Why isn't there more buzz about the Olympus 17mm f1.8?

ediblestarfish wrote:

I have the 17mm and the 20mm. The 17mm, while a good lens, doesn't excel at anything in particular, while being somewhat pricey. Vignetting is also noticeable. It's just okay overall, and unless you're an Olympus body owner without CA correction, there's not as much attraction to it. It's sharper than the kit lenses, but compared to the other primes, it's in last place.

The metal body I think, is unwarranted for a lens of such performance, and contributed greatly to the cost. If it was $350ish in a plastic body like the 45mm, it would make it a more competitive choice to the 20mm. If it was $800, with a metal body, and as sharp as the other primes, it would also be compelling as the ultimate 17mm.

But it's neither, and it sits in a somewhat awkward spot of price/performance ratio. For me, I mainly got it as my new handheld day/night shooting lens, as I prefer a wider view than the 25mm f1.4 allows me, but find the 12mm too wide for general use. I didn't like the 20mm field of view either, but that's more minor.

The 20mm, I think everyone knows I have issues with. The resolution advantage the 20mm has is mostly lost by the time you hit ISO over 800 by the increased noise, and all the other advantages the 17mm has, start to come into play. In bright light, for whatever reason, my 20mm gets CA fringing like crazy, and the 17mm solves that issue too. It's only in the less contrasty lighting conditions that I can get the 20mm to excel. It's the sharpest lens I have, just that I find its limitations too inflexible for me, and I have no other favorable lens besides the new 17mm at this point, which isn't exactly a stellar way to see the 17mm.