New Olympus 17mm 1.8

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
texinwien
Senior MemberPosts: 2,650Gear list
Like?
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
In reply to tt321, 7 months ago

tt321 wrote:

texinwien wrote:

In my experience, the condition in which the 20mm f/1.7 is slower to autofocus (that of switching back and forth between focusing on something between 0.2 and 0.5 meters and something between 0.75 meters and infinity) is an absolute rarity.

Not so fast.

Whoah, Nelly!

Please take a moment to read the portion of the quote I bolded above. Then take a moment to read the next one. It directly followed the above passage in my post, but you snipped it out in your reply to me:

I accept that this may not be the case for others, however.

Also this one, with which I signed off:

Or just about 99.9% of all photographic situations in which I find myself. Again, YMMV.

I believe I made it crystal clear that I was talking specifically about my experience, and that other photographers may have different needs. Do you disagree?

I sometimes have this work flow: See something, turn on the camera, (roughly) frame, focus, and take one shot or a number of bracketed shots. Turn off the camera.

My E-M5 is set to reset focus to infinity when I turn it on. It's usually finished with that before I am able to get the camera to my eye and frame my shot. In over 5,000 photos taken with my E-M5 and 20mm (one of 9 native m43 lenses I own), I cannot recall one instance in which I missed a shot because of slow focus with the 20mm immediately after turning my E-M5 on.

Again, that's my experience. YMMV (look it up if you don't know the meaning).

 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Canon EOS 300D Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mark Chan
Senior MemberPosts: 1,706
Like?
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
In reply to Brian Lavoie, 7 months ago

Brian Lavoie wrote:

I love this lens, olympus has come up with a winner again.

ISO 200 17mm, F1.8, 1/50 pic was handheld lightning was halogen ceiling light with new white balance. some lightning was reflected from kitchen granite counter-top.

Brian,

I apologize for being one of those 'hijacking' your thread that was focusing on what is a splendid picture. Love the shot.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sergey_Green
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,947Gear list
Like?
Now that I think of it ..
In reply to Mark Chan, 7 months ago

Mark Chan wrote:

Brian,

I apologize for being one of those 'hijacking' your thread that was focusing on what is a splendid picture. Love the shot.

Inspires to try it out. Holding light above the flower with dark in the background.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

 Sergey_Green's gear list:Sergey_Green's gear list
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tt321
Senior MemberPosts: 3,596Gear list
Like?
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
In reply to texinwien, 7 months ago

texinwien wrote:

tt321 wrote:

texinwien wrote:

In my experience, the condition in which the 20mm f/1.7 is slower to autofocus (that of switching back and forth between focusing on something between 0.2 and 0.5 meters and something between 0.75 meters and infinity) is an absolute rarity.

Not so fast.

Whoah, Nelly!

Please take a moment to read the portion of the quote I bolded above. Then take a moment to read the next one. It directly followed the above passage in my post, but you snipped it out in your reply to me:

I accept that this may not be the case for others, however.

Also this one, with which I signed off:

Or just about 99.9% of all photographic situations in which I find myself. Again, YMMV.

I believe I made it crystal clear that I was talking specifically about my experience, and that other photographers may have different needs. Do you disagree?

I sometimes have this work flow: See something, turn on the camera, (roughly) frame, focus, and take one shot or a number of bracketed shots. Turn off the camera.

My E-M5 is set to reset focus to infinity when I turn it on. It's usually finished with that before I am able to get the camera to my eye and frame my shot. In over 5,000 photos taken with my E-M5 and 20mm (one of 9 native m43 lenses I own), I cannot recall one instance in which I missed a shot because of slow focus with the 20mm immediately after turning my E-M5 on.

Again, that's my experience. YMMV (look it up if you don't know the meaning).

You seem to think that I was accusing you of generalizing your personal experiences to others, which I feel the need now to assure you was not my intention at all. For any confusion created, my apologies.

What I did was to supply another set of personal experiences, basically joining you in the task of filling out the entire set of personal experiences.

Not all cameras seem to have the facility of resetting lens focus to infinity? I must admit I have not seen or investigated this possibility with my G3.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mark Chan
Senior MemberPosts: 1,706
Like?
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
In reply to Anders W, 7 months ago

Anders W wrote:

Mark Chan wrote:

FrankS009 wrote:

“Photographers, like few other artists I can imagine, have an insanely personal relationship with their gear. …we can’t help it that our craft is so dependent on gear, but it’s scary how quickly the gear becomes the not the means but the end. “ This statement from David duChemin, one of my favourite authors about photography (and whom I quote in my signature line), reminds me just how attached we can become to our cameras, our lenses, and to the companies that produce them.

This thread began with an ode in praise of a particular lens by an owner. It then became an attack on critics of the lens, and against another lens that was perceived as a rival. A great deal of time has been spent on assertions about whether more people prefer one over the other, or quasi technical analyses of the differences from the points of view of owners, and sometimes of good photographers who write blogs where they give personal judgments not divorced from their own strong feelings and attachments. People feel what they feel.

Throughout the thread, Anders W. has taken a position that infuriates those that oppose him because he simply does not accept untested hypotheses and statements based on personal opinions. He has been called the most intelligent member of the forum; that may or may not be the case, but he certainly is one of the most rigorous in his judgments. He has both Olympus and Panasonic lenses, so he does not speak from the point of view of one company or another. No doubt he is attached to his gear too, but he is willing to stand up for what he thinks. Some of us might agree and let him do the work for us. Others might not. But for one I consider what he has been saying in this thread to be based on good sense, and a certain amount of restraint.

F.

-- hide signature --

When no-one else is there, the camera becomes my means...to say to a wider audience, "Did you see that?" David duChemin

Frank,

I don't deny what Anders has done and his convictions. What I do feel, being one of those speaking from 'personal experience', is that his decision to make a statement based on what 'seems' to be a lack of first hand experience with the lens at hand, distorts his judgement in this particular case.

What is wrong with a lack of first-hand experience if "secondary data sources" are as important as you say below?

Well for one you apply what seem to be 'overbearingly' high standards to secondary sources. e.g. the suggestion that a 'mistake' was made when setting the focus of the 20mm f1.7 from 0.2 to infinity.  That is not a mistake.  The result is merely a characteristic of the lens -  i.e. it is slow to focus across the whole range.

I certainly do not deny the value of the publicly available evidence at our disposal. On the contrary, I try to make the best use of it.

Yes you do; to support your own arguments.  Not extremely objective here.

However, I do distinguish between the evidence produced by others on the one hand and their opinions on the other.

So; seeing that a reviewer videotaping the whole af speed process for 17mm f1.8 and the 20mm f1.8; then concluding that they did a botched job of the study is not opinion? Their 'conclusion' based on videotaped and irrefutable evidence is 'their' opinion?

That is the issue I have.  I can agree that the 17mm has worse microcontrast; but I can't agree that the AF is just the same. The evidence is pretty damning yet you seem to say the AF is 'comparable'. Then you add 'in controlled situations.

I admire Anders with his attention to detail in the test of the several lens he provided. However, as much as primary data is useful, is not appreciation of 'secondary data sources' as important?

I did quite a bit of study online before deciding to purchase a lens - and indeed many different devices; and in many cases the 'various' secondary sources / reviews etc. have credence.

Owning the 20mm f1.7, I decided to still purchase the 17mm f1.8 precisely because the AF speed was not up to par for my purposes. Upon purchasing the 17mm, I was extremely happy to sell off the 20mm as the 17mm was much faster, just as others have found out.

What is Anders' opinion mean in the face of this?

BTW; we are not 'criticizing' the other lens for anything other than its weakness; its IQ is better (my view); but its AF isn't on par.

As individuals we hate to be corrected when we are actually right.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
texinwien
Senior MemberPosts: 2,650Gear list
Like?
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
In reply to tt321, 7 months ago

tt321 wrote:

texinwien wrote:

tt321 wrote:

texinwien wrote:

In my experience, the condition in which the 20mm f/1.7 is slower to autofocus (that of switching back and forth between focusing on something between 0.2 and 0.5 meters and something between 0.75 meters and infinity) is an absolute rarity.

Not so fast.

Whoah, Nelly!

Please take a moment to read the portion of the quote I bolded above. Then take a moment to read the next one. It directly followed the above passage in my post, but you snipped it out in your reply to me:

I accept that this may not be the case for others, however.

Also this one, with which I signed off:

Or just about 99.9% of all photographic situations in which I find myself. Again, YMMV.

I believe I made it crystal clear that I was talking specifically about my experience, and that other photographers may have different needs. Do you disagree?

I sometimes have this work flow: See something, turn on the camera, (roughly) frame, focus, and take one shot or a number of bracketed shots. Turn off the camera.

My E-M5 is set to reset focus to infinity when I turn it on. It's usually finished with that before I am able to get the camera to my eye and frame my shot. In over 5,000 photos taken with my E-M5 and 20mm (one of 9 native m43 lenses I own), I cannot recall one instance in which I missed a shot because of slow focus with the 20mm immediately after turning my E-M5 on.

Again, that's my experience. YMMV (look it up if you don't know the meaning).

