New Olympus 17mm 1.8

Started Mar 7, 2014 | Discussions
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
1

micksh6 wrote:

FrankS009 wrote:

“Photographers, like few other artists I can imagine, have an insanely personal relationship with their gear. …we can’t help it that our craft is so dependent on gear, but it’s scary how quickly the gear becomes the not the means but the end. “ This statement from David duChemin, one of my favourite authors about photography (and whom I quote in my signature line), reminds me just how attached we can become to our cameras, our lenses, and to the companies that produce them.

This thread began with an ode in praise of a particular lens by an owner. It then became an attack on critics of the lens, and against another lens that was perceived as a rival. A great deal of time has been spent on assertions about whether more people prefer one over the other, or quasi technical analyses of the differences from the points of view of owners, and sometimes of good photographers who write blogs where they give personal judgments not divorced from their own strong feelings and attachments. People feel what they feel.

Throughout the thread, Anders W. has taken a position that infuriates those that oppose him because he simply does not accept untested hypotheses and statements based on personal opinions. He has been called the most intelligent member of the forum; that may or may not be the case, but he certainly is one of the most rigorous in his judgments. He has both Olympus and Panasonic lenses, so he does not speak from the point of view of one company or another. No doubt he is attached to his gear too, but he is willing to stand up for what he thinks. Some of us might agree and let him do the work for us. Others might not. But for one I consider what he has been saying in this thread to be based on good sense, and a certain amount of restraint.

I like seeing these "Anders vs the World" fights

Why? The explanation you tried doesn't apply (see below).

because I'm always wondering how it's possible to put so much time and energy to defend some rather minor point.

Evidently you put even more energy into defending the opposite point of view, which by definition must be equally minor.

Especially if the point is wrong.

Which it hasn't been proven to be.

When 20mm lens reputation is in danger everything goes into a fight including double standards.

What about when the 17 mm lens reputation is in danger, as in this thread. Any different?

If one of very few tests confirms Anders's point of view it doesn't matter if the test was scientific or controlled.

Anders likes referring to Pekka Potka's test, but there is no mentioning of subject magnification in that test. I highly doubt that Pekka Potka kept FOV the same between different lenses, and other conditions are unknown.

On the other hand, when test results are opposite to Anders's view, the tests are put under unprecedented scrutiny, my tests are no exception.

You got that wrong. As I point out here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53296383

I originally believed the "received wisdom" that the AF of the 20 was significantly slower than that of other lenses. Hence, I was surprised to see Potka's findings and decided to test things myself to see whether he was right. I found that he was. The reason is that, unlike you, he didn't search for border-line conditions, where the slightest of differences would set one lens hunting and the other not.

I did several tests of 20mm, 45mm, 25mm F1.4, 17mm F1.8 and other lenses and all tests show 20mm F1.7 measurably slower than other lenses. Precisely - about 100 milliseconds slower when 20mm doesn't hunt, but it also hunts more often in the same conditions when other lenses don't:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51100254
Another test few months later, fixing flaws of previous method:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52045407

Of course I was accused in bias and all deadly sins because I didn't position focus box at exactly the same place in the first test. But, later I showed that such small errors don't matter:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52049352

Clearly, you didn't. You tried test after test after test and they were all shown to be subject to confirmation bias.

20mm F1.7 will be slower than other lenses anyway, regardless of test method. What matters more - focus target surface. 20mm mostly has problems with curved targets like human faces (where we often want to focus), that is at least on Olympus cameras. Focus tests on flat walls may not show 20mm slowness that clear.

As you know, I have long since proven that wrong. The target I used in the test of mine to which I linked in this thread is about as curved as the face of the toy chicken you used.

 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
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
1

DonnCath wrote:

FrankS009 wrote:

Throughout the thread, Anders W. has taken a position that infuriates those that oppose him because he simply does not accept untested hypotheses and statements based on personal opinions.

I'm reading things here pretty differently. The impression I get is that people are frustrated because someone (and not just any someone, but a someone who has never even used the lens in question) insists on telling people that their senses are deceiving them. I mean, it would be a little bizarre if I started telling a group of strangers that the sky is red when it was very clearly blue and that any impression of a certain blue-ness they might be seeing was nothing more than perceptual bias on their part.

