1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Olympus 17mm F1.8 vs Canon 22mm F2 - How is the Micro-Contrast?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by FlyPenFly, Jul 11, 2013.

  1. FlyPenFly

    FlyPenFly Mu-43 Veteran

    448
    Feb 15, 2011
    I jumped on the Canon EOS-M deal recently and I'm very happy with the lens but not so happy with the body.

    There is a very annoying 2-3 second black out period between each shot, the screen doesn't flip, and I can't attach an EVF. The AF isn't very quick and the AF boxes are huge and can't be shrunk. There's also no IBIS.

    I've been debating if this setup is worth it over the E-PL5 + Olympus 17mm F1.8. The DoF and size difference isn't much and the Olympus has a better sensor along with IBIS and a flip screen as well as the best flip EVF capability.

    Then again, the micro contrast on this lens is quite nice. In fact, I love the rendering on this lens. Can anyone tell me before I buy and return an Olympus 17mm F1.8 if the micro contrast is very good? I have concerns because my Olympus 12mm F2 I ended up selling because the micro contrast just wasn't very good although otherwise it was an excellent lens.

    Some samples from the EOS-M:

    9259770488_fa6a5d52e1_b.
    Jae Yoon 001 Copyright 2013.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr

    9256994661_7d8b7649f3_b.
    Jae Yoon 002 Copyright 2013.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr

    9259774284_87f85017af_b.
    Jae Yoon 007 Copyright 2013.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr


    Jae Yoon 004 Copyright 2013.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr

    9253369947_46cc35ed5e_b.
    Jae Yoon 009 Copyright 2013.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr

    9253370905_10d2603159_b.
    Jae Yoon 011 Copyright 2013.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr

    9256154844_d1b0dbe897_b.
    Jae Yoon 017 Copyright 2013.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr

    9253373137_6ab1d6374d_b.
    Jae Yoon 015 Copyright 2013.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr
     
  2. CiaranCReilly

    CiaranCReilly Mu-43 Veteran

    481
    Oct 18, 2012
    Dublin
    Ciaran Reilly
    Afraid I can't tell about Olympus 17mm, but that's a very nice series of images there, very nice "pop", I would be very tempted to hold on to the Canon setup!
     
  3. rparmar

    rparmar Mu-43 Top Veteran

    639
    Jun 14, 2011
    Limerick, Ireland
    As I said on the other forum: "Nice shots that show off a good lens".

    There is plenty of info on the 17/1.8 both here on the forum and elsewhere. You could start with the dedicated lens thread. From the examples there, it certainly looks like an excellent lens. But is it as good as what you already have? Even if it were only "close enough", it seems to me that the usability differences you mention would swing in favour of Olympus.

    Further reading:
    pekka potka <-- love this photographer
    Entropic Remnants
    Robin Wong
    DxOMark
     
  4. danska

    danska Mu-43 Top Veteran

    945
    May 21, 2012
    Portland, OR
    Joe
    I haven't used the Canon at all so I can't comment on it. However, I used the 17mm a few times before, didn't like it much. Then I picked one up as part of the EP-5 kit, and now am really digging it. The sharpness aspect of it has only been a bit bothersome to me when I'm trying to get a group of people, something the 12-35 seems to have better (across the frame sharpness). The micro-contrast of it seems pretty good, I've seen a few that have images I shot a wedding that I did that have a nice amount of detail in that respect. IMO, the PL25 does a much better job at that specifically, but the 17mm focal length is much more usable in tighter environments.
     
  5. FlyPenFly

    FlyPenFly Mu-43 Veteran

    448
    Feb 15, 2011


    Will look through the links thanks.

    Once nice thing about the EOS-M is the screen is more than double the resolution of my E-PL5 and it uses most of the screen. Unfortunately the E-PL5 wastes a significant portion of it's screen due to the aspect ratio. Very confusing why Olympus went with these screen dimensions.
     
  6. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
  7. DDBazooka

    DDBazooka Mu-43 Veteran

    211
    Sep 3, 2011
    Any chance you have the 20mm too to compare to the 22mm?
     
  8. Darthpnoy88

    Darthpnoy88 Mu-43 Regular

    103
    Dec 27, 2012
    California
    I personally jumped on the EOS-M bandwagon and yes the autofocus isn't the fastest thing but the image quality more than makes up for btw did you do the firmware update??

    To answer your question if you need quick light fast AF keep the PL5 and 17mm F1.8 but if your the type that take the time to compose the EOS-M should be ok with yeah.

    Sample shot with the 22mm pancake :)
    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/darthpnoy88/9266123632/" title="22mm (35mm FOV) Pancake test on the EOS M by rhansantiago, on Flickr"> 9266123632_9aa0ca6690_c. "800" height="534" alt="22mm (35mm FOV) Pancake test on the EOS M"></a>
     
  9. Linh

    Linh Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 14, 2009
    Maryland, US
    Set the camera to burst mode. This supposedly will get rid of the blackout. Though, you have to be careful not to fire bursts. I have no idea if this works, just something I read while looking for a solution after watching the sample videos of focusing. The timeout drives me insane.
     
  10. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    Micro-contrast is not well defined, so no comment on that. What is obvious with the 22/2 is that with the lens corrections enabled, there is little, to no, CA or smearing in the corners or edges of the frame. Much better than the 20/1.7 even on a Panasonic body like the GX1.

    It's just a leisurely camera to shoot with, if you need fast, this isn't it.
     
  11. FlyPenFly

    FlyPenFly Mu-43 Veteran

    448
    Feb 15, 2011
  12. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I have absolutely no complaints about my 17/1.8 and I doubt if we'd taken shots of the same subjects with your Canon 22/2 on the EOS-M and my 17/1.8 on the EPL5 we would be able to tell the difference - especially at web sizes.

    Just my 2c.
     
  13. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    Unless the subject was moving (not all that fast either), because the Olympus would have the subject in the frame, but very iffy with the Canon.
     
  14. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Beautiful shots ..This was the whole idea .. Camera plus lens cost less than Olympus 17 mm or Panasonic 20 mm 1.7 :2thumbs::2thumbs:
     
  15. zapatista

    zapatista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    668
    Mar 19, 2012
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    Mike
    I prefer the 22mm compared to the week I played with the 17mm f1.8 on a G5 before flippage occurred.
     
  16. rparmar

    rparmar Mu-43 Top Veteran

    639
    Jun 14, 2011
    Limerick, Ireland
    I am not a Canon fan by any means, but the shots from this lens look great. More punch than the 17/1.8 for sure.
     
  17. ntblowz

    ntblowz Mu-43 Veteran

    312
    Nov 13, 2011
    Auckland, New Zealand
    The whole body moves for 22mm, just like 20mm, but the noise is more quieter and can do AF-C in video but the speed is slower than e-pm1+20mm (20mm can do C-AF on video on Pen body for some reason), the long blackout between each picture definitely makes it not an action camera, even my Pentax Q with 01 prime is faster

    Too bad I give 20mm to my dad or otherwise I could do a compare. Bokeh wise they both are pretty similar (40mm F3.4 vs 35mm F3.2)
     
  18. FlyPenFly

    FlyPenFly Mu-43 Veteran

    448
    Feb 15, 2011
    I've shot over 1000 photos with the Panasonic 20mm 1.7, it doesn't come close.
     
  19. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    Here's the real annoyance of the whole EOS M deal. The E-P1 had issues but it felt like a quality object that someone had lovingly crafted. The M seems like a product made by an expert using good materials but once he started he couldn't go to the bathroom until he was finished. It is one of the most annoying combinations of really good and just plain dumb I have encountered in a long time. Nice lens, good build quality, good sensor, nice interface. The AF may be slow but (as noted) the large focus area can drive you mad. If Canon actually paid attention for version 2.0, this could be a seriously good system.

    Nice shots, BTW. Clearly nothing wrong with the person holding the camera.:thumbup:
     
  20. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL