Reading mode: Light Dark

New 17mm f1.8 II Plastic or Metal?

Go to last post
C

Cafe Racer

Veteran Member
Messages
3,709
Solutions
4
Reaction score
3,616
Location
UK
It looks like OMDS have done away with the manual focus clutch on this new model; that's unfortunate.

I mentioned in another thread that I hoped the new 25mm would be made of metal to match the 17mm, but it's also possible they could make the 17mm plastic to match the 25mm. The new 17mm kinda looks more like the plastic 25mm with the accessory ring removed! Plastic?

17mm f1.8 II

17mm f1.8 II



d27d7b9c8b0746c2bd9bb3529627a40d.jpg





Old version 25mm F1.8

Old version 17mm F1.8

Old version 17mm F1.8
 

Attachments

  • e76af6861c9143449f5a4349bd4dcf92.jpg
    e76af6861c9143449f5a4349bd4dcf92.jpg
    281 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Good questions.

My eye test* says plastic shell, no focus clutch. Two net losses. Hood bayonet and sealing clear improvements. So, one hand gives and the other takes away.

SWAG the optical design is unchanged and perhaps the lens coatings have been brought up to the current tech, which will help tame flare.

Nothing fatal about the plastic shell; the metal one is just nice to hold and use (based on owning the 12 and 75). Focus clutch delete is inexplicable.

In sum, modest refresh of a 13 YO lens and well short of extending the 20 f:1.4 into a new series of fast, compact Pro primes one would have welcomed.

*Granted it looks like a digital rendering.

My $0.02,

Rick
 
Last edited:
Including digital graphics rendition. Notably, old version lettering is engraved, new version appears silk screen painted, but it ain't the real thing, so whose to say what it will be.

--
Roger
 
Last edited:
Skeeterbytes said:
Good questions.

My eye test* says plastic shell, no focus clutch. Two net losses. Hood bayonet and sealing clear improvements. So, one hand gives and the other takes away.

SWAG the optical design is unchanged and perhaps the lens coatings have been brought up to the current tech, which will help tame flare.

Nothing fatal about the plastic shell; the metal one is just nice to hold and use (based on owning the 12 and 75). Focus clutch delete is inexplicable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, how much are they really saving omitting the focus clutch?

A compact metal version II prime lens would complement the 2k (approx.) metal bodied camera nicely. But a cheapo plastic one - meh!
Skeeterbytes said:
In sum, modest refresh of a 13 YO lens and well short of extending the 20 f:1.4 into a new series of fast, compact Pro primes one would have welcomed.

*Granted it looks like a digital rendering.

My $0.02,

Rick
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cafe Racer said:
Skeeterbytes said:
Good questions.

My eye test* says plastic shell, no focus clutch. Two net losses. Hood bayonet and sealing clear improvements. So, one hand gives and the other takes away.

SWAG the optical design is unchanged and perhaps the lens coatings have been brought up to the current tech, which will help tame flare.

Nothing fatal about the plastic shell; the metal one is just nice to hold and use (based on owning the 12 and 75). Focus clutch delete is inexplicable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, how much are they really saving omitting the focus clutch?
Click to expand...
The trade off for being made splashproof, perhaps?
Cafe Racer said:
A compact metal version II prime lens would complement the 2k (approx.) metal bodied camera nicely. But a cheapo plastic one - meh!
Cafe Racer said:
In sum, modest refresh of a 13 YO lens and well short of extending the 20 f:1.4 into a new series of fast, compact Pro primes one would have welcomed.

*Granted it looks like a digital rendering.

My $0.02,

Rick
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Isola Verde said:
Cafe Racer said:
Skeeterbytes said:
Good questions.

My eye test* says plastic shell, no focus clutch. Two net losses. Hood bayonet and sealing clear improvements. So, one hand gives and the other takes away.

SWAG the optical design is unchanged and perhaps the lens coatings have been brought up to the current tech, which will help tame flare.

Nothing fatal about the plastic shell; the metal one is just nice to hold and use (based on owning the 12 and 75). Focus clutch delete is inexplicable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, how much are they really saving omitting the focus clutch?
Click to expand...
The trade off for being made splashproof, perhaps?
Click to expand...
Splashproof? What does that even mean in real terms and I don't really see why there should be a trade off? Is this an up downgrade?
Isola Verde said:
Isola Verde said:
A compact metal version II prime lens would complement the 2k (approx.) metal bodied camera nicely. But a cheapo plastic one - meh!
Isola Verde said:
In sum, modest refresh of a 13 YO lens and well short of extending the 20 f:1.4 into a new series of fast, compact Pro primes one would have welcomed.

*Granted it looks like a digital rendering.

My $0.02,

Rick
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If the OM-3 is to be a high build quality, good looking body, it needs some high quality, good looking primes to go with it. If the new lenses are plastic and lack the focus clutch, that’s a retrograde step.
 
dtc25 said:
If the OM-3 is to be a high build quality, good looking body, it needs some high quality, good looking primes to go with it. If the new lenses are plastic and lack the focus clutch, that’s a retrograde step.
Click to expand...
I agree. Not everyone wants a huge 17mm f1.2 lens, which is the only other metal construction AF lens option if you want weather sealing.
 
Cafe Racer said:
dtc25 said:
If the OM-3 is to be a high build quality, good looking body, it needs some high quality, good looking primes to go with it. If the new lenses are plastic and lack the focus clutch, that’s a retrograde step.
Click to expand...
I agree. Not everyone wants a huge 17mm f1.2 lens, which is the only other metal construction AF lens option if you want weather sealing.
Click to expand...
Note that it doesn't say: Weather Sealed, but Splash Proof. Can't assume that they mean the same.
 
dtc25 said:
If the OM-3 is to be a high build quality, good looking body, it needs some high quality, good looking primes to go with it. If the new lenses are plastic and lack the focus clutch, that’s a retrograde step.
Click to expand...
Retrograde or Retro Grade?
 
Regor250 said:
Cafe Racer said:
dtc25 said:
If the OM-3 is to be a high build quality, good looking body, it needs some high quality, good looking primes to go with it. If the new lenses are plastic and lack the focus clutch, that’s a retrograde step.
Click to expand...
I agree. Not everyone wants a huge 17mm f1.2 lens, which is the only other metal construction AF lens option if you want weather sealing.
Click to expand...
Note that it doesn't say: Weather Sealed, but Splash Proof. Can't assume that they mean the same.
Click to expand...
Yep, I questioned that earlier.
Regor250 said:
--
Roger
Click to expand...
 
Regor250 said:
Cafe Racer said:
dtc25 said:
If the OM-3 is to be a high build quality, good looking body, it needs some high quality, good looking primes to go with it. If the new lenses are plastic and lack the focus clutch, that’s a retrograde step.
Click to expand...
I agree. Not everyone wants a huge 17mm f1.2 lens, which is the only other metal construction AF lens option if you want weather sealing.
Click to expand...
Note that it doesn't say: Weather Sealed, but Splash Proof. Can't assume that they mean the same.
Click to expand...
Splash proof is their chosen term of art. All my sealed Oly lenses display it.

FWIW

Rick
 
Skeeterbytes said:
Regor250 said:
Cafe Racer said:
dtc25 said:
If the OM-3 is to be a high build quality, good looking body, it needs some high quality, good looking primes to go with it. If the new lenses are plastic and lack the focus clutch, that’s a retrograde step.
Click to expand...
I agree. Not everyone wants a huge 17mm f1.2 lens, which is the only other metal construction AF lens option if you want weather sealing.
Click to expand...
Note that it doesn't say: Weather Sealed, but Splash Proof. Can't assume that they mean the same.
Click to expand...
Splash proof is their chosen term of art. All my sealed Oly lenses display it.
Click to expand...
I wonder if there's levels of splash proofing in OMDS land. Will this offer the same level of water resistence as their pro pro lenses?
Skeeterbytes said:
FWIW

Rick
Click to expand...
 
Cafe Racer said:
Skeeterbytes said:
Regor250 said:
Note that it doesn't say: Weather Sealed, but Splash Proof. Can't assume that they mean the same.
Click to expand...
Splash proof is their chosen term of art. All my sealed Oly lenses display it.
Click to expand...
I wonder if there's levels of splash proofing in OMDS land. Will this offer the same level of water resistence as their pro pro lenses?
Click to expand...
They had this to say on releasing the 12-40ii

The 12–40mm F2.8 PRO II is an updated version of the original 2013 lens. It features improved sealing, taking it up to the IP53 standard and adds fluorine coating to keep water and dirt off the front element.

Guess we'll find out this week if the revamped primes have IPX ratings.

Have had the old 12-40 out in horrid weather so even their early efforts seem quite good.

Rick
 
Cafe Racer said:
dtc25 said:
If the OM-3 is to be a high build quality, good looking body, it needs some high quality, good looking primes to go with it. If the new lenses are plastic and lack the focus clutch, that’s a retrograde step.
Click to expand...
I agree. Not everyone wants a huge 17mm f1.2 lens, which is the only other metal construction AF lens option if you want weather sealing.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they are being honest as no mainstream ILC lens or camera is weather sealed , weather resistant but not weather sealed.
 
Regor250 said:
dtc25 said:
If the OM-3 is to be a high build quality, good looking body, it needs some high quality, good looking primes to go with it. If the new lenses are plastic and lack the focus clutch, that’s a retrograde step.
Click to expand...
Retrograde or Retro Grade?
Click to expand...
OMDS better get ready for people to throw some retro shade if the 17mm has been downgraded to plastic!!
 
Cafe Racer said:
It looks like OMDS have done away with the manual focus clutch on this new model; that's unfortunate.

I mentioned in another thread that I hoped the new 25mm would be made of metal to match the 17mm, but it's also possible they could make the 17mm plastic to match the 25mm. The new 17mm kinda looks more like the plastic 25mm with the accessory ring removed! Plastic?

17mm f1.8 II

17mm f1.8 II

Old version 25mm F1.8

Old version 25mm F1.8

Old version 17mm F1.8

Old version 17mm F1.8
Click to expand...
 
Cafe Racer said:
Isola Verde said:
The trade off for being made splashproof, perhaps?
Click to expand...
Splashproof? What does that even mean in real terms and I don't really see why there should be a trade off?
Click to expand...
The focus clutch has to be weather-sealed in both the open and closed positions. When they remove it, they reduce the number of rubber seals needed.

They would ideally like to keep the manufacturing cost the same, while adding weather-sealing, so the trade off was to remove the clutch and switch to plastic.
Cafe Racer said:
Is this an up or downgrade?
Click to expand...
The focus clutch on the old 17/1.8 never worked with Focus Assist, so they're replacing a defective clutch with functional weather-sealing. I would count that an upgrade.

In the real world, the weather-sealing is a more marketable feature, especially if OM is also releasing a new weather-sealed camera. Focus-clutches are niche, and especially rare on entry-level lenses.

Just think of how many posters in this forum have pleaded for weather-sealed f/1.8 primes. How many have asked for more focus-clutches?
 
Last edited:
Cafe Racer said:
It looks like OMDS have done away with the manual focus clutch on this new model; that's unfortunate.

I mentioned in another thread that I hoped the new 25mm would be made of metal to match the 17mm, but it's also possible they could make the 17mm plastic to match the 25mm. The new 17mm kinda looks more like the plastic 25mm with the accessory ring removed! Plastic?

17mm f1.8 II

17mm f1.8 II

Old version 25mm F1.8

Old version 25mm F1.8

Old version 17mm F1.8

Old version 17mm F1.8
Click to expand...
I know it's about the same size, but the only thing that matters to me is if there are any optical improvements? The clutch isn't as big of a deal to me. Frankly it sucks on my 12-100. I'd rather have the AF/MF switch from my PL12-60. But we'll soon see. Looking forward to this week to see what I might be saving money for... ;-)

--
NHT
 
Plastic build with no focus clutch? No thanks, I will keep my classic Olympus 17mm f:1.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bluevellet
  • User review User review
Soft Spot For The 17mm f/1.8
Replies
15
Views
67K
baxters
B
bluevellet
  • User review User review
Good performance at a Bargain
Replies
1
Views
25K
DDoram
DDoram
Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn
The best set of primes for MFT?
2
Replies
28
Views
122K
Thearch
T
nameless0ne
Nikon Z5 II -- metal or plastic?
Replies
1
Views
18K
Nebido
Nebido
B
The 84p Trioplan?
Replies
2
Views
13K
Bosun Higgs
B

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top