At least one poster has noted the condescension present in some of his posts. This is especially apparent when he insists on informing people that he knows their own reality better than they know it themselves.

I conducted a test of the AF of the 20/1.7 against the 12/2 and the 45/1.8. I have asked those who disputed the relevance of this test on the ground that it didn't include the 17/1.8 whether they are claiming that the 17/1.8 has noticeably faster AF than the 12/2 and 45/1.8. So far noone has answered that they do make such a claim. Are you making it? If not, what is your point?

 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
Pixnat2
Pixnat2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,263
I'd rather

Anders W wrote:

Pixnat2 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Pixnat2 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Mark Chan wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Mark Chan wrote:

we'll, I had the 20mm since launch and that lens never could focus fast. It was fine when all the initial m43 cameras had limited AF speed like those of sony and Fuji at the moment. Since the advent of olys FAST AF system, it's weakness was exposed. even the kit lenses focus faster. I never did get well focused shots of my kids running around with it. It's always been known to have an older motorized design.

after getting the 17mm F1.8 with my EP-5, I now get instant AF aka the 12-35mm f2.8 or even the 45mm from OLY. Sold of

Beyond that the lens FOV, bokeh etc are personal tastes. the one factual difference I see is the much faster AF. And the build. Oh and the lack of any noise during focusing.

YMMV

I have tested the AF speed of the 20/1.7 against that of the 12/2, the 45/1.8, and the 14-45/3.5-5.6 under strictly controlled conditions on my E-M5. Result: The speed is for all practical purposes the same. See here for details.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50877416

Have you performed any similarly well-controlled test?

BTW, looking at the thread you gave (impressive btw), it does look like you haven't had a 20mm vs 17mm test head on.

thus I conclude you have insufficient experience with regard to the disparity in AF speed between the two.

whereas several here have already stated from personal experience that one is clearly faster.

Are you claiming that the 17/1.8 is noticeably faster than other modern lenses with similar AF design like the 12/2 and the 45/1.8 included in my test? If so, on what basis do you make that claim?

Are you claiming that the 17/1.8 isn't noticeably faster than other modern lenses with similar AF design like the 12/2 and the 45/1.8 included in your test? If so, on what basis do you make that claim?

Just kidding

Good that you are. Saves me the trouble of arguing the point.

I think you need to buy (or rent) a 17mm and make a controlled test to answer this question.

Feel free to do the test for all of us. I think I have done more than my fair share of testing. My methods are freely available for anyone to copy. No copyright claims on my part.

I'd rather drink a glass of good wine on a sunny terrace with you if you happen to come in Valais

 Pixnat2's gear list:Pixnat2's gear list
Nikon D810 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Fujifilm X-T2
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: I'd rather

Pixnat2 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Pixnat2 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Pixnat2 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Mark Chan wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Mark Chan wrote:

we'll, I had the 20mm since launch and that lens never could focus fast. It was fine when all the initial m43 cameras had limited AF speed like those of sony and Fuji at the moment. Since the advent of olys FAST AF system, it's weakness was exposed. even the kit lenses focus faster. I never did get well focused shots of my kids running around with it. It's always been known to have an older motorized design.

after getting the 17mm F1.8 with my EP-5, I now get instant AF aka the 12-35mm f2.8 or even the 45mm from OLY. Sold of

Beyond that the lens FOV, bokeh etc are personal tastes. the one factual difference I see is the much faster AF. And the build. Oh and the lack of any noise during focusing.

YMMV

I have tested the AF speed of the 20/1.7 against that of the 12/2, the 45/1.8, and the 14-45/3.5-5.6 under strictly controlled conditions on my E-M5. Result: The speed is for all practical purposes the same. See here for details.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50877416

Have you performed any similarly well-controlled test?

BTW, looking at the thread you gave (impressive btw), it does look like you haven't had a 20mm vs 17mm test head on.

thus I conclude you have insufficient experience with regard to the disparity in AF speed between the two.

whereas several here have already stated from personal experience that one is clearly faster.

Are you claiming that the 17/1.8 is noticeably faster than other modern lenses with similar AF design like the 12/2 and the 45/1.8 included in my test? If so, on what basis do you make that claim?

Are you claiming that the 17/1.8 isn't noticeably faster than other modern lenses with similar AF design like the 12/2 and the 45/1.8 included in your test? If so, on what basis do you make that claim?

Just kidding

Good that you are. Saves me the trouble of arguing the point.

I think you need to buy (or rent) a 17mm and make a controlled test to answer this question.

Feel free to do the test for all of us. I think I have done more than my fair share of testing. My methods are freely available for anyone to copy. No copyright claims on my part.

I'd rather drink a glass of good wine on a sunny terrace with you if you happen to come in Valais

I'd much prefer that as well. We will be driving through Switzerland this summer on our way to Piedmont (as many times before). Don't know how close to Valais we'll get (we usually take the San Bernardino tunnel rather than Gran San Bernardo), but I'll PM you if/when I know we'll be coming your way and we'll see if we can work something out.

 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
Mark Chan Senior Member • Posts: 1,717
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8

Anders W wrote:

Mark Chan wrote:

Anders W wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Jolly Oly wrote:

By your standards this is very unscientific and shallow I guess.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/17/olympus-zd-17-1_8/

Ming says: "The 20/1.7 has the highest overall scene contrast, but the 17/1.8 wins out in microcontrast and reproduction of fine detail structures – personally, I prefer this as it gives me more latitude for processing before the shadows and highlights block up."

My comment: It's clearly evident from Ming's samples that the 20 does better with respect to global contrast and microcontrast (the contrast between smaller details) alike. When Ming says that he has "more latitude for processing [with the 17] before the shadows and highlights block up" he means that he can apply more sharpening. But the point here is that the 20 simply needs less sharpening by virtue of having more microcontrast in the first place. And not having to sharpen (much) is preferable on all counts. It doesn't increase the noise level and yields a cleaner, more natural look.

Ming's conclusion about microcontrast seems bizarre to me, in light of his 100% comparison crops. The superiority of the 20mm f/1.7 in terms of sharpness and microcontrast is plain as the light of day (to me) in his samples. It's hard to understand how he could look at the same comparison photos and reach the conclusion he did.

I've always found that completely incomprehensible too. It is extremely clear to my eyes that the 20 does noticeably better in his samples not only with regard to global contrast but also with regard to sharpness/microcontrast. I've seen similar differences in other places as well, but this is about the clearest example I am aware of, yet with the wrong conclusion drawn by the reviewer. Truly ironic.

Another ironic fact is that Jolly Olly is certainly not the first to refer to this review to support the claim that the 17/1.8 is superior to the 20/1.7. Happens all the time. So quite a few are willing to buy the views of the "expert" although it is there for everyone to see that "the emperor is naked". And if they don't manage to see what is actually going on here, what reason do we have to pay any attention to their subjective impressions of their own images.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/01/27/the-olympus-17-1-8-lens-review-on-the-e-m5-by-steve-huff/

steve huff here agrees with you on sharpness on 20mm, on micro contrast on 20mm v2, and with me and others on af speed of 17mm.

calling it a day.

Like many others who makes claims about AF speeds, it looks like Steve Huff never tested it.

Never tested it? hmmm; he did; here:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/08/23/the-panasonic-20-1-7-ii-lens-on-the-olympus-e-p5/

Others have tested the difference between the two versions:

http://m43blog.com/panasonic-20mm-f1-8-vs-panasonic-20mm-f1-8-ii/

and I quote:

"But over time, more lenses have appeared and all recent lenses used faster auto-focus motors. Out of all M43 lenses currently available, the PANASONIC 20MM f/1.7 is now considered one of the slowest when it comes to auto focus speed. So despite having multiple positive traits, some consider this lens unacceptable, which is really unfortunate."

This video for your 'visual study': And yes the initial try was with f5.6 for the pana; since changed to f1.7 later on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLbr1jP9VmU#t=139

From:

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/04/26/quick-comparison-olympus-17mm-f1-8-vs-panasonic-20mm-f1-7/

Which quotes:

"There is no draw here, the Olympus 17mm simply crushes the Panasonic 20mm when it comes to autofocus speed. In terms of autofocus, I think this may be the fastest lens in the M43 lineup. If autofocus speed is critical to you, then there is no doubt that the 17mm is the way to go for you."

So yeah, I'd say that the 17mm f1.8 actual exceeds the focus speed of the 12mm and 45mm.  I will have to stand 'corrected' of my previous claim that the 17mm f1.8 is on par with the 45mm.  Its better.

Now of course given that these are ALL secondary sources, you are free to view otherwise.

1. we can agree that IQ wise the PANA wins

2. I disagree that the Pana has fast AF speed.  It doesn't, especially in comparison with the 17mm.

 Mark Chan's gear list:Mark Chan's gear list
Olympus TG-5
Mark Chan Senior Member • Posts: 1,717
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
1

FrankS009 wrote:

“Photographers, like few other artists I can imagine, have an insanely personal relationship with their gear. …we can’t help it that our craft is so dependent on gear, but it’s scary how quickly the gear becomes the not the means but the end. “ This statement from David duChemin, one of my favourite authors about photography (and whom I quote in my signature line), reminds me just how attached we can become to our cameras, our lenses, and to the companies that produce them.

This thread began with an ode in praise of a particular lens by an owner. It then became an attack on critics of the lens, and against another lens that was perceived as a rival. A great deal of time has been spent on assertions about whether more people prefer one over the other, or quasi technical analyses of the differences from the points of view of owners, and sometimes of good photographers who write blogs where they give personal judgments not divorced from their own strong feelings and attachments. People feel what they feel.

Throughout the thread, Anders W. has taken a position that infuriates those that oppose him because he simply does not accept untested hypotheses and statements based on personal opinions. He has been called the most intelligent member of the forum; that may or may not be the case, but he certainly is one of the most rigorous in his judgments. He has both Olympus and Panasonic lenses, so he does not speak from the point of view of one company or another. No doubt he is attached to his gear too, but he is willing to stand up for what he thinks. Some of us might agree and let him do the work for us. Others might not. But for one I consider what he has been saying in this thread to be based on good sense, and a certain amount of restraint.

F.

Frank,

I don't deny what Anders has done and his convictions.  What I do feel, being one of those speaking from 'personal experience', is that his decision to make a statement based on what  'seems' to be a lack of first hand experience with the lens at hand, distorts his judgement in this particular case.

I admire Anders with his attention to detail in the test of the several lens he provided.  However, as much as primary data is useful, is not appreciation of 'secondary data sources' as important?

I did quite a bit of study online before deciding to purchase a lens - and indeed many different devices; and in many cases the 'various' secondary sources / reviews etc. have credence.

Owning the 20mm f1.7, I decided to still purchase the 17mm f1.8 precisely because the AF speed was not up to par for my purposes.  Upon purchasing the 17mm, I was extremely happy to sell off the 20mm as the 17mm was much faster, just as others have found out.

What is Anders' opinion mean in the face of this?

BTW; we are not 'criticizing' the other lens for anything other than its weakness; its IQ is better (my view); but its AF isn't on par.

As individuals we hate to be corrected when we are actually right.

 Mark Chan's gear list:Mark Chan's gear list
Olympus TG-5
Sergey_Green
Sergey_Green Forum Pro • Posts: 11,205
Nice image ..

Brian Lavoie wrote:

I really like how the light worked out here. Well done.

I love this lens, olympus has come up with a winner again.

ISO 200 17mm, F1.8, 1/50 pic was handheld lightning was halogen ceiling light with new white balance. some lightning was reflected from kitchen granite counter-top.

Mark Chan Senior Member • Posts: 1,717
Re: 17mm f1.8 is DEFINITELY faster than 20mm f1.7 as regards AF

Jeff Tokayer wrote:

Anders W wrote:

I have tested the AF speed of the 20/1.7 against that of the 12/2, the 45/1.8, and the 14-45/3.5-5.6 under strictly controlled conditions on my E-M5. Result: The speed is for all practical purposes the same. See here for details.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50877416

Have you performed any similarly well-controlled test?

The best test are real world test. The 20 is a slow focusing lens. The 12/2 and 45/1.8 are substantially faster, when it comes to grab shots. The 17/1.8 crushes the 20/1.7 in AF speed.

Last summer, after a frustrating day shooting with my 20/1.7, I sold it and purchased the 17/1.8. With the E-P5 or E-M1, the 17 is as snappy as my GR (in snap focus mode). The only problem is that it won't fit my shirt pocket.

Jeff,

I have more interest in the AF speed of your GR.  Any comments / comparison to EP-5?

 Mark Chan's gear list:Mark Chan's gear list
Olympus TG-5
Sergey_Green
Sergey_Green Forum Pro • Posts: 11,205
I disagree here ..

Anders W wrote:

honeyiscool wrote:

The Jacal wrote:
There has been plenty of criticism about the 1.8 too; being a tad soft.

I'm fairly certain a good percentage of these criticisms come from 20mm fanboys and review trollers who have never even used the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 and just like to pixel peep test charts from reviewers.

In what way does it matter who says something if what is being said is factually correct? And you don't need to use a lens in order to pass judgment on it. All you need is to look at images produced by it.

Not only you need to use the lens, but you also need to use it effectively, and with good results to show. In other words, learn the tool first, then talk about it.

I think the reason why this lens can often be preferred (over the others) is that 35mm equivalent is often the easiest and the most forgiving focal length to use. People simply have more fun with it when they see more frames that do look better than from the other lenses.

The 20/1.7 is sharper than the 17/1.8. That's a fact. Whether it's an important fact or not is a personal matter.

Sharpness is not all. I had several examples in the past (and still do) when sharper with better test results lens is in fact less preferred then the lens that have some noted flaws in it. The notorious Nikon 18-200 was one of them. It spent almost a year and half in a drawer, as I personally prefer faster lenses to a larger FL range, till I sold it, but I can well see how it could be a better lens for many those who used it. And some use it very well.

In case you wonder, this is 18-200 on D200, and since we are on the subject of flowers

Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
1

Mark Chan wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Mark Chan wrote:

Anders W wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Jolly Oly wrote:

By your standards this is very unscientific and shallow I guess.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/17/olympus-zd-17-1_8/

Ming says: "The 20/1.7 has the highest overall scene contrast, but the 17/1.8 wins out in microcontrast and reproduction of fine detail structures – personally, I prefer this as it gives me more latitude for processing before the shadows and highlights block up."

My comment: It's clearly evident from Ming's samples that the 20 does better with respect to global contrast and microcontrast (the contrast between smaller details) alike. When Ming says that he has "more latitude for processing [with the 17] before the shadows and highlights block up" he means that he can apply more sharpening. But the point here is that the 20 simply needs less sharpening by virtue of having more microcontrast in the first place. And not having to sharpen (much) is preferable on all counts. It doesn't increase the noise level and yields a cleaner, more natural look.

Ming's conclusion about microcontrast seems bizarre to me, in light of his 100% comparison crops. The superiority of the 20mm f/1.7 in terms of sharpness and microcontrast is plain as the light of day (to me) in his samples. It's hard to understand how he could look at the same comparison photos and reach the conclusion he did.

I've always found that completely incomprehensible too. It is extremely clear to my eyes that the 20 does noticeably better in his samples not only with regard to global contrast but also with regard to sharpness/microcontrast. I've seen similar differences in other places as well, but this is about the clearest example I am aware of, yet with the wrong conclusion drawn by the reviewer. Truly ironic.

Another ironic fact is that Jolly Olly is certainly not the first to refer to this review to support the claim that the 17/1.8 is superior to the 20/1.7. Happens all the time. So quite a few are willing to buy the views of the "expert" although it is there for everyone to see that "the emperor is naked". And if they don't manage to see what is actually going on here, what reason do we have to pay any attention to their subjective impressions of their own images.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/01/27/the-olympus-17-1-8-lens-review-on-the-e-m5-by-steve-huff/

steve huff here agrees with you on sharpness on 20mm, on micro contrast on 20mm v2, and with me and others on af speed of 17mm.

calling it a day.

Like many others who makes claims about AF speeds, it looks like Steve Huff never tested it.

Never tested it? hmmm; he did; here:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/08/23/the-panasonic-20-1-7-ii-lens-on-the-olympus-e-p5/

Others have tested the difference between the two versions:

http://m43blog.com/panasonic-20mm-f1-8-vs-panasonic-20mm-f1-8-ii/

I saw no real tests in either of those links. Just a report of impressions. Let me know if I have missed something.

But I am certainly not arguing that anything has changed with regard to AF when going from version I to version II of the 20/1.7.

and I quote:

"But over time, more lenses have appeared and all recent lenses used faster auto-focus motors. Out of all M43 lenses currently available, the PANASONIC 20MM f/1.7 is now considered one of the slowest when it comes to auto focus speed. So despite having multiple positive traits, some consider this lens unacceptable, which is really unfortunate."

This video for your 'visual study': And yes the initial try was with f5.6 for the pana; since changed to f1.7 later on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLbr1jP9VmU#t=139

Yes I saw that. He makes the same mistake (from a practical-relevance point of view) as I have seen others make. He sets the lens to the minimum focus distance (0.2 m) and then focuses out to a distance of a meter or so. What that means is that the AF mechanism has to travel a very long way. While the distance between 0.2 m and 1 meter is short as measured in meters, it is very long in terms of "focus throw" (how far the AF mechanism has to travel), much much longer than the distance between 1 meter and infinity.

As recognized in this thread here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53295042

and further explained here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53296304

and in many threads before the present one, the 20 will indeed be significantly slower than other lenses when you rack focus between something extremely close and infinity (or the reverse) as well as when it hunts. The reason is that in these cases the main bottleneck is the focus mechanism of the lens, which does have a lower max speed for the 20 than for other lenses.

But when you AF between more normal distances (as in the test of mine that I linked to in this thread, where I go between infinity and 0.75 m), the main bottleneck is body processing time, which means that you will get roughly the same result as with other lenses (just as my test shows).

In short: If your need for fast AF includes the range of 0.2 to 0.5 meters (or so), then the test you linked to is relevant. If your need for fast AF doesn't include that range, its results do not apply.

From:

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/04/26/quick-comparison-olympus-17mm-f1-8-vs-panasonic-20mm-f1-7/

Which quotes:

"There is no draw here, the Olympus 17mm simply crushes the Panasonic 20mm when it comes to autofocus speed. In terms of autofocus, I think this may be the fastest lens in the M43 lineup. If autofocus speed is critical to you, then there is no doubt that the 17mm is the way to go for you."

So yeah, I'd say that the 17mm f1.8 actual exceeds the focus speed of the 12mm and 45mm. I will have to stand 'corrected' of my previous claim that the 17mm f1.8 is on par with the 45mm. Its better.

Now of course given that these are ALL secondary sources, you are free to view otherwise.

I have absolutely no problem with the fact that you refer to the tests of others. All I care about is whether they are good and relevant tests.

1. we can agree that IQ wise the PANA wins

We certainly can.

2. I disagree that the Pana has fast AF speed. It doesn't, especially in comparison with the 17mm.

I am not claiming that the 20/1.7 has fast AF. Rather, what I am saying is that its slow AF mechanism is only a problem under certain specific conditions, like those described above.

 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
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: I disagree here ..
1

Sergey_Green wrote:

Anders W wrote:

honeyiscool wrote:

The Jacal wrote:
There has been plenty of criticism about the 1.8 too; being a tad soft.

I'm fairly certain a good percentage of these criticisms come from 20mm fanboys and review trollers who have never even used the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 and just like to pixel peep test charts from reviewers.

In what way does it matter who says something if what is being said is factually correct? And you don't need to use a lens in order to pass judgment on it. All you need is to look at images produced by it.

Not only you need to use the lens, but you also need to use it effectively, and with good results to show. In other words, learn the tool first, then talk about it.

Why do you need to do that? Things like sharpness, CA, coma, vignetting, bokeh, and distortion are objective properties of the lens no matter who uses it. You shouldn't confuse those properties with the photographic talents of the user.

I think the reason why this lens can often be preferred (over the others) is that 35mm equivalent is often the easiest and the most forgiving focal length to use. People simply have more fun with it when they see more frames that do look better than from the other lenses.

The 20/1.7 is sharper than the 17/1.8. That's a fact. Whether it's an important fact or not is a personal matter.

Sharpness is not all.

I didn't say it was.

 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
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
1

Mark Chan wrote:

FrankS009 wrote:

“Photographers, like few other artists I can imagine, have an insanely personal relationship with their gear. …we can’t help it that our craft is so dependent on gear, but it’s scary how quickly the gear becomes the not the means but the end. “ This statement from David duChemin, one of my favourite authors about photography (and whom I quote in my signature line), reminds me just how attached we can become to our cameras, our lenses, and to the companies that produce them.

This thread began with an ode in praise of a particular lens by an owner. It then became an attack on critics of the lens, and against another lens that was perceived as a rival. A great deal of time has been spent on assertions about whether more people prefer one over the other, or quasi technical analyses of the differences from the points of view of owners, and sometimes of good photographers who write blogs where they give personal judgments not divorced from their own strong feelings and attachments. People feel what they feel.

