Panny Pancake versus Olympus?!!

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by mike r, Sep 12, 2010.

  1. mike r

    mike r New to Mu-43

    7
    Sep 6, 2010
    I have a GF1 and the 14-45 and 45-200 lenses, want the pancake but cannot afford it, have been offered a new Olympus 17mm f/2.8 that I can mount on my GF1 for a 1/3rd of the price of the Panny lens. Any views is the Panny that I have heard the most amazing things about so superior to the Olympus pancake ?? If they are at par or close I will buy the Olympus and mount to my GF1 if they really are worlds apart then I will hold off for an opportunity to buy the panny when and if any such opportunity should arise.

    Mike R
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus Subscribing Member Charter Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    Mike, 1st off....Welcome.
    The Panny is a great lens but so is the Oly 17.
    Make your decision on FOV, (Field Of View) and not on things like contrast and sharpness.
    True, the Panny has an edge on the OLY but then, the Oly has that great natural FOV.
    At any rate, there's many images on the forum from both lenses.
    My favorite....hmmm, glad ya asked. The 17 hands down.
    In fact I was forced to sell it to a friend a few weeks ago but I just bought one from a member here on this forum and now, Life Is Grand again....
    It hasn't come off my GF1 since it came home...
    Shooter
     
  3. Gwendal

    Gwendal Mu-43 Veteran

    300
    Jun 6, 2010
    Mike, I have played a bit with the two ; I think the Olympus is a great lens, but the Panny outshines it whenever you shoot treacherous stuff like foliage. The Panny should be around 300€ and the Oly around €200 ; if you really, really need the extra sharpness, maybe you will want to go for the Panny, but if really you can get hold of the Oly for something like 100€... You already have the 14-45 anyway ?
     
  4. Fiddler

    Fiddler Mu-43 Veteran

    I have the Oly and find it great for use on the street. Focus is quick, and I like the look of the images. I intend to get the Pany, but will keep the Oly, because I like 17mm. It's a good lens.
     
  5. Gwendal

    Gwendal Mu-43 Veteran

    300
    Jun 6, 2010
    ;-) funny because 20mm is already a bit too wide for my taste - looks like we're headed for one nice discussion about FOVs...
     
  6. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus Subscribing Member Charter Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    ..... and truthfully, 20mm is getting to the far edge of long for me.....
     
  7. dko22

    dko22 Mu-43 Regular

    163
    Jul 26, 2010
    Stuttgart, Germany
    surely the main point of getting the pancacke, for someone who already has the very decent 14-45, is the much greater speed. That's the main reason I got mine though the crispness and contrast is a bonus. As the Panny is 1 1/2 stops faster than the Oly, surely it should be self-recommending? Unless, of course, the Oly IQ has a particular quality which you really like.

    David
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Narnian

    Narnian Nobody in particular ...

    Aug 6, 2010
    Midlothian, VA
    Real Name:
    Richard Elliott
    If I could get the 17/2.8 cheap enough I would get it and try it. You can always sell it for the same or more.
     
  9. Spanjaart

    Spanjaart Mu-43 Regular

    35
    Sep 6, 2010
    17mm

    It's a nice lens and it makes the PEN very compact.
    I prefer the panny, but if you can't afford that for a third of the price the Oly pancake is ok and can be sold easily when you want to trade up.
     
  10. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus Subscribing Member Charter Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    I really adore the 17. Without that FOV, I wouldn't be here....
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    Olympus 17/2.8

    I just picked one up as I am headed to take my mom to South Florida (she's moving to be with my brother) and I'll be seeing family. I usually use MF legacy lenses but I realized that for a family visit I really wanted a nice little AF lens in moderate WA.

    From what I can see of sample shots (on this board) the Oly 17/2.8 looks like it can produce some wonderful images. They look plenty sharp to me. The Panasonic certainly is a premium lens but I picked up the Olympus was a lot less expensive so I can't complain.
     
  12. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator Moderator Subscribing Member

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    No, I don't think its self-recommending at all. It depends on what you want to use it for. While its true that the field of view of either overlaps with any number of other lenses, you either like shooting with a prime or you don't. And if you do, they both serve a purpose. I have both and use the 17 more than the 20 because of, as Don has said once or twice, field of view! Its also very quick (to focus), very small and unobtrusive, and is just about the perfect field of view for street shooting. I do some street shooting with the 20 also, but usually in the evenings or indoor type of scenes where light is limited. Whenever there's enough light, I use the 17.

    If I was gonna pick only one and had to base the decision on which functions could not be filled by another lens, then you're right, the 20's low light capabilities would win. But if I had to get rid of one, I'd probably be more likely to base the decision on which one I use more and have more fun with, and so I'd probably get rid of the 20 first in reality. Fortunately, nobody's put me in that 'desert island' sort of bind just yet! I'm fully planning to keep both.

    -Ray
     
  13. dko22

    dko22 Mu-43 Regular

    163
    Jul 26, 2010
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Interesting take! Personally, I'm surprised folk find so much difference between a 34mm and 40mm equivalent because to me they are very similar. But then I might reasonably get challenged on why I prefer to spend about 70% more on a couple of extra mm on a 7-14 (although let's be clear here -the entire character of the lens is different as when you get this wide, filters no longer are an option and the loved or hated stretching effect is much more noticable). Anyway, each to his own -- the fact that seemingly similar lenses have their own powerful advocates strongly suggest that we don't have the duplication that some complain of.
     
  14. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus Subscribing Member Charter Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    The difference between the 17 & 20 is actually very large.
    Just take a look at the DOF tables per given f-stop,
    aside from fov issues.
    For me, 35mm on my Leica's is oh sooo natural that using the 20 on the GF1, I find myself backing up to get more naturally comfortable. Of course that can't actually ever work as perspective now changes. So the difference between the 2 should be seem more as FOV than speed/sharpness. Those issues can't make up for FOV.
    I carry both because of this.
     
  15. jimevidon

    jimevidon Mu-43 Regular

    39
    Sep 6, 2010
    O.K. Now just a a couple of questions, since I am going to buy a prime lens. For those that prefer the Oly f2.8 17mm, how many of you are using it with the GF1? I can live with f2.8 rather than f1.7 because I have lots of big glass that I can adapt if I really need the occasional low light capture. I have heard that the Oly is slow focus. How does the Oly f2.8 17mm perform on the GF1 in terms of focus speed compared to the Panny 1.7 20mm? If there is one thing I can't abide, it is slow focus and hunting. Additionally, Is the Oly more compact than the Panny in terms of lens height?
     
  16. deirdre

    deirdre Mu-43 Top Veteran

    661
    Aug 9, 2010
    Someone posted this comparison video yesterday or today, but someone else pointed out that the Oly had had a firmware update since then. It'd be nice if someone else put an update up.
     
  17. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend Charter Member

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Real Name:
    Ray, not Oz
    If you can get the 17mm at a good price get it! You will not regret the purchase. It's an excellent lens with the classic field of view for a wide range of subject matter. Don't let the f2.8 fool you into thinking it's not up to the task.

    Cheers

    Ray
     
  18. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator Moderator Subscribing Member

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    The only Oly that's slow focus is the 14-42 kit lens. The Oly 17 is, if anything, slightly faster to focus than the Pany 20 - not enough to really matter but certainly no slower. Except, of course, in very low light where the Pany will be able to focus in situations the 17 might not. I don't have a gf1 so I can't say directly, but I've seen these lenses compared by quite a number of people using various cameras and I don't think I've ever seen the Oly accused of slow focus. In terms of lens height, bulk, and weight, the Oly is smaller and lighter than the Pany. Again, both lenses are quite small so I don't think its by enough to matter (although I keep seeing the small size/weight noted as a selling point for the 17 - I don't get it but some folks seem to feel it matters), but the Oly is a very diminutive lens. I think its even available in black now - it had only been in silver. If I was more fashion conscious, I'd get a black version because I've heard that black is "slimming". :cool:

    -Ray
     
  19. Rawfa

    Rawfa Mu-43 Regular Charter Member

    81
    Dec 17, 2009
    I owned the 17mm for some time and it was a very cool lens to have. It's just a bit wider than the 20mm but it lets you focus much closer and it's physically more compact than the 20mm. I ended up selling it because the FOV on both lenses is not THAT different. What really made up my mind was the announcement of the future 14mm f2.5 pancake. I thought I would be better suited with a 14mm and a 20mm than a 14mm and a 17mm. Both lenses are very good, but while shooting with the 20mm I find my self many times wishing I had something wider...then again, I felt that way with the 17mm too :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. jimevidon

    jimevidon Mu-43 Regular

    39
    Sep 6, 2010
    My question about the size of the lens has more to do with the ability to stuff it into a small waist pouch more than anything else. I own a 50-500mm lens that I use occasionally on my D300, so size, per se, is not an issue with me.
    Jim