Sigma 19 2.8 vs Olympus 17 2.8

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Superstriker#8, Jul 7, 2013.

  1. Superstriker#8

    Superstriker#8 Mu-43 Regular

    197
    Jun 24, 2013
    I've heard a bunch of reviews and comments about how bad the oly 17 2.8 is, and how the sigma lenses are on a whole pretty good, so I'm wondering how these compare; I'd like the 17mm FOV a bit more, but it sounds like its quite a bit lacking in quality. Your opinions please
     
  2. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
  3. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    I'm having the concern to pick up a 35 equiv. lens too

    To me I can accept the not so fast aperture, but not if the sharpness and CA correction aren't good.

    Both the 17 2.8 and 19 2.8 have visible distortion, the 17 2.8 has got less resolution and visible CA; the 19 2.8 is sharp in the frame centre however CA is quite pronounced towards the corners. I probably love the Sigma more
     
  4. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 14, 2012
    New Mexico
    Larry
    I have the Sigma 19mm and like it, and resolution chart shots indicate it is sharper at the edges. In real life work, though, I've seen some awfully good stuff from the Olympus 17 2.8, and I'm tempted to get one for it's size when I want to travel light and small with a prime around that focal length.

    I haven't found CA or distortion a problem with the 19, but I shoot raw and if it shows up a correct it in Lightroom quite easily. There are image threads for both lenses you should check to make your own mind up.
     
  5. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
  6. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    Hi there

    I think the 17 2.8 has heavier distortion than the 17 1.8, don't know why Oly leave it that way when it could be fixed in-camera. but the sigma lens is just not corrected by the camera, that said, LR does include a lens profile for the 19 2.8
     
  7. BAXTING

    BAXTING Mu-43 Top Veteran

    806
    Aug 5, 2012
    Los Angeles SFV, CA
    Bradley
    I was also looking at the Sigma. I think if I wanted ultimate sharpness between the two I would pick the Sigma, but I wanted something small and pocket-able that I could easily take with me and get the most shots so I went with the 17. I've owned previously a P20 f/1.7 and if sharpness was my major concern I might head that direction as I have taken some accidentally super sharp images with that lens. Just my 2 cents.
     
  8. RichardB

    RichardB Snapshooter Subscribing Member

    494
    Nov 19, 2012
    Maryland, US
    Richard
    I tested the Olympus 17mm/2.8 against the Sigma 19mm/2.8. The Olympus was every bit as good in the central part (most) of the image. It softened in the very far corners, and I assume that's because of focusing limitations of a pancake design. The Sigma is bigger and was designed with a larger image circle (for NEX sensors) so it's sharp across the whole MFT sensor. Frankly, though, I don't think there would be a noticeable difference in image quality from the two lenses in 99% of the photos I take.

    The Sigma focuses faster and more quietly, and it comes with a hood.

    The Olympus is significantly smaller, and I like how its size and styling give my E-P3 the look of a classic rangefinder.

    Unable to reach a clear verdict, I'm keeping both lenses for now. Any time I would want that moderately wide view, I would be happy to use either lens.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. madogvelkor

    madogvelkor Mu-43 Top Veteran

    938
    Feb 22, 2013
    Connecticut
    I've had both and ended up selling the 17mm and keeping the 19mm. I thought the quality was better, and the FOV is similar enough for my needs.

    Of course, I also have the 14mm for a wide angle pancake, so the larger size of the 19mm wasn't an issue. And as much as I like the 19mm I'll probably drop it in favor of a 20mm 1.7 if the older copies drop in price when the new one starts shipping.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. Saledolce

    Saledolce Mu-43 Regular

    47
    Apr 17, 2017
    Italy
    Up. I'm thinking to a 35mm equivalent lens. I already have a P25mm f1.7 , would the sigma 19mm focal lenght be too close to the 25? Do you guys have both the focal lenghts?
     
  11. rloewy

    rloewy Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    May 5, 2014
    Ron
    I have the S19 and P25 - I tend to use the P25 more, because I also have the P14 - so, yes, the 25 and 19 are not a huge difference, but every time I take the sigma I am reminded what a good lens it is
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. wolfie

    wolfie Mu-43 Veteran

    418
    Apr 15, 2009
    Auckland, New Zealand
    I had the Sigma 19mm and only got because it was on special. As my first ever M43 prime it disappointed. It slowed the camera start up ( a common complaint), and compared to my Zuiko 14-42 MkII kit zoom the image quality was OK but not any sharper. And it was more bulky. IMHO if a prime isn't significantly smaller, faster or higher image quality then it isn't worth the hassle.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. RAH

    RAH Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    424
    Dec 1, 2013
    New Hampshire
    Rich
    I was pretty disappointed with the 19mm. From my testing, it is somewhat sharper in the center than the 14-42 IIR kit lens, but not any sharper as you move toward the edges.

