New Olympus 17mm 1.8

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 19,026Gear list
Like?
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
In reply to Jolly Oly, 9 months ago

Jolly Oly wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Jolly Oly wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Acrill wrote:

dgrogers wrote:

Nice shot. In all honesty, I don't understand why some complain about this lens. It looks great to me.

Most complaints are from people who read the Lenstip review and never purchased or used the lens.

The Lenstip as well as other reviews. The evidence is fairly consistent. And you don't need to buy or use a lens to pass verdict on its optical performance. It suffices to look at images produced by it.

I'm afraid in this case it's not that simple.

I read all the (bad) reviews AND many totally opposite positive user findings with images ( like this one ), decided to take the plunge and bought the lens.

Noone is saying that the lens can't take decent images but user reports like this doesn't tell us how it compares to the alternatives.

and when they do, you choose to ignore them.

What user report showing good and directly comparable evidence from the two lenses did I ignore?

Like in this case here with Pixnat2 and many other users, mostly enthusiast photographers who know what they're doing, who had both 20/1.7 and 17/1.8

Could you please link me to the evidence from the systematic tests performed by Pixnat2.

What I actually got is a one of the sharpest lenses in my collection - ever. I never had an eqiv. 35mm prime on digitalSLR but this lens is by far sharper than all of my previous zooms - 12-60mm and 14-54mm Zuikos included - already at f/1.8.. The rest of the alleged lens faults were in fact equally minor.

As you might be aware, a number of fairly well reputed test sites have shown it to be less sharp than the 12-35/2.8 as well as the 12-40/2.8 at the same FL (or thereabout).

and I'm sure SHG 14-35mm/f2 Zuiko is sharper from all of them, so what ?

It's normally expected that a prime does at least as well as a zoom, even a good zoom.

look at the size and price difference. m.zuiko 17/1.8 is like a glass compared to a bottle against 12-40mm, it was $400 when I bought it (compared to a $1000) and is f1.8. My sample is tack sharp already at 1.8.

What we are talking about is how it compares to the 20. Got any evidence you'd like to show me in that regard?

So what about lenstip credibility (in my eyes went down completely)

Lenstip is just one of several sources showing the same evidence.

based on, obviously, not a representative copy of the lens. That's ok, but it would be fair from such a sites to do little research and to at least mention a possibility of sample variations.

What I pointed out is that Lenstip is not at all alone. The story is pretty much the same regardless of where you look.

All of that (sample variations) is based on assumption that "good" lens sample is not accidentally good but designed that way and "bad" lens sample is accidentally bad - not designed to underperform. So if we have two different copies of the same lens I believe that good copy is the reference, not a bad copy.

And there are, of course, other sources with different conclusions (than lenstip).

What sources reach a significantly different conclusion than Lenstip when it comes to how the lens compares to the 20 in terms of sharpness?

or what did I learned from that ? Something more about sample variations I guess (mine is black like many 17/1.8 with stellar reports) and one more thing: for sure I will never try to unconditionally support someone's view of something I never had a chance to use (like you're doing now).

How do we know that the alternatives you tested it against aren't worse than copies tested by others? Unlike you, I don't fall into the trap of thinking that my own copies, test procedures, and perceptions are all infallible and those of anyone else just crap.

How do you know that radioactivity and its effects are for real? Ever tested that yourself? Do you still believe it? If so why?

good point from your side and an easy answer for me: I trust myself.

So you tested that radioactivity is for real on yourself?

With every lens I got I run a few test shots in various conditions, like a starting point just to see what to expect. Then the real life usage will further show and fine tune my opinion. Using the database of my lens collection (in my brain and lightroom archive) with sufficiently large sample size (20-30 lenses) it's easy to rank the specific lens performance. After all, it's not a rocket science.

That sounds like a very unreliable and unsystematic way of going about it. No wonder you end up with strange conclusions.

So Acrill is right. I mean you have never used it, right?

No I haven't. But for reasons already spelled out, that does not prevent me from passing verdict on it. There's plenty of relevant evidence out there.

Your "problem" is that you like to ignore the relevant evidence which doesn't fit with your story.

What directly comparable evidence did I ignore?

As I'm aware the majority of users who had both Panasonic 20/1.7 and Olympus 17/1.8 kept the Olympus. If for you this is not relevant evidence that something is wrong with Lenstip alike reviews, so be it.

Here are three reasons why arguments of that kind don't work. First, neither you nor I know how many of those who had both did what. Second, those who had the 20 and ordered the 17 were more attracted to the 17 in the first place than those who had the 20 and didn't order the 17. Third, why do you think most people once thought that the earth is flat?

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
JoNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow