M. Zuiko 17/1.8 will zone-focus, have metal body

Started Sep 12, 2012 | Discussions thread
DjarumBlack
Senior MemberPosts: 1,414
Like?
Re: M. Zuiko 17/1.8 will zone-focus, have metal body
In reply to NZ Scott, Sep 13, 2012

NZ Scott wrote:

Yohan Pamudji wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

It's already been mentioned in this forum that Olympus will introduce a 17/1.8.

According to the latest information on 43rumours, the lens will have high-quality build similar to the 12/2.0. This means a silver metal body with a distance scale. The lens is still being developed and will not be available any time soon.

I think this is great news except that I would prefer a 17/1.4

I would too, but f/1.8 would be ok for me. At these kinds of apertures I'm not going to complain too loudly about 2/3 of a stop difference.

I think I would prefer the situation to mirror (no pun intended) the Canon/Nikon DSLR family of standard primes, where there is typically a very fast premium lens at around f1.2-f1.4 and then a budget option at f1.8-f2.0.

On reflection, I would prefer Olympus to make a cheap plastic 17/1.8 now (think a 17mm version of the 45/1.8) and a premium metal-bodied/distance scaled 17/1.4 later (think 17mm version of the 12/2.0).

At the moment, at the 50mm-equivalent focal length, we have the premium PL 25/1.4
but no budget version at 25/1.8.

At the 35mm-equivalent focal length, we have a budget 17/2.8 which should really have been f1.8/f2.0 in the first place, and now a premium 17/1.8 on its way.

It's great that Oly is going to make a 17/1.8, but if they make it their premium, expensive lens at that focal length then the omission at 17/1.4 becomes glaring. If Panasonic could step in with a 17/1.4 for the same price as its 25/1.4 then Oly will be in trouble.

The other problem might be cost. Standard primes are cheap on APS-C and full-frame cameras (around $100 for a 50/1.8 and $400 for a 50/1.4), but the 12/2.0 is around $800 and that would clearly be too much for a 17/1.8.

Why are you comparing the price of FF standard primes with a m4/3 12mm f/2 and 17mm f/1.8? Completely different absolute as well as effective focal lengths.

If you want to compare effective focal lengths (which I'm not entirely convinced is a good comparison, but let's do so for the sake of argument) you should look at the Canon 35mm f/2. It's a pretty cheap lens which is reflected in its shoddy build quality. Not exactly a straight-up comparison to what should be excellent build quality on the 17mm f/1.8. Or you could compare it to the Canon 35mm f/1.4L which is a wonderful lens but much more expensive and large. Then again it's f/1.4 which also makes comparisons not exactly applicable. But at least we're in the right effective focal length now so there's at least some justification for the comparison.

-- hide signature --

I completly agree. At 400-500 bucks for a fast 17mm, I'll bite. If its in the 800 dollar range, I think I'll pass or wait till used prices drop.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow