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

I would think that there would be more buzz about a lens that autofocuses quickly and has build quality like the amazing Oly 12mm. Is it because it is not readily available or because people still prefer the Pany 20mm f1.7 and Panaleica 25mm f1.4 for ultimate sharpness?

Mostly image quality vs. price.

I was all set to jump on the bandwagon until I saw the tests.

And before someone gets all preachy, I understand there's more to a lens than resolution. But there isn't any reason for a $500 prime of this focal length and size to be anything less than excellent. The 45 is great, and if the 17 weighed in near that level it would have been an instant classic. As it stands, it's just a good lens that is pretty close in application to the very serviceable 14 and 20mm pancakes that most m43 enthusiasts already have.

I don't think it as sharp as my older long ago regrettably sold 20mm, or my 25mmPL.  That being said it focuses almost as quickly and has a good punchy color rendition similar to the oly45/1.8.  The snap ring feature is awesome, by far the closest to a mechanical a manual focus as I have felt in a fly by wire system.  The size isn't minuscule but it is certainly pocketable in my field jacket or sweaters.  I am really happy with the minimum amount of distortion at reasonable distances from the subjects and overall image quality.    I think it would be better served at the 45mm pricing but understand the snap ring and metal build demand a higher perceived value and manufacturing cost.

--
Here's to learning something new everyday, and remembering it the next.

I got my 17/1.8 a week before Christmas and have been enjoying using it.  It is a good lens.  Resolution-wise it is sharp enough, but I do believe my 25/1.4 is a little sharper.  Still I am happy with the 17/1.8.

Dave

--
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3380136992_7c5a0986ea_m.jpg

I think you're late to the party. Do a search

--
Looking for equilibrium...

I know there was a lot of buzz before the launch of the lens. I was wondering why there isn't much buzz after it was actually available for purchase.

Sounds like you have hit upon the answer.

--
-CW

I have to agree with these points.  I was hoping for optical excellence which I would have sold my 20mm for.  As it is, there is no compelling reason to buy the 17mm.  I consider it a missed Oly opportunity.

--
Dan

How about all those OMD users who prefer the 35mm equivalent and can't use the Pany 20mm because of banding issues? Are you still using the 20mm and keeping the ISO's down?

3 Reasons I can think off:

1. $600 PRICE TAG - only a selected minority of "m43 connoisseur" are willing to pay for the premium for the faster + quieter focus, smoother focusing ring etc... Most avearge m43 users bark at paying such price premium.  Since FORUM TRAFFIC is dependent on Average M43 shooters rather than selected connoisseur, very little forum buzz is created for Oly 17mm

2. Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 is only $349! - While I much appreciate Oly's superior construction and fine focusing ring, Panasonic is almost twice as cheap!  For half the price, I can live with its short coming in slower + nosier AF

3. Better to have Olympus 12mm F/2 for $799 - Most people have a budget.  If I'm going to pay a premium for any wide prime, I rather have an Olympus 12mm than a 17mm.  I can always crop from a 12mm into a 17mm field of view, but I can't do the reverse.

Not that Olympus 17mm is a bad lens, it just that Olympus 12mm is a great lens and I can't justify owning them both.

Functionally it is about as close to perfect as a $500 lens without a @#$@$ lens hood can be.  Feels, great, has the neat focus ring clutch thing, can focus close, is fast in both senses of the word and looks great.  Optically it renders nicely, has good sharpness and great contrast and bokeh.

Its biggest downfall is sharpness.  It is good but certainly not in the class of the 20, 25 or 45mm lenses.  (I'm assuming the 75mm would also crush it.)

I've owned it for a day.  So I reserve the right to completely change my mind.  But right now I'm thinking it will replace my 14 (junk) and 20mm.

--
This never would have happened if Tedolf was still alive.

If this was a $350 lens, I'll get.  For what they are charging, I expected performance like the 45 or 25.  SO my reason is similar to what many stated.  Too bad. I was hoping for that to replace the 20.

MTMT

Where is that price coming from?  I went to the local store and paid $500 for mine yesterday.

--
This never would have happened if Tedolf was still alive.

I can't see the point of obsessing over optical differences if you're shooting at ISO3200. I shoot ISO800 as a practical maximum with the 20/1.7, as it's so short you can handhold 1/8s regularly with the OMD's awesome IBIS.

Maybe 5% of all shots I take are at ISO1600. Most are not deemed print or post-worthy. I never consider 3200. That's one of the things that makes the OMD so compelling to me - the short distance from sensor to flange, and the very short overall length of lenses like the 20, means that the whole works is mercifully short. Throw in the IBIS, and you have a serious low-light camera, small sensor be damned. It's a dark day in hades if I have to resort to 1/13th or ISO1600 to steady things out with the 20.

Here's an example of my low-light OMD/20mm results. Lighting in this venue could be charitably described as weak and mixed:

Wheels Through Time - Monochrome Madness

Mine hasn't arrived! 

But what about photographing people. This is a favorite focal length for many street photogs. In dimmer conditions, you almost have to bump the ISO levels.

From the practical point of view, the banding issue is blown out of proportion. Do you see many users complaining about shots ruined by it? I don't. I mostly see hypothetical posts.

Vlad



This gives a pretty good explanation:

http://www.lenstip.com/357.11-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_17_mm_f_1.8_Summary.html

In short, the Panasonic at f/1.7 performs around as well as the Olympus at f/2.8 (1.5 stops later) in the center. Apart from being much better at wide apertures, the 20/1.7 does better optically at it's peak than the 17/1.8 despite being a smaller pancake lens costing $150 less.

I pre-ordered mine from B&H over two weeks ago, and it still hasn't even shipped. I'm ready to pull my @#$%^& hair out. They're charging $479 for the lens with $10 shipping, so not too bad IMO. I was torn between the 17mm and the 25mm, but in the end decided that the 17mm is probably going to give me the versatility I want for shooting on the street but also being able to capture family candids as needed. If the sharpness of the 17mm isn't up to my standards, I'll swap it for the 25mm, which is unfortunately plastic and a behemoth. I think there will be more buzz about this lens once more people actually have it in their possession.