Olympus 17/1.8 review

Started Nov 17, 2012 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Ming Thein Senior Member • Posts: 1,917
Olympus 17/1.8 review
15

Hi everybody,

I've had a final version of the 17/1.8 for a couple of days now and just posted my review:

Comparative lens review: The Olympus M. Zuiko Digital 17/1.8

As usual, leave a question here or on the site and I'll do my best to get back to you.

Enjoy and have a good weekend!

Ming

-- hide signature --

www.mingthein.com

 Ming Thein's gear list:Ming Thein's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G
sunhorse Senior Member • Posts: 1,524
Re: Olympus 17/1.8 review

Thank you for the thorough and excellent review.

-- hide signature --

Ramesh

 sunhorse's gear list:sunhorse's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +1 more
Prime85 Senior Member • Posts: 1,013
Re: Olympus 17/1.8 review

Thakn You Ming!  Well done and great photos!

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 3,915
Re: Olympus 17/1.8 review

Great job!  If it's similar in performance to the 20/1.7, then I'm tempted...

-- hide signature --

SLOtographer
"If we limit our vision to the real world, we will forever be fighting on the minus side of things, working only too make our photographs equal to what we see out there, but no better." -- Galen Rowell

 SLOtographer's gear list:SLOtographer's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Laszlo13
Laszlo13 Contributing Member • Posts: 875
Great work, but I am puzzled

Puzzled by 2 things:

- Your 17mm 2.8 seems to be a very good copy!  Given your center and corner crops, I wouldn't spend the money on the new lens.  Mine unfortunately is not as good.

- As I was checking out your images on flicrk, I was in full screen mode, and indadvertedly continued onto the RX100 images.  I thought they were still shot with micro four thirds and the new lens (they seem to be around the 35mm field of view).  When I exited full screen mode, I then noticed of course that these were with the RX100, and then I was blown away.  The color, saturation, film like texture, are pretty amazing.  Not much more money that the 45mm 1.8 lens either.

Best regards, Laszlo

 Laszlo13's gear list:Laszlo13's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7
fotophool Veteran Member • Posts: 4,184
Re: Great work, but I am puzzled

Laszlo13 wrote:

Puzzled by 2 things:

- Your 17mm 2.8 seems to be a very good copy! Given your center and corner crops, I wouldn't spend the money on the new lens. Mine unfortunately is not as good.

- As I was checking out your images on flicrk, I was in full screen mode, and indadvertedly continued onto the RX100 images. I thought they were still shot with micro four thirds and the new lens (they seem to be around the 35mm field of view). When I exited full screen mode, I then noticed of course that these were with the RX100, and then I was blown away. The color, saturation, film like texture, are pretty amazing. Not much more money that the 45mm 1.8 lens either.

Best regards, Laszlo

Yes, the RX100 has turned out to be one of several surprises of the season.

In case you missed the link on his blog site, ming reviewed it here:

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/08/06/the-sony-rx100-a-somewhat-comparative-review/

fotophool

My Flickr Pics

KwhyChang Veteran Member • Posts: 3,529
Re: Olympus 17/1.8 review

Thanks for the work and the link to it.

I look forward to reading your impressions.

-- hide signature --

Dave

 KwhyChang's gear list:KwhyChang's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Nikon Coolpix P900 Sony Alpha 7
MT Senior Member • Posts: 1,927
Darn- hoped it would be world class...

I have the 20 1.7 and hoped the 17 1.8 would be even better optically but it did not seem to be much of an improvement in that department.  Darn...I was hoping for a world class 17mm....

MTMT

Ming Thein OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,917
Pleasure! nt

sunhorse wrote:

Thank you for the thorough and excellent review.

-- hide signature --

Ramesh

-- hide signature --

www.mingthein.com

 Ming Thein's gear list:Ming Thein's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G
Ming Thein OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,917
No problem. nt

Prime85 wrote:

Thakn You Ming! Well done and great photos!

-- hide signature --

www.mingthein.com

 Ming Thein's gear list:Ming Thein's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G
Ming Thein OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,917
Slightly better, I think.

You get a bit more microcontrast, slightly less overall contrast - good for preserving dynamic range - and similar corner performance.

Ming

SLOtographer wrote:

Great job! If it's similar in performance to the 20/1.7, then I'm tempted...

