Buy 20 1.7 II now or wait for Leica 15 1.7?

Hi, I want to add a 'standard' prime to my lens collection. For 2 purposes: 1) low-light indoor usage during parties and 2) taking sharp images for pixel-peeping Unfortunately, I am a pixel-peeper. I don't print any photos but I really enjoy investigation of little details on display (with 100% zoom and dragging).

First of all I decided between Panasonic 20 1.7 and Olympus 17 1.8. I read many, many reviews and looked many photos and I agree that 17 1.8 is not sharp enough (for me). And the second version of 20 1.7 is more beautiful than the first one, IMHO, so I am almost ready to buy it regardless of slow auto-focus.

Now I'm reading some rumors about Leica 15 1.7 which was announced on 2014 for GM1 and wondering if it will be much better than 20 1.7 for me. Both focus lengths have pluses and minuses when using in small room, so the decision can be made only by unknown sharpness, price and availability of the new lens. What do you think?

I have the 20mm, if taking pictures at parties is what your after I wouldn't get the 20mm because A) slower focus than alternatives so it can be hard to take quick pics. B) banding issues at ISOs higher than 800 on certain cameras (so depends on what you will use of course)  and C) the 17mm 1.8 has dropped $100 so now it has the same ball park cost as the new 20mm and I think it would suit what you describe better (not that I have first hand experience with the 17mm).

If your patient and want something a bit wider just wait for the Leica 15.

We know nothing about the 15mm Summilux. It could very well be nearly as expensive as the 12mm Zuiko. It could be fantastically sharp, or it could be just 'good', at the 17mm's level. The focal length is rather different. And we have no release date, it could be just 3 months away or more than half a year.

Today, the choice boils down to this: Do you take moving people shots, or shoot in low light? Take the 17mm. If you take landscapes or posed portraits mostly, and you shoot under better light, the 20mm is damn fine glass.

Nothing keeps you from buying a lens today, enjoying it for several months, and putting it on sale later to cover the expense of the 15mm if it turns out it's what you really want.

Thank you for replies! Bandng issue is not actual for my GF3 but of course I consider to renew the body some time... I'll reconsider 17 1.8.

Olympus 17 1.8 is still ~$550 in Russia, while Panasonic 20 1.7 is ~$450 (prices from local online stores, Amazon shipping is also expensive). But I see the trend that 20 1.7 is discounted here (it was $550 few month ago), so maybe I'll wait and see if 17 1.8 will be discounted also.

The 17mm f/1.8 is $399 new right now in the USA. Keep an eye out for eBay auctions.

Electriq wrote:

Hi, I want to add a 'standard' prime to my lens collection. For 2 purposes: 1) low-light indoor usage during parties and 2) taking sharp images for pixel-peeping Unfortunately, I am a pixel-peeper. I don't print any photos but I really enjoy investigation of little details on display (with 100% zoom and dragging).

First of all I decided between Panasonic 20 1.7 and Olympus 17 1.8. I read many, many reviews and looked many photos and I agree that 17 1.8 is not sharp enough (for me). And the second version of 20 1.7 is more beautiful than the first one, IMHO, so I am almost ready to buy it regardless of slow auto-focus.

Now I'm reading some rumors about Leica 15 1.7 which was announced on 2014 for GM1 and wondering if it will be much better than 20 1.7 for me. Both focus lengths have pluses and minuses when using in small room, so the decision can be made only by unknown sharpness, price and availability of the new lens. What do you think?

These are pretty different focal lengths in my opinion being 30mm vs 40mm equivalents.  While 40mm is close to normal, 30mm is fairly wide.  If I were you, I would purchase based on focal length and not look back.  If you're not sure if the Leica lens will be to your liking, you could always try the Panasonic 14mm lens for cheap from ebay (~$160 USD).  Much less of a gamble should you not like the focal length...

-K

Conclusion: just brought Olympus 17 1.8, slightly used (absolutely clean) for ~$430. The new one is still around $560 in St. Petersburg and it's too long to wait from Amazon since I decide not to wait for 15 1.7.

It seems to be sharp enough for my eyes, at least in center (fig. 1), and I enjoy it (fig. 2).

Fig. 1. 'Built in 1902-1903 by architect A. S. Khrenov'

Fig. 2. Default object

Yes center is quite sharp, but the corners are quite poor. I had to open it in PS to open up the exposure to see it properly. If the corners are on the same plane as the center the lens would be unusable for me wide open. Thanks for posting it. That's what's great about this forum. The sharing of information can be incredibly helpful in making decisions about purchasing equipment in real life situations.

Electriq wrote:

Conclusion: just brought Olympus 17 1.8, slightly used (absolutely clean) for ~$430. The new one is still around $560 in St. Petersburg and it's too long to wait from Amazon since I decide not to wait for 15 1.7.

It seems to be sharp enough for my eyes, at least in center (fig. 1), and I enjoy it (fig. 2).

Fig. 1. 'Built in 1902-1903 by architect A. S. Khrenov'

Fig. 2. Default object

eastvillager wrote:

Yes center is quite sharp, but the corners are quite poor. I had to open it in PS to open up the exposure to see it properly. If the corners are on the same plane as the center the lens would be unusable for me wide open. ...

Electriq wrote:

Conclusion:

It seems to be sharp enough for my eyes, at least in center (fig. 1), and I enjoy it (fig. 2).

Fig. 1. 'Built in 1902-1903 by architect A. S. Khrenov'

Fig. 2. Default object

Both quotes above are right: yes, center is sharper (also am I the only one to notice a shade of vignetting ?), and yes, what is important is that the user enjoyes the lens (and the photos he takes with it).
maybe sometimes do we see only the tree's branch, but ignore the forest?

btw, the photo of the cat is very nice. enjoy it and keep shooting more....

That was not a strict test, I've just took some photos going home with new lens.

Of course I'll be much happy if my lens will be sharp all frame wide open.

I suppose my result agrees with [awful] test photo on SLR Gear: http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/olympus17f18m/zz_sampleindex.htm (full review: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1565/cat/14).

The main question will probably never be answered: Do I prefer fast focusing, nice bokeh and beautiful lens exterior of Olympus 17 1.8 or sharpness, slow focusing and potential banding problems with my future cameras of Panasonic 20 1.7. I'm not currently planning to buy 20 1.7 to check it

P.S. Thanks to all for the comments!

Hi

I really like the cat picture. Great pose and nice and punchy. Nothing wrong with that lens.

eastvillager wrote:

Yes center is quite sharp, but the corners are quite poor. I had to open it in PS to open up the exposure to see it properly. If the corners are on the same plane as the center the lens would be unusable for me wide open.

It seems likely that the corners are not in the same plane --- the subject appears tilted.

berni29 wrote:

Hi

I really like the cat picture. Great pose and nice and punchy. Nothing wrong with that lens.

That's the nice thing I see from pictures with the 17mm. Yes, it doesn't look like a big deal when you just look at the measurements. But then the magnificent rendering (contrast, color, and bokeh) just works magic and you forget about all that!

If you want a 'normal' focal length, your choice is not the 20 or the 15, but the 25/1.4 or the upcoming 25/1.8 (which will probably be out before the Panny 15 anyway)

OK, 20mm is just on the wider side of normal, and might be acceptable to you, but 15mm is wide

If you want the sharpest lens, best wait until they are all out and reviewed

If you want the brightest aperture, well, there is the Nokton 25/0.95

If you want the ultimate resolution, shoot large format film, print larger than 8x10 then scan w a high res scanner and you'll have more detail than you can handle

Oh, I see you got the 17/1.8  Nice lens, recently picked one up myself.  Still not 'normal' but then, I don't do normal

Art_P wrote:

If you want a 'normal' focal length, your choice is not the 20 or the 15, but the 25/1.4 or the upcoming 25/1.8 (which will probably be out before the Panny 15 anyway)

OK, 20mm is just on the wider side of normal, and might be acceptable to you, but 15mm is wide

If you want the sharpest lens, best wait until they are all out and reviewed

If you want the brightest aperture, well, there is the Nokton 25/0.95

If you want the ultimate resolution, shoot large format film, print larger than 8x10 then scan w a high res scanner and you'll have more detail than you can handle

Oh, I see you got the 17/1.8 Nice lens, recently picked one up myself. Still not 'normal' but then, I don't do normal

Anything between 35-60mm (FF equiv) is considered 'normal'.

Art_P wrote:

If you want a 'normal' focal length, your choice is not the 20 or the 15, but the 25/1.4 or the upcoming 25/1.8 (which will probably be out before the Panny 15 anyway)

OK, 20mm is just on the wider side of normal, and might be acceptable to you, but 15mm is wide

If you want the sharpest lens, best wait until they are all out and reviewed

If you want the brightest aperture, well, there is the Nokton 25/0.95

If you want the ultimate resolution, shoot large format film, print larger than 8x10 then scan w a high res scanner and you'll have more detail than you can handle

Oh, I see you got the 17/1.8 Nice lens, recently picked one up myself. Still not 'normal' but then, I don't do normal

I just ordered my 17/f1.8 last night.  Excited.  This'll give me the 17/45/75 for my EM-1

Still wanting to raise funds for the 12-40

A bit more from 17 1.8 (contrast is slightly decreased in editor):