You seem to think that I was accusing you of generalizing your personal experiences to others, which I feel the need now to assure you was not my intention at all. For any confusion created, my apologies.

Starting out a reply with 'not so fast' implies that you disagree with and are about to correct whatever the person you're responding to has said. I'm not aware of any other commonly-accepted interpretation of that popular phrase.

Thanks for clarifying your meaning.

What I did was to supply another set of personal experiences, basically joining you in the task of filling out the entire set of personal experiences.

Not all cameras seem to have the facility of resetting lens focus to infinity? I must admit I have not seen or investigated this possibility with my G3.

I had a quick look at the G3 manual online, but didn't find any references to infinity focus. I'm not sure whether the G3 is able to reset the lens to infinity focus when the camera powers on, or not.

Your comments did spur me to do some quick and dirty tests, comparing the time to first photo after powering on with my 20mm and my 12-40mm. The 20mm does strike me as taking a little more time to 'warm up' than the 12-40mm, but the difference appears to be (rough estimation) less than 500ms. Not a world of difference, but it could sometimes be significant in the use-case you described.

 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Canon EOS 300D Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tt321
Senior MemberPosts: 3,596Gear list
Like?
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
In reply to texinwien, 7 months ago

texinwien wrote:

tt321 wrote:

texinwien wrote:

tt321 wrote:

texinwien wrote:

In my experience, the condition in which the 20mm f/1.7 is slower to autofocus (that of switching back and forth between focusing on something between 0.2 and 0.5 meters and something between 0.75 meters and infinity) is an absolute rarity.

Not so fast.

Whoah, Nelly!

Please take a moment to read the portion of the quote I bolded above. Then take a moment to read the next one. It directly followed the above passage in my post, but you snipped it out in your reply to me:

I accept that this may not be the case for others, however.

Also this one, with which I signed off:

Or just about 99.9% of all photographic situations in which I find myself. Again, YMMV.

I believe I made it crystal clear that I was talking specifically about my experience, and that other photographers may have different needs. Do you disagree?

I sometimes have this work flow: See something, turn on the camera, (roughly) frame, focus, and take one shot or a number of bracketed shots. Turn off the camera.

My E-M5 is set to reset focus to infinity when I turn it on. It's usually finished with that before I am able to get the camera to my eye and frame my shot. In over 5,000 photos taken with my E-M5 and 20mm (one of 9 native m43 lenses I own), I cannot recall one instance in which I missed a shot because of slow focus with the 20mm immediately after turning my E-M5 on.

Again, that's my experience. YMMV (look it up if you don't know the meaning).

You seem to think that I was accusing you of generalizing your personal experiences to others, which I feel the need now to assure you was not my intention at all. For any confusion created, my apologies.

Starting out a reply with 'not so fast' implies that you disagree with and are about to correct whatever the person you're responding to has said. I'm not aware of any other commonly-accepted interpretation of that popular phrase.

Thanks for clarifying your meaning.

What I did was to supply another set of personal experiences, basically joining you in the task of filling out the entire set of personal experiences.

Not all cameras seem to have the facility of resetting lens focus to infinity? I must admit I have not seen or investigated this possibility with my G3.

I had a quick look at the G3 manual online, but didn't find any references to infinity focus. I'm not sure whether the G3 is able to reset the lens to infinity focus when the camera powers on, or not.

Your comments did spur me to do some quick and dirty tests, comparing the time to first photo after powering on with my 20mm and my 12-40mm. The 20mm does strike me as slower than the 12-40mm, but the difference appears to be (rough estimation) less than 500ms. Not a world of difference, but it could sometimes be important in the use-case you described.

Can you do another test since you have it with you. I found that all my four m43 native lenses cause the camera to sound differently (none of them is the same as any other!) in what seems to be the 'shutter sound', which I think might include the final aperture actuation sound - the sound produced between focus acquisition and exposure taken. Some would be more crisp and sharper than others etc.

Does this also happen with your E-M5?

Also the 20mm seems to have the longest delay between pressing the shutter button after focus acquisition and the blackout indicating picture taken. In other words, after the focus has been achieved, committing to shoot by pressing the shutter button all the way produces different delays. Zooms seem to be faster than primes and the 20mm seems the slowest. This is impression only without any hard measurement data so I am not trusting it. Still, bit annoying.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
texinwien
Senior MemberPosts: 2,650Gear list
Like?
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
In reply to tt321, 7 months ago

tt321 wrote:

texinwien wrote:

tt321 wrote:

texinwien wrote:

tt321 wrote:

texinwien wrote:

In my experience, the condition in which the 20mm f/1.7 is slower to autofocus (that of switching back and forth between focusing on something between 0.2 and 0.5 meters and something between 0.75 meters and infinity) is an absolute rarity.

Not so fast.

Whoah, Nelly!

Please take a moment to read the portion of the quote I bolded above. Then take a moment to read the next one. It directly followed the above passage in my post, but you snipped it out in your reply to me:

I accept that this may not be the case for others, however.

Also this one, with which I signed off:

Or just about 99.9% of all photographic situations in which I find myself. Again, YMMV.

I believe I made it crystal clear that I was talking specifically about my experience, and that other photographers may have different needs. Do you disagree?

I sometimes have this work flow: See something, turn on the camera, (roughly) frame, focus, and take one shot or a number of bracketed shots. Turn off the camera.

My E-M5 is set to reset focus to infinity when I turn it on. It's usually finished with that before I am able to get the camera to my eye and frame my shot. In over 5,000 photos taken with my E-M5 and 20mm (one of 9 native m43 lenses I own), I cannot recall one instance in which I missed a shot because of slow focus with the 20mm immediately after turning my E-M5 on.

Again, that's my experience. YMMV (look it up if you don't know the meaning).

You seem to think that I was accusing you of generalizing your personal experiences to others, which I feel the need now to assure you was not my intention at all. For any confusion created, my apologies.

Starting out a reply with 'not so fast' implies that you disagree with and are about to correct whatever the person you're responding to has said. I'm not aware of any other commonly-accepted interpretation of that popular phrase.

Thanks for clarifying your meaning.

What I did was to supply another set of personal experiences, basically joining you in the task of filling out the entire set of personal experiences.

Not all cameras seem to have the facility of resetting lens focus to infinity? I must admit I have not seen or investigated this possibility with my G3.

I had a quick look at the G3 manual online, but didn't find any references to infinity focus. I'm not sure whether the G3 is able to reset the lens to infinity focus when the camera powers on, or not.

Your comments did spur me to do some quick and dirty tests, comparing the time to first photo after powering on with my 20mm and my 12-40mm. The 20mm does strike me as slower than the 12-40mm, but the difference appears to be (rough estimation) less than 500ms. Not a world of difference, but it could sometimes be important in the use-case you described.

Can you do another test since you have it with you. I found that all my four m43 native lenses cause the camera to sound differently (none of them is the same as any other!) in what seems to be the 'shutter sound', which I think might include the final aperture actuation sound - the sound produced between focus acquisition and exposure taken. Some would be more crisp and sharper than others etc.

I think you're hearing the aperture actuation sound. I have noticed that the aperture adjustments on some lenses are much louder than on others. See also discussions about rattlesnaking - most lenses will do it, but some are noisier (and therefore more annoying) than others.

Does this also happen with your E-M5?

Yeah - I just double-checked, comparing my 12-40mm to my 20mm. The 20mm is louder, and, visibly, appears that it may be doing more jumping around before the shutter actuates, although I'm not certain on that point.

Also the 20mm seems to have the longest delay between pressing the shutter button after focus acquisition and the blackout indicating picture taken. In other words, after the focus has been achieved, committing to shoot by pressing the shutter button all the way produces different delays. Zooms seem to be faster than primes and the 20mm seems the slowest. This is impression only without any hard measurement data so I am not trusting it. Still, bit annoying.

I've had a similar impression of the 20mm w/r/t aperture-adjustment speed. Like you, I haven't taken the time to test it rigorously. It would be interesting to put the lens through a variety of paces to see whether there were other performance bottlenecks unrelated to AF speed.

 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Canon EOS 300D Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Pixnat2
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,208Gear list
Like?
Re: I'd rather
In reply to Anders W, 7 months ago

Anders W wrote:

I'd much prefer that as well. We will be driving through Switzerland this summer on our way to Piedmont (as many times before). Don't know how close to Valais we'll get (we usually take the San Bernardino tunnel rather than Gran San Bernardo), but I'll PM you if/when I know we'll be coming your way and we'll see if we can work something out.

Great! So maybe see you this summer.

Happy shooting in the meantime.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/

 Pixnat2's gear list:Pixnat2's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Canon EOS M Nikon D600 Olympus E-M1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian Lavoie
Forum MemberPosts: 68Gear list
Like?
Re: I'd rather
In reply to Pixnat2, 7 months ago

To all

i am sorry I posted a picture that a few felt it was out of focus. I have second thoughts about posting any more shots to this forum. I cannot believe the people that went on an on about the lens, if you  don't like the lens don't buy it. I will not praise olympus or any other manufacture about trying to do an honest effort on producing a lens that makes one want to go out and take photographs. i have both panasonic and olympus lens and I prefer to spent my time taking photos than I enjoy than sitting on a computer going on and on  as happened here.

This has taken the fun out of it all.

Brian

 Brian Lavoie's gear list:Brian Lavoie's gear list
Leica V-Lux 20 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm F4-5.6 OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tt321
Senior MemberPosts: 3,596Gear list
Like?
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
In reply to Anders W, 7 months ago

Anders W wrote:

amtberg wrote:

Anders W wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Jolly Oly wrote:

By your standards this is very unscientific and shallow I guess.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/17/olympus-zd-17-1_8/

Ming says: "The 20/1.7 has the highest overall scene contrast, but the 17/1.8 wins out in microcontrast and reproduction of fine detail structures – personally, I prefer this as it gives me more latitude for processing before the shadows and highlights block up."

My comment: It's clearly evident from Ming's samples that the 20 does better with respect to global contrast and microcontrast (the contrast between smaller details) alike. When Ming says that he has "more latitude for processing [with the 17] before the shadows and highlights block up" he means that he can apply more sharpening. But the point here is that the 20 simply needs less sharpening by virtue of having more microcontrast in the first place. And not having to sharpen (much) is preferable on all counts. It doesn't increase the noise level and yields a cleaner, more natural look.

Ming's conclusion about microcontrast seems bizarre to me, in light of his 100% comparison crops. The superiority of the 20mm f/1.7 in terms of sharpness and microcontrast is plain as the light of day (to me) in his samples. It's hard to understand how he could look at the same comparison photos and reach the conclusion he did.

I've always found that completely incomprehensible too. It is extremely clear to my eyes that the 20 does noticeably better in his samples not only with regard to global contrast but also with regard to sharpness/microcontrast. I've seen similar differences in other places as well, but this is about the clearest example I am aware of, yet with the wrong conclusion drawn by the reviewer. Truly ironic.

Another ironic fact is that Jolly Olly is certainly not the first to refer to this review to support the claim that the 17/1.8 is superior to the 20/1.7. Happens all the time. So quite a few are willing to buy the views of the "expert" although it is there for everyone to see that "the emperor is naked". And if they don't manage to see what is actually going on here, what reason do we have to pay any attention to their subjective impressions of their own images.

I think that some people use "microcontrast" in the same way that others use "that 3D look", i.e. it's put forth as a quality that argues in favor of the lens they prefer when the objective measurements favor the other lens.

I am afraid you might be right about that. I get the impression that many people don't realize that resolution and microcontrast (as the latter term should properly be used) are inherently linked in logical terms, and that whenever we talk about the one we are implicitly talking about the other as well.

Looking at the comparison examples in MT's review, it would seem that the 20/1.7 offers a higher colour saturation (at least in the reds and in the centre of the frame) than the other two lenses. Same body, assuming exactly the same processing and therefore this is only the lenses differing, would this have anything to do with 'microcontrast'?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 18,167Gear list
Like?
Re: I'd rather
In reply to Pixnat2, 7 months ago

Pixnat2 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

I'd much prefer that as well. We will be driving through Switzerland this summer on our way to Piedmont (as many times before). Don't know how close to Valais we'll get (we usually take the San Bernardino tunnel rather than Gran San Bernardo), but I'll PM you if/when I know we'll be coming your way and we'll see if we can work something out.

Great! So maybe see you this summer.

Hope we will have the possibility to stopy by.

BTW: The couple we are renting our apartment from in Piedmont are Swiss. They took an early retirement, bought an old wine property, refurbished it, and moved down. They are originally from Bern and we sometimes talk about Wallis, as they call it, since I get the feeling they are there quite frequently. Possibly, they even have some sort of vacation house there.

Happy shooting in the meantime.

Same to you.

 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
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 18,167Gear list
Like?
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
In reply to tt321, 7 months ago

tt321 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

amtberg wrote:

Anders W wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Jolly Oly wrote:

By your standards this is very unscientific and shallow I guess.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/17/olympus-zd-17-1_8/

Ming says: "The 20/1.7 has the highest overall scene contrast, but the 17/1.8 wins out in microcontrast and reproduction of fine detail structures – personally, I prefer this as it gives me more latitude for processing before the shadows and highlights block up."

My comment: It's clearly evident from Ming's samples that the 20 does better with respect to global contrast and microcontrast (the contrast between smaller details) alike. When Ming says that he has "more latitude for processing [with the 17] before the shadows and highlights block up" he means that he can apply more sharpening. But the point here is that the 20 simply needs less sharpening by virtue of having more microcontrast in the first place. And not having to sharpen (much) is preferable on all counts. It doesn't increase the noise level and yields a cleaner, more natural look.

Ming's conclusion about microcontrast seems bizarre to me, in light of his 100% comparison crops. The superiority of the 20mm f/1.7 in terms of sharpness and microcontrast is plain as the light of day (to me) in his samples. It's hard to understand how he could look at the same comparison photos and reach the conclusion he did.

I've always found that completely incomprehensible too. It is extremely clear to my eyes that the 20 does noticeably better in his samples not only with regard to global contrast but also with regard to sharpness/microcontrast. I've seen similar differences in other places as well, but this is about the clearest example I am aware of, yet with the wrong conclusion drawn by the reviewer. Truly ironic.

Another ironic fact is that Jolly Olly is certainly not the first to refer to this review to support the claim that the 17/1.8 is superior to the 20/1.7. Happens all the time. So quite a few are willing to buy the views of the "expert" although it is there for everyone to see that "the emperor is naked". And if they don't manage to see what is actually going on here, what reason do we have to pay any attention to their subjective impressions of their own images.

I think that some people use "microcontrast" in the same way that others use "that 3D look", i.e. it's put forth as a quality that argues in favor of the lens they prefer when the objective measurements favor the other lens.

I am afraid you might be right about that. I get the impression that many people don't realize that resolution and microcontrast (as the latter term should properly be used) are inherently linked in logical terms, and that whenever we talk about the one we are implicitly talking about the other as well.

Looking at the comparison examples in MT's review, it would seem that the 20/1.7 offers a higher colour saturation (at least in the reds and in the centre of the frame) than the other two lenses. Same body, assuming exactly the same processing and therefore this is only the lenses differing, would this have anything to do with 'microcontrast'?

The effect on the color that you see in that image is an effect of contrast/microcontrast, yes. More contrast gives better color, but it is not really a matter of "saturation" (although I think I understand perfectly well what you mean when you say that). You can see the difference clearly when you PP. Increasing contrast gives deeper as well as crisper color that I often find attractive. Increasing saturation usually doesn't, so I typically leave the saturation slider alone.

Very clear examples of how it works out can be found by looking at foliage with a good and a bad lens (or the same lens but at different apertures, if there is a significant sharpness difference between them). With a good lens, the green will be fresh and crisp. With a bad lens, it will look like a dark-green mush. I'll see if I can find some good examples for you later. Don't have the time right now.

 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
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 18,167Gear list
Like?
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
In reply to tt321, 7 months ago

tt321 wrote:

texinwien wrote:

tt321 wrote:

texinwien wrote:

In my experience, the condition in which the 20mm f/1.7 is slower to autofocus (that of switching back and forth between focusing on something between 0.2 and 0.5 meters and something between 0.75 meters and infinity) is an absolute rarity.

Not so fast.

Whoah, Nelly!

Please take a moment to read the portion of the quote I bolded above. Then take a moment to read the next one. It directly followed the above passage in my post, but you snipped it out in your reply to me:

I accept that this may not be the case for others, however.

Also this one, with which I signed off:

Or just about 99.9% of all photographic situations in which I find myself. Again, YMMV.

I believe I made it crystal clear that I was talking specifically about my experience, and that other photographers may have different needs. Do you disagree?

I sometimes have this work flow: See something, turn on the camera, (roughly) frame, focus, and take one shot or a number of bracketed shots. Turn off the camera.

My E-M5 is set to reset focus to infinity when I turn it on. It's usually finished with that before I am able to get the camera to my eye and frame my shot. In over 5,000 photos taken with my E-M5 and 20mm (one of 9 native m43 lenses I own), I cannot recall one instance in which I missed a shot because of slow focus with the 20mm immediately after turning my E-M5 on.

Again, that's my experience. YMMV (look it up if you don't know the meaning).

You seem to think that I was accusing you of generalizing your personal experiences to others, which I feel the need now to assure you was not my intention at all. For any confusion created, my apologies.

What I did was to supply another set of personal experiences, basically joining you in the task of filling out the entire set of personal experiences.

Not all cameras seem to have the facility of resetting lens focus to infinity? I must admit I have not seen or investigated this possibility with my G3.

I am pretty sure the G3 will reset the lens too, both when you mount a new lens, and when you turn the camera on after it's been off. Both my G1 and my E-M5 does it, and I think all MFT cameras do this by default (although at least some may have an option of disabling it). If you have the 20, you can easily see this for yourself since its AF is visible as well as audible. Doesn't it perform a little dance where it moves the inner barrel in-out every time you mount it or turn the camera on?

 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
FrankS009
Senior MemberPosts: 2,236Gear list
Like?
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
In reply to Mark Chan, 7 months ago

I enjoy the photo too. Its what we need during this long lasting winter of our discontent - in North America anyway.

F.

-- hide signature --

When no-one else is there, the camera becomes my means...to say to a wider audience, "Did you see that?" David duChemin

 FrankS009's gear list:FrankS009's gear list
Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 18,167Gear list
Like?
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
In reply to Mark Chan, 7 months ago

Mark Chan wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Mark Chan wrote:

FrankS009 wrote:

“Photographers, like few other artists I can imagine, have an insanely personal relationship with their gear. …we can’t help it that our craft is so dependent on gear, but it’s scary how quickly the gear becomes the not the means but the end. “ This statement from David duChemin, one of my favourite authors about photography (and whom I quote in my signature line), reminds me just how attached we can become to our cameras, our lenses, and to the companies that produce them.

This thread began with an ode in praise of a particular lens by an owner. It then became an attack on critics of the lens, and against another lens that was perceived as a rival. A great deal of time has been spent on assertions about whether more people prefer one over the other, or quasi technical analyses of the differences from the points of view of owners, and sometimes of good photographers who write blogs where they give personal judgments not divorced from their own strong feelings and attachments. People feel what they feel.

Throughout the thread, Anders W. has taken a position that infuriates those that oppose him because he simply does not accept untested hypotheses and statements based on personal opinions. He has been called the most intelligent member of the forum; that may or may not be the case, but he certainly is one of the most rigorous in his judgments. He has both Olympus and Panasonic lenses, so he does not speak from the point of view of one company or another. No doubt he is attached to his gear too, but he is willing to stand up for what he thinks. Some of us might agree and let him do the work for us. Others might not. But for one I consider what he has been saying in this thread to be based on good sense, and a certain amount of restraint.

F.

-- hide signature --

When no-one else is there, the camera becomes my means...to say to a wider audience, "Did you see that?" David duChemin

Frank,

I don't deny what Anders has done and his convictions. What I do feel, being one of those speaking from 'personal experience', is that his decision to make a statement based on what 'seems' to be a lack of first hand experience with the lens at hand, distorts his judgement in this particular case.

What is wrong with a lack of first-hand experience if "secondary data sources" are as important as you say below?

Well for one you apply what seem to be 'overbearingly' high standards to secondary sources. e.g. the suggestion that a 'mistake' was made when setting the focus of the 20mm f1.7 from 0.2 to infinity. That is not a mistake. The result is merely a characteristic of the lens - i.e. it is slow to focus across the whole range.

It is a mistake from a relevance point of view, just as I said. He gives the impression in his review that his conclusion with regard to AF applies generally. In reality, it applies to a very small part of most people's actual usage of these two lenses, i.e. when you go from extreme close-up to more normal range or the reverse and need to AF very quickly in doing so. I've never seen anyone argue that this is a significant need until you did here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53300232

And yes, we can easily know something about how people typically use the 17 and 20 through the discussions on this and other sites as well as by just looking at the images we see posted.

I certainly do not deny the value of the publicly available evidence at our disposal. On the contrary, I try to make the best use of it.

Yes you do; to support your own arguments. Not extremely objective here.

I take that as a direct insult. I am a scientist and take scientific conduct seriously. Consequently, I don't take a firm position first and then look around for evidence that might support it. Rather, I first consider the evidence and then arrive at a provisional conclusion. If I encounter new evidence that I consider to be of questionable validitiy or relevance, I never knowingly use it even if it favors my prior conclusion. Likewise, if I encounter new evidence that I find reason to think is valid and relevant, I don't discard it even if it speaks against my own prior conclusion. Rather, I would revise my conclusion.

However, I do distinguish between the evidence produced by others on the one hand and their opinions on the other.

So; seeing that a reviewer videotaping the whole af speed process for 17mm f1.8 and the 20mm f1.8; then concluding that they did a botched job of the study is not opinion?

What I did was to draw a conclusion with regard to relevance. See above.

Their 'conclusion' based on videotaped and irrefutable evidence is 'their' opinion?

No. It is a conclusion of marginal practical relevance, stated as though it would apply more generally, which it doesn't.

That is the issue I have. I can agree that the 17mm has worse microcontrast; but I can't agree that the AF is just the same.

Try to read and comprehend. I didn't say they were the same in all regards.

The evidence is pretty damning yet you seem to say the AF is 'comparable'. Then you add 'in controlled situations.

The evidence is not damning at all

I admire Anders with his attention to detail in the test of the several lens he provided. However, as much as primary data is useful, is not appreciation of 'secondary data sources' as important?

I did quite a bit of study online before deciding to purchase a lens - and indeed many different devices; and in many cases the 'various' secondary sources / reviews etc. have credence.

Owning the 20mm f1.7, I decided to still purchase the 17mm f1.8 precisely because the AF speed was not up to par for my purposes. Upon purchasing the 17mm, I was extremely happy to sell off the 20mm as the 17mm was much faster, just as others have found out.

What is Anders' opinion mean in the face of this?

BTW; we are not 'criticizing' the other lens for anything other than its weakness; its IQ is better (my view); but its AF isn't on par.

As individuals we hate to be corrected when we are actually right.

 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
Pixnat2
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,208Gear list
Like?
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
In reply to Anders W, 7 months ago

Anders W wrote:

I am a scientist and take scientific conduct seriously. Consequently, I don't take a firm position first and then look around for evidence that might support it. Rather, I first consider the evidence and then arrive at a provisional conclusion. If I encounter new evidence that I consider to be of questionable validitiy or relevance, I never knowingly use it even if it favors my prior conclusion. Likewise, if I encounter new evidence that I find reason to think is valid and relevant, I don't discard it even if it speaks against my own prior conclusion. Rather, I would revise my conclusion.

This is all to your honour Anders, and I have no doubts you strictly apply this scientific behavior in your life.

Speaking of this issue, it seems that there's a sort of consilience about the 17mm having faster AF than the 20mm f/1.7.

You are skeptical about this convergence of facts, because you find the testing methods not rigourous enough and questionable.

I'm afraid the only way for you to reach a strong and definitive conclusion (if it is important for you of course) is to acquire (buy or rent) a 17mm f/1.8 and proceed to AF testing with your method.

Then, and only then, you (and us ) will know the Truth.

Cheers,
Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/

 Pixnat2's gear list:Pixnat2's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Canon EOS M Nikon D600 Olympus E-M1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tt321
Senior MemberPosts: 3,596Gear list
Like?
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
In reply to Anders W, 7 months ago

Anders W wrote:

tt321 wrote:

Not all cameras seem to have the facility of resetting lens focus to infinity? I must admit I have not seen or investigated this possibility with my G3.

I am pretty sure the G3 will reset the lens too, both when you mount a new lens, and when you turn the camera on after it's been off. Both my G1 and my E-M5 does it, and I think all MFT cameras do this by default (although at least some may have an option of disabling it). If you have the 20, you can easily see this for yourself since its AF is visible as well as audible. Doesn't it perform a little dance where it moves the inner barrel in-out every time you mount it or turn the camera on?

This dance happens all right, but I will have to check what position the focus gets to after turning on again. I don't have the lens with me. Does it go back to where it was before turning off or does it go to infinity by default and forget where it was at turning off? If the latter then the awful delays I remember must have been when I used the lens for close focus.

A lot of the impression of nimbleness from slow zooms may be from their being slow and thus not needing to sweep the aperture too much.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tt321
Senior MemberPosts: 3,596Gear list
Like?
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
In reply to Anders W, 7 months ago

Probably vividness would be a better word?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
madmaxmedia
Senior MemberPosts: 1,517
Like?
There are some tricks for the old dog...
In reply to tt321, 7 months ago

tt321 wrote:

Not all cameras seem to have the facility of resetting lens focus to infinity? I must admit I have not seen or investigated this possibility with my G3.

I just tried with my GX1/20mm. Regardless of where focus is set before I turn it off, when I turn it back on the focus is at infinity. I think the main reason for this, is that the moving element retracts at infinity, and extends as focus distance decreases.

I would actually prefer the camera turn off without changing focus distance, I'm usually shooting closer than further. But probably the current way is best for impact protection anyway. This behavior may very well be programmed in the firmware of the lens, rather than the body.

Actually, reading all these posts has helped me understand the 20m better. When you turn the camera on, just first AF somewhere that is similar in distance to your subject (the ground, your subject's feet, whatever.) If you just start doing it instinctively right after powering on, it will probably help your shooting and generally is not hard to do.

Then when you want to take a shot, the fastest way to capture is to point at your subject and do a full-press to eliminate the human delay of waiting for the green box, then pushing the shutter button all the way. I don't get a lot of hunting on the GX1, when shooting lower-light candids I subjectively recall I got more hunting on the E-PM2 but can't say for sure.

If you miss the subject and the camera starts focusing on a distant background, let go of the shutter. Don't wait for it to rack focus to infinity, it will only slow you down.

I think little things like that can significantly improve the experience of shooting with the 20mm. It still won't be operationally as fast as other lenses, but should help as other aspects of this lens are very good. I also happen to like the 40mm-equiv. focal distance very much, especially when paired with say the 45mm as a compact 2-lens kit. 40mm is an interesting sweet spot between 35mm and 50mm.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads