Michael Meissner
Mu-43 Hall of Famer
In 2024, rather than upgrade my OM-1 to the OM-1 mark II, I decided to upgrade some lenses. One of the lenses that I got was the Olympus 17mm f/1.2, and it replaced the Sigma 16mm f/1.4. After getting the Olympus 17mm f/1.2, I have sold the Sigma 16mm f/1.4. The Sigma is actually a little longer and heavier (405g vs 390g and 92.3mm vs 87mm)
In March, I did a major purchase getting the OM-3 as well as the mid-tier lenses to allow me to reduce the weight of my camera bag. I got the 17mm f/1.8 mark II lens. I now find if I'm thinking of going out with the OM-1 mark I, I will usually pair it with the 17mm f/1.2, but if I'm going out with the OM-3, the 17mm f/1.8 mark II is the preferred option.
Now, I generally don't compare lenses like a lot of folk seem to. I suspect that the 17mm f/1.2 gives the 'best' images, but for a travel setup, the 17mm f/1.8 mark II really fits the bill. Sure, if I really search, I might see that the 17mm f/1.2 pulls ahead, and there may be a few times when I need f/1.2 instead of f/1.8.
But having a small option is really handy. A smaller lens on a smaller camera body (i.e. 17mm f/1.8 mark II with E-m5 mark III, OM-5 mark I/II, or OM-3) does not call attention to the photographer like a larger lens with a gripped body (17mm f/1.2 and OM-1 mark I/II). The 17mm f/1.8 mark II is much smaller and lighter than the 17mm f/1.2 (112g vs 390g and 35.5mm vs 87mm).
For a travel setup, I find having splash resistant bodies and lenses is a good idea. When you are out traveling, rain is always an option. Sure, you can encase your precious in plastic bags to protect it, but I find it simpler just to not worry about whether your gear will get wet (you will need lens cloths or towels to clear off the lens, and if salt water is involved, you need to actively rinse off the salt as soon as you can). Thus until the 17mm f/1.8 mark II was announced this year, the 17mm f/1.8 mark I was less of an option for a travel lens. In the past, I've used the Panasonic-Leica 15mm f/1.7 and Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 as travel lenses, but I would always have to use a plastic bag to protect the lenses in my camera bag.
Now personally, I have a niche hobby where each of the 17mm lenses is favored. I like to dress up my cameras for doing steampunk and renaissance faires. In a lot of the builds, I need a physically larger lens to fit inside the bellows in the larger steampunk camera or the dragon's head puppet in my renaissance faire build, and the 17mm f/1.2 works in that regard. But some of my builds actually work better with a smaller lens such as my current pirate chest where I use the 17mm f/1.8 mark II and OM-3.
A lot of these events are outside where rain is always an option (1 event I did this year was in a heavy downpour and another event had milder rain off and on). But in addition to an outdoor event where I need splash resistance, there are often indoor parts where I need a fast lens or events done entirely indoors. So for me, the 17mm f/1.2 and 17mm f1/.8 mark II are both very useful.
I also find the splash resistant FL-LM3 (for current cameras) and FL-LM2 (for older cameras) to be useful for travel setups, in that these flashes are fairly small, and they can add a bit of light if needed. It is a shame that the OM-5 mark II removed FL-LM3 support.
Last edited:
