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

    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
  3. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    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
    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
  6. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    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

    BAXTING Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 5, 2012
    Los Angeles SFV, CA
    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

    Nov 19, 2012
    Maryland, US
    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.
  9. madogvelkor

    madogvelkor Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 22, 2013
    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.