The Olympus M. Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 vs Panasonic 25mm f/1.7

[Susanne]

Hi all!
I have an Olympus Om-D E-M1 Mark II with a few lenses, the one I most commonly use is the Panasonic Lumix 25mm f1.7. I'm very happy with this lens, however, in many situations I find the focal length too long. I've been thinking of replacing it with the Olympus 17mm f1.8 (not the pro version).

What is your opinion? Will those 7 mm make a big difference or not when you're out shooting?

Is the Olympus as good as the Panasonic in terms of sharpness, being fast, and overall image quality?
I already have a very nice wide angle lens, 12 mm f/1.4, and a zoom, 14-140mm but need a focal length somewhere between those two with the possibility to shoot wide open around f1.7.

Thanks in advance!

 

[JensM]

I have both, the 25 mm normally is left behind and the 17 mm brought with. For me the latter has something, which I find very attractive but cant really tell what is.

 

[threeOh]

Just my experience with moving wider from a 25. 17 is closer to 25 than you might think. 12 is as wide as I like to shoot. 15 is where it’s at for me.

Lovely lens. Don’t know and don’t care what the specs might be.

 

[Mike Peters]

The Olympus 17 1.8 is not a stellar performer. The Pana/Leica 15 is much better. Or you could sell the 12 and 25 you have and get the Pana/Leica 10-25, which is amazing, and huge.

 

[Susanne]

Thanks for your replies! This confirms what I've read so far on reviews. 15mm could be a nice focal length. But would this lens give wide angle distortions?

 

[LilSebastian]

Check out the lens showcases for each lens you are interested in. I’ve had both the 17 f1.8 and the 15 f1.7, but didn’t find myself using them as much as I thought. My 17 also had very noisy C-AF when shooting video so watch for those copies. No issue with the 15

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/panasonic-leica-15mm-f-1-7-dg-summilux.65845/

 

[Mike Peters]

Thanks for your replies! This confirms what I've read so far on reviews. 15mm could be a nice focal length. But would this lens give wide angle distortions?

No, it's a very well corrected lens. BTW, another lens, which is excellent but a bit large is the Sigma 16mm f1.4.

 

[Susanne]

Thanks but I'm definitely going for a small and light lens - my 12mm is very large (in my opinion, at least) so another large one wouldn't be a good replacement for the Panasonic.

 

[frankmulder]

I would say the 17mm is too close to your 12mm. Combining it with a 25mm lens (like you've already done) makes more sense to me.

There is quite a difference between the 17 and 25mm focal lengths in my opinion. It all depends on what you like to shoot. I prefer the 25mm for most things, but when you're in a tight space you do indeed need wider. Of course, you could use the 12mm for those situations (and crop where needed).

I second the opinion that the 17mm f/1.8 is not a stellar performer. However, some people are very happy with it. (I guess part of this can be attributed to sample variation, but it probably also depends on whether you do much pixel-peeping. There aren't really any bad lenses to be honest. OK, maybe skip the pancake 17mm f/2.8...)

Getting the 15mm does not make sense to me when you already have the 12mm. It is a good lens though.

What do you exactly mean by "between those two"? There are quite a lot of focal lengths between 12mm and 140mm... What are you going to use the lens for? Depending on what you are going to do with it, you may rather want the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7, or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, or the Sigma 56mm f/1.4, or any other fast prime...

EDIT: ah, you mean "between 12mm and 25mm". In that case the only 'faster than f/1.8' options you have are the Panasonic 15mm f/1.7, Sigma 16mm f/1.4, Olympus 17mm f/1.8, Olympus 17mm f/1.2, Voigtländer 17.5mm f/0.95 (manual focus) and the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7. It's up to you to determine the right tradeoff between size/weight, price, maximum aperture, AF speed and 'look' (sharpness, bokeh, ...). But personally, if I had the PL12, I would just use that for the wider shots. (Or replace it with the PL15 if 12mm appears too wide most of the time, and/or if I didn't use the PL12 because it was too large).

No, it's a very well corrected lens.

The PL15 is not "very well corrected" in itself (i.e. optically), but the software corrections are fine (like with every other micro four thirds lens).

 

[Susanne]

When I say "between the two" I mean between the 25mm and 12mm. The zoom is 14mm when not zoomed in so it has a good length but for aperture it only goes down to f3.5.
I use the 25mm mainly for street photography but also when I need to shoot wide open because of low light. I've been using it to shoot gigs in a local pub and it has been good for that in terms of quality but I find it slightly too long while the 12mm is too short/wide. I shoot while being in the audience so a longer lens like the 42.5mm or the Sigma wouldn't be an option, at least not in that particular venue. The pub would be a perfect example of what I'd need to use the 15 or 17mm for, as well as other photography in smaller spaces.

However, it's interesting what you say about the similarity to the 12mm when it comes to focal length - and it's very possible that I instead should give the wide angle lens another go. It's an excellent lens but it's much heavier than the 25mm, the only reason why I often take the 25mm instead is because it's so much lighter.

 

[demiro]

I think the negatives about the 17/1.8 are greatly overstated. I've owned multiple copies. No complaints. I don't test by shooting brick walls then zooming 100% though. Just take pics and see how they look.

For me, the difference between 12 and 17 is vast. Less-so between 17 and 25. But that really comes down to your perspective and preferences. If you find the 25/1.7 too long I would think the 17 is a great option to try. Or the 20/1.7, which is even smaller. Folks will start screaming about it's "glacial AF". Also an oft overstated criticism imo, though I will admit it has slowest AF of all the f/1.8-1.7 primes from Panny or Oly. The 17/1.8, otoh, is lightning fast.

 

[pdk42]

The Olympus 17 1.8 is not a stellar performer. The Pana/Leica 15 is much better. Or you could sell the 12 and 25 you have and get the Pana/Leica 10-25, which is amazing, and huge.

I don't fully agree with this. I've had two copies of the 17/1.8 and whilst the first was a bit soft, the second is superb. I've compared it back-to-back with the PL 15/1.7 and there's nothing between them.

 

[ac12]

IMHO, the 15 or 17 f/1.8 would be a nice moderate wide lens.
My first lens was a normal (50mm for 35mm film), and sometimes my back was literally up against the wall. So for indoors, wider is better (to a point).
And these two lenses seem to fit this gap.

I use the 17/1.8 as my indoor low light lens.

 

[JanW]

My advice: put your 14-140 on your camera, set it to 15-17-25 and try which focal length is what you are looking for and what the differences are.
I think the focal length (perspective) is more important than the small differences in image quality between the lenses that were mentioned earlier.

 

[Susanne]

My advice: put your 14-140 on your camera, set it to 15-17-25 and try which focal length is what you are looking for and what the differences are.
I think the focal length (perspective) is more important than the small differences in image quality between the lenses that were mentioned earlier.

That's very clever advice that I obviously should have thought of myself! ? I'll definitely do that. And you're right about the importance of focal length in this situation. After this I can make a more appropriate decision.

 

[Bidkev]

I've had two Olly 17mm and both were softer then my 12-40. The panny 25mm otoh is excellent and I love it's rendering. The 12-40 has made the Olly redundant but I would never part with the panny and the price is right............plastic fantastic. Even if you go for the 17mm you may as well hang onto the 25mm as the used price is fairly low.

 

[SojiOkita]

I don't fully agree with this. I've had two copies of the 17/1.8 and whilst the first was a bit soft, the second is superb. I've compared it back-to-back with the PL 15/1.7 and there's nothing between them.

Maybe you were extremely lucky.
I had 2 copies of the 17 f/1.8, and briefly tested 2 other copies. All four were soft (mostly in the borders) wide open. Comparing to the P 20 f/1.7 or the O 25 f/1.8 makes it obvious.
It's mostly the same with the 45 f/1.8 I had (2 + one from a friend that I tested). None were as sharp as my 42.5 f/1.7.

I don't say there's no "sharp" copy, just that I'm not sure this lens is "supposed" to be sharp wide open (I think all copies I had match Olympus requirements).
When it's stopped down, it's sharp enough (not the sharpest lens though).

That being said, that doesn't make this a bad lens.
I didn't keep it the first time, then regret it and bought it again.
It's a very pleasant lens to use, maybe my prefered lens on the system in this regard.
And I like the rendering. I find its rendering "soft" in a positive way.

 

[SojiOkita]

Thanks for your replies! This confirms what I've read so far on reviews. 15mm could be a nice focal length. But would this lens give wide angle distortions?

It depends what you call "distorsion".
The opticial distorsion of the lens is corrected, however if you're talking about deformations due to perspective, that's another story. There will be some at 15 mm.

Chosing the focal length is what you need.
In wide angle, a few mm makes a big difference.
I never bought the 15 f/1.7 because I already have the 14 f/2.5 and I don't use it much because I don't like the focal length.
However, I like 12 mm... and I like 17 mm.

And I think 17 mm and 25 mm are really different lenses.
I've heard once: "you'll get much more pictures with a 35 mm, but you'll get better ones with a 50 mm".
That's how it works for me.
I like the 25 mm focal length better, but it's more difficult to frame, it often feels a little too long.
The 17 mm is easier to frame, feels more natural, but the results are a little more "dull". Not as much as with a 14 mm though.
That's why I use both, and I like both.

You'll have to experience it yourself... because it's really subjective.
A lot of people like the 14-15 mm focal length. Some hate the 17 mm.
Nobody will be able to choose for you

 

[threeOh]

Thanks for your replies! This confirms what I've read so far on reviews. 15mm could be a nice focal length. But would this lens give wide angle distortions?

I think you mean perspective distortion. That’s individual. I have trouble below 12. Minor when I first started shooting a 14, about 45 years ago. No issues with the 15. That’s close enough to “normal” that you should be fine.

 

[saladin]

I can't agree with anyone who says there's not much difference between 17mm and 25mm as a focal length. The 50mm and 35mm fov are quite distinct.

The 17/1.8 and 15/1.7 are both very nice lenses. My preference is the 15mm but you can't go wrong. I think every mft kit should own one prime in this focal range, even if it's just the older 17/2.8 . I just wish one of the 1.8/1.7's were weathersealed. I tried the 17Pro at a demo day and it's awesome, serious pixie dust in that lens, but it's bigger than I'd like as an everyday carry. The PL15 is a perfect balance (for me).

Edit: Oh, and i'll say this. You're using the Em1ii ? Same sensor setup as my 5iii. And the 5iii / 15PL combo is producing some wonderful tones in my use, the odd shot is blowing me away for it's clarity. I'll post a couple of samples in the PL15 thread. Consider strongly.