-- hide signature --

SLOtographer
"If we limit our vision to the real world, we will forever be fighting on the minus side of things, working only too make our photographs equal to what we see out there, but no better." -- Galen Rowell

-- hide signature --

www.mingthein.com

 Ming Thein's gear list:Ming Thein's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G
Ming Thein OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,917
Re: Great work, but I am puzzled

Yes, the 17/2.8 I've got here does appear to be a good one - not all of the lenses I've used in the past  have performed the same way. In fact, most were markedly worse. The new lens blows it out of the water for AF speed though, and is of course 1 1/3 stop faster in physical aperture - and slightly more in transmission.

Something to be said for both the camera (RX100) plus of course how it's used...

Ming

Laszlo13 wrote:

Puzzled by 2 things:

- Your 17mm 2.8 seems to be a very good copy! Given your center and corner crops, I wouldn't spend the money on the new lens. Mine unfortunately is not as good.

- As I was checking out your images on flicrk, I was in full screen mode, and indadvertedly continued onto the RX100 images. I thought they were still shot with micro four thirds and the new lens (they seem to be around the 35mm field of view). When I exited full screen mode, I then noticed of course that these were with the RX100, and then I was blown away. The color, saturation, film like texture, are pretty amazing. Not much more money that the 45mm 1.8 lens either.

Best regards, Laszlo

-- hide signature --

www.mingthein.com

 Ming Thein's gear list:Ming Thein's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G
Ming Thein OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,917
You're welcome! nt

KwhyChang wrote:

Thanks for the work and the link to it.

I look forward to reading your impressions.

-- hide signature --

Dave

-- hide signature --

www.mingthein.com

 Ming Thein's gear list:Ming Thein's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G
Ming Thein OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,917
I think it's slightly better, but pretty close overall. nt

MT wrote:

I have the 20 1.7 and hoped the 17 1.8 would be even better optically but it did not seem to be much of an improvement in that department. Darn...I was hoping for a world class 17mm....

MTMT

-- hide signature --

www.mingthein.com

 Ming Thein's gear list:Ming Thein's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,466
Re: Olympus 17/1.8 review
1

Ming Thein wrote:

Hi everybody,

I've had a final version of the 17/1.8 for a couple of days now and just posted my review:

Comparative lens review: The Olympus M. Zuiko Digital 17/1.8

As usual, leave a question here or on the site and I'll do my best to get back to you.

Enjoy and have a good weekend!

Ming

Many thanks for that review Ming. I am thoroughly familiar with the 20/1.7 since I have one, and to some extent with the 17/2.8 too, since I borrowed one for a while in order to include it in the bokeh test of MFT WAs to which I link below (where the 20/1.7 is picture 1 and the 17/2.8 is picture 2):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3279903#forum-post-50023507

In view of that, I much welcome your direct comparison of these two lenses with the new 17/1.8. I find your test images very helpful. However, I don't always agree with your comments. Here's my take:

MTF: I find the 20 distinctly superior to both 17s in the center and the corners alike. Not only is global contrast better. I'd say the same goes for what I'd refer to as micro-contrast. Look, for example, at the grid below the window in the bottom-right corner crops. The 20 renders it far more clearly. I never thought much of the 17/2.8 in this regard but I am afraid the 17/1.8 disappoints me here. I had hoped and expected it would give the 20 a run for the money but judging by your samples it doesn't.

Lateral CA: Yes, the 20 has more of that than the 17/1.8, which is to be expected in view of the fact that the 20 is designed to be software-corrected in this regard. Neither the presence of this kind of CA, nor the fact that Oly bodies (e.g., my E-M5) won't autocorrect it bothers me at all. Since LR 4 can autocorrect it with virtually no downsides, I find no reason to care. BTW: You say in your comment to the bottom-right corner crops that you find it interesting that the CA doesn't change when you stop down. To the extent that it is LaCA we are talking about, as it primarily is here, this isn't surprising at all. LaCA (as opposed to LoCA) doesn't change with aperture. If anything, it can be visually more prominent at more narrow apertures than at wide ones due to the gradual disappearance, when stopping down, of other aberrations that prevent us from seeing it clearly.

Longitudinal CA in the in-focus area: Yes the 20 has more of that (towards the edges of the frame) and this is one area where I was pretty sure the 17/1.8 would beat it. While this kind of CA is more of a downside than LaCA since it is slightly more time-consuming to correct (although still pretty easy with the defringe tool available in LR from version 4.1 on) and cannot currently be corrected as well as LaCA (you get a gray fringe after desaturation of the purple hue rather than the color that should have been there in the first place), it's still a pretty marginal problem in my book.

