Previous news story    Next news story

Olympus US gives $500 price and December date for 17mm f/1.8

By dpreview staff on Nov 15, 2012 at 06:00 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $499.00

Olympus USA has announced its M.Zuiko Digital 17mm f/1.8 for Micro Four Thirds will be available in December for around $500. The lens features the same premium build quality and snap-focus manual focus mode as the company's 12mm f/2.0. The snap-focus mode is engaged by pulling the focus ring on the lens back, which reveals a distance scale and engages end-stops on the focus travel, applies firmer damping and switches the camera to manual focus mode. Olympus UK, meanwhile, has announced a price of £449.99.


Press Release:

OLYMPUS INTRODUCES A NEW BRIGHT F1.8 MICRO FOUR THIRDS® LENS FOR BRILLIANT SNAPSHOTS IN CHALLENGING SITUATIONS

CENTER VALLEY, Pa., November 15, 2012 – Today, Olympus adds to the Micro Four Thirds family of lenses with the release of the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 17mm f1.8 lens (34mm in 35mm equivalent), a bright, wide-angle, single-focal-length lens ideal for snapshot street shooting, landscape photography or capturing subjects in challenging low-light environments. This high quality, compact lens features a stunning metal body and a Snapshot Focus mechanism for pan focusing with a distance indicator.

The M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 17mm f1.8 has nine carefully placed lens elements in six groups to deliver sharp images of subjects with beautiful, eye-catching depth of field. The advanced optical system features three aspherical lenses, including a Dual Super Aspherical element to correct aberrations, as well as a High Refractive index lens to correct high spherical aberrations. Each lens element is polished to an ultra-high level of working precision only possible with the progressive techniques developed by Olympus master craftsmen, and carefully assembled to ensure maximum accuracy and reliability. Olympus’ exclusive ZERO (ZUIKO Extra-low Reflection Optical Coating) lens coatings are applied to the elements to reduce lens flare and ghost images even when shooting against the light.

The Snapshot Focus mechanism lets users easily take spontaneous, blur-free images by shifting the focusing point to a specific distance. Sliding the focus ring back reveals range markings on the lens barrel, including distance and depth of field scales, which can be used as guides as the user adjusts the focal distance by rotating the ring.

With a total length of just 1.4 inches, the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 17mm f1.8 is incredibly compact and adds to the rapidly growing lineup of Olympus Micro Four Thirds lenses that enhance the performance and versatility of Olympus OM-D® and PEN® Compact System Cameras. The sophisticated, textured metallic finish projects a stylish, classic look that complements the design of Olympus® compact system cameras.

Ideal for capturing brilliant still images and high-definition (HD) videos, the lens employs Olympus' proven MSC (Movie & Still Compatible) autofocusing mechanism featuring an inner focus system to drive this single-focal-length lens for fast and quiet focusing.

The optional LH-48B Lens Hood and LC-48B Lens Cap are designed exclusively for the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 17mm f1.8 and both are elegant in design with a finely textured metallic outer finish and distinctive, classic appearance. The Olympus VF-1 optical viewfinder, originally developed for use with the M.Zuiko Digital 17mm f2.8 lens, is also compatible with the new lens.

U.S. Pricing and Availability

The Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 17mm f1.8 Lens will be available in December.

Estimated Street Price: $499.99

For a complete list of specifications, visit the Olympus website: http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/lenses/m-zuiko-digital-17mm-f1-8.html

327
I own it
47
I want it
15
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 277
12
Steve oliphant
By Steve oliphant (Nov 19, 2012)

Thats f1.8 nice........

0 upvotes
RaZZ3R Death
By RaZZ3R Death (Nov 18, 2012)

Just asking here but does this little lens have very good macro capabilities because I see written on the lens 1:1.8 between 17mm and MSC logo and the only thing that comes to my mind the obvious magnification numbers.

0 upvotes
RoelHendrickx
By RoelHendrickx (Nov 18, 2012)

The 1:1.8 refers to F1.8 - another way to write the same thing

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 19, 2012)

The lens only focuses at 25cm from the target, and it's a wide-angle, so no, it isn't a very good macro lens.

1 upvote
julieng
By julieng (Nov 21, 2012)

25mm minimal focus distance.
By comparison, the 1.7/20mm has 20mm minimal focus distance.

0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (2 months ago)

Neither this, or the 1:2.8 Zuiko, nor the panny 20mm have any useful macro capability. Some of the zooms go quite close though.

This Zuiko 17/1.8 IS a good walkabout and low light companion, though

These were shot the morning I opened the box.

http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Behind-the-scenes-with-ABC-loc/

The listeners liked the results (apparently quite a lot as the station mentioned the pics a few times).

The National Film and Sound Archive folk appreciated them too.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
bryanbrun
By bryanbrun (Nov 17, 2012)

You don't buy this lense over the Panny 20mm b/c it focuses faster and silently, you buy it b/c the bokeh is so much better than the Panny 20mm.

The Panny 20mm suffers from harsh pancake bokeh.

The Oly 12mm with the same build and features is one of the top selling lenses on amazon for CSC. Oly is duplicating that approach.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 17, 2012)

Pancake bokeh? Now you're talking nonsense, no offense.

Bokeh has nothing to do with the shape of the lens barrel, but how round an opening the aperture blades form. The 20 1.7 has quite decent bokeh due to the 7-blade aperture. The PL 25 1.4 is a bit better.

In the samples of the 17 1.8 we've seen linked to in the forums the bokeh was nothing special, and frankly the same images from the 20 1.7 look crisper.

Olympus 17 1.8 Samples
http://www.lenstip.com/2023-news-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_17_mm_f_1.8_-_sample_images.html

Panasonic 20 1.7 Samples
http://www.lenstip.com/269.11-Lens_review-Panasonic_G_20_mm_f_1.7_ASPH._Summary.html

4 upvotes
sean000
By sean000 (Nov 17, 2012)

I have had the 20mm f/1.7 since January 2010, and never have I thought the bokeh was lacking or distracting. You have to focus extremely close to your subject to get much blur anyway. For most shots taken a few feet or more from the subject, there will only be a slight defocusing of the background at f/1.7... enough to emphasize your subject but not enough to blur the background into obfuscation. You need a longer lens like the 45mm f/1.8 to get much background blur at a normal shooting distance, so there the quality of the bokeh will matter more.

My 20mm pancake focuses fast enough for me on both my old GF1 and on my E-M5, and it produces sharp and contrasty images. I bet this new Oly will be a fantastic lens, but I'm going to pass for now. As my kids get older, the 20mm focus speed will become more of an issues, so I can see upgrading in a year or two. - Sean

1 upvote
bryanbrun
By bryanbrun (Nov 18, 2012)

You guys don't know what the F you are talking about.

Go search the m43 forums for 20mm and bokeh. The examples of the harsh Panny bokeh are everywhere. The issue is most apparent with bright OOF highlights. The 20mm highlights are not rounded or smooth, they are harsh and ugly.

I can find numerous reviews of the 20mm where the bokeh is faulted.

And yes there is such a thing as pancake bokeh, seen on lenses from years ago such as the Nikon E Series.

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Klarno
By Klarno (Nov 18, 2012)

marike6, the shape of a point light blur circle has to do with the shape of the lens opening, that is correct. But the visual quality of bokeh is also heavily influenced by any number of other factors going into the lens design. Take a blur circle of a point light source: if the perimeter of that circle is brighter than the interior, that leads to a busy appearance which is not appealing. What you want is for the blur circle to be of even illumination, or brighter in the center than on the perimeter. And that also has nothing to do with the shape of the lens opening; it's to do with the balance of aberration corrections in the lens versus other optical design factors.

With a pancake lens, there's simply less optical material available to work with, making appealing bokeh much more difficult to achieve relative to other factors (such as how the image looks when it's in focus).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
raymondlo84
By raymondlo84 (Nov 21, 2012)

bokeh on wide angle was never easy. Go check out canon 35mm f/1.4, 24mm f/1.4, etc etc... If you want bokeh, go with 50mm f/1.4 and above =) Canon 135mm f/2.0 is super dreamy by the way =)

0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (Dec 9, 2012)

I\ mulling over this lens and the 17/1.7 Panasonic 20 and their 25/1.4.

If this lens is near as sharp as my 45/1.8, 75/1.8, or exceeds my 12/3, the decision's already made.

0 upvotes
Chris2210
By Chris2210 (Nov 16, 2012)

Looks like a nice lens - wonder how it will compare with the Panny 20mm f1.7?

That lens is smaller, [slightly] faster and cheaper - albeit build quality does not look so good. It is one of my favourite lenses, because it's sharp - and vitally for m4/3 it's a pancake. So that's quality and compactness and the ability to create shallow DoF even in this format. For me personally, I can't see what would be compelling about this Olympus [rough] alternative, particularly given the price.

As for m4/3 vs FF. they're different beasts and it's ultimately futile to compare.

Quality in the smaller format will always lag behind because of the physical limitations. But that size factor can be a huge advantage too and a lot of the time [perhaps most] quality is more than good enough. But let's just not pretend it's AS GOOD as current generation FF, because you're putting a welterweight in with a heavyweight...

1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 16, 2012)

There is an article comparing the two lenses here:
http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/11/14/olympus-mzuiko-17mm-f18.html

But don't credit me for it, I merely copied it from another comment down below.

In short, this lens is not as sharp wide-open as the Panasonic, but the sharpness is constant across most of the frame, unlike the Panasonic whose sharpness falls off a bit in the corners.

In terms of AF performance it focuses much much faster and virtually silently. In that regard it is much better than the Panasonic.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 16, 2012)

Actually, most of the crops in the above test showed better sharpness for the 20 1.7. This is no surprise as the Panasonic 20 1.7 is one of the highest resolving lenses in m43 easily matching the near record 75 lpmm of the PL 25 1.4 on the Lenstip Imatest MFT tests at f4, it's sharpest aperture.

(See Lenstip review)

Whether or not the Olympus 17 1.8 matches remains to be seen. Based on the quick test on the above link, it doesn't look like it will.

3 upvotes
anyway565
By anyway565 (Nov 16, 2012)

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx1/

Just a matter of time, Sony will announce a FF NEX similar to above in size and weight with IQ unmatched by any M43.

3 upvotes
acidic
By acidic (Nov 16, 2012)

I've been adopting m4/3 due to image quality improvements and compactness. For more critical work, I still turn to my FF 5D2.

I've been shooting in the 35mm format (and later dSLRs) since the 90s, never choosing pro bodies. I chose this format due to quality and compactness. Yes, even with heavy L lenses, it's still much more compact than MF, or even a pro body (1 series). There are times I've used cheaper lighter sharp lenses (50mm/1.8 and a host of others), but when needed something rugged and sharp, I always reached for the higher end lenses (L glass).

IMO, the Panny 20mm is one of those cheaper lighter sharp lenses. Very sharp, easy to tote, and not as expensive as those with much higher build quality (i.e. Oly 17mm/1.8). But some pros will undoubtedly choose these higher priced lenses, despite being bigger and heavier, and despite being on a system known for its compactness.

0 upvotes
acidic
By acidic (Nov 16, 2012)

Right now, m4/3 provides enough IQ and functionality for the majority of my (pro) needs. But still, it's not nearly enough. Soon enough, it'll get there. When it does, I will probably invest in not only cheap light weight lenses, but in higher quality (heavier) glass as well. Overall it'll still be much lighter than my 5D2 kit.

0 upvotes
harrisoncac
By harrisoncac (Nov 17, 2012)

Quote:
Just a matter of time, Sony will announce a FF NEX similar to above in size and weight with IQ unmatched by any M43.
End of quote

Indeed, even the current Nex F3, 5N, 5R, 6 are much better and cheaper than these mediocre micro 4/3' s.

2 upvotes
ghostwheel
By ghostwheel (Nov 18, 2012)

Sadly, any new NEX announced will still be made by Sony, and Sony has to do a lot to convince me that they started caring about their customers... see H9, PS3, and many others...
So, no matter how good a NEX is, still no go for me.

0 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Nov 16, 2012)

What is it with m4/3 lens announcements that get people buzzing? Previous 2 lens news (from Sigma, Canon) didn't get as much comments. Don't tell me talk of equivalence, lens color, price, performance assumptions, etc. is more exciting than praising Canon for their ground-breaking center pinch lens cap. Crazy!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 16, 2012)

I think that what draws people that use other camera systems here is a mix between envy, fear, jealousy and pride.

Most of the complaints here directly compare this lens to the equivalents for APS-C sized DSLRs. Not other mirrorless DSLRs, but cameras with bigger sensors, and bigger bodies, and bigger lens construction, that were made for different purposes or shooting styles.

I have no disrespect for other camera systems, I've used other camera systems and the same reasons why I switched system are valid as they were on that day as they are today.

It's great that people want to passionately defend their favourite camera systems and that we're all drawn to new photography equipment but there is a point where comments start becoming destructive instead of constructive, and it's really a shame when that happens.

7 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 16, 2012)

You kidding about Canon right? I like m43, but Canon has forgotten more great camera and lens designs than Olympus and Panasonic combined if you want the truth. The Nikon 70-200 f4 VR lens has the same 200+ as this announcement.

1 upvote
joejack951
By joejack951 (Nov 17, 2012)

thewhitehawk, I'm not what your point is re: comparisons with equivalent DSLR lenses (note that mirrorless, by definition, is not a DSLR). So many tout m4/3 as a high quality alternative to expensive full frame equipment yet so frequently, as has happened here, the equivalent, or better, full frame lens is cheaper. If m4/3's sole redeeming factor is size then that's fine but there are numerous m4/3's fans here who need to be reminded of that fact.

1 upvote
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Nov 17, 2012)

Ha. The 20mm f1.7 lens (Pana) is the projectile of the m4/3 system that was not only a shot across the DSLR bow -- it hit one foot below the waterline.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 17, 2012)

@joejack951

Well said.

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 18, 2012)

@joejack951 there's nothing wrong with what you said, but I see a distinct offensive attitude from people that shoot with APS-C or FF sensors against M4/3 specifically.

When a new Canon or Nikon lens is announced for one of their larger-sensor systems, I have never seen an M4/3 user go to the comments and say: "Hah! If you bought a lens like this for M4/3 it would fit in your pocket."

I'm well aware of the advantages or larger sensors. But a large sensor camera simply didn't suit my lifestyle, and now I've found myself carrying and using my M4/3 camera wherever I go and as a result have grown considerably as a photographer.

The most important thing about photography for me, and many people, is not how high image quality you can get, it's the experience you have. That's why, I think, many people still shoot film, or some people went back to film, it's because of the experience.

1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 25, 2012)

@joejack951 You are not wrong, I agree with you. The lenses for full-frame or APS-C cameras are usually cheaper, or around the same price as M4/3 lenses, though the prices do tend to diverge the more tele the focal lengths are, but that's outside of the point.

The point I've been trying to make, is that it's perfectly fine for people who use or understand larger sensor cameras to come to an announcement of a smaller lens and criticise it for it's price or performance, when compared to a larger counterpart, yet, whenever such a lens is released for a larger sensor system, I have never seen any M4/3 user respond on the topic saying something like "hah, on M4/3 this would fit in your pocket, have fun dragging this huge piece of glass around". I even made a comment making fun of that fact on another announcement, and it was very poorly received.

There is a double-standard in this community that doesn't go both ways, and I find that a bit saddening.

0 upvotes
naftade
By naftade (Nov 16, 2012)

This seems to be another really nice product.

But please Olympus, listen to us!

GIVE US BLACK LENSES!!!!!!!

4 upvotes
Alien from Mars
By Alien from Mars (Nov 16, 2012)

In two years for a $200 premium.

3 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Nov 16, 2012)

When consider the price of m4/3rd lens one should also consider the savings in medical bills from chiropractors etc ;-)

9 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (Nov 18, 2012)

Well Said =) this argument holds more weight than the usual equivalence nosense!

0 upvotes
HarrieD7000
By HarrieD7000 (Nov 16, 2012)

To thejohnnerparty, the Nikon DX 35 mm f 1.8 costs $200. The price you mentioned will buy you a 1.4 for a FF.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Nov 16, 2012)

But where is the Nikon DX 24mm f/1.8 for $200 ?

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 17, 2012)

The excellent Nikon 28 1.8 G is a FF lens and is $699. The lovely gold ring, Nano Crystal coating, and lens hood included. :-)

0 upvotes
emircruz
By emircruz (Nov 16, 2012)

Pretty Lens but I wish Oly would stop producing these premium lens cr*p. It doesn't make any sense. How do they expect to get a bigger market share when they release interesting lenses at uninteresting pricepoints?

I say make them good but make them cheap. ie 20mm and 45mm. No need for these all metal construction and pull-manual focus gmicks.

And if you want command higher prices.. I say reincarnate the old SG line to m43! Now those lenses are real gems! They are pricy but at least all come weather-sealed.. and all come with hoods and cases.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Nov 16, 2012)

They already made a cheap 17mm.

5 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 16, 2012)

Believe it or not, some people actually appreciate the "gimmicks". I'm one of them. And if you don't like the "gimmicks" or the high price, there are a few lenses available to you that are more affordable, or you can wait a few months until the price of this lens drops to a price that you're more comfortable with.

I'm pretty sure a few used-versions of this lens will show up shortly after it goes on sale when people are disappointed that it's not as sharp as the Pany 20mm.

Also, as many people have kindly, or not so kindly, reminded all M4/3 shooters here, there are lens systems with more affordable fast prime lenses. M4/3 offers great convenience and good image quality in a small camera body, but it's not the cheapest interchangeable lens system.

3 upvotes
007peter
By 007peter (Nov 16, 2012)

Agree 100% with WhiteHawk that "M4/3 offers great convenience and good image quality in a small camera body, but it's not the cheapest interchangeable lens system"

Love M43, but hate its Premium Pricing

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 16, 2012)

As a small aside, it's worth pointing out that despite of the premium price of this particular lens, it's not too far off from the prices that other mirrorless systems practice.

Fuji's 35mm f1.4 costs around $600 right now and Sony's 35mm f1.8 costs $448.00.

You pay a premium in all mirrorless camera systems from M4/3 onward (in terms of sensor size), not just on M4/3.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (Nov 16, 2012)

If you aren't the kind of person that wants high quality and will pay a premium for products like this, you don't need to. That's one of the best things about m4/3, it's the first mirrorless system to offer a fairly mature lens lineup.

You can do exactly what I did and buy the 14mm 2.5, 20mm 1.7, and 45mm 1.8, and have a well rounded set of primes that give very nice results for easily under $1000. Not a bad value proposition if you ask me.

Not to mention other cheapies like the Oly 17 2.8, Sigma 19 and 30, Samyang 7.5 fisheye, Olympus 40-150...Tons of options can be had for a few hundred bucks. Take your pick.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying m4/3 is cheap- it isn't. The manufacturers smartly charge as much as the market will bear for their products, knowing they offer benefits that some other systems don't. That said, there are choices at a range of price points. If none of the options appeal to you, move along to something that does. Not that hard, right? :)

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
emircruz
By emircruz (Nov 20, 2012)

I love m43 but the strategy and pricing sometimes is insane! I understand that a smaller market means higher prices but the 20mm and 45mm (1.8) prove that high quality (IQ) doesnt always have to mean high prices - and true enough these two sold well.

I dont mind paying for premium as i just got the 25 1.4. I just think people pay premium for High IQ first, then essentials such as AF speed, weather-sealing, IS etc. I dont think all metal construction makes a lot of sense for m43 - at least not right now.
I guess what I am frustrated about is the fact that Olympus is prioritizing great build over getting good products to a lot more people - which I believe is crucial for m43.

Just imagine if the 12mm 2.0 17mm 1.8 and 75 1.8 were all similar to the 45mm 1.8. IMHO, m43 would be in a better position. Don't you agree?

1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 25, 2012)

I think that M4/3 has been losing a few users because of larger-sensor mirrorless systems. Right now, for someone who appreciates very high quality, for some people it makes more sense to choose an NEX system or a Fuji X one. I think now, more than ever, it's important for Olympus and Panasonic to introduce lenses that appeal not just to ordinary consumers but also enthusiasts, they already have a very strong selection of affordable primes.

It's time to show the maturity of M4/3 and elevate the quality and performance, so I think that lenses like this one are important. If you look at most of the lenses that Panasonic announced, they have been also introducing a lot of high-quality fast aperture lenses.

And if you look at Sony's and Fuji's lens roadmap, it isn't very different.

This is simply the way of the market right now. If you don't like the way things currently are and the way the lenses are being priced, perhaps you should consider changing system, to a Nikon 1 or a Pentax Q.

0 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (Nov 16, 2012)

If the quality is there, it is a bargin. Consider the equivalent for a FF (Nikon or Canon) - $2,000+.

1 upvote
kevindar
By kevindar (Nov 16, 2012)

a 34mm f 3.6 prime by canon or nikon would be 2000+ ? really? the canon 35 f2 IS with fantastic MTF is being introduced at 800, and everyone is crying about it, and it would be equivalent of almost 2 stops faster on a full frame.
At the end of the day, when you look at equivalence, with a micro 4/3 system, you are paying for convenience of small form factor, which is great. Nothing wrong with that. but lets not forget the price that we are paying for that is more than money, its a smaller sensor, loss of phase detect autofocus, etc. any comparison in lenses should bring this equivalence in to consideration. Thats why the sigma 30 1.4 for a crop costs 450, and the full frame version 900.

7 upvotes
Paul JM
By Paul JM (Nov 16, 2012)

absolute rubbish. The Canon 35 mm 1.4 (much faster than this Oly esp given crop factor) is for sale at BHP for about 1300 US dollars. Great lens, I have it.
Certainly the Oly lenses are great value for money (I own the 12 mm and 75 mm primes) but lets not overstate matters for the sake of a good post....

1 upvote
pdelux
By pdelux (Nov 16, 2012)

@kevindar - =F3.6 on FF - 2 stops faster? Hardly true. The DOF is equivalent. But thats it. Does that mean you take a FF f2 lens and adapt it to m.43 it becomes f1.0? Of course not, we wish it was!

Equivalence argument is only relative truth, not absolute.

Of course there are lots of other factors to consider, build quality, size, aperture blades, rendering, sharpness, corner sharpness... some intangible... ? You must make a decision based on the lens as a whole, personal values will decide if the product is right for the buyer.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
kevindar
By kevindar (Nov 16, 2012)

My original post should say f 3.4. and yes, 2 stops faster. For sensors of same generation/technology, for the most part, the single determinant of true low light performance (raw snr performance and dynamic range) is the sensor size. dont believe me? go to this link
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d600/21
Pick d600 at iso 12800, your OMD em-5 (the best of micro4/3) at iso 3200 (thats 2 stops), nikon d4 at iso 12800 and pentax k5IIs at iso 6400 (1.5x crop). they are essentially the same in terms of noise, accounting for any difference in magnification. tell me its not so.
as for adapting full frame term for micro 4/3, Canon lenses are designed for a larger image circle. sure you can use them with adapter, but then The dof argument goes out the door also. Its a comparison of systems. the closest thing is canon ef-m 22mm f2 lens, which is a couple of hundred bucks and covers aps-c sensor. I own an NEX 5N in addition to my 5D3, and understand the reasons behind each.

4 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Nov 16, 2012)

kevindar, word!

2 upvotes
NJHr
By NJHr (Nov 16, 2012)

Kevindar you are right but the point you make is also completely irrelevant. The quality of recent m4/3 lenses is very high with prices to match and clearly there is the demand for them otherwise they wouldn't be made. Right now if someone wants cheap they are better off looking at APS-C based solutions, if they want extreme high ISO performance and subject isolation Full Frame.

1 upvote
kevindar
By kevindar (Nov 16, 2012)

I think the small form factor ILC and EVIL cameras are great, and provide exceelent image quality and just the right compromise for many. Heck as I said, I do own an nex 5N system. My initial objection was to the poster saying this same lens would cost 2K if released by Nikon or Canon. Its comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare apples with apples, then you have to look at equivalency. other than that, I am not sayig there is anything wrong with the quality or price of this lens.

1 upvote
NJHr
By NJHr (Nov 16, 2012)

Agree 100% with that, its little more than conjecture to try and dream how up much this lens would cost CaNikon to make and frankly it would only be a valid dream question to ask if CaNikon were making it for m4/3, for a completely different system there are just too many variables to consider. Its a bit like the opposite argument which says it should cost 1/2 as much because it has 1/2 the glass/metal without any reference to the engineering tolerances required or optimisation for the systems focusing and image processing.

1 upvote
James70094
By James70094 (Nov 16, 2012)

@kevindar,
I looked at the D600 and EM-5. The EM-5 at 3200 has less noise, a better comparison would be at 6400. And that still does not change the fact that you are wrong. It's not the lens, it's the camera sensor. A f2 lens is a f2 lens regardless of format. If the sensor doesn't allow it to take low light images, don't blame the lens.

0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Nov 16, 2012)

James, The EM-5 has *at least* one stop more noise than the D600 when raw files are compared. The EM-5 jpegs have very little noise but they also have very little detail.

You seem to be missing the point of equivalency. Yes, an f/2 lens is an f/2 lens regardless of sensor size. But, a 35mm lens on FF offers a completely different field of view than 35mm on m4/3. In order to directly compare, you need a lens of half the focal length to use on the m4/3 system. At that point, 17mm f/2 still does not equal 35mm f/2 because the wide open aperture sizes are different. 17mm f/2 is only a 8.5mm aperture versus 17.5mm for the 25mm f/2. You'd need a 17mm f/1 in order to have the same physical aperture and that would be one very expensive and large lens.

Does it make sense now why equivalency constantly comes up in these discussions? Start comparing physical aperture sizes for the same field of view between m4/3 and FF and you'll see the big compromise being made for the smaller format.

1 upvote
kevindar
By kevindar (Nov 16, 2012)

@james. We of course see what we like to see. Looking at the comparison of same size, d4, I see no difference in noise at all at 12800 vs olympus at 3200. with the K5, it actually looks slightly cleaner to me at iso 6400, but within range. the d600 has a larger image, so everything is magnified. there appears to be maybe slightly more noise in shadows (not highlights) but more detail also. as for olympus at 6400, there is simply visblily more noise in olympus than the other sensors

1 upvote
pdelux
By pdelux (Nov 18, 2012)

@kevindar,

You are getting off track. Firstly this is a discussion about Lenses/and comparative pricing as per the Original post. Now what you are comparing is "sensor performance" not lenses. The cost of a lens does not depend on what Body you place them on..so you are trying to bring the whole systems to determine pricing which is invalid.

What I am saying is you cant compare them no matter how many "equivalence" arguments you make. They will never be APPLES to APPLES.

@NJHr - Im glad there are other people out there with some common sense!

0 upvotes
Zhivko Yakimov
By Zhivko Yakimov (Nov 19, 2012)

There is one more argument to consider - in order to get the better FOV control, you still need a FF body. Even if you believe that you can get a lens as fast as the 17mm f/1.8 for one fifth of the price (I am being generous), the difference in the price of bodies would eat the money you saved from the lens many times over. The argument against the lens is only valid if you could use it on a FF body, or Canon/Nikon produced the same lens for m4/3.

When you complain of the price point, you need to consider the entire system, not only the lens itself, since you obviously can't use Olympus m4/3 lenses on a FF body at the moment. Yes, FF systems are superior than m4/3 - but for a price to match. So is the lens that expensive - not really, if you factor the body that goes with it.

And as pdelux very correctly said, it would be never apples to apples when you compare systems with different sensors. After all, the m4/3 system has always been aimed at enthusiasts, rather than professionals.

0 upvotes
Razgriz
By Razgriz (Nov 16, 2012)

At last, an update to the f2.8 lens I bought with my E-P1.

That lens was super sharp, just a little slow focusing, due to the lens moving,

Superior build quality and f1.8 also, cant wait to try this out.

Well done Olympus:)

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (Nov 16, 2012)

I'm not defending Olympus's pricing strategy, I can only say that you cannot compare lenses based on "size" alone to determine cost (or value).

Less is sometimes more.

You will not find a direct comparison to any other lens, forget all the "equivalence" nonsense. Equivalence may only make sense when comparing one factor (e.g. DOF or FL). You cant measure equivalence as a whole between one m/43 lens to another format's lenses. That's why the "equivalence" arguments never end and are largely pointless. This also applies to Pricing.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
stopkidding
By stopkidding (Nov 16, 2012)

People often compare cost of m43 lenses with lenses for bigger format and assume smaller should be cheaper. In fact the converse is true. Because of the smaller sensor and denser pixel layout, m43 lenses have to be twice as sharp as full frame equivalents to resolve the same lp/mm at a given magnification.

It's harder to design a m4/3 lens than it is to design a medium format lens.

6 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 16, 2012)

you dont know what your talking about. lenses that throw a smaller circle should be cheaper

4 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Nov 16, 2012)

Stopkidding! It is a proven fact that compact cameras with excellent lenses are cheaper than DSLR + lens!!!!

2 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Nov 16, 2012)

Your phone camera lens should be most expensive.

6 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Nov 16, 2012)

You're assuming that FF lenses are barely resolving for their sensors. Same for MF. Truth is, FF and MF lenses can resolve more than the sensors they were designed for which means a given m43 lens isn't necessarily 'twice' as sharp.

Also, the whole 'm43 costs more!' is a horrible argument in favor of the format.

1 upvote
stopkidding
By stopkidding (Nov 16, 2012)

The reason why the cellphone and compact cameras have crappy pictures, is because of their crappy optics. Compare to the quality of an advanced compact like the Panasonic LX-7, Sony RX100 or Fuji X10, its the expensive lens you pay the premium for.

The FF lenses that you mention that out resolve the sensor cost $2000+ and cannot be had for $150 people quote in comparison to a $500 m43 lens. Stick a $150 50mm f/1.8 in front of a D800 and you will see why the pictures are soft wide open or stopped down.

5 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Nov 16, 2012)

I am waiting for NEX E-mount 16-50mm f2.8. Once I get that, I will get rid of most of my M4/3 lenses.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (Nov 16, 2012)

Good luck waiting. It took Sony more than 2 years to come with a small 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 that fits the size of the body's. It will take another 2 to finally get some fast zooms to E-mount. In the meantime, enjoy yourself reading some reviews of the 16-50 f/3.5-5.6.....

1 upvote
whawha
By whawha (Nov 16, 2012)

But why oh why don't they also make them in black??? :(

1 upvote
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Nov 16, 2012)

They are racist.

4 upvotes
aosypov
By aosypov (Nov 27, 2012)

Why are you so nervous with this?
Do you often make images with a lens? ;)

0 upvotes
SammyToronto
By SammyToronto (Nov 15, 2012)

It's on the pricey side, though if the quality is there, which it probably is, it'd be worth it. We'll see how it'll perform when reviewed. Wish it was more compact, though, since I was hoping for a lens about the size of the Panny 20mm.

0 upvotes
Matz03
By Matz03 (Nov 15, 2012)

Wow is it annoying reading about all of the FF lenses and how cheap they are, all of those FF lenses are 10-20 years old and even from film days, of course you can sell it cheap when your tooling for glass has been around for so long. All of canikon glass are dinosaurs compared to the m4/3 stuff. And why would you feel the need to comment when you have no interest in this system and its product releases.

13 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Nov 16, 2012)

Totally agree. The new 35/2 IS USM is $850. Add to that the cost of a new FF body, which is no less tha $2100, like the 6D. Not to mention, more money on larger bags, tripods, filters, etc. Oh and, you gotta carry all that weight around.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
G_Shamrock
By G_Shamrock (Nov 15, 2012)

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00DnRm

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Nov 15, 2012)

Of course this comes out as soon as I buy the 20/1.7! Grahr!

Available in black?

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Nov 15, 2012)

It's essentially the same thing, so no worries. 20mm is a great lens.

3 upvotes
naftade
By naftade (Nov 15, 2012)

exactly what I felt. Hmmf. Not that I don't like the Panasonic. But for reportage purposes it is a little long. And personally (I don't know how to explain it) But in my opinion the OM-D doesn't pair up as nicely with the 20 1.7 as I had hoped. The image character is distinctly different than with native Olympus lenses.
Guess there will be a few 20 f1.7 on sale quite soon.

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 16, 2012)

It's a bit early to say anything definitive, as we don't have in-depth comparisons yet, but first impressions seem to show that the Panasonic is sharper at the center than the Olympus lens is. The Olympus lens however maintains the sharpness constant across the frame.

In terms of image quality, I think that some people will find that the 20mm is a better lens.

For me personally, what turns me "off" in the 20mm, and motivates me to get the Oly lens is the focusing speed and the focus ring.

The 20mm is considerably slower at focusing in non-ideal lighting conditions than my 45mm Olympus lens. This Oly lens seems to share the same focusing performance as the 45mm, and because it's a wider lens, it should be slightly faster than the 45mm. The 20mm is also "noisy" when focusing, and that can be a drawback when you're trying to be inconspicuous.

I love the 20mm in terms of optical quality, but performance-wise it leaves me a bit disappointed on the OM-D body.

0 upvotes
raven900sx
By raven900sx (Nov 15, 2012)

At that price i would of expected it to be weather sealed, especially as the om-d is weather sealed and there are only 2 native m4/3rd weather sealed lens...unless they are going to have a separate line of super expensive lenses like the 4/3 SHG range?

I have no idea of the expected pricing for it here in NZ but if its close to to the 12mm f2 at NZ$1225 then its out of my league sadly :(

even the lens hood for the 12-50 costs us NZ$92 over here

0 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Nov 15, 2012)

Why don't you buy these lenses off e-bay. The reputable powersellers will have them for a fraction of those insane NZ prices. I bought the wonderful 45 f/1.8 for $340AU shipped.

1 upvote
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (Nov 15, 2012)

Let me see. Weather sealed m4/3 lenses. The 12-50mm, the 60mm macro, the 12-35mm and the 35-100mm. I count 4.

3 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

It's considerably cheaper than the 12mm, much to my surprise.

0 upvotes
Sosua
By Sosua (Nov 15, 2012)

Hey Raven - in NZ you can get the 12mm F2 for $1170 from Photo Warehouse and up until the end of January - 20% cashback so you are effectively only getting it for $950 from a Bricks and Mortar store - cheaper than a straight USD conversion... The 17mm F1.8 Will retail at about $700 here.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
raven900sx
By raven900sx (Nov 16, 2012)

17mm at around $700 maybe on the shopping list in the near future

0 upvotes
Paul JM
By Paul JM (Nov 16, 2012)

I agree they should be weather sealed at this price. Not enough weather sealed m43s primes to go with my OMD

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
1 upvote
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Nov 15, 2012)

What has 162 Amazon customer ratings with 4.871 (out of 5) review average?
I don't know of any Amazon product with a higher rating. This gem has its first customer review in October 2009 and it is about the 20mm f1.7 prime pancake from Panasonic (for m4/3). So there. Gold standard.

Knock yourself out, black or silver

1 upvote
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Nov 15, 2012)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and that thing is $2100.

Amazon rating usually mean squat. People buying cheap gears don't know what to expect so they all ended up giving 5s

I have the 20 f/1.7 and it is a great lens but no way I would rate it a 5 considering the price and slowness.

2 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Nov 15, 2012)

You are right, Peia, 23 out of 162 gave it a 4, but nobody rated it less than 4.

Oh, many commented about leaving their DSLRs at home now.

0 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (Nov 15, 2012)

There is not much point comparing prices with DSLR lenses. Many people seem to still have this idea that smaller is cheaper. It should be increasingly clear that an M43 system is not cheap. Low to mid level APS-C DSLR systems are, especially with the heavy recent discounting. There is a price to pay for a smaller and more elegant system and its lenses, compared to the bigger clunky cameras and their lenses.

Buy what suits you. Be happy there is a choice. Ford, Subaru, or a super expensive BMW.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (Nov 15, 2012)

The prices are not determined by size, and only in a limited sense by the scale of manufacturing. The most important factor is what the market can bear, and at the current prices µ4/3 is flying off the shelves. There's simply no reason to lower the prices.

8 upvotes
bluevaping
By bluevaping (Nov 15, 2012)

That is one reason I sold my M43 camera, Lens Prices. I went with Nikon 1 System for my basic needs. The lens I want are often less expensive. There upcoming fast prime 1.8 50mm is less than $200.

4 upvotes
007peter
By 007peter (Nov 15, 2012)

While I agree m43 is simply selling @ "price market will bear", but HIGH PRICE will also push people away, and even makes existing m43 shooter like me regret buying m43 in the first placed.

I bought into m43 because many body are cheap:
- $129 Oly E-PL1
- $200 Panny GF2, GF3
- $170 Panny 14mm f/2.5

But other than that, many m43 lens price are ridiculous expensive:

- ($580) for Panasonic 25mm f/1.4. This is your only choice for 50mm equivalent normal prime. Where as I can buy a Canon 50mm f/1.8 for around $120 easily, or a Canon 40mm f/2.8 pancake for just $199

- I love Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, but is also put off by its nearly $400 usd price

- Likewise, the fabulous $900 Olympus 75mm f/1.8, when a Nikon 85mm f/1.8 cost only $500 and deliver even thinner DOF according to DOFmaster calculator

I love Micro43 and its small size. But I can't ill afford its BIG PRICE TAG :(

I'm contemplating selling off m43 and go back to small dslr like canon rebel or sony slt.

6 upvotes
naftade
By naftade (Nov 15, 2012)

I think you're a little harsh with the system.
Maybe there are not many alternatives in the entry level area. But what you find is almost entirely high quality. If you want this level for your dslr you will also need some coin. Canon's nifty fifty cannot compete with the quality of a pana-leica 25 f1.4. Not even with an Oly 45 f1.8. A Canon 50 f1.4 probably could but this lens isn't really that much cheaper than the Olympus 45mm.
If you get what you pay for, I don't mind some painful expenses. The pain goes away but the fun goes on. Especially since lenses hold their value quite good. Much better than bodies anyway. So once you're done with your bleeding you can have fun for a very long time.

3 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Nov 15, 2012)

Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 = $500
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G= $220 ($280 less for over a full stop faster lens)

According to Photozone.de, the Nikon 50/1.8G has almost 1/3 less barrel distortion and far more even resolution across the frame. The Pana 25/1.4 has only about half of its center resolution at the extreme edges dropping well into the "poor" resolution zone and barely improving even stopped down. The cheap Nikon is even across the frame wide open and resolution keeps getting better as you stop downto f/8 with a slight hit taken by f/11.

5 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (Nov 15, 2012)

@joejack951
and how much will a FF DSLR cost me?

2 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Nov 16, 2012)

Vlad, it's ironic that you bring up the price of FF DSLRs when a few comments up you are defending (apparently over-priced) m4/3s gear. Given the proven lower cost of equivalent (and often faster) FF lenses, the fact that a body like the D600 costs about twice that of an OM-D means little. You'll quickly recoup that cost while enjoying the benefits of a larger sensor and phase-detect AF.

For example, the $1100 price difference is entirely made up just buying a fairly fast 70-200 equivalent zoom:

Olympus 35-100/2 = $2500
Nikon 70-200/4VR = $1400

The kicker here is how much smaller and lighter the FF lens is than the m4/3 lens.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
naftade
By naftade (Nov 16, 2012)

You forget the panasonic 35-100. This is cheaper than your nikon model. And indeed, the comparison between m43 and FFdoesn't make too much sense. Ifsize and weight were meaningless, they woulnd't have bothered to start a product-line such as this.
For me however size and weight matter a lot.

2 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Nov 16, 2012)

These comparisons above are dumb. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8G is a dog of a lens. The Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 seems to be an outstanding lens.

It is just unfortunate that m43 lenses are not cheaper than they are.

0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Nov 16, 2012)

naftade, The Panasonic is equivalent to a 70-200mm f/5.6 and it's still $1500 (at B&H). I can get a Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 for less than $600. The Olympus 35-100mm f/2 is a true equivalent to a FF 70-200mm f/4 lens and it fails miserably in the comparison on both size and cost. The Panasonic fails even more miserably by being $100 more expensive and a full stop slower than the 70-200mm f/4.

The Panasonic is considerably smaller than even the 70-300 so I'll give you that. But the value simply isn't there unless size trumps value for you.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Nov 16, 2012)

Mike99999, Show me where you are reading that the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G is a dog (even better would be a comparison with the 25/1.4).

0 upvotes
ian_labay
By ian_labay (Nov 15, 2012)

I cant wait to get this lens. For me, having a small camera bag while having a complete, quality kit in it is worth it. The only reason certain people feel the need to voice out their negative vibes is just because of pure jealousy. Haters will be haters.

1 upvote
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Nov 15, 2012)

A theoretical question: If a wide angle lens is not sharp edge to edge then what's the point of having a wide angle?

1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

Having a wide angle.

16 upvotes
revio
By revio (Nov 15, 2012)

@maxnimo:
What´s the point of having any lens that is not sharp edge to edge???

The reality is most lenses are not as sharp at the edges/corners as they are in the center. Have always ben the case, will always stay so...generally.

Better, more expensive lenses can get close to perfect edge to edge sharpness, and you may know that is a characteristic pretty common in the Zuiko line up. Some closer to perfect, some not that close...but very few are afully BAD in the edges.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
1 upvote
intensity studios
By intensity studios (Nov 15, 2012)

@maxnimo
Believe it or not, when people hire you as a photographer, they usually don't stand there with a magnifying glass to check if the corners of your image are sharp. They also don't pixel peep.

The subject matter of your photo and your way of seeing are much more important than the things people on this board fixate on

4 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 15, 2012)

very rarely are wideangle lenses sharp edge to edge

0 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Nov 15, 2012)

Maxnimo, whether there is a point or not in having a wide angle that is not sharp edge to edge depends directly on the size of your bank account. Get a D800E and screw a 14-24 lens and turn the knob all the way down to 14mm. That is how you get wide sharp.

2 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Nov 15, 2012)

Don't need a D800 or a 14-24. I can think off a number of UWA lenses sharp corner-to-corner, eg. Zeiss 21 f/2.8, Canon 24 f/3.5 TS-E II, OM Zuiko 21/24/28 f/2

0 upvotes
julieng
By julieng (Nov 16, 2012)

Cine lenses are near perfect from edge to edge.

For still photography, its generally overkill...

0 upvotes
Retzius
By Retzius (Nov 15, 2012)

I wish Nikon cared about their DX lens lineup as much as Olympus has done to complete m43 as a system. sigh.

6 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Nov 15, 2012)

I feel the same for Canon EF-S len lineup; it's worse than DX even.

3 upvotes
intensity studios
By intensity studios (Nov 15, 2012)

DX is a dying format. The writing is on the wall, plain for you to see. And that is coming from a D3200 shooter

3 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Nov 15, 2012)

@Retzius
Nikon has released three FF cameras and 28, 50, 85 f/1.8 primes + 24-50, 70-200 zooms. I think the sign is pretty clear you should move up to FF and enjoy all those great lens at reasonable price.

3 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Nov 16, 2012)

Nikon does care about their DX line-up, they are just not going to promote it during the launch of their entire new FX line. It is quite obvious that Nikon will hold back whatever new DX lenses they might have to release them together with the D7000 and D300 replacements.

Heck, with the recent competition from Fuji and Sony NEX, Nikon will have to fight the APS-C battle.

But there's no reason to moan. DX is a *great* system with access to some stunning lenses:

- 10.5mm f/2.8 fish-eye
- 10-24mm, 12-24mm f/4 (or Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8)
- 17-55mm f/2.8 (only true pro 24-70 f/2.8 equivalent for APS-C)
- 28mm f/1.8
- 35mm f/1.8
- 40mm f/2.8 macro
- 50mm f/1.4
- 85mm f/1.8
- 85mm f/3.5 macro
- 70-200mm f/4 (or Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8)

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Nov 16, 2012)

All the DX system is missing is two primes in the 18-24mm range, and perhaps a high performance compact zoom (16-85 f/4). Those wide angle DX primes don't exist because they would render full frame obsolete. However, with the market pushing towards smaller cameras, Nikon will be forced to shift focus from full frame to DX. Furthermore, all indications point to the fact that those DX lenses are coming in 2013.

What would really blow everything away is a 55-300mm f/2.8-4 for DX.

0 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Nov 15, 2012)

What are the DOF markings for? there's no distance scale.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Nov 15, 2012)

It's explained in the news story: "The snap-focus mode is engaged by pulling the focus ring on the lens back, which reveals a distance scale..."

12 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

They appear when you push the focus ring back, and the lens automatically switches to manual focus:

http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/olympus-m-zuiko-17mm-15mm-lenscap-hands-on-20208/images/highres-17mm-lensJPG_1347981801.jpg

1 upvote
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Nov 15, 2012)

Sigh...people don't read nowadays.

10 upvotes
Valentinian
By Valentinian (Nov 15, 2012)

Very glad to see a lens like this. That's how a lens should be built. Now, hopefully this lens will cause the street price of the 25/1.4 go down a little (even a few $$ help), because, even tho I like this 17/1.8, for me the 25/1.4 fits better within the lenses I have already.

0 upvotes
El Chubasco
By El Chubasco (Nov 15, 2012)

Exciting lens! But we are seeing a trend here that is very unfair for Olympus customers. They practically are saying: -If you want it Black you have to pay more-. I love my camera, I just wish I had bought the silver EM-5 instead of the black version.

2 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

They released one limited edition prime lens in black. All of their other lenses are available in either black, or both colors, for the same price.

I wouldn't call it a trend.

2 upvotes
dgreene196
By dgreene196 (Nov 15, 2012)

Among Olympus' brighter primes (12 mm, now 17 mm, 45 mm, and 75 mm), only the 12 mm comes in black, and that's at a significant price increase. The others are only available in various shades of silver.

Agree that there's no clear reason for Olympus to do this, other than to perhaps make their lenses stand out on µ4/3 bodies?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

Just as a small sidenote, right now amazon.co.uk is selling the black version of the 12mm Olympus with the lens-hood for the same price as the silver model.

1 upvote
String
By String (Nov 15, 2012)

Very nice addition to the m43 lineup. Nice to see Olympus and Panasonic supplying some much requested glass!

3 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Nov 15, 2012)

Offered for $499.99 or £449.99. In camera-land the $/£ rate is evidently 1.11x. Meanwhile, the wholesale FX rate is 1.59 $/£. How much lolly would an enterprising limey need to stash in the travel bags to cover UK-US-UK air fare and p'aps come out a'ead in the game? Prices in some other markets also seem calculated to favor "tourism" to the US. The odds of triggering the "red light" at the customs line and submit to luggage examination is low, and the penalty might be negligible (a few "fivers"). T or F?

1 upvote
linux99
By linux99 (Nov 15, 2012)

Or a criminal record....

2 upvotes
hmzppz
By hmzppz (Nov 15, 2012)

VAT is included in the UK price and not included in the US price. So the exchange rate is 1.39 $/£ in this particular case.

0 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Nov 15, 2012)

Special black version for $800? This lens is just idiotic on Olympic black bodies and all Panasonic bodies.

BTW, whether this lens is over priced or not depend on its performance and price of similar lens for other system. NEX's Zeiss is more expensive but I don't know how much that Zeiss label is worth. Fuji X's 23mm could be as cheap as $600 and that would make the Olympus overpriced consider the f-number and larger image circle on Fuji.

5 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (Nov 15, 2012)

The summary of first reviews, per mu-43 forum is
Premium construction and snapshot focus like the M. Zuiko 12mm f/2 lens
Very similar MTF curves to M. Zuiko 12mm f/2 lens
Fast and essentially silent AF
Good but not superior sharpness across the frame - slightly behind the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 in terms of center sharpness
Very well controlled axial CA - meaning very little purple fringing compared to most fast wides (including the Panasonic 14mm and 20mm primes) and minimal green bokeh fringing
Very pleasing bokeh character (subjective/opinion)
Probably field curvature, optimized for medium-far working distances, thus giving poorer edge sharpness at close range with flat targets
Significant barrel distortion which will be a non-issue for most people since it is automatically addressed in camera and by leading RAW processing apps

I am personally concerned that first reviews suggest it is soft wide open unlike 45/1.8, 75/1.8 and 12/2.0, and needs to be stopped down a little

0 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Nov 15, 2012)

Look at the photos on Robin Wong's review. It doesn't look "soft" to me.

4 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (Nov 15, 2012)

Yes, the photos look amazing, Now I have to think if I really need to address that focal length... I already have 25/1.4 and 45/1.8 and 7-14, so I am not sure if I need the 17/1.8

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

@Absolutic: In your situation, I would go for the 12mm f2.0.

0 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (Nov 15, 2012)

Well 12/F.2 you are talking about just a couple hundred dollars from 75/1.8.

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 16, 2012)

The 75 is great, but the price of that lens has been dropping fairly rapidly compared to the 12mm. I would personally use the 12mm more often than the 75mm, and you already have the 45mm which is a pretty decent tele.

0 upvotes
paulo79
By paulo79 (Nov 15, 2012)

Can't wait to get a hold of this. I love the look and feel of the 12mm f2.0, and the results are great as well so this should be a great addition.

1 upvote
Atlasman
By Atlasman (Nov 15, 2012)

Yet another lens that is incompatible with my E-M5!

1 upvote
Valiant Thor
By Valiant Thor (Nov 15, 2012)

Why is it incompatible with the E-M5? I thought this lens was designed for Olympus M4/3 cameras.

3 upvotes
jl_smith
By jl_smith (Nov 15, 2012)

Um, what are you talking about?

3 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

I think he means the Olympus E-5.

0 upvotes
Rombo
By Rombo (Nov 15, 2012)

because it's silver?

0 upvotes
MrGubrz
By MrGubrz (Nov 15, 2012)

or because its silver?

0 upvotes
J2Gphoto
By J2Gphoto (Nov 15, 2012)

I can't get over how many men whine like women about how " ugh, the silver just does not go with my black camera" sob sob pout pout. Jeez get over it it's just a lens does the color effect how you shoot or how it performs?

2 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

I wouldn't say it's a major aspect, but the way modern devices look is part of the reason why people purchase them.

If you look at the biggest successes in terms of tech gadgets, or even photography ones, you'll find that most of the very successful products are not only well-performing devices, but well designed ones.

Just look at Fuji's line of cameras, or Sony's sleek NEX products. It's not very surprising to see some people wanting gear to match their product, but even if I had the black E-M5, the silver colours would not be a "turn off".

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Nov 15, 2012)

olympus' marketing team came from canon or it's the other way around? they sure know how to steal people's money..

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Nov 15, 2012)

this one is more than twice as expensive as EF35/2IS in terms of cost-performance if it can deliver the same high resolution and low aberrations.

1 upvote
Harold66
By Harold66 (Nov 15, 2012)

Another SILVER ONLY, NOT weather-sealed, NOT included hood, "high grade" lens
Olympus marketing in action
Come to think of it I am surprised that the "body cap 15mm lens" did not have weather sealing

Harold

6 upvotes
SunnyFlorida
By SunnyFlorida (Nov 15, 2012)

The Nikkor 35mm F/1.8 sells for $180, the 35mm F/2.0d sells for $270 and can be used in 2 formats, Oly is asking $500 for this???

4 upvotes
WT21
By WT21 (Nov 15, 2012)

That game is still being played?

When was the 35/2 released? I would also suggest you check resolution capabilities of the Canon 35/2 vs. this lens. The Oly is likely to compare quite well, even vs. FF (could even beat that old 35, at least wide open). Also, how about silent AF? No more angry bees. I am not as familiar with the Nikon, but I'll bet the Oly's focus ring doesn't turn while focusing :)

And though those two 35mm lenses are small, the D600 is the smallest body that AOV will work on (at least in digital terms). http://camerasize.com/compare/#378,382

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
13 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Nov 15, 2012)

Some people like to flaunt getting ripped of, just to show how much money they earn.

3 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

Some people prefer a camera that they can carry on a small purse, or easily fit in their car's glove compartment.

Some people prefer getting the best value out of their photography gear, even if they compromise on size, performance or build quality.

I don't see why some people insist on comparing apples to oranges.

If you want a high-value wide-angle lens, this isn't the lens for you. There are plenty of cheap wide-angle lenses available for M4/3. I don't see what bone people with other camera systems have to pick with this particular lens.

Are they really upset because of this lens' price? Or are they upset that there are no lenses as compact, with as good construction quality and with pump-focus rings for their systems?

I wonder...

11 upvotes
JensR
By JensR (Nov 15, 2012)

> The Oly is likely to compare quite well, even vs. FF (could even beat that old 35, at least wide open).

But the 35/2 on "FF" would be stopped down to 3.5 for a fair comparison. (Fair= same angle, same DOF, same number of photons captured per time)

2 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Nov 15, 2012)

It is increasingly clear that the higher resolution constraints of m43 lenses is resulting in fairly high prices.

APS-C seems to be the sweet spot of inexpensive sensor vs. inexpensive glass.

8 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

@Mike99999 depends on the focal length, but in some cases (maybe most), you are correct, if you're only looking at the high-quality lenses. But there are other aspects that you have to consider when looking at Micro 4/3 lenses, such as size and weight.

But I agree, if you're only interested in image quality, then there is much better value in buying a non-mirrorless APS-C system.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
carpandean
By carpandean (Nov 15, 2012)

"non-mirrorless" ... awesome! I'm off to eat some non-fat-free potato chips and drinks some non-sugarless soda. ;-)

4 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

Oops... *embarassed*

1 upvote
Alpha Jack
By Alpha Jack (Nov 15, 2012)

Do a search on fast, wide lenses and you will see that the price is good. Maybe someone can tell us why, but the cost of anything faster than f2.8 for anything wider than about 30mm seems to be quite a bit more expensive than sub 2.8 lenses in the 35 - 50mm range. I have been looking at manual lenses to mount with an adapter. An old Canon FD 24 1.4 can push $1000.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Nov 15, 2012)

@thewhitehawk: Oh definitely, you pay a premium for a significantly smaller package. With small prime lenses this actually makes a lot of sense.

1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

@Mike99999: the more tele you go in M4/3, the less premium the margin gets, and in some cases it actually gets cheaper.

But in standard/wide focal lengths, there is a definitive premium.

0 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Nov 15, 2012)

"The Nikkor 35mm F/1.8 sells for $180, the 35mm F/2.0d sells for $270 and can be used in 2 formats, Oly is asking $500 for this???"

The 35 f/2 D has been around for ~20 years and can't AF on the low end DX bodies (in-body AF motor required). But yes I wish m43 had something similar to the 35/1.8... or the $300 sigma 30/1.4.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Amin Sabet
By Amin Sabet (Nov 15, 2012)

"But the 35/2 on "FF" would be stopped down to 3.5 for a fair comparison. (Fair= same angle, same DOF, same number of photons captured per time)"

There is no such thing as a "fair competition". Certainly no definition that has anything to do with photons. It's perfectly fair for one person to want a lens that can used without hesitation wide open. It's also fair for another person to want the best possible sharpness for a given DOF and framing. Another person may put a high value on lack of axial CA.

Pricing is about maximizing profit, period. The market will determine whether Oly is charging the right price for this. Same is true for Canon's new $850mm 35mm f/2 lens.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Nov 15, 2012)

"(Fair= same angle, same DOF, same number of photons captured per time)"

On 4x the area with 25% brightness. Do you care more about counting photons than having proper exposure?

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
String
By String (Nov 15, 2012)

This whole thread is beyond rediculous; if you really want to look at prices, look at the newer Canikon releases... 24-70 anyone? How about the 5D MKIII or the 70-200vrII? Yep, sure can save a lot of money with Canikon...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
InTheMist
By InTheMist (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm kind of jealous of these nice, affordable MFT lenses. Had my eye on a OM-D for a while!

1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm pretty sure you'd be happy with the combo of that camera and this lens. Just be sure to also grab the 45mm f1.8. Then you'll be in heaven.

2 upvotes
intensity studios
By intensity studios (Nov 15, 2012)

me too. I like what olympus is doing these days. I shoot strictly nikon now tho.

1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

Nikon's 1 system is very fun to shoot with from what I've heard, and I love the design of the cameras, except for that most recent one...

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 15, 2012)

$499? I wonder if we'll see a plastic barrel lens like the Oly 45 1.8 go down in price (it's now $399 in the US).

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

It's already quite cheap, in my opinion, in Europe. It's under $350 in amazon.co.uk right now.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 15, 2012)

The 45 1.8 is $399 on Amazon in the States so the non-grey market version with full warranty is still the exact same price that it was released at. Not complaining just trying to figure out if there's a method to their pricing madness.

1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

The US and Europe markets have completely different prices and within Europe, the closer you are to Germany the cheaper prices are, the more you "go away" from it, the more expensive they become.

But in short, they always try to sell their products at the most expensive price that we're willing to pay for it.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Nov 15, 2012)

500 for a standard prime... Nikkor 35mm F1.8 Under 200.

3 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

If the price doesn't suit you, don't buy it. It's not rocket science.

11 upvotes
sadwitch
By sadwitch (Nov 15, 2012)

Buy niikkor then simple

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Nov 15, 2012)

Doesn't fit my Pentax :p

2 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

Not to be offensive but... if this lens isn't for your camera system, if it doesn't affect you or your lens selection in the slightest way, why are you so interested in it?

After reading your comments on this page I'm undecided on whether you want to criticise it because there are cheaper, but very different 35mm lenses on the market, or because you want to justify your own purchasing decisions.

There are cameras, lenses and lens systems for every budget. I don't think you should go around protesting a system or a lens just because it doesn't fit you. You're welcome to give your own opinion, I'm not saying you shouldn't, but it seems to me that you're going out of your way to not just express your opinion, but to also try to offend people who are interested in this lens, which is quite stupid, in my opinion.

We're all passionate about photography, and we all want to capture those precious moments with the best gear that's available to us. We should be happy, not upset, over a lens.

14 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Nov 15, 2012)

I just think people are better of not buying into a system that gives them less quality against higher prices. It's a marketing ploy and should not be encouraged.

3 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

But who are you to decide what is the best system for other people?

You only know what was the best system for you. For your use-cases, and that meets your preferences. It's very arrogant and rude of you to presume you know better than everyone else.

You're shooting Pentax for crying out loud, I think you have many more things to be upset over, other than what kind of lenses Olympus is releasing for a completely different camera system.

2 upvotes
paulo79
By paulo79 (Nov 15, 2012)

@D1No m43 is ideal for me because it combines good enough quality with exceptional portability and durability. If you don't agree with the marketing ploy then don't buy, but its obvious that there are many people to whom this product is ideal, and your attitude towards them is offensive.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Nov 15, 2012)

It's my opinion. If that's rude then go ahead and be offended. Shall I offend you some more? I've got a lot more opinions. Can't take the heat get out of the kitchen and such....

1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm not offended, you are being offensive. There's a difference.

You seem silly and childish to me, if you want my honest opinion.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
paulo79
By paulo79 (Nov 15, 2012)

You can keep talking all you like. Different people have different needs and wants, and what works for you might not work for them.

You made another comment about people flaunting how much money they have. Do you think someone who can't afford a pentax would think that you are flaunting how much money you make by owning one. Or would you simply tell them that its your money, you earned it, and after research and using in the real world you decided that it was the right system for you?

3 upvotes
paulo79
By paulo79 (Nov 15, 2012)

I will pay a premium for this system because its a quality build in a convenient size that has a great range of primes, which I much prefer over zooms. I have used larger cameras and they are good, but for me useless because they were too big to carry with me all the time. Different strokes for different folks.

2 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

"Stupid Fanboyism all around today. Get out the scimitars in slash at the infidels."

Oh the irony...

"K5IIs is the sharpest aps-c dslr sadly it's not suited for photographing stamps and bank notes." - D1N0

How is it they say? Avast me hearties! Let us slash some infidels har har!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Nov 15, 2012)

The Nikon 35/1.8 is for DX with different FoV. Tell me the price of the Nikon lens if you want this FoV (equivalent to 35mm on FF) and speed (f/1.8) on a DX body. Now tell me if it has full metal construction and internally/silently focusing.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Nov 15, 2012)

@whitehawky you are totally obsessed. I don't know what you are trying to prove with reposting stuff from me from different threads (which was irony btw). I must have offended your deity.

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

You're comparing a M4/3 lens with APS-C ones that are years older, yet you complain when people compare an APS-C sensor camera to every other APS-C camera because one of the methods used to test it rank it unfavourably.

When you're comparing apples and oranges, you claim it's fair and that you're protecting consumer interests. When others are comparing two apples, and one of them happens to be your favorite, you call foul when your favourite performs a bit worse than it's competitors.

I'm not obsessed, I'm pointing out how blatantly ridiculous you are.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Nov 15, 2012)

I never complained about the testing methods of the K5 IIs or it's ranking (it's not even ranked yet :p). Read into it what you want but do not tell me what I said. The only one that is blatantly ridiculous is some person who has the apparent need to personally attack somebody who criticizes the m43 system.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

You aren't just criticising the system. You are criticising the people who chose the system. That is what I have a problem with.

And I did not personally attack you. Yes, I called you some non-flattering adjectives, but there's a big difference between that and attacking someone.

It seems that you are as bad at measuring lenses as you are measuring your own words.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Nov 15, 2012)

hypocrite

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

Thank you, that's the word I was looking for! Yes, that's what you are.

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

I was expecting it to be significantly more expensive. If the price in Europe isn't over 500 euros, this is a day-one purchase for me.

0 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (Nov 15, 2012)

I see, $500. Current exchange rate £/$ is about 1.5. So the UK price will be about £350. Or not.

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

I wouldn't expect it to be under 400 euros in Europe, closer to 500 is more realistic.

1 upvote
Calvin Chann
By Calvin Chann (Nov 15, 2012)

Current exchange rate has nothing to do with $ to £ conversion rates. It's normally close to 1 to 1.

3 upvotes
hmzppz
By hmzppz (Nov 15, 2012)

Take out the VAT from £449, then compare

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Nov 15, 2012)

Me want it. It surely must be better than the 17mm-f/2.8 Pancake lens I use for street shooting. And it is not that expensive, providing the quality is there.

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

Quality maxes out at f4, according to some shots and articles I've read, but yeah, the quality is definitely there. I'm getting it for the focusing-speed alone, and putting my 20mm on sale.

1 upvote
TORN
By TORN (Nov 15, 2012)

Corner to corner sharpness, well...

http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/11/14/olympus-mzuiko-17mm-f18.html

2 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Nov 15, 2012)

So they prove that the Panny 20mm is sharper and then they show how that doesn't matter when you downscale it ? Genius...

2 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

The Panny is sharper in the centre, the Oly is even across the entire frame.

The difference of sharpness between the Panny and Oly isn't significant enough to deter me from grabbing the Oly. The Pany's noise and AF performance is upsetting for me when shooting indoors. It renders the inconspicuous aspect of the camera useless when I'm trying to get candid shots indoors, so Oly will get my money.

4 upvotes
jkrumm
By jkrumm (Nov 15, 2012)

Sure, but actually read Potka's words and relative enthusiasm for the lens. It has better micro-contrast, so it appears sharper than the Panasonic. It also is better with back-lit situations, with less fringing. Sounds like he likes it, but he's keeping his 4/3 12-60 for the best 17mm performance on those occasions when image quality matters most.

1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

In situations where image quality matters most you shouldn't be shooting with a M4/3 camera in my opinion.

1 upvote
jkrumm
By jkrumm (Nov 15, 2012)

Sure, you should have an 11x14 inch view camera.... There are times when you want to maximize the quality of any format, if you can. I really enjoy using the 12-60 on my OMD in part for the range but also for that extra contrast and resolution.

1 upvote
Jorginho
By Jorginho (Nov 15, 2012)

Nice addition. Have to say that I am very excited every time I look at 100% images of the 20 mm 1.7 Panny, also on my Oly EPL5. banding on ISo 6400...don't mind that all too much. PF...10 seconds in LR and it is dealt with.

But who knows, this lens might be better. Quick AF could be a plus/ The 20 mm 1.7 distorts too much for closeups of people. So I use it for landscapes and streetphotography and an AF of 0,3 s- 0,5 s is really good enough.

In short: I am curious if this lens will be worths 200 euro more than the Panny and you can sense my doubt I guess...

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Nov 15, 2012)

You do get metal construction and a "proper" focus ring so physically the extra price is probably justified

1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

Well I own the Pany 20mm f1.7. It is a very small, but very sharp lens, even wide-open. I have no qualms with its image quality, it's very, very good.

If the main reason why you buy lenses, is simply for the image quality, I think the Pany might serve you better.

For me, it's not an ideal lens. Most of the pictures I take are indoors, which is due to my working environment and my lifestyle, and indoors it performs very poorly. It is "loud", or at least audible while focusing, and it focuses very slowly. By the time I get a focus on a person indoors, while trying to get a candid shot, they either heard the noise of the lens mechanism, or I missed my opportunity.

Now, the focusing performance wouldn't be that upsetting if I could focus manually easily, but the focus ring is "heavy" and requires a lot of turns to get a proper focus, even though it's a slightly wide lens.

I find my Oly 45mm much easier to focus manually, and that's almost preposterous considering the focal length.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

(I ran out of characters in my previous comment)

In short, if you shoot mostly outdoors, and you favor image quality, the Panasonic will be a great choice for you.

If you want something that focuses faster, silently, with better construction, much improved manual focusing and great even image quality across the frame, then the 17mm is a better choice.

1 upvote
///M
By ///M (Nov 15, 2012)

how about the 12mm f/2 LE Black !!!

http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/lenses/m-zuiko-digital-ed-12mm-f2-0-limited-edition-black.html

0 upvotes
chocobanana
By chocobanana (Nov 15, 2012)

Hmmm, having a hard time choosing between this and the Panasonic 25mm f1.4 for my GH2... More inclined towards the Panasonic but the Olympus 17mm is a bit more flexible.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

Tough predicament. I'm in the exact same situation, but I think I will go for the Oly lens first. I already have a 45mm if I really want blown-out backgrounds with silky-smooth bokeh.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Nov 15, 2012)

For me, I would say 17mm is better if you include a mix of city/landscape shots and 25mm is better if you lean more towards people. 20mm is a nice way to split the difference. If I was getting one prime, it would be 17 or 20, but if I was getting two, I think I'd do 12/14 and the 25mm.

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

@tkbslc I know your choices are the most logical, but my heart would be slightly broken with either of them.

0 upvotes
chocobanana
By chocobanana (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm still more inclined for the 25mm, I'm seduced by its shallower depth of field capabilities :)

Maybe later I might consider the 17mm, but not before getting an extreme wide angle such as the Panasonic 7-14mm or the Samyang 7.5mm.

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

If you like shallow depth of field, I think the 45mm f1.8 will give you better results, even though it's not as bright as the 25mm lens. It's also considerably cheaper and focuses faster.

It depends on what you want to shoot. If you're shooting mostly portraits, moving targets, the 45mm will serve you slightly better. If you're shooting static objects and you don't have a lot of room to manoeuvre then the 25mm might be better for you.

Either way, both are excellent lenses.

0 upvotes
Pixnat2
By Pixnat2 (Nov 15, 2012)

Great addition to the m4/3 lineup! From early samples and reviews, it seems to be a very well balanced lens : nearly CA free (which is GREAT!), ultra-fast AF, good resolution corners to corners, metal construction, pleasing creamy bokeh, seems like a very coherent lens for a very coherent price.
A no brainer for me!

2 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Nov 15, 2012)

Interesting. So far samples have not at all impressed me.

2 upvotes
TORN
By TORN (Nov 15, 2012)

Olympus is trying to sell 5% distortion as premium product for 500+ Euro again with this 17mm lens as they already did with their 12mm. This might be fine and/or correctable in close distance for all practical means when most of the time only the inner part of the image counts but for subjects in greater distance you never get more than just good borders. I am talking architecture and especially landscape.

Sorry Olympus but no sorry. 5% distortion is nowhere near premium except for the price for sure. If you want to learn how to control distortion have a look at the Sigma 19mm dear Olympus and learn your lesson.

Hopefully they have fixed the manual focus mode from the 12mm at least. Really no premium either, when you are not able to precisely select your focus but only stepwise.

Source: http://www.m43.eu/zdjecia/olympus-17-mm-f18-pierwsze-zdjecia-obiektywem/2/

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Nov 15, 2012)

Is that 5% distortion if you intentionally circumvent the correction that is part of the lens' design?

Criticise the corner performance if it's no good, but attacking the measured performance of a lens with a corrective element (software or physical) is nonsense.

7 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Nov 15, 2012)

@R Butler
Are you suggesting digital zoom is as effective as optical zoom? I am pretty sure that's not what I learned on this site back in 2003

3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm saying no such thing.

I'm saying that measuring a lens with an element of its design cancelled-out is a nonsensical way of doing it.

If the corners end up soft, then criticise that, but don't say 'if I bypass the designed-in distortion correction, this lens is distorted' - it's like complaining that a lens lets in water if you remove all its seals and gasketting.

4 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Nov 16, 2012)

@R Butler
On page 21 of X-Pro1's review Andy Westlake compared
XF 60mm corrected and uncorrected with the conclusion that software correction will reduce sharpness. (Make perfect sense)

Of course the Olympus 17mm have barrel and not pincushion distortion which means less effect on center but that doesn't neglect the fact it is a premium lens with compromised design (like most EVIL/mirrorless lenses)

1 upvote
lester11
By lester11 (Nov 15, 2012)

Is the lens weather-sealed? (The link to the Oly Web site doesn't work...)

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 15, 2012)

It's not working for me either, but I'm pretty sure this lens isn't weather sealed.

2 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 16, 2012)

I found this link that seems to be working now: http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/m-zuiko-digital-17mm-f1-8.html

0 upvotes
Total comments: 277
12