Will I even notice the difference between 15mm PL F1.7 and Olympus 17mm F1.8?

Ask your teenage kid if you have one or ask yourself if you own a smartphone.

I have a 15mm (and a teenage kid and 2 smartphones), so I should know

The 15mm is my sharpest lens to date.

You can easily crop 15mm to 17mm in a few seconds. But you can't get the sharpness, microcontrast and the gorgeous, cromatic aberation free, bokeh from the 17mm that easily.

I think you won't notice much difference, but when taking portraits up close the 15mm is slightly less flattering. The 17mm portraits have slightly nose distortion and I like the portraits coming out of the 17. Otherwise, I would pick just one of the two since they are close in FL and both have excellent rendering. FWIW I prefer those two over the 20mm, which I find more clinical (yet optically great).

Terminal Boy said:

My not entirely reliable brain is telling me that I NEED to buy an Olympus 17mm F1.8 lens as my PanaLeica 15mm F1.7 isn't "a true 35mm FF equivalent lens".

While I understand that this is technically correct, as a G7 user capturing OOC JPGs, am I:

1. Not going to see enough difference between the 2 FLs considering both lenses are excellent?

2. Going to be very upset that I don't get a snazzy lens hood free with the Olympus lens?

3. Still manage to take very average photographs at both FLs?

4. All of the above?

Click to expand...

Yes you will.

Just do it. You need both.

---
Like others here, I suffer from chronic GAS.
Gear Acquisition Syndrome.
a few hundred nautical miles SW : 17º 52S, 149º 56W

Terminal Boy said:

My not entirely reliable brain is telling me that I NEED to buy an Olympus 17mm F1.8 lens as my PanaLeica 15mm F1.7 isn't "a true 35mm FF equivalent lens".

Click to expand...

As 17mm is only 34mm equivalent, Oly 17/1.8 is unlikely to make you happy as well. Seems like your only option is Nokton 17.5/0.95 as it's the only true 35mm prime for MFT.

Terminal Boy said:

Terminal Boy said:

Virtual Photon wrote: 4 What's so magical about the '35mm" view?

Click to expand...

I have no idea apart from it being a historically common/popular 'walk around' focal length. My brain still says that I need one. I may have to start drinking heavily until this idea fades...

Click to expand...

I can explain the advantage of 35mm FOV. I bought a Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 (as recommended by everyone here). While I love this focal length (50mm FF) outdoor or in a big hotel lobby, I quickly discover its severe limitation indoor.

Here is a shot of my Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 in the big open space, where this lens excel.





But 25mm (50mm FF) become very restricting once were seated in the restaurants. In act, 25mm is unusable sitting across the table from one another. Hence, we had to rely on the stranger 2 tables away to take a photo of us. Even then, it is still a tight squeeze. Result is a photo tightly crop around around body without very little of the surrounding that I desired. I took my GF out to a fancy restaurants, and I wanted to capture more of the surrounding but my 25mm simply can't deliver due to its FOV.


Very Tight, wish I have more of the backgrounds


too tight, but I'll take what I can

Anyhow, after that experience, I bought a PL 15mm f/1.7 and never look back. There are several other advantages to PL 15mm f/1.7 that only apparent after I own the lens.

1. MF Ring that works instantly with Panasonic body. I noticed you own a G7, then you're better off buying PL15/1.7 over Olympus 17mm f/1.7. You have immediately access to MF without hitting the manual. A slight twist and I can immediately finetune my AF. After owning PL15mm/1.7, I found myself MF quite a bit due to the JOY OF IT.

2. Aperture Ring, not a big deal, but it is very nice

3. Premium Construction... PL15mm f/1.7 is a miles ahead of other M43 lens

4. Stunning Bokeh

5. Macro like Short MFD = ability to blur background YET retain decent FOV to give a sense to the context of your photo

It's is very hard to explain the #5 advantage until you own this lens. While a Olympus 45mm f/1.8, will completely blur the background, but it does so by severely restricting the FOV, thus eliminate all background CONTEXT. I have no way to tell if this is an image I've taken in a restaurant, in USA, or in Taiwan. All my photo look the same, with a tight crop around the half body with background completely blur.

The advantage of having an FAST WIDE PRIME, is the ability to slightly blur the background, yet capture ENOUGH background to give a Context to your photography. Hence, you know where you were.





I don't own Olympus 17mm f/1.8 MSC, but it would be a lovely lens too. I doubt you're noticed that much of a difference between them. 2mm isn't a HUGE difference in DOF, just as there isn't a huge difference between Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 vs a Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 either. However, there is a "certain" Nicer rendering to any Panasonic Leica lens that is hard to explain. All I can say is that while my Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 greater background blur (by math), in reality it never give me the WOW moment like I do with my PL 15mm f/1.7. By math, 15/f/1.7 shouldn't have great bokeh, but it really DOES. It simply defy mathematics. Makes me realized that LENS is an artistic tool that cannot be be judged by mathematics alone. There are character traits to a lens that no DOFmaster website can calculated. I like my Panasonic 25/1.7, but I LOVE my PL 15mm f/1.7. That is about the only way I can explain it.

SRix said:

I appear to be in one though.. I have a boxed 20mm 1.7 sat here, still waiting for my first M43 body to arrive and I'm already contemplating selling the 20 for the 15mm.

I need help

Click to expand...

I would but I already have the 15 and lovde it.

generikku said:

I think you won't notice much difference, but when taking portraits up close the 15mm is slightly less flattering. The 17mm portraits have slightly nose distortion and I like the portraits coming out of the 17. Otherwise, I would pick just one of the two since they are close in FL and both have excellent rendering. FWIW I prefer those two over the 20mm, which I find more clinical (yet optically great).

Click to expand...

Both the 15 and 17mm lenses are typically poor choices for close up portraits and both will produce unflattering perspective. 25mm is about the minimum focal length I would want to use for a close up portrait and I prefer 42.5/45 any day of the week. With my 25/1.4 I usually will not frame a tight headshot, more like waist up or head and shoulders at most, as getting that close tends to not be flattering to anyone but pets or children (who tend to look cute no matter how much perspective distortion there is).

It's also important to note that perspective distortion isn't controlled by focal length, but distance to subject and distance to subject alone. From the same distance, a 15, 17 and even 75mm lens will produce the same perspective, though of course the framing will be different in each shot.

.... is one step forward.

Both are pretty nice lenses. I own the 17mm lens, but I would also be very happy with the 15mm lens.

You can always crop a tiny bit if you feel 15mm is "too wide." But you just can't make a 17mm lens go wider...

SRix said:

I appear to be in one though.. I have a boxed 20mm 1.7 sat here, still waiting for my first M43 body to arrive and I'm already contemplating selling the 20 for the 15mm.

I need help

Click to expand...

I don't know how many lenses you want, but would think about keeping the 20 and adding a 15 later. There is enough of a jump between the two. I have the 15 25 and 45 for primes. It's always a personal choice. I use the 15 the most then the 45 a bit, and the 25 not much at all.

I' dont agree with you.

These are lovely photos, if they were made by the 15, especially on the table, you would of had the Pinocchio effect. Too much shape deformation that is.

atomgr said:

I' dont agree with you.

These are lovely photos, if they were made by the 15, especially on the table, you would of had the Pinocchio effect. Too much shape deformation that is.

Click to expand...

That's actually not true. I dont have such issues using my 15.

atomgr said:

I' dont agree with you.

These are lovely photos, if they were made by the 15, especially on the table, you would of had the Pinocchio effect. Too much shape deformation that is.

Click to expand...

The deformation you talk about is caused by the subject to camera distance, not the focal length. Now if he used the same framing with the 15mm then he probably would have deformation, but he said he wanted to include more of the background in the frame, so he'd probably shoot from about the same distance and get about the same distortion he has now.

While his shooting distance is a bit shorter than what I am usually comfortable with the results of, the subjects he shows do not need as long a shooting distance as a subject with a face structure of an ax blade.

If you are using Panasonic bodies, then you will miss the aperture ring. It may sound like it is not too important, but I find it very helpful rather than dialing in the aperture through the body. The 15 1.7 is sharp and easy to use. And it is a 30 mm so you get an additional bit of width in your shots.