What a disappointing situation with the 17mm lens! Why?

Started Sep 2, 2013 | Discussions
OP Sergey Borachev Veteran Member • Posts: 4,313
Re: Possible solution for you...

OP wrote:

"The answer I like best so far.

With nothing really nice in M43, this may be the only and the best option at this time."

~>
With such an uncompromising attitude

(evident in use of such hyperbolic words like "best", "nothing", "only", "best")

could we not also reject the x100 on any number of demerits

-- hide signature --

of AF slower than an OMD, or lack of lens interchangeability, or the simple fact of the hassle, anxiety, time spent overthinking and stressing out and venting on an internet forum, throwing around a bunch of passive aggression --

which all naturally tarnish the perfection of the potential?

the root of 'device' is 'division'. don't let the device divide you from your essential experience: of making images.

technology can make you, and break you, if you let it.

Not uncompromising. If you look at the reviews and the details, consider the price, and also how the IQ of the lens compared with other cheap lenses, maybe you will see the point better.
It is not that I am asking for something really hard to provide (considering the much better performance of the 12mm, if not the 12-35mm zoom. This 17mm f/1.8 is not a lens that Olympus should be proud of, even though it seems to be or looks the part.

Elix Regular Member • Posts: 298
Re: What a disappointing situation with the 17mm lens! Why?

thomasw333 wrote:

Also note, Olympus is now having a lens sale, 17mm f2.8, $100 off, now only $200.

I am thinking about getting one.

Not to dissuade you, but I had that for a while and sold it due to it being slow and ppor IQ. Not really worth to bother, if you want a pancake get pana 14mm (that I have and never use anyway, so it will go soon), or PL 20mm, instead I've got the PL 25mm, it cost more but worth it.

 Elix's gear list:Elix's gear list
Sony RX100 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +3 more
Ulric Veteran Member • Posts: 4,532
Re: Possible solution for you...

Have you tried the Panasonic 14mm? I mean not read reviews, but actually used one? It is very likeable.

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +13 more
Elix Regular Member • Posts: 298
Re: What a disappointing situation with the 17mm lens! Why?

jeffharris wrote:

AustinB wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

5. Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 - Excellent speed and bokeh. A very nice lens indeed. All good, except that it is 50mm equivalent FL, which is not ideal for a general purpose walk-about lens and restricting for buildings, landscape, travels or when you want to get closer and more intimate with your subjects.

50mm is great for a general purpose walk-around lens!

Sure is. 50mm was the standard kit lens for decades!

It is also the "reference length" for FT and mFT. I use it a lot and it's just great for pretty much everything.

 Elix's gear list:Elix's gear list
Sony RX100 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +3 more
Elix Regular Member • Posts: 298
Re: What a disappointing situation with the 17mm lens! Why?

Sergey Borachev wrote

Yeah, I expected too much from a lens and from members on this forum

I think if you take a deep breath and try to re-adjust yourself to the reality of things, that will improve your life.

 Elix's gear list:Elix's gear list
Sony RX100 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +3 more
Blesys Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: What a disappointing situation with the 17mm lens! Why?

I have a canon equipment with very good lenses. I started out to buy new cheap lenses and got dissapointed. Then I bought used high end lenses and saw the difference. I will never buy a mediocre lens again. I find it important to read the reviews about lenses you intend to buy.
I have made one misstake when it comes to high end lenses an that was to buy the 28-300mm L lens. It is mediocre all over. It is not near the 70-200mm L lens or primes I have.

I have started to use the Micro 4/3 because it is so small and light and have got good reviews. Now I have the 12mm 2.0m lens and the Panasonic 35-100mm and I am happy with these. I am happy to walk around with a light but high quality equipment. BUT though there are many Micro 4/3 lenses I don´t think I have read a very good Review of zoom above 100mm or a fixed lens above 100mm. Are there fixed lenses above 100mm?

I would not hesitate to buy the 75mm olympus or the 60mm macro and maybe not the Panasonic 7-14mm. But that is about all as of now. There must be more of very high IQ lenses

There are many Micro 4/3 lenses but there are far to few very good ones. Olympus and Panasonic must adress this if they want professionals to use them. Unless there are not a good line of lenses you cannot talk about the advantage of Micro 4/3 compared to FF with their many excellent lenses. The possibilities are there for a good Micro 4/3 system but not so many lenses yet of very good IQ. I see a future where i buy the olympus 150mm 2.0 lens. Rave Reviews. Heavy but not as heavy as the Canon counter part and with the camera body still light.

Blesys

Paul De Bra
Paul De Bra Forum Pro • Posts: 12,499
You must have seen (or had) bad copies?

All good points, but in this case I do feel that it should not be hard to get something quite a bit better, especially considering the price and the significance of this particular FL.

This statement sure sounds like whichever lens among the many you listed you actually used or have seen images from must have been bad.

"quite a bit better" considering the price sure does not apply to reasonably good copies of the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 or the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7. I'm sure it is possible to make lenses that are "a bit better" at reasonable additional cost, but I don't see the opportunity for "quite a bit better" given that in m43 we are still at 16MP with bayer-pattern sensors, so it sounds like you are asking for the impossible.

-- hide signature --

Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.

 Paul De Bra's gear list:Paul De Bra's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F200EXR Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +3 more
OP Sergey Borachev Veteran Member • Posts: 4,313
Re: What a disappointing situation with the 17mm lens! Why?

Elix wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

AustinB wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

5. Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 - Excellent speed and bokeh. A very nice lens indeed. All good, except that it is 50mm equivalent FL, which is not ideal for a general purpose walk-about lens and restricting for buildings, landscape, travels or when you want to get closer and more intimate with your subjects.

50mm is great for a general purpose walk-around lens!

Sure is. 50mm was the standard kit lens for decades!

It is also the "reference length" for FT and mFT. I use it a lot and it's just great for pretty much everything.

Thanks. OK, many have suggested the 25mm. As I mentioned also in my first post, the 25mm is a very nice lens, but it is not all that suitable for anyone who wants a 17mm lens. The difference in FOV is very significant, so is the DOF, and also the shutter speed requirement to avoid blurry shots. These are all signifcant considerations for those needing a 35mm equivalent lens. I do wish there was an equivalent 17mm lens from Panasonic made to the same standard as its 25mm, which is really in use not the same, e.g. in street shooting, or when you want to get close enough to the subject to isolate distractions, or rely on the greater DOF and/or less shutter speed requirements for quick candids even in available light shots.

I don't believe it is or it should be the "reference lengtrh" for FT and MFT.  Maybe you can tell me why or how that came about.

OP Sergey Borachev Veteran Member • Posts: 4,313
Re: You must have seen (or had) bad copies?

Paul De Bra wrote:

All good points, but in this case I do feel that it should not be hard to get something quite a bit better, especially considering the price and the significance of this particular FL.

This statement sure sounds like whichever lens among the many you listed you actually used or have seen images from must have been bad.

"quite a bit better" considering the price sure does not apply to reasonably good copies of the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 or the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7. I'm sure it is possible to make lenses that are "a bit better" at reasonable additional cost, but I don't see the opportunity for "quite a bit better" given that in m43 we are still at 16MP with bayer-pattern sensors, so it sounds like you are asking for the impossible.

-- hide signature --

Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.

On the contrary, what I am asking should be completely possible. There are lenses with FL that score quite a bit higher in MTF figures. Check the Lenstip reviews for this lens and compare with the CV 17mm f/0.95 and the Panasonic 20mm (a pancake!), or with Olympus' own 12mm. Check also the other reviews I mentioned. Some of them have very detailed figures that can be directly compared to similar lenses. I am not going to repeat myself or bother replying if people just talking out of thin air.

enrique santa
enrique santa Senior Member • Posts: 1,656
Re: What a disappointing situation with the 17mm lens! Why?
1

Hi Sergey. I remember a similar post from you about six month ago.

In several months and if you can spend that amount of money you would like to try the new Schenider 14mm.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/06/15/new-high-end-lenses-for-micro-43-on-the-way-from-schneider-kreuznach-and-olympus/

Any case I think you are so negative. I´m not going to include firt class zooms but your list in a more positive way:

1. Olympus 17mm f/2.8 - Cheap, little size a weight, sharp from 4.o to 8.0

2. Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 - Very good resolution. It is however slightly wide but OK. This lens is a bit slow, for some kind of photography.

3. Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 - Very sharp, though slight,y uneven across the frame, but still impressive in IQ. Very good speed too. slow af for some kind of photography.

4. Sigma 19mm f/2.8 - Also quite sharp, fast and quiet AF too and good value. This lens is a bit slow, for some kind of photography.

5. Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 - Excellent speed and bokeh. A very nice lens indeed. All good, except that it is 50mm equivalent FL, which, perhaps for some people, is not ideal for a general purpose walk-about lens and restricting for buildings, landscape, travels or when you want to get closer and more intimate with your subjects.

6. Nockton 17.5mm f/0.5. - Beautifully piece of metal and glass and great specs. Excellent dreamy bokeh. The lack of AF plus the weight and size, make a plus for some people , but pehaps not for others. Expensive.

7. Olympus 17mm f/1.8 - A good value for what it offers. Significant field of curvature problem consultancial with his FL. This lens was trashed by lens tip and since this moment began the controversy. The fact is for the rest of the testers the lens is well made and from sharp to very sharp , and a demon in af speed.(dox mark pointed it at 19- pl 25mm 1,4 20). Most of the owners confirms this point.

So unless you like others consider all the oly 17mm 1.8 unicellular brained people that are "defending their purchage" ,stupid since you can return or sell the lens, you would seen in numerous post that usually people is happy or very satisfaied wiht it, me include.

So wait for the Scheider if you want af and pay for the German made or try de 20mm 1.7 or oly 17mm 1.8 and decide yourself.

Cheers.

-- hide signature --
 enrique santa's gear list:enrique santa's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2S Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS
Paul De Bra
Paul De Bra Forum Pro • Posts: 12,499
Lenstip makes the 17mm look worse than e.g. photozone.

Lenstip gives sharpness figures of 65 / 53 for the 17mm versus 75 / 68 for the 25mm lens (just as an example). Photozone gives figures of 2832 / 2134 for the 17mm versus 3075 / 2213 for the 25mm lens. That is a much smaller difference. (We cannot compare with other lenses such as the 20mm on photozone as their tests of these lenses were done on a different camera. We need tests on the same camera.)

This example shows just how dangerous it is to rely on a review site instead of actual experience from actual users. Lenstip makes the 17mm look bad compared to the other lenses (I also looked at figures of other lenses than the 25) but on Photozone the 17mm looks close to what the very well regarded 25mm lens does.

If the 17mm lens was much worse than the 20mm or 25mm people wouldn't be jumping up and down about how good the 17mm f/1.8 is. Don't just believe numbers. Try to get some real experience, with a good copy of the lens.

-- hide signature --

Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.

 Paul De Bra's gear list:Paul De Bra's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F200EXR Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +3 more
honeyiscool
honeyiscool Senior Member • Posts: 1,376
Re: You must have seen (or had) bad copies?
1

I don't get it. There are two very good lenses: 20mm f/1.7 vs. 17mm f/1.8.

The 20mm is the slightly better image quality, but inferior in other things.

The 17mm delivers pleasing image quality, I do suppose it's not as special in that regard as the 20mm, but it is beyond excellent at taking pictures in all kinds of difficult situations like few lenses can. Ordinary? Hardly.

See, I feel like there are probably two kinds of photographs: 1) those that capture a fleeting moment, and 2) those that are carefully set up. I feel like the technical prowess of a lens is not particularly important when it comes to capturing moments that are passing. It's important to capture a less than perfect image of the moment, as long as it is in focus and basically correctly captured, than to be unable to capture it at all. The 17mm f/1.8 is PERFECT for that. I really doubt you're going to find another 35mm equivalent lens solution right now, aside from DSLR (possibly), that can get you that kind of quick response and fast performance in all kinds of situations. For everything else, there is the 20mm, when the visual quality matters more than getting the picture in the first place.

Yes, it would be great if one day there was a lens that could do it all, but it's not like the Panasonic 20mm is all that dire when it comes to AF speed and hunting. Yes, I complain about it because there is a better solution in 17mm f/1.8 for my kind of shooting, but it is still faster than the Canon 22mm, for instance. And the X100S isn't all that fast or accurate, either. 20mm is about twice as slow as the 17mm, I would say, but that basically puts it on the same level as most other mirrorless solutions at that focal length. Watch any real world test of even the mighty RX1. It's no better than the 20mm at AF speed/accuracy.

 honeyiscool's gear list:honeyiscool's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:1.8 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +2 more
OP Sergey Borachev Veteran Member • Posts: 4,313
Re: Lenstip makes the 17mm look worse than e.g. photozone.

Paul De Bra wrote:

Lenstip gives sharpness figures of 65 / 53 for the 17mm versus 75 / 68 for the 25mm lens (just as an example). Photozone gives figures of 2832 / 2134 for the 17mm versus 3075 / 2213 for the 25mm lens. That is a much smaller difference. (We cannot compare with other lenses such as the 20mm on photozone as their tests of these lenses were done on a different camera. We need tests on the same camera.)

This example shows just how dangerous it is to rely on a review site instead of actual experience from actual users. Lenstip makes the 17mm look bad compared to the other lenses (I also looked at figures of other lenses than the 25) but on Photozone the 17mm looks close to what the very well regarded 25mm lens does.

If the 17mm lens was much worse than the 20mm or 25mm people wouldn't be jumping up and down about how good the 17mm f/1.8 is. Don't just believe numbers. Try to get some real experience, with a good copy of the lens.

-- hide signature --

Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.

Sorry, I do not understand your logic. We are talking about measurable properties and it is not just Lenstip, also DXOMark, LensRental, Photozone and more.

It's fine if you think I am asking for the impossible, but I think it is so easy to get a lot better. For example, in terms of sharpness, the 20mm, a pancake, and the CV 17mm are proof that it is not just possible but already done. They are both much sharper. People jump up and down about how good their purchased lens is, OK, that's certainly not new around here. It is risky to base on the number of people jumping up and down to tell the quality of a lens if that is not supported by its test measurements (like the 75mm).

OP Sergey Borachev Veteran Member • Posts: 4,313
Re: You must have seen (or had) bad copies?

honeyiscool wrote:

I don't get it. There are two very good lenses: 20mm f/1.7 vs. 17mm f/1.8.

The 20mm is the slightly better image quality, but inferior in other things.

OK, is it that hard to put some better motor in the 20mm to make it faster and more quiet, or to use some pretty casing and mark some distance scale etc to make it great?

The 17mm delivers pleasing image quality, I do suppose it's not as special in that regard as the 20mm, but it is beyond excellent at taking pictures in all kinds of difficult situations like few lenses can. Ordinary? Hardly.

Is this 17mm is beyond excellent, what is the 12mm or the 12-35mm?

See, I feel like there are probably two kinds of photographs: 1) those that capture a fleeting moment, and 2) those that are carefully set up. I feel like the technical prowess of a lens is not particularly important when it comes to capturing moments that are passing. It's important to capture a less than perfect image of the moment, as long as it is in focus and basically correctly captured, than to be unable to capture it at all. The 17mm f/1.8 is PERFECT for that. I really doubt you're going to find another 35mm equivalent lens solution right now, aside from DSLR (possibly), that can get you that kind of quick response and fast performance in all kinds of situations. For everything else, there is the 20mm, when the visual quality matters more than getting the picture in the first place.

Yes, it would be great if one day there was a lens that could do it all, but it's not like the Panasonic 20mm is all that dire when it comes to AF speed and hunting. Yes, I complain about it because there is a better solution in 17mm f/1.8 for my kind of shooting, but it is still faster than the Canon 22mm, for instance. And the X100S isn't all that fast or accurate, either. 20mm is about twice as slow as the 17mm, I would say, but that basically puts it on the same level as most other mirrorless solutions at that focal length. Watch any real world test of even the mighty RX1. It's no better than the 20mm at AF speed/accuracy.

No argument at all about the AF performance of the 17mm lens.  I already mentioned it is impressive in AF performance, in flare control, and looks.  Only one of those is an optical quality however.  What I would like to see is something like the 12mm (not just in looks) or the 25mm f/1.4, i.e. all-around excellence, not just some of them and ordinary in others.  I use "ordinary" for its  overall IQ because it is when compared with the 14mm and the Sigma 19mm, both about half its price.  "Overall"" because it is better in a couple of things here and there, but worse in others.

It would be great if owner feedback is supported by test measurements, which happens for all the trully excellent lenses.  Relying on word of mouth alone is not what I want to do.  In this case, the feedback is not only unsupported by optical test measurements of reliable reviewers but it is contradicted by those measurements.

texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Re: Lenstip makes the 17mm look worse than e.g. photozone.

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Paul De Bra wrote:

Lenstip gives sharpness figures of 65 / 53 for the 17mm versus 75 / 68 for the 25mm lens (just as an example). Photozone gives figures of 2832 / 2134 for the 17mm versus 3075 / 2213 for the 25mm lens. That is a much smaller difference. (We cannot compare with other lenses such as the 20mm on photozone as their tests of these lenses were done on a different camera. We need tests on the same camera.)

This example shows just how dangerous it is to rely on a review site instead of actual experience from actual users.

That's ridiculous. Most actual users are not experienced in the art of testing photographic equipment carefully and thoroughly. Most actual users are offering nothing more than subjective, unscientific impressions of something they've purchased, and people who've purchased a thing, by and large, tend to be positively biased toward that thing.

Lenstip makes the 17mm look bad compared to the other lenses (I also looked at figures of other lenses than the 25) but on Photozone the 17mm looks close to what the very well regarded 25mm lens does.

If the 17mm lens was much worse than the 20mm or 25mm people wouldn't be jumping up and down about how good the 17mm f/1.8 is.

Ridiculous. Some people simply have lower standards of quality than others. People have different priorities, as well. The preponderance of evidence provided by experienced professional testers under controlled settings in well-equipped labs says the 17mm f/1.8 under performs the 20mm f/1.7 in most meaningful respects, optically. I'm not interested in the subjective opinions of a bunch of mostly anonymous lens owners whose qualifications as lens testers is unknown. Frankly, I'm surprised that you are.

Don't just believe numbers. Try to get some real experience, with a good copy of the lens.

What a strange aversion to numbers. It's something I'd expect from a backwoods hillbilly, but certainly not from a Computer Science PhD.

-- hide signature --

Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.

Sorry, I do not understand your logic. We are talking about measurable properties and it is not just Lenstip, also DXOMark, LensRental, Photozone and more.

I don't understand his logic, nor his aversion to numbers and measurements performed under controlled conditions by experienced testers in well-equipped labs. Don't understand it one bit.

It's fine if you think I am asking for the impossible, but I think it is so easy to get a lot better.

Of course it is. We see what's possible regarding sharpness and size at a certain price point with the 20mm. If Panasonic had simply fixed the banding issue with its updated 20mm lens, the lens would be superb. If they'd also updated the focus mechanism without sacrificing image quality, it would have been off-the-charts good.

Olympus' offering is lackluster. It costs more than the Panasomic 20mm (on average, for the prices I have seen), but it's larger and offers measurably poorer image quality. More expensive, larger & poorer image quality than the existing competition. How can that be considered a success by anyone?

For example, in terms of sharpness, the 20mm, a pancake, and the CV 17mm are proof that it is not just possible but already done. They are both much sharper. People jump up and down about how good their purchased lens is, OK, that's certainly not new around here. It is risky to base on the number of people jumping up and down to tell the quality of a lens if that is not supported by its test measurements (like the 75mm).

Absolutely. As an example, a certain user who used to frequent this board often (but who's since moved on to other systems and boards, mostly), frequently boasts about the number and variety of cameras he owns or has owned. Leicas, X-Pro 1, GH3, E-M5 - the list is long and, really, uninteresting.

In a thread comparing the sharpness of images taken by the E-M5 with the sharpness of comparable images taken by the GH3, this poster (who had owned both cameras) swore up and down that the GH3 provided sharper output. Even in the face of comparable photos that suggested otherwise.

He even wrote a blog article on the subject. Guy's an expert, right? He's owned dozens of expensive cameras.

Well, the guy was just plain wrong, as the recent DXOMark tests show. The poster, although he's owned so many cameras, and taken so many tens of thousands of photos, and written so many tens of thousands of words in reviews about cameras and lenses, was flat out wrong.

The Average Joe camera buyer is not experienced in the art of carefully testing the performance of photographic equipment, and owning a thing does not automatically make one an expert about that thing.

 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 OnePlus One Canon EOS 300D +20 more
OP Sergey Borachev Veteran Member • Posts: 4,313
Re: Lenstip makes the 17mm look worse than e.g. photozone.
1

texinwien wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Paul De Bra wrote:

Lenstip gives sharpness figures of 65 / 53 for the 17mm versus 75 / 68 for the 25mm lens (just as an example). Photozone gives figures of 2832 / 2134 for the 17mm versus 3075 / 2213 for the 25mm lens. That is a much smaller difference. (We cannot compare with other lenses such as the 20mm on photozone as their tests of these lenses were done on a different camera. We need tests on the same camera.)

This example shows just how dangerous it is to rely on a review site instead of actual experience from actual users.

That's ridiculous. Most actual users are not experienced in the art of testing photographic equipment carefully and thoroughly. Most actual users are offering nothing more than subjective, unscientific impressions of something they've purchased, and people who've purchased a thing, by and large, tend to be positively biased toward that thing.

Lenstip makes the 17mm look bad compared to the other lenses (I also looked at figures of other lenses than the 25) but on Photozone the 17mm looks close to what the very well regarded 25mm lens does.

If the 17mm lens was much worse than the 20mm or 25mm people wouldn't be jumping up and down about how good the 17mm f/1.8 is.

Ridiculous. Some people simply have lower standards of quality than others. People have different priorities, as well. The preponderance of evidence provided by experienced professional testers under controlled settings in well-equipped labs says the 17mm f/1.8 under performs the 20mm f/1.7 in most meaningful respects, optically. I'm not interested in the subjective opinions of a bunch of mostly anonymous lens owners whose qualifications as lens testers is unknown. Frankly, I'm surprised that you are.

Don't just believe numbers. Try to get some real experience, with a good copy of the lens.

What a strange aversion to numbers. It's something I'd expect from a backwoods hillbilly, but certainly not from a Computer Science PhD.

-- hide signature --

Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.

Sorry, I do not understand your logic. We are talking about measurable properties and it is not just Lenstip, also DXOMark, LensRental, Photozone and more.

I don't understand his logic, nor his aversion to numbers and measurements performed under controlled conditions by experienced testers in well-equipped labs. Don't understand it one bit.

It's fine if you think I am asking for the impossible, but I think it is so easy to get a lot better.

Of course it is. We see what's possible regarding sharpness and size at a certain price point with the 20mm. If Panasonic had simply fixed the banding issue with its updated 20mm lens, the lens would be superb. If they'd also updated the focus mechanism without sacrificing image quality, it would have been off-the-charts good.

Olympus' offering is lackluster. It costs more than the Panasomic 20mm (on average, for the prices I have seen), but it's larger and offers measurably poorer image quality. More expensive, larger & poorer image quality than the existing competition. How can that be considered a success by anyone?

For example, in terms of sharpness, the 20mm, a pancake, and the CV 17mm are proof that it is not just possible but already done. They are both much sharper. People jump up and down about how good their purchased lens is, OK, that's certainly not new around here. It is risky to base on the number of people jumping up and down to tell the quality of a lens if that is not supported by its test measurements (like the 75mm).

Absolutely. As an example, a certain user who used to frequent this board often (but who's since moved on to other systems and boards, mostly), frequently boasts about the number and variety of cameras he owns or has owned. Leicas, X-Pro 1, GH3, E-M5 - the list is long and, really, uninteresting.

In a thread comparing the sharpness of images taken by the E-M5 with the sharpness of comparable images taken by the GH3, this poster (who had owned both cameras) swore up and down that the GH3 provided sharper output. Even in the face of comparable photos that suggested otherwise.

He even wrote a blog article on the subject. Guy's an expert, right? He's owned dozens of expensive cameras.

Well, the guy was just plain wrong, as the recent DXOMark tests show. The poster, although he's owned so many cameras, and taken so many tens of thousands of photos, and written so many tens of thousands of words in reviews about cameras and lenses, was flat out wrong.

The Average Joe camera buyer is not experienced in the art of carefully testing the performance of photographic equipment, and owning a thing does not automatically make one an expert about that thing.

You can say it so much better than I.

thecraftysnapper New Member • Posts: 7
Re: You must have seen (or had) bad copies?
2

Sergey Borachev wrote:

It would be great if owner feedback is supported by test measurements, which happens for all the trully excellent lenses. Relying on word of mouth alone is not what I want to do. In this case, the feedback is not only unsupported by optical test measurements of reliable reviewers but it is contradicted by those measurements.

While that may be the ideal , I would imagine most photographers are to busy enjoying taking  images in the real world and drawing conclusions from real world images, shooting test images and graphs would be like water torture to me. I've seen the 45 f1.8 not get stellar reviews on some sites but I'm still amazed when I take a image in the real world with it. Enjoy what you have lifes to short to worry about what you don't have.:)

-- hide signature --

Regards Paul
[SIZE="2"][color=BLUE]One day I hope to be the person my dogs think I am.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[URL="http://www.pbase.com/paulsilkphotography"]My PBase Galleries[/URL]
[URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_craftysnapper/"]My Flickr Photos[/URL]

Louis_Dobson
Louis_Dobson Forum Pro • Posts: 27,493
Re: What a disappointing situation with the 17mm lens! Why?
1

What a lot of hostile reaction, especially from people with limited powers of English comprehension!
I don't use the 35 efl length much, don't have 17mm f1.8, I have only read the reviews, which are not brilliant on the optical front.
So if the 17mm f1.8 reviews are right, there is no premium, AF, 35mm equivalent lens in MFT. While I could not care less, it's a problem for many people.
Simples.

-- hide signature --

www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

 Louis_Dobson's gear list:Louis_Dobson's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
slimandy Forum Pro • Posts: 17,133
Re: What a disappointing situation with the 17mm lens! Why?

Elix wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote

Yeah, I expected too much from a lens and from members on this forum

I think if you take a deep breath and try to re-adjust yourself to the reality of things, that will improve your life.

Maybe he expected too much of life too.

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1
slimandy Forum Pro • Posts: 17,133
Re: Lenstip makes the 17mm look worse than e.g. photozone.

Paul De Bra wrote:

Lenstip gives sharpness figures of 65 / 53 for the 17mm versus 75 / 68 for the 25mm lens (just as an example). Photozone gives figures of 2832 / 2134 for the 17mm versus 3075 / 2213 for the 25mm lens. That is a much smaller difference. (We cannot compare with other lenses such as the 20mm on photozone as their tests of these lenses were done on a different camera. We need tests on the same camera.)

This example shows just how dangerous it is to rely on a review site instead of actual experience from actual users. Lenstip makes the 17mm look bad compared to the other lenses (I also looked at figures of other lenses than the 25) but on Photozone the 17mm looks close to what the very well regarded 25mm lens does.

If the 17mm lens was much worse than the 20mm or 25mm people wouldn't be jumping up and down about how good the 17mm f/1.8 is. Don't just believe numbers. Try to get some real experience, with a good copy of the lens.

Careful. I got slated for that kind of logic. We want science in this forum, not common sense. We want MTF, not art.

And I'll get slated again......


 
-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads