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

Started Sep 2, 2013 | Discussions
Eamon Hickey Veteran Member • Posts: 4,034
I really like snap focus

sigala1 wrote:

Example photos of why the 17mm f/1.8 is so bad?

I do think it's overpriced and that the "snap focus ring" is gimmicky,

Could not disagree more about the snap focus feature. Maybe it's because I learned on manual focus lenses that had distance indicators, depth of field scales, and did not freewheel, but I love what Olympus is doing with snap focus.

It's only so-so for hyperfocal focusing (because the fous throw is too short), but it works quite well for zone focusing, and I find that technique very useful sometimes for unobtrusive street shooting.

OP Sergey Borachev Veteran Member • Posts: 3,827
Re: I fully agree on that bit of 12/17 comparison.

Paul De Bra wrote:

I agree that the 12mm lens shows that Olympus can do better. The 17mm being less wide should have been equally good at just a bit lower price. But I guess sharpness isn't everything in judging the value of a lens. The 12mm and 17mm f/1.8 both get the same overall score of 19 on dxomark, with the 17mm showing less sharpness.

But especially in these lower focal lengths so much goes into engineering a lens design... who knows what makes one focal length just that bit easier to get right and another much more difficult. Lens design is a very complicated matter and to some extent it gets easier with longer focal lengths, once you exceed the lens elements to sensor plane distance by enough. For short focal lengths I wouldn't be able to tell which focal length is easiest to make, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 25... but after that it starts getting better.

-- hide signature --

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

I am no expert and I hope someone can confirm this.

My understanding is that FL around 50mm is the easiest to make good. That is why 50mm was the "standard" lens for decades in SLRs and FFs, although that FL is not really IMO the most versatile, especially given the extra high resolution we have nowadays with FF cameras. 35mm would be much better as a standard kit lens to include as it is more versatile and a little cropping should give a 50mm FOV and still have heaps of IQ. The only problem is, again, 50mm or thereabout lenses, are much easier to make fast and cheap and reasonably good, hence their use as kit lenses in the film days. This is also the reason I believe that Olympus 45mm f/1.8 M43 lens can be so good and cheap, or the Sigma 60mm f/2.8 can be dirt cheap and just as good or even better, though not as fast. Going away from 50mm makes it progressively harder and costlier to make the lens fast and good. This is why the 12mm is such a nice lens, considering its width, and why the 17mm f/1.8 is not good as it is not as wide and still tested worse. While we gain in cheap quality portrait lenses (50mm or so) in M43 when compared to FF, we lose out particularly in the UWA lenses, as evident from the lack of really fast UWA lenses in M43. This is obviously very different from your understanding.

texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Re: OK, bar user experience, look just at numbers.

Paul De Bra wrote:

There is no denying that the 17mm lens is not quite as good optically as the 20mm.

Yes, and as I have stated elsewhere, the 17mm is larger and (on average) more expensive than the 20mm, while, at the same time, not as good optically.

This is why I (and many others) consider the 17mm to be an under performer. It performs less well, optically, than a competing lens which is smaller and can be, on average, had for less money. These are the facts.

 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
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,056
texinwein
5

texinwien wrote:

Paul De Bra wrote:

The 25mm is one of the most highly regarded lenses. The 20mm is too but its focusing mechanism isn't state of the art. The 17mm f/1.8 is "not that good"?

You do realize that when you put words in quotes, it implies that you are, indeed, quoting someone.

I have searched (quickly) though this thread, from the post of yours that I am quoting here, back to the original post that started this discussion, and I have found no use of the phrase "not that good", which you've placed in quotes here. I may have missed one, of course.

Please clarify.

texinwien,

Who do you think you are? At this point you are sounding like you see yourself as the smartest guy on the forum (not) - a tendency that doesn't take into account actually taking pictures with lenses.

Now I wait to read this is a gear forum blah, blah, blah which somehow accounts for bad behaviour and a good deal of FUD.

You are a good reason why the DPR micro 4/3 forum is a reck.

I will continue to use and enjoy my Olympus 17 F1.8....

Go clarify yourself...would be my advice.

slimandy Forum Pro • Posts: 17,071
Re: False Dichotomy
1

texinwien wrote:

slimandy 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. 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.

Science is important where the rubber of artistic vision meets the road of the physical world.

If my artistic vision is to record a panoramic photograph of a mountain range with a certain degree of sharpness and detail, I can either ignore the measurements and buy lenses randomly, hoping I (eventually) stumble upon the one that will allow me to turn my vision into a physical reality, or I can study the professionally-collected measurements and choose the lens that performs best for my artistic purposes.

But when I own the lens and use it and see it is a capable lens why do people who have not used it think they should tell me I'm wrong based on MTF figures; worse still why do they expect me to change my mind when I know better?

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

(told you)

You are suggesting a false dichotomy. The presence of science and measurement does not inevitably obviate existence or creation of art. Some of us have exact requirements for the art we wish to create, and we carefully evaluate the tools available to us, in pursuit of those tools that are most likely to help us record our artistic visions.

See above.

It is unclear to me why you or anyone else would have a problem with that fact. Mind your own business  art, why don't you, and you'll probably get 'slated' a lot less often.

Ditto, why do you have a problem with someone using the lens and liking it? Why do have have to resort to rudeness too??

Are these supposed to be better than you could do with the 17mm f1.8?

-- 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
photodan1
photodan1 Contributing Member • Posts: 885
Re: What a disappointing situation with the 17mm lens! Why?
1

Oly 17 1.8 is a great lens. Why work yourself into a lather?

-- hide signature --

EM5, E-PM2, 45 1.8 Oly, 17 1.8 Oly, 12-50 Oly, 40-150 Oly, Metz 50-AF
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/dankanephotography/

 photodan1's gear list:photodan1's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +2 more
texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Re: False Dichotomy

slimandy wrote:

texinwien wrote:

slimandy 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. 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.

Science is important where the rubber of artistic vision meets the road of the physical world.

If my artistic vision is to record a panoramic photograph of a mountain range with a certain degree of sharpness and detail, I can either ignore the measurements and buy lenses randomly, hoping I (eventually) stumble upon the one that will allow me to turn my vision into a physical reality, or I can study the professionally-collected measurements and choose the lens that performs best for my artistic purposes.

But when I own the lens and use it and see it is a capable lens why do people who have not used it think they should tell me I'm wrong based on MTF figures;

Please cite an example.

worse still why do they expect me to change my mind when I know better?

Please cite an example. You're free to use a plastic holga lens if it makes you happy, just don't try to convince me that your plastic holga lens is as sharp as my 20mm f/1.7.

You need to practice distinguishing between statements of subjective opinion and statements of objective fact.

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

(told you)

You are suggesting a false dichotomy. The presence of science and measurement does not inevitably obviate existence or creation of art. Some of us have exact requirements for the art we wish to create, and we carefully evaluate the tools available to us, in pursuit of those tools that are most likely to help us record our artistic visions.

See above.

See above

It is unclear to me why you or anyone else would have a problem with that fact. Mind your own business art, why don't you, and you'll probably get 'slated' a lot less often.

Ditto

No, not ditto. I'm minding my own art. It's you who's not.

why do you have a problem with someone using the lens and liking it?

I have no problem with someone using the lens and liking it. I even sometimes use and like the 15mm f/8.0 body cap lens from Olympus, but I don't try to claim it's sharper than, well, just about any other native m43 lens you can buy.

Again, learn to distinguish between statements of objective fact and subjective opinion. I know it can be difficult for some.

Why do have have to resort to rudeness too??

I prefer to characterize my style as 'direct.' I can, however, be rude when I get the impression that the person on the other end of the discussion isn't interested in an honest and adult discussion.

Are these supposed to be better than you could do with the 17mm f1.8?

These are examples of the kinds of photos I like to take that benefit from maximum lens sharpness and low field curvature. The kinds of photos I generally use my 20mm f/1.7 for (since it is, empirically and in my rather extensive experience, the sharpest lens in my bag). In other words, they are examples of the kinds of photos for which the 17mm f/1.8 is not the best choice for my subjective requirements. Factually, empirically, the 20mm is sharper than the 17mm. For my subjective requirements, this factual and empirical difference is significant.

You, of course, are free to use (and enjoy using) whatever lenses you want, based on whatever subjective criteria you choose, as long as you don't go about conflating your subjective preferences with empirical fact.

 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
enrique santa
enrique santa Senior Member • Posts: 1,645
Re: What a disappointing situation with the 17mm lens! Why?

Louis_Dobson wrote:

What a lot of hostile reaction,

Louis.... hostile?, sure?

especially from people with limited powers of English comprehension!

Perhaps me?. Louis you may know, as you live in Portugal that our attitude , language and perhaps pasionate character is really different than british or north people. Perhaps if it is me that you are referring I dont have the skill to translate opinions, things or expresions that in my native language sound absolutly polite to yours. Verry sorry if I have ofended somebody.
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.

You could be right at this point Louis but one thing is optically and sharpness - I thing you will don´t notice it even at an A2 impresion compared with the 20mm 1.7- The other point is the whole lens, and in this capitule this lens shine for his af speed, beeing an optimal lens for streetshooting. I know that isn´t your favourite genere.

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.

As Sergey an others are posting from time to time threads very similar at this I don´t really know what´s the point in doing again?. perhaps call all the Oly 17mm 1.8 stupids?....Sergey and others have a lot to choose in this FL.

Simples.

-- hide signature --

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

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
slimandy Forum Pro • Posts: 17,071
Re: I fully agree on that bit of 12/17 comparison.

Sergey Borachev wrote:

I am no expert and I hope someone can confirm this.

My understanding is that FL around 50mm is the easiest to make good.

The 17mm is much wider than 50mm. The crop factor comes from the sensor size; it is not a proprty of the lens. It is still a 17mm lens. Look at the 45mm f1.8. Smaller, sharper, cheaper. Maybe that's where it is easier to make a sharp lens. That said, I appreciate the 12 is also a little sharper than the 17, but the 12 has other problems (purple fringing/flare springs to mind).

Every lens is a compromise. I think the Olly 17 is the best lens for my purposes in this range. The Pana 20 is a bit slower to focus and doesn't handle as well on my OMD (IMO), and any other alternatives don't match the wide aperture. I think it might be possible to build better and faster, but it will be bigger and more expensive too. The main reason I bought into MFT was the compactness and weight of the lenses. I'm happy to own a fast lens that is well built, nice to use, delivers excellent IQ and yet is very small.

-- 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
Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,319
Re: What a disappointing thread
5

I've heard nothing bit praise about the 17/1.8 from anyone who actually has and uses one. I'll probably buy one at some point, that or the Nokton 17/0.95 which produces beautiful images.

At the moment, when I want the best 17mm lens money can buy for my FT or mFT camera, I pull out the MMF-2 and the ZD 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5. At 17mm focal length, this lens is as near to perfect as any lens made by anybody. And it's a perfect focal length range for street photography too.

-- hide signature --
slimandy Forum Pro • Posts: 17,071
Re: What a disappointing situation with the 17mm lens! Why?

enrique santa wrote:

Louis_Dobson wrote:

What a lot of hostile reaction,

Louis.... hostile?, sure?

especially from people with limited powers of English comprehension!

Perhaps me?. Louis you may know, as you live in Portugal that our attitude , language and perhaps pasionate character is really different than british or north people.

You have to speak perfect English, preferably with lots of big words, to take good photographs. You should know that. Just ask Sebastiao Salgado if you don't believe me.

-- 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
Paul De Bra
Paul De Bra Forum Pro • Posts: 12,397
quoting versus paraphrasing
1

I don't know why we are discussing language issues here. I thought the discussion was about lenses.

Quotation marks (") are not only used to literally quote something that was said earlier but also to paraphrase (say essentially the same but with other words) something that was said earlier. So when it was said that it should have been possible to make the 17mm lens better (given that Olympus makes a 12mm that is better and that the Panasonic 20mm is better) I paraphrased the opinion about the 17mm lens as that it was "not that good". It's not a literal quote. This is done all the time.

I don't know why this discussion is deteriorating so quickly. Apparently some people feel their toes being stepped on and I don't see what is doing that.

-- 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
slimandy Forum Pro • Posts: 17,071
Re: You must have seen (or had) bad copies?

thecraftysnapper wrote:

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

Spot on, and there are plenty of images and reviews from real photographers in real world situations that can be found on the internet with a very quick search for anyone who actually wants to see them. Photographs, not measurements. That is what we are trying to produce isn't it?

-- 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
Paul De Bra
Paul De Bra Forum Pro • Posts: 12,397
That understanding may depend on more factors.

When 50mm is an easy distance for a full frame 35mm dslr we can still scale this down for m43. The distance from the rear of the lens to the sensor is considerably smaller in m43. The image circle to be covered is also considerably smaller.

If everything is roughly scaled down by a factor of 2 then a 25mm or perhaps a 30mm lens should be equally easy to make for m43 as a 50mm lens is for full frame. Right?

In any case a 17mm lens does not fall into that easy category unfortunately.

-- 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
Alexis D Regular Member • Posts: 471
Re: I fully agree on that bit of 12/17 comparison.

Sergey Borachev wrote:

I am no expert and I hope someone can confirm this.

My understanding is that FL around 50mm is the easiest to make good.

The 17mm is much wider than 50mm. The crop factor comes from the sensor size; it is not a proprty of the lens. It is still a 17mm lens. Look at the 45mm f1.8. Smaller, sharper, cheaper. Maybe that's where it is easier to make a sharp lens. That said, I appreciate the 12 is also a little sharper than the 17, but the 12 has other problems (purple fringing/flare springs to mind).

Every lens is a compromise. I think the Olly 17 is the best lens for my purposes in this range. The Pana 20 is a bit slower to focus and doesn't handle as well on my OMD (IMO), and any other alternatives don't match the wide aperture. I think it might be possible to build better and faster, but it will be bigger and more expensive too. The main reason I bought into MFT was the compactness and weight of the lenses. I'm happy to own a fast lens that is well built, nice to use, delivers excellent IQ and yet is very small.

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Not sure why you are talking about crop factor and sensor size. You have a difficult comprehending what the OP said about what the objective and the worth of the lens for general purposes as compared to other lenses? Or is it really so much pain hearing criticisms? If you like the lens, good for you. You are blessed
You should be happier whatever others may say.

gsergei Contributing Member • Posts: 809
Privet, Sergey
3

I agree with your detailed analysis and like you am disappointed with Olympus's 17/1.8. Too expensive for too little. When I saw the samples and noticed some awful green/red CA - my instant conclusion was: "this is not to be".

I am spoiled by good lenses in the 4/3 system and thought it is not a nuclear science to design a a  very good to excellent 17/2. Alas, this niche is still void. I have the Panasonic 20/1.7 but will not defend it.

Really, it's a pity.

-- hide signature --

Sergei,
Calgary.
www.alberta-photo.com

 gsergei's gear list:gsergei's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-3 Olympus E-330 Olympus PEN E-P2 Olympus E-M1 +14 more
texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Re: quoting versus paraphrasing

Paul De Bra wrote:

I don't know why we are discussing language issues here. I thought the discussion was about lenses.

A discussion about anything relies, on its foundation, on language and common, agreed-upon linguistic conventions, does it not?

Quotation marks (") are not only used to literally quote something that was said earlier but also to paraphrase (say essentially the same but with other words) something that was said earlier.

I am not familiar with that convention. On the contrary, I was under the distinct impression that it was improper to use quotation marks to paraphrase someone else's words. You're either quoting, or you're paraphrasing, and quotation marks should (especially in a discussion that's at all contentious) only be used to actually and literally quote something someone else said.

Otherwise, it's simply too easy to set up a straw man argument that's then easy to defeat, wouldn't you agree?

So when it was said that it should have been possible to make the 17mm lens better (given that Olympus makes a 12mm that is better and that the Panasonic 20mm is better) I paraphrased the opinion about the 17mm lens as that it was "not that good". It's not a literal quote. This is done all the time.

This is not done all the time, Paul, not by people who are serious about the use of language and the arguments they are making. If you disagree, I'd invite you to provide some evidence for your contention that it's acceptable practice to place quotation marks around your own paraphrase of someone else's words.

From the Purdue Online Writing Lab: How to Use Quotation Marks

The primary function of quotation marks is to set off and represent exact language (either spoken or written) that has come from somebody else.

Indirect quotations are not exact wordings but rather rephrasings or summaries of another person's words. In this case, it is not necessary to use quotation marks.

Use an indirect quotation (or paraphrase) when you merely need to summarize key incidents or details of the text.

I don't know why this discussion is deteriorating so quickly. Apparently some people feel their toes being stepped on and I don't see what is doing that.

I believe it deteriorated all too quickly when a cadre of posters came in, each to defend his or her own precious choice of lens, acting as though Sergey had attacked him or her personally.

This discussion continued to deteriorate as a number of people jumped on the bandwagon, complaining about 'numbers' and trumpeting the primacy of subjective opinion over the results of controlled tests performed by experienced, trained experts.

That's my take, any way.

 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
slimandy Forum Pro • Posts: 17,071
Re: False Dichotomy

texinwien wrote:

slimandy wrote:

texinwien wrote:

slimandy 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. 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.

Science is important where the rubber of artistic vision meets the road of the physical world.

If my artistic vision is to record a panoramic photograph of a mountain range with a certain degree of sharpness and detail, I can either ignore the measurements and buy lenses randomly, hoping I (eventually) stumble upon the one that will allow me to turn my vision into a physical reality, or I can study the professionally-collected measurements and choose the lens that performs best for my artistic purposes.

But when I own the lens and use it and see it is a capable lens why do people who have not used it think they should tell me I'm wrong based on MTF figures;

Please cite an example.

Why? You not going to believe me otherwise? Don't be so childish!

Search my previous threads if you could be bothered. Or just take my word for it and save time.

worse still why do they expect me to change my mind when I know better?

Please cite an example.

See above. The most recent thread ran to 150 replies. Stick a pin in. Enjoy.

You're free to use a plastic holga lens if it makes you happy, just don't try to convince me that your plastic holga lens is as sharp as my 20mm f/1.7.

Heaven forbid I should criticise your 20mm f1.7, though I have actually used one and prefer my 17, but I don't shoot landscape with it.

You need to practice distinguishing between statements of subjective opinion and statements of objective fact.

I look at photos. If I like what I see I like what I see. You can use maths to prove me wrong, I still like what I like. My shots do well in competitions and get many compliments. That is what I hope to achieve, and I do.

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

(told you)

You are suggesting a false dichotomy. The presence of science and measurement does not inevitably obviate existence or creation of art. Some of us have exact requirements for the art we wish to create, and we carefully evaluate the tools available to us, in pursuit of those tools that are most likely to help us record our artistic visions.

See above.

See above

It is unclear to me why you or anyone else would have a problem with that fact. Mind your own business art, why don't you, and you'll probably get 'slated' a lot less often.

Ditto

No, not ditto. I'm minding my own art. It's you who's not.

why do you have a problem with someone using the lens and liking it?

I have no problem with someone using the lens and liking it. I even sometimes use and like the 15mm f/8.0 body cap lens from Olympus, but I don't try to claim it's sharper than, well, just about any other native m43 lens you can buy.

Again, learn to distinguish between statements of objective fact and subjective opinion. I know it can be difficult for some.

Why do have have to resort to rudeness too??

I prefer to characterize my style as 'direct.' I can, however, be rude when I get the impression that the person on the other end of the discussion isn't interested in an honest and adult discussion.

Are these supposed to be better than you could do with the 17mm f1.8?

These are examples of the kinds of photos I like to take that benefit from maximum lens sharpness and low field curvature. The kinds of photos I generally use my 20mm f/1.7 for (since it is, empirically and in my rather extensive experience, the sharpest lens in my bag). In other words, they are examples of the kinds of photos for which the 17mm f/1.8 is not the best choice for my subjective requirements. Factually, empirically, the 20mm is sharper than the 17mm. For my subjective requirements, this factual and empirical difference is significant.

You, of course, are free to use (and enjoy using) whatever lenses you want, based on whatever subjective criteria you choose, as long as you don't go about conflating your subjective preferences with empirical fact.

Art is subjective. Photography is art.

If you want facts here is one. My 17 gives me sharp images whether or not you tell me otherwise. I'm sure your 20 does too despite the examples you posted. In fact I know it does because I have used one.

-- 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
Alexis D Regular Member • Posts: 471
Re: You must have seen (or had) bad copies?
2

thecraftysnapper wrote:

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

Spot on, and there are plenty of images and reviews from real photographers in real world situations that can be found on the internet with a very quick search for anyone who actually wants to see them. Photographs, not measurements. That is what we are trying to produce isn't it?

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

That's a good and positive way to look at this.
What a good attitude.there is always a good angle however bad things look. What a wonderful lens you have there. Be happy.

slimandy Forum Pro • Posts: 17,071
Re: I fully agree on that bit of 12/17 comparison.

Alexis D wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

I am no expert and I hope someone can confirm this.

My understanding is that FL around 50mm is the easiest to make good.

The 17mm is much wider than 50mm. The crop factor comes from the sensor size; it is not a proprty of the lens. It is still a 17mm lens. Look at the 45mm f1.8. Smaller, sharper, cheaper. Maybe that's where it is easier to make a sharp lens. That said, I appreciate the 12 is also a little sharper than the 17, but the 12 has other problems (purple fringing/flare springs to mind).

Every lens is a compromise. I think the Olly 17 is the best lens for my purposes in this range. The Pana 20 is a bit slower to focus and doesn't handle as well on my OMD (IMO), and any other alternatives don't match the wide aperture. I think it might be possible to build better and faster, but it will be bigger and more expensive too. The main reason I bought into MFT was the compactness and weight of the lenses. I'm happy to own a fast lens that is well built, nice to use, delivers excellent IQ and yet is very small.

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Not sure why you are talking about crop factor and sensor size. You have a difficult comprehending what the OP said about what the objective and the worth of the lens for general purposes as compared to other lenses? Or is it really so much pain hearing criticisms? If you like the lens, good for you. You are blessed
You should be happier whatever others may say.

Because he said it is easier to build 50mm lenses. I was pointing out the 17mm is 17mm. I think I said that already though. I don't know why that confused you.

-- 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