    I bought the 19mm because it was cheaper than a new 20mm 1.7, but later I bought a used 20mm 1.7 and it is A LOT sharper than the 19mm throughout the frame. The 20 focuses slower than the 19, but other than that, to me it seems almost insane to buy a 19 instead of a 20mm 1.7, especially when you can get a used, excellent condition 20mm 1.7 for about $200. Just MHO.

    I later bought a 17mm 1.8 because I wanted the extra width over the 20mm. I got it used (refurbished) from Olympus for $320. So if you want the extra width, that's what I would get. Very small, very sharp, and useably wider than the 20mm.

    If I had it to do all over, I think I'd just get the 17 1.8 because I like that focal length best. But I still like having the 20mm because of its form-factor (shorter than the 17, really small and lightweight) and use it when I think I won't care so much about having the extra width of the 17.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  14. Saledolce

    Saledolce Mu-43 Regular

    47
    Apr 17, 2017
    Italy
    Edit. I just pressed buy on P20mm f1.7. I want IQ to be a clear improvement over my current lens selection (I have O14-42EZ and O14-150) and I also want a m43 prime to be light and easy to carry.

    I hope the focal lenght difference between 17mm and 20mm is small enough for me not to notice the difference, or I will end also buying the 17mm f2.8:)
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017
  15. RAH

    RAH Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    424
    Dec 1, 2013
    New Hampshire
    Rich
    Good choice! As far as 17mm vs 20mm, you said earlier that you have a 25mm. Either the 17mm or the 20mm would be a clear difference in width vs the 25. Also, I just want to point out that you yourself can SEE the difference between all these focal lengths by using your 14-42. :)
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  16. Saledolce

    Saledolce Mu-43 Regular

    47
    Apr 17, 2017
    Italy
    Yeah, I did that with my 14-42 as a final test. I shot at 14, then 17, then 20, then 25.

    I did that once in my kitchen, and then from a window, to have two different scenes. To me, 17 and 20 look decently close. I hope I don't change my mind after:)
     
  17. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    17mm is definitely wider, but the difference between the P20/1.7 and P25/1.7 is quite surprisingly large! You can see it in these superimposed images.

    1MDQuf1.

    http://i.imgur.com/1MDQuf1.jpg

    My impression is that the 20mm is a "wide 20" with a rounded up FL, whereas the 25mm is a "long 25" with a rounded down FL. If you crop the 25mm down to the same perspective as the 20mm, on my 16MP GX7 you only end up with a bit over 8MP. So they are definitely distinctly different lenses.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I agree with you.

    I think that the 2 problems with the Sigma 19mm are that it is kind of large for what it is and that there are 2 (maybe 3) pancake alternatives that are very affordable, especially used. If you want a budget lens in this category, it's hard to get past the 17 and 20mm, and I'd even throw the 14mm into that mix for certain people.

    I think the 19mm f2.8 makes more sense on Sony, where it's a like 1/3 the price of the 20mm f2.8.

    It makes sense it should be a pretty large difference when you do the math. Even if we assume exact focal lengths, 25mm is 25% longer than 20mm. That means you drop 1/4 of the scene on both dimensions when you zoom from 20 to 25mm. If you translate that into area, 1.25^2=1.56, so you are dropping a full 56% by area.

    going from 17 to 19 for the OP is only about a 11% change, or 25% by area, so much less of a difference. But it still could be a dealbreaker, especially for wide scenes.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  19. BleedingGumsMurphy

    BleedingGumsMurphy Mu-43 Regular

    39
    Mar 19, 2017
    Thailand
    Agreed. With the 25 being a quarter longer than the 20. It's certainly worth having both.

    I have the 17 2.8 and 25 1.7 and they are great as options for the street. The 17 for markets and other close situations and the 25 when there is a little more space. The 20 is probably a perfect medium, as long as you get used to the focusing. Plus, like the 25 the 20 is sharp enough to be great for other uses, whereas I assume the 17mm may show its age with a detailed landcape for example.

    I was put off the Sigma 19mm when I realised I was letting the 30mm 1.4 and 60mm make it sound better than it really is. (The 60mm is a dream to use btw, awesome lens). The 17 2.8 has plenty of fans who appreciate its imperfections as it produces nice photos, less clinical and more character? Try it too if you see one on sale for $100.

    If you get along with the 20mm focusing you will certainly be OK with the 17 2.8 (faster than the 20mm but slower than everything else). I know the 14mm 2.5 is a better lens, but I sold mine and am content with the 17mm, it just feels right for point and click general shots.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017
  20. I'm in a similar spot, with Lumix 14 and Σ30, so one of these (17-19-20) lenses would be a nice fit.
    I've owned the Oly 17/2.8 twice and find it to be as talented as I need it to be, folks with lower tolerances and higher powers of scrutiny apparently disagree. :) I've heard the 19 is the lesser of the three Sigmas, but each potential owner can determine from online tests what is suitable.

    For a while at least, price dictates my kit so we'll see where I end up; another Lumix 14-42ii is not all that bad a choice.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2