, thanks Amin.
  13. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    DOF doesn't come into play that far from the subject with a 17mm lens. The lens may not a flat field of focus, but the difference in sharpness from the left to right side of the frame indicates an out of kilter lens.
  14. milez

    milez Mu-43 Regular

    Dec 25, 2012
    so far, all the shots taken with 17/1.8 looks acceptable to me
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Yes, I think the lens isn't giving symmetrical performance. For what it's worth, I tried a second copy of this lens which was similar to the one shown. As I mentioned above, this is a common phenomenon with nearly all manufacturers in my experience.
  16. mgear

    mgear Mu-43 Rookie

    Jan 1, 2013
    Eustis, Fl
    Sean Matt
    Thanks for the review!

    Even though I don't own any Olympus primes, they all seem to produce a satisfying level of quality and character from them. Now if only the barrels were black.
  17. Agent00soul

    Agent00soul Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 22, 2010
    It's only the rightmost sample in the middle row that shows a real weakness, imho. Otherwise it looks good.
  18. kuau

    kuau Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 17, 2011
    I just got one, I did some infinity tests at F5.6 and F8, iSO 200 and on a tripod 2 second delay, corners are not that great for a 35mm equivalent lens. 2/3rds of the frame are sharp though. I am assuming field curvature at work.

    I may return it.
  19. barbosas

    barbosas Mu-43 Veteran

    May 7, 2013
    Thanks for sharing this, It's making me more convinced to keep my 20 for now.
  20. inthecage

    inthecage Mu-43 Regular

    Jun 4, 2010
    Sagamore Hills, Ohio
    M Ferencz
    I think it's important that you mentioned DOF affecting the results, because at 1.8 your gonna see it in 100% crops. How much of it though is hard to quantify. Just from my playing around with the 25 pany at 1.8 or so, DOF is very real when you zoom in to crops like that. Personally, the lens looks very good to me. By 4.0 it's really pretty crisp and even 1.8 usable in the corners.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.