1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

The new 17mm 1.8 lens is that bad for the money?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by onurpnr, Feb 5, 2013.

  1. onurpnr

    onurpnr Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 13, 2012
    I have ordered it to a friend who will be in Hong Kong in a few days and I am reading bad reviews that this lens isnt sharp and its too much money for the bad performance. do you have any experiences with it with an OMD body?
  2. Hingo

    Hingo Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 31, 2012
    The world is going crazy about the sharpness factor, it's not that soft and the expectations for this lens is too high. Steve Huff say the lens rendering is very nice, and that alone should rather taken in the account, but not that is SUPER sharp imo
    • Like Like x 2
  3. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    I don't own the lens, but I think the bad rep that some reviews have given it are exaggerated. People have come to very high expectations for Olympus prime lens due to the superb performance of their recent prime lenses, like the 45/1.8, 60/2.8 Macro, and the 75/1.8, so they were disappointed when they find the 17/1.8 not as stellar as they have expected. Having said that, according to test charts I saw on some reviews (can't recall which ones now), the 20/1.7 is only slightly sharper than the 17/1.8, so I wouldn't call the 17/1.8 a bad lens. AF is supposed to be fast on the E-M5, too!

    Considering its construction similar to the 12/2.0 with a pull-back manual focus mechanism, and a fast 1.8 aperture, I certainly wouldn't call it "too much money for the bad performance"!

    If you are still concerned, you can check out this thread to decide if it's a bad lens or not:
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Using the word "Bad" in a thread title about this lens is a very bad move, I'd even say trolling but then what do I know? This isn't DPReview.

    No reviewer has ever said the lens was bad, simply that the lens may not be as sharp as eager expectations were hoping.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. speedandstyle

    speedandstyle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    It is a fast wide lens so a little softness is to be expected!

    From the examples I have seen it looks pretty good.

    I do think that many people have gone "sharpness" nuts however!
  6. onurpnr

    onurpnr Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 13, 2012
    Thank you for your answers. Sorry for the 'bad' language calling it bad. Reviews said exactly it was not as good as the cheaper 20mm 1.7 and I called it bad. Iam not asking for a tack sharp lens like 35mm 1.4 canon or nikon lens. but 500 usd is a lot of money I would like it to be pleasing in terms of sharpness contrast and DOF. that was my concern.
  7. toshiro

    toshiro Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 3, 2012
    I own th 17 1.8 and it is a great performer and now lives permanently on my EPL5. In fact I sold my 20 1.7 and 25 1.4 when I got it. It is that good.
    • Like Like x 2
  8. onurpnr

    onurpnr Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 13, 2012

    Thank you very much mate. That was the comment I was expecting to hear :) 
  9. yekimrd

    yekimrd Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 14, 2012
    Cincinnati, OH
    I own the 17/1.8. I gave my 25/1.4 to my wife because I favored this wider FOV and fell in love with how compact and well-built it is. I never liked the 20/1.7 because it hunts in low light. Yes, the 25/1.4 and 20/1.7 are appreciably sharper than the 17/1.8 but this lens is no slacker. So, in conclusion, the 17/1.8 is an excellent (though not stellar like the 25/1.4, 45/1.8, 45/2.8, 60/2.8, and 75/1.8).
  10. onurpnr

    onurpnr Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 13, 2012
    That was quite clear and informative yekimrd. I will get that lens instead of 20mm or 25mm because it will be my walkabout lens for everyday using. the 17mm suits my need better and as I see hear and read about 17mm is good enough which is fine.

    Thank you very much to all who helped me to decide!
  11. Robstar1963

    Robstar1963 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jun 10, 2011
    Isle of Wight England UK
    Robert (Rob)
    Id be very interested in hearing how well you get on with the lens when you get it and how you rate it
  12. Savas K

    Savas K Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 10, 2013
    One of the rare moments that the recently overused phrase, "My bad" sounds like the right one to use. :wink:
  13. Replytoken

    Replytoken Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 7, 2012
    Puget Sound
    I am a big fan of Nikon glass (and own more than I care to admit), but it is not clear to me that thier new 35 f/1.4 is as incredible as many ascribe it to be, especially at three times the price of the Oly 17. While they are certainly not the final word in analyzing lenses:Nikon Lens: Primes - Nikon 35mm f/1.4G AF-S Nikkor (Tested) - SLRgear.com!, I found their test comments sobering.

  14. Terry

    Terry New to Mu-43

    Dec 2, 2012
    Auckland, New Zealand
  15. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    I love the way the old Oly 17mm renders and it is super cheap now. A lot of people get hung up on sharpness. There are other qualities to a lens that are not measurable that affect an image a lot more than sharpness does. Look through the sample threads of various lenses and get to know the "character" of the lens.
    • Like Like x 4
  16. arentol

    arentol Mu-43 Veteran

    Jun 29, 2012
    I received the 17 f/1.8 recently and I am already a big fan.

    The FOV is great, AF is very fast, overall rendering is exactly what you want from a 17mm. It is also a very sharp lens. In practice I find it to be almost exactly as sharp as the 20 f/1.7, but for a different reason.

    The apparently sharpness of a lens is a mix of Resolving power, Contrast, and Micro-Contrast. Resolution and contrast can be easily measured and that is what MTF charts give us information about. But micro-contrast (or local contrast) is not something that is measured and charted, but it is quite clear to your eye. It is especially clear when you zoom in on an image to look at the fine detail and is very important to the apparent sharpness of a final image, particularly if printed large or viewed up close.

    I am planning on selling my 20 f/1.7 soon because this lens definitely is better and more suited to my needs.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 6, 2012
    I have been happy with the 17/1.8. If you need the focal length this is the best option.
  18. emirabal

    emirabal Mu-43 Regular

    Luke, this was what led me to getting the 20mm. It was its "character"
  19. yekimrd

    yekimrd Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 14, 2012
    Cincinnati, OH
    Hmm.. I briefly owned (or rather my wife did) the 20/1.7. While the 25/1.4 definitely had character, I never felt that from the 20/1.7 but did with the 17/1.8. Granted, this is my personal observation and not at all objective. The 20/1.7 just like the 45/1.8 are excellent but too (for lack of a better term) mechanical with the images they produce.
  20. Bravin Neff

    Bravin Neff Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 25, 2011
    Bravin Neff
    I have both the O17/1.8 and the P20/1.7. The O17/1.8 is the better lens.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.