Thoughts on the Olly 17mm f1.8 vs Panny 20mm f1.7

I've got the 17 f2.8 & 20 f1.7 - these were effectively Gen 1 M43's lenses. Of the two the 20mm is almost in the 'legendary' category for everything apart from AF speed, the 17mm is much maligned but not as bad as people make out - its quite possibly slower to AF than the 20mm.

If a wider angle, AF speed and the manual focus clutch (if you're a fan of zone-focus) are a priority then the 17 f1.8 is likely to be the one to get.

If you want sharp images, compact size, a slightly more normal view and slightly improved low-light performance then the 20mm is the one to get.

The old 17mm can often be had dirt cheap (see also the 14mm) if you did go for the 20 and still wanted something wider. Most people are likely to jump straight to the 14mm and skip the old 17 as a great, decent AF budget wide prime (unless you were wedded to the 35mm view as opposed to the 28).

 

The 17 renders nicely but is not very sharp for a prime. The 20 is superb optically. I'm told the 17 focuses faster, but I've never had an issue with the AF performance of the 20. The clutch focus of the 17 is a nice feature, the size of the 20 is a nice feature. I use the 20 and love it. The samples I've seen from the 17 on the web look nice, but the various lens tests have always scared me off from actually buying it. Although it renders nicely and looks good on the web, I'm afraid I'd be disappointed if I actually used it because it tests as one of the softest primes in m43 (but who knows, maybe I would be pleasantly surprised if I actually tried it).

 

Sorry, you may have mis-read - the 17 f2.8 is dirt cheap. The 20 tends to hold its value reasonably well.

My fastest lens is the 45 f1.8 - it feels much snappier than the 20, even on older bodies. I haven't got any concrete figures though - the more modern lenses just feel faster.

Heres a comparison video on YouTube -

I do like my 20mm - its pretty much glued to my E-PM1 is a compact social-function lens.

 

The Oly 17/1.8 sharpness isn't too bad IMHO. It's not as good as the 25/1.8 or 45/1.8, but it's quite useable even for large prints, esp if stopped down to f4. In fact, at f4, it's a perfectly good landscape lens with good sharpness across the frame. Even at f1.8, it's more than acceptable with a little sharpening in LR. It's a pity it's not up with the best primes, but its other characteristics (AF, lack of CA, good flare resistance, build quality) more than make up for it

 

Thanks for posting that. I always thought the the complaints about the slowness of the AF tended to be a little exaggerated... now I have numbers. its 1.3 tenths of a second slower!

 

I have both the p20/1.7 and just bought the o17/1.8. I've been shooting with the p20 for a couple of years and I love the sharpness, rendering and 'pop' of the shots and the small size. My main subjects are family, especially two kids under 4 so I rely of face detect on my em5 and epm2 a lot and get quite frustrated my the p20 slow/missed focus. When it hits focus the results are good!

I got a good deal on the o17 and started using it. I haven't had much time to pixel peep yet, but it is really nice to have instant focus! I generally like the panasonic lens rendering compared to olympus (also on p25 and p35-100). I also prefer the 20/25mm field of view however I think I just need to get used to the wider 17mm.

I'm probably not much help to you, as I haven't decided which one I will keep. I did get the 20mm for a steal a few years ago from the Argos eBay site at a time when panasonic offered £50 cashback on lenses. The o17 I also got from Canada with an epl5 double-lens bundle so after selling that kit in the uk the lens was close to free. I might just keep them both for now...

If I get a chance I can link to a couple of compare shots JPEG out of camera (I don't have time to process raw).

 

At 20mm or under, but not as wide as 14mm, right?

Olympus 17mmF2.8 takes great photos and is small and cheap to find used.
Sigma 19mmF2.8 focuses fast but its a bit big for what it is, cheap to buy new.
Olympus 17mmF1.8 is stylish, metal and focuses fast. Not cheap.
Lumix 20mm is small and very sharp. Not cheap.

 

I've never used the 20 so, FWIW. The reputation of the 20 is that it's very good optically and is a sharper lens. It's also reputed to not be an especially fast focusing lens. I have the 17 f/1.8 and I'd call it a quirky lens. In terms of pure sharpness it doesn't really match the 12-40, which, IMO, is very sharp. Wide open the f/1.8 is fairly sharp in the center but noticeably less so in the corners. There's also some vignetting. Stopped down it's sharper at the corners and edges. It also has quite a bit of field curvature in terms of focus point. I think it's really a street/social lens. It's very nice handling and very fast focusing. I was very hesitant to buy this lens based on reviews. I bought it really as a small, light, fast focusing lens to use when walking around streets. I find it a very fun lens to use in that capacity, and I like the images. I wouldn't describe the lens as soft. It's capable of making very nice images with good detail. But if you're pixel peeping it's not as sharp as the PL25. Without ever using it my guess is that for static images, buildings, architecture, stationary people, landscapes, etc., things where focus speed really doesn't matter the 20 is probably a better bet. For capturing street scenes and such the Oly is probably better. I really enjoy the lens, it's just fun to shoot with. Keep in mind there will be a PL 15mm lens that should soon be available and will be a competitor in this category.

 

I fully agree with that! I don't get people in here saying it isn't sharp...it is bloody brilliant, and near perfect for street work...super fast instant focus, point, click, and in focus capture....Superb little lens and perfectly focussed and usable wide open...

 

I have owned two copies of each of these lenses.

The 20 is my favorite. You can generally learn to live with the focus speed. Occasionally in lower light it will hunt forward and backward past the focal plane and miss completely. This is frustrating and if you shoot in low light all the time the 17mm is the far better lens since it will focus for you. In decent light, the 20 works well for me and it has better IQ.

 

Here's my opinion on it. I've had the 20mm in the past (with a Panasonic body, where it performs better), and I own the 17mm now.

The 20mm could produce some great images, but it just didn't fit for me. It was never wide enough when I wanted to take in the scene, and it was never tight enough for the portraits I wanted to make. It's really not a focal length that I find to be widely useful. And with a baby turning into a toddler, the AF really couldn't keep up, especially indoors in the evenings. Plus, I always felt afraid of damaging the lens since because of the focusing mechanism that moves in and out on the front of the lens (I admit, though, that this probably wasn't a rational choice or a likely scenario). I sold it many moons ago, and replaced it with the PL25, and was very, very happy with it, especially for my family shooting.

But I always longed for something in the classic 35mm (equivalent) focal length, and neither the 14mm nor the 19mm really felt right as an all-rounder, and as a small 2-lens kit with my 45mm. So I sold them and got the Oly 17mm.

I love that lens. Where the AF speed of the Panasonic is downright pokey, the AF speed of the Olympus is instantaneous in anything but darkness (even then, it will probably lock focus). It's sharp, and feels great to handle.

I have to address the "sharpness" issue here: I think sharpness is probably the most overrated lens characteristic, and yet it's the only one many people emphasize. Pretty much all the lenses are sharp, even viewing on a 24" monitor. That's huge! I think pixel peeping just makes for unhappy people, and distracts from the enjoyment of your photographic process and your images. I can put your mind at ease: the 17mm takes sharp shots. Especially since you have said you don't pixel peep much, I think you will be very pleased. I just hate to listen to people insinuating, or even stating outright, that "it just isn't very sharp" because that is bollocks.

The most important lens characteristic IMO is focal length, and the 17mm is just right (that's also IMO, of course.) It's wide enough for me for walking around; it can take in many scenes. It's pretty great as a snapshot lens for chasing a toddler. And it's my go to lens for environmental portraits. It's very versatile, and it definitely spends more time on my camera than any other lens right now.

That's not to mention the super cool snap focus ring, and the quite nice out-of-focus rendering, and the better-controlled chromatic aberration (compared to the 20mm on an Olympus body). It's just a solid lens.

In terms of pricing, the 20mm mk1 would be cheaper (probably around $250 used), and the 17mm and the 20mm mk2 will be similarly priced. Maybe slightly less for the Panasonic used, but really close, especially since Olympus lets go of 17mms refurbished for $300 when they have stock.

Anyway, that was much longer than I meant it to be, but I hope that helps.

 

The problem as I see it with the 17mm f2.8 isn't so much itself – it's the alternatives. Sure, it exhibits some chromatic aberration, it's a slow focuser, and it's not the sharpest lens around. But that doesn't mean it's a bad lens. It's just not very good compared to the alternatives.

As a pancake, it's overshadowed by the 14mm, which is smaller, much faster focusing, and sharper, and by the 20mm, which is much sharper and brighter. And by the 14-42mm EZ and Panasonic 12-32mm, both of which can zoom and are just as sharp.

As a cheap, wide-ish lens, it's overshadowed by the 14mm, as above, and by the Sigma 19mm which is sharper, focuses somewhat faster, focuses much closer, and is cheaper.

It can make nice images, but it's just probably not a good use of limited lens dollars unless you really love the focal length and absolutely need a 1 stop larger aperture than your pancake kit lens.