Vignetting: I would expect the 17/1.8 to do at least as well and probably a bit better than the 20 here. I note that you say that the 17/1.8 doesn't have much of a problem with vignetting but what would you say about the comparison with the 20 in this area?

Bokeh: None of these lenses is a bokeh champ. On the other hand, I don't really expect that from lenses with FLs like these. Based on the test I linked too above, I know that the 20 is better in this area than the 17/2.8 (which has more pronounced outlining and LoCA) and I find no reason to think, on the basis of your samples, that the 17/1.8 beats the 20 either. At best, it reaches parity.

AF mechanism: You say that the 17/1.8 is much faster than the 17/2.8 and the 20/1.7. Well, that depends. As you can see here,

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50110471

I tested both the 17/2.8 and the 20/1.7 against lenses with fully up-to-date AF mechanisms such as my 12/2 and 14/2.5 and found the difference to be close to non-existent as far as ordinary AF-S is concerned. AF-C might be another story and the noise made by the AF on the 17/2.8 and 20/1.7 is a concern for video if you want to be able to AF during the clip. But for stills with AF-S, the drawbacks of the old AF solution on the 17/2.8 and 20/1.7 are truly minor.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Jonas Palm Regular Member • Posts: 459
Thanks for the review, much appreciated1

Personally, I would have loved to see the Panasonic 25mm f1.4 thrown into the mix, in spite of the differences in focal length. (By the same token, the panasonic 14mm f2.5 would have been interesting as well, although more of an outlier in focal length/speed/price).

But that would have been a bonus - the comparison was very informative for me, and helpful in my personal decision making.

Jonas P

 Jonas Palm's gear list:Jonas Palm's gear list
Olympus E-M1
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 3,915
Re: Slightly better, I think.

Ming Thein wrote:

You get a bit more microcontrast, slightly less overall contrast - good for preserving dynamic range - and similar corner performance.

Ming

Thanks Ming! I admire your work, and you've been a great resource for all us M43 shooters.

-- hide signature --

SLOtographer
"If we limit our vision to the real world, we will forever be fighting on the minus side of things, working only too make our photographs equal to what we see out there, but no better." -- Galen Rowell

 SLOtographer's gear list:SLOtographer's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Ulfric M Douglas Veteran Member • Posts: 4,549
Re: Olympus 17/1.8 review

Anders W wrote:

I tested both the 17/2.8 and the 20/1.7 against lenses with fully up-to-date AF mechanisms such as my 12/2 and 14/2.5 and found the difference to be close to non-existent as far as ordinary AF-S is concerned.

How could that be?

In my own autofocus speed tests my optically nice 17mmF2.8 is far slower to S-AF than the 14-42R kit lens or even the 40-150 kit zoom.

The difference is OBVIOUS and measureable.

The new 17mm seems to fill a niche for a fast-AF pancake ... or did the Lumix 14mm do that already?

jkrumm Veteran Member • Posts: 9,063
Re: Olympus 17/1.8 review

Yes, the 17/2.8 is very slow in s-af. I finally was able to try one out. Not unusable at all, but far from something like the 45 1.8 and I assume the 17 1.8.

-- hide signature --

John Krumm
Juneau, AK

Jorginho Forum Pro • Posts: 10,634
SLow focussing seems body reltated mostly

First of all thanks: really nice review. I browsed through it. And looked at the focussing remark. After that I thought: I did not experience anything dramatic and I have the 20 mm 1.7 on my EPL5 80% of the time.

SO: I have tried the 45 1.8 and the 20 1.7 (at 1.8) on an EPL5 and a GH2 body. Even on the EPL5 in low light it varies. It can focus almost instantly and it can take more than a second. Changing the lens to the GH2 it focusses in, say, 0,2 seconds 9 out of 10 ties and it hunts the other time.

The 45 f1.8 @ 1.8 focusses very fast on the EPL5 but as fast as the 20 mm 1.7 on the GH2. On the GH2 it is the 45 f1.8 that hunts much more. But mostly 0,5 -1 second. So not as long as the 20 mm on the EPL5.

So I think it is important to note you tested it (most likely, I did not read it) on an Olympus body. On a Panny body, the story is different.

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +9 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads