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

Good to have options. Besides, this one focuses much faster and quiter. Also, the barrel is metal and has a DoF/distance scale.

Neither the 20mm f/1.7 nor the 17mm f/2.8 is a fast-focusing lens. The new 17mm f/1.8 is an MSC lens so it ought to focus faster. And street photographers will love the distance scale and DOF marks.

It is much faster focusing - essentially instant and virtually silent.

For what is worth how many people put Olympus on the same level as Zeiss?

I've also heard the Zeiss is optically corrected (cannot confirm) while this Olympus relies on software correction (from some sample)

Canon's new 35mm f2 was closer to $900, so I think the trend is spreading. If you want cheap there is already the 14mm f2.5 or 17mm f2.8.

It's half the price of the Sony Zeiss 24/1.8 E.

Yes, $500 isn' too bad. However, Nikon's 35mm f/2 is $330, and definitely isn't a poor lens optically.

Kodachrome200 makes a good point. It's much easier to manufacture a lens meant to cover a smaller sensor. And when lens designers also don't have to worry about correcting for distortion, you have to wonder why the super high boutique pricing, not just for this lens, but for much of the m43 lineup.

If you understand Japanese product mentality, smaller usually IS pricier. Much like miniaturization of computer chips, shrinking the power of a computer into a phone, mirco SD vs standard SD 2.5" HDD vs 3.5" HDD... etc etc...

Smaller is more expensive when it has to fit the same amount, but in this case it actually needs less, so if anything it should at most cost the same. I'm sure the time it takes to make one of these is not much different from apsc for example or even *some* fullframe optics.

High quality optics in smaller formats actually calls for tighter tolerances and greater precision in manufacturing.

"Canon's new 35mm f2 was closer to $900..."

That is 17/1.0 on m43, with resolution on FF that the m43 can only dream about.

Since when does 5% distortion count as perfection? It should be no secret what happens to image quality when the software fixes this fault.

Canon is not a good example as they have been charging extra for their lens hoods for years. Virtually all of the new Nikkors come with dedicated lens hoods. There is simply no valid reason for leaving out a lens hood at this price point.

"The food is terrible and the portions are too small"... right?

It's not competing in the same equivalent focal length as the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR DX 35 mm f/1.8.

Phew, mouthful.

It should be cheaper than $500, still.

Wait till u c the price of the lens hood.

Those are not wide angle primes.

FoV are not even close.

There aren't really any Nikon lens equivalent to 35mm for DX bodies, so here are real options:

Nikon 24/2.8D, $360 - much slower.

Nikon 28/1.8G, $700 - not as wide.

I own both those lenses and aside from being sharp and having a reasonable bokeh they are basically okay. That's all. Yet the great M4/3 lenses are extraordinary, an amazing deal for their price.

That's the mirrorless revolution and why Nikon, with their notion that a pro lens must have an extraordinary pro price (partly from needing to cover the larger sensor of course), can't compete in this area.

The Sony NEX 35 mm f1.8 does not cost that little and that is the direct competition. also: are those Nikon lenses sharp wide open? 35 mm is excellent whenstopped down at f3.5 (very good at f2.8). But not at f1.7 like the Panny is (and who knows Oly).

The 50 mm needs to be stopped down further to medium aperatures to get excelent results. Neither are IS, which both Panny and Oly are on an Oly body.

As always: the m43 system allows it 9the system) to be much smaller. This is also true in this case. An EPl5 with either of the two is very small. A small DSlr with 35 or 50 mm is not nearly as small. For m43 users a decisive factir which we do not mind to pay for to some extend.