15mm 1.7 is much sharper than the 17mm 1.8!

Started Jun 15, 2014 | Discussions thread
javayoda Regular Member • Posts: 371
Re: On the contrary

traveler_101 wrote:

javayoda wrote:

traveler_101 wrote:

javayoda wrote:

thxbb12 wrote:

If you compare sharpness of both lenses across the field (sharpness -> field map), you will notice the Oly is quite a bit sharper wide open than the Pana.

My 17mm gets used 95% of the time wide open. So, for me, the Oly is much sharper than the Pana.

See, it's a ll a matter of how you define sharpness. The Pana is better stopped down while the Oly is better wide-open

That wasn't my experience. See here.

For the life of me, the Oly shot looks better--probably due to greater contrast and better colour rendition. I can't see the difference in resolution, but my eyes are pretty poor. Then I asked my wife who has good vision and she couldn't tell the difference in sharpness either.

Did you view them closely? I'm not the only one that thinks the 15 is sharper based on those photos. See here. Another issue with the 17 wide open is the persistent blue-green fringing (even visible in these photos...again, if you look closely). If you don't pixel peep, you probably don't care. I can imagine some folks being perfectly happy with the $99 Olympus fisheye I got for father's day.

Hopefully that 15 wasn't an exception. I sent it back for exchange because it was mildly decentered - the left side was slightly soft at wider apertures. Considering the price and the "Leica" name, it was just too much to deal with (I considered shimming the lens). Hopefully the next one is just as good in the center and even better across the entire frame.

What the heck -- $599.99 and it has that kind of problem? The Olympus 17 is "only" $469.

If you don't think the 15 is sharper in those photos you would have never seen the problem. I only sent it back for exchange because of the price tag.

You seem to be presuming that I am trying to overturn your judgment that the 15 is sharper. I am not; I am simple saying I couldn't find the difference. Yes, I did enlarge the photos. I have no stake in the argument because I don't have either lens, btw.

Let me check out your second link too.

Now the tone of the second point about cost was a little rough, I'll admit. I just think it's too much money, but then I am on the poorer side of this group i'm sure.

Although I think my "temporary" 15 was sharper wide open than some reviews suggest (at least compared to the 17), it's probably pretty close for the non-pixel peepers out there. I was hoping for better but that's an age-old story. Nevertheless, I think there's something to say for how sharp it is stopped down. I happen to think 15mm is a perfectly usable focal length for landscapes. This is where it will really shine vs the 17mm.

Don't get me wrong, I've taken a lot of photos with the Olympus and, despite the usual nit picking, I think it's a fine lens.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow