Reading mode: Light Dark

Is the Olympus 17mm 2.8 really that bad?

Go to last post
Its not that its bad, its just that there is a superior option in the 20mm 1.7 which beats it in almost every conceivable way. The only reasons youd buy one is if you absolutely had to have the 3mm difference, which is practically nobody, or if you found one at a great price.

Otherwise the 20mm panny pancake is just flat out a superior choice for most people
 
The images I have seen and taken with it seem to be just fine. I think the lens is good enough for decent enlargements.

Dan
--

Will I learn from life's lessons or will I lose my faith in the goodness life's promise had to offer?
 
imashination said:
Its not that its bad, its just that there is a superior option in the 20mm 1.7 which beats it in almost every conceivable way. The only reasons youd buy one is if you absolutely had to have the 3mm difference, which is practically nobody, or if you found one at a great price.

Otherwise the 20mm panny pancake is just flat out a superior choice for most people
Click to expand...
I'd prefer the FOV of the 20mm (& the speed), but the AF speed sounds very off putting.
 
no, imho. Focus can be a bit uneven, particularly towards corners but I still think that, taking into account the FL, size, weight, reasonable speed and colour for silver lovers, it's the most attractive match for the E-PM1 or E-PL3. However for my OM-D it will be more specialist as I have better alternatives for most occasions. For those who don't have a larger m43 camera, then the Oly 14-42 or Panny 14 or 20 might fit the bill better.

David
 
of course can't comment for other copies, but i can't find any problem with what is always on my e-pm1 body. Using it with viewfinder is a treat also.

P.S. I am not a pixel peeper and keep in mind that when test sites are telling you that a lens is not sharp full open in extreme corners, try to understand what part of a frame is that extreme corner and does it matter for your shots (generally speaking :) )

some from 17mm ( + epm1 )





 
The 17mm AF isn't any better.
--
--Mike
 
Keto said:
imashination said:
Its not that its bad, its just that there is a superior option in the 20mm 1.7 which beats it in almost every conceivable way. The only reasons youd buy one is if you absolutely had to have the 3mm difference, which is practically nobody, or if you found one at a great price.

Otherwise the 20mm panny pancake is just flat out a superior choice for most people
Click to expand...
I'd prefer the FOV of the 20mm (& the speed), but the AF speed sounds very off putting.
Click to expand...
Then you should not be buying the 17mm f2.8 either. It is no faster than the 20mm f1.7 and uses the same type focus system as the original 14-42. No internal focus, so it is as slow at autofocusing as it gets for an Olympus micro lens.

I've had one for a while. Compared to the 20/1.7 or Panasonic 14mm f2.5 the 17mm Zuiko is just not that great. I really WANT to like it and have take it out a few times with my E-P3 and just never have liked the image files I capture with it. With the three prime setup of the 12mm f2, 25mm f1.4 and 45mm f1.8, the 17 does not stand much of a chance of getting any use by me these days.

It's cute. Beyond that, I don't have anything good to say about it.

--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights
 
I have said it before and will say it again -- the "slow AF" rap on the 20mm is overblown. it is no sin to be "slower" than the Oly 45 or the Panny 25 as long as the AF is fast enough to handle most situations and it is in my experience. if the lens had to lose its pancake size to be faster, then I prefer the pancake size to faster AF.

EDIT -- if it is only AF speed that is inclining you to the 17 over the 20, the poster above has it dead to rights -- they are both old design lenses and will both be "slower" than the newer designs.

--
RaymondR
 
I use this lens all the time. I really lov the 35mm field of view.





 
... smeared by Panny ignoramuses.

Not only it makes one camera pocketable and fast to focus, but it has maximum resolution where it matters, between 5.6 and 8, where hyperfocal is reached for street shooting.

But don't ask them to understand photography. Oly does. Besides it has a terrific colour signature, great microcontrast, and good bokeh.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
I agree with Am. It is a damn good lens. Don't believe the classless naysayers on this forum. Some of us actually use this lens. And, BTW, I also happen to own the Pany 20 mm and 14 mm. Love 'em all.

caver3d
 
Great pictures umutLP and Hatwearingfool! I love the colors and 35mm perspective on this tiny pancake. I do hope the rumors of a Pansonic 17mm f/1.4 are true just for the speed.
 
I too have all three; 20/1.7, 17/2.8, and 14/2.5 and love each for different reasons. All of these are excllent lenses.

--
Never put off until tomorrow. . .
that which you can avoid doing altogether.
 
Thanks. To be honest I'm very tempting to upgrade to the voigtlander 17.5mm. But I'm desperately trying to refrain from purchasing anything until after photokina
 
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
10K
baxters
B
C
Pancakes - Olympus 17mm f2.8 v Olympus 14-42 EZ
Replies
18
Views
1K
Arviragus
A
agott123
mZuiko 17mm F1.8 II for only $377..
Replies
1
Views
2K
LeMala
LeMala
R
PL 15mm f/1.7 vs OM 17mm f/1.8 II
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
K1MOX
K1MOX
C
New 17mm f1.8 II Plastic or Metal?
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
529
Cafe Racer
C

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