PC Mag Reviews the Oly 17mm F1.8

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by radamo, Apr 3, 2013.

  1. radamo

    radamo Mu-43 Regular

    Aug 22, 2012
    Long Island, NY
    Real Name:
  2. lescox

    lescox Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 15, 2013
    Brisbane, Australia
    I'm just glad I decided to ignore the initially poor reviews and try it myself.
    It now lives on the OMD and only comes off for the 45mm when I know I need/want that length for portrait style. Otherwise it covers probably 80% of my needs now.
  3. Wizard Steve

    Wizard Steve Mu-43 Regular

    Feb 10, 2013
    Provence, France
    Real Name:
    David Ricketts
    My feelings exactly. When I first started looking for a camera, I looked at non-interchangeable lens cameras like the X100. Looks like that's what I got it's just mine has OM-D written on it.
  4. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Whilst I agree in general with the review (having a copy of the lens myself and really loving it), I did raise my eyebrow at one of the headline 'pros' of the lens:

    "Virtually no barrel distortion"

    Are they kidding??!!! It exhibits huge barrel distortion - just that the camera will correct it in software. If you shoot RAW and process the raws without a lens correction profile, the distortion is really obvious.
  5. phl0wtography

    phl0wtography Mu-43 Veteran

    Apr 15, 2011
    At f/5.6? Because I think their finding relates to f/5.6. Not attacking you or anything, I just wanna know because I'm really considering that lens. The mixed bag of reviews is holding me off to shell out a premium price for what doesn't seem to be a clear improvement over the 150€-2.8-version.

    I find it funny that a PC Magazine reviews photography gear. :drinks:
  6. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 6, 2012
    I don't think PC Mag realizes that the distortion is corrected by software. But if 99% of the people out there doesn't know this and the correction works well, what's the point of even knowing?
  7. sabesh

    sabesh Mu-43 Veteran

    Good point. Agreed. S/W correction is a feature of M4/3 and it's the end result that matters.
  8. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    The distortion is there at all apertures - but don't let it put you off. It's very common for MFT lenses to have barrel/pincushion distortion since it can be very easily corrected in software. If you shoot JPEGs, the camera does it for you. If you shoot raw, then the software on your PC will do it.

    Don't be put off by the bad reviews either. In my opinion, and those of nearly all users, it's a fine lens.
  9. izzat

    izzat New to Mu-43

    Aug 2, 2012
    hi guys,
    right now i'm considering whether to buy this lens or to get pana 20mm cause of the cheaper price, i'm using pen ep-3 btw
  10. BLT

    BLT Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 13, 2013
    Real Name:
    Considering in the uk the 20mm can be had for near half the price of the 17mm I think it is a good choice.

    Personally I enjoy the 20mm focal length and the small size. It is a great lens, probably a touch better, optically, than the oly?

    The focus on the 20mm is not at all as slow as the hype on these forums suggests, but it is also not at all fast by today's standards.

    Whether looks and/or snap focus rings matter to you is another thing. . .
  11. napilopez

    napilopez Contributing Editor

    Feb 21, 2012
    NYC Area
    Real Name:
    Napier Lopez
    They're both great lenses. If you don't need the faster autofocus of the 17mm(which I don't think is that necessary, given it's not like DoF is thatttt shallow at 20mm f1.7). From my impressions(no longer owning the 20mm, and only based on images from the 17mm), the 20mm is sharper(I maintain it is noticeably sharper than the 25mm), but the 17mm exhibits better contrast, and perhaps less lateral CA. The 20mm is by all means an excellent lens, and I think I might still prefer it to the 25mm I currently prefer.
  12. darosk

    darosk Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Apr 17, 2013
    Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
    Real Name:
    Cool - I'm also currently considering between the two, panny 20 vs oly 17...
  13. izzat

    izzat New to Mu-43

    Aug 2, 2012
    Thank you for your reply,
    personally, i am leaning toward the 20mm, i don't think the slow af is really that terrible, however i am wondering the idea of using pana on oly camera, does it gonna effect my picture quality ?
  14. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 6, 2012
    I have tried both 20/1.7 and 17/1.8 and the auto focus speed is very much a big deal.

    Unless you're comfortable with the slow AF + MF.
  15. yekimrd

    yekimrd Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 14, 2012
    Cincinnati, OH
    Real Name:
    I wonder if the people who gravitate to the 20/1.7 prefer landscapes and street photography (where "f/8" and tack sharpness are preferable) while the people who prefer the 17/1.8 prefer shooting portraits (arguably better bokeh) and event or child photography (where AF is very important and center sharpness is more than adequate). If you're not trying to chase after something (e.g. your kid) then you may not think AF is a big issue but I swear from first hand experience that using the 20/1.7 during a party in a dimly lit room will result in you missing your focus in more than half of your shots (unless you use a flash, of course).
  16. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    I would think that the 20 is preferable for portraits in terms of the amount of wide angle "distortion" and shallower depth of field, because it's actually slightly longer and slightly faster than the 17. For other purposes you could use either but different individuals tend to have different preferences, especially when it comes to street photography where some people have a strong preference for wide angles, some for a normal lens, and some even for a short telephoto.
  17. izzat

    izzat New to Mu-43

    Aug 2, 2012
    wow. is it that bad the af, maybe i have to consider this again, i was almost sure to get 20 for my ep-3, 17mm is just too expensive right now. let say we put aside the af problem for now, what else could be a problem ?

    btw, thank you everyone for sharing your opinions
  18. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    The AF is accurate, but it is slow.
  19. Cruzan80

    Cruzan80 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 23, 2012
    Denver, Co
    Real Name:
    Sean Rastsmith
    Maybe it is different versions. I have had my 20 for a bit, and had exactly one time where it had trouble focusing. I turned the AF assist light off, and it usually catches quickly. Mine was bought NIB from Amazon a month or two ago, and I don't put a hood on it. Mounted on a G3. I was suprised at how much of a non-issue it was, compared to the people on this forum. It isn't quite as fast as my kit lens, but plenty fast enough.
  20. timg

    timg Mu-43 Regular

    Jun 13, 2012
    No it's not that bad... it may be slow compared to the 17 1.8 but that doesn't mean it's not capable. I've still got plenty of in focus shots of my 3 year old using the EP3/20 1.7 combination.

    I bought the 20 1.7 over the 17 1.8 purely on cost... here in the UK I got the Panny for less than half the price of the Oly, I just didn't consider faster autofocus to be worth over £200.