Throughout the thread, Anders W. has taken a position that infuriates those that oppose him because he simply does not accept untested hypotheses and statements based on personal opinions. He has been called the most intelligent member of the forum; that may or may not be the case, but he certainly is one of the most rigorous in his judgments. He has both Olympus and Panasonic lenses, so he does not speak from the point of view of one company or another. No doubt he is attached to his gear too, but he is willing to stand up for what he thinks. Some of us might agree and let him do the work for us. Others might not. But for one I consider what he has been saying in this thread to be based on good sense, and a certain amount of restraint.

F.

Frank,

I don't deny what Anders has done and his convictions. What I do feel, being one of those speaking from 'personal experience', is that his decision to make a statement based on what 'seems' to be a lack of first hand experience with the lens at hand, distorts his judgement in this particular case.

What is wrong with a lack of first-hand experience if "secondary data sources" are as important as you say below?

I certainly do not deny the value of the publicly available evidence at our disposal. On the contrary, I try to make the best use of it.

However, I do distinguish between the evidence produced by others on the one hand and their opinions on the other.

I admire Anders with his attention to detail in the test of the several lens he provided. However, as much as primary data is useful, is not appreciation of 'secondary data sources' as important?

I did quite a bit of study online before deciding to purchase a lens - and indeed many different devices; and in many cases the 'various' secondary sources / reviews etc. have credence.

Owning the 20mm f1.7, I decided to still purchase the 17mm f1.8 precisely because the AF speed was not up to par for my purposes. Upon purchasing the 17mm, I was extremely happy to sell off the 20mm as the 17mm was much faster, just as others have found out.

What is Anders' opinion mean in the face of this?

BTW; we are not 'criticizing' the other lens for anything other than its weakness; its IQ is better (my view); but its AF isn't on par.

As individuals we hate to be corrected when we are actually right.

 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
Sergey_Green
Sergey_Green Forum Pro • Posts: 11,205
We all can read what we find on the internet ..
1

Anders W wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

..

Not only you need to use the lens, but you also need to use it effectively, and with good results to show. In other words, learn the tool first, then talk about it.

Why do you need to do that? Things like sharpness, CA, coma, vignetting, bokeh, and distortion are objective properties of the lens no matter who uses it. You shouldn't confuse those properties with the photographic talents of the user.

I am not confusing objective properties with anything, except those objective properties do not often tell the full story about the lens in question. Lately I compared Sigma 35/1.4 (the same lens I saw you quoted several times) against Zeiss 35/1.4 on a full frame camera. Zeiss clearly showed strong colour fringing, even where the contrast seemed easy for most lenses to deal with, and weaker corners from wide open. Sigma, on the other hand, shows almost no colour fringing at all, it has more even sharpness distribution, and is blazing fast in focusing. Yet it is Zeiss that renders very pleasing colours (how can you measure it), and very nice bokeh. Two of my colleagues bought this lens in a heartbeat.

Another example is Sigma 150/2.8 macro (equivalent to would be 75/1.4 on mFT), say vs. Nikon 135/2 DC. Sigma is very sharp lens, very well controlled, blazing fast, and an excellent macro lens in addition. Nikon on the other hand will often show visible colour fringing (you can see it in the images in the link below), probably not as tack sharp as the best macro lens for anything closer, and is slower to focus.

http://www.nikonjin.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1043

Yet, there is no lens that can render the bokeh and colours as this lens does. And so I'd much rather have this lens on my camera in downtown, then anything that fetches higher test results by comparison.

So the verdict, use the lens first, appreciate its true qualities, and only then pass the judgement on it to the others. As you said, you do not have 17/1.8 to compare, you have no idea about its convenience for framing, and you can not post anything convincing enough why you would chose another lens instead.

Sergey_Green
Sergey_Green Forum Pro • Posts: 11,205
Not like the first time you do it ..

Anders W wrote:

What is wrong with a lack of first-hand experience if "secondary data sources" are as important as you say below?

Here,

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53260156

As to DC, I thought you already knew what that's for. Want me to explain?

Have you had or used it before, or did you mean you found something on the internet and can tell me about it  ?

Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: We all can read what we find on the internet ..
1

Sergey_Green wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

..

Not only you need to use the lens, but you also need to use it effectively, and with good results to show. In other words, learn the tool first, then talk about it.

Why do you need to do that? Things like sharpness, CA, coma, vignetting, bokeh, and distortion are objective properties of the lens no matter who uses it. You shouldn't confuse those properties with the photographic talents of the user.

I am not confusing objective properties with anything,

Yes you did.

except those objective properties do not often tell the full story about the lens in question.

I didn't say they do. In theory, everything is measureable but only some things are measured. I was talking about things that are measured, specifically sharpness in the post of mine to which you first replied. Furthermore, you can look at samples from the lenses at issue, which of course I did.

Lately I compared Sigma 35/1.4 (the same lens I saw you quoted several times) against Zeiss 35/1.4 on a full frame camera. Zeiss clearly showed strong colour fringing, even where the contrast seemed easy for most lenses to deal with, and weaker corners from wide open. Sigma, on the other hand, shows almost no colour fringing at all, it has more even sharpness distribution, and is blazing fast in focusing. Yet it is Zeiss that renders very pleasing colours (how can you measure it), and very nice bokeh. Two of my colleagues bought this lens in a heartbeat.

Sharpness and CA are typically measured. Color (aside from the impact of coatings which is a WB issue) is part of MTF (microcontrast, i.e., part of sharpness). The best review sites provide bokeh samples. AF performance is often reported verbally, sometimes measured. And again, you can look at samples from the lenses at issue, which of course I did.

Another example is Sigma 150/2.8 macro (equivalent to would be 75/1.4 on mFT), say vs. Nikon 135/2 DC. Sigma is very sharp lens, very well controlled, blazing fast, and an excellent macro lens in addition. Nikon on the other hand will often show visible colour fringing (you can see it in the images in the link below), probably not as tack sharp as the best macro lens for anything closer, and is slower to focus.

http://www.nikonjin.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1043

Yet, there is no lens that can render the bokeh and colours as this lens does. And so I'd much rather have this lens on my camera in downtown, then anything that fetches higher test results by comparison.

So the verdict, use the lens first, appreciate its true qualities, and only then pass the judgement on it to the others. As you said, you do not have 17/1.8 to compare, you have no idea about its convenience for framing, and you can not post anything convincing enough why you would chose another lens instead.

See above.

 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
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: Not like the first time you do it ..
1

Sergey_Green wrote:

Anders W wrote:

What is wrong with a lack of first-hand experience if "secondary data sources" are as important as you say below?

Here,

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53260156

As to DC, I thought you already knew what that's for. Want me to explain?

Have you had or used it before, or did you mean you found something on the internet and can tell me about it ?

No I haven't had or used it. It's not a lens I am interested in. I know what it does and that suffices.

 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
Mark Chan Senior Member • Posts: 1,717
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8

Never tested it? hmmm; he did; here:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/08/23/the-panasonic-20-1-7-ii-lens-on-the-olympus-e-p5/

Others have tested the difference between the two versions:

http://m43blog.com/panasonic-20mm-f1-8-vs-panasonic-20mm-f1-8-ii/

I saw no real tests in either of those links. Just a report of impressions. Let me know if I have missed something.

But I am certainly not arguing that anything has changed with regard to AF when going from version I to version II of the 20/1.7.

and I quote:

"But over time, more lenses have appeared and all recent lenses used faster auto-focus motors. Out of all M43 lenses currently available, the PANASONIC 20MM f/1.7 is now considered one of the slowest when it comes to auto focus speed. So despite having multiple positive traits, some consider this lens unacceptable, which is really unfortunate."

This video for your 'visual study': And yes the initial try was with f5.6 for the pana; since changed to f1.7 later on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLbr1jP9VmU#t=139

Yes I saw that. He makes the same mistake (from a practical-relevance point of view) as I have seen others make. He sets the lens to the minimum focus distance (0.2 m) and then focuses out to a distance of a meter or so. What that means is that the AF mechanism has to travel a very long way. While the distance between 0.2 m and 1 meter is short as measured in meters, it is very long in terms of "focus throw" (how far the AF mechanism has to travel), much much longer than the distance between 1 meter and infinity.

As recognized in this thread here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53295042

and further explained here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53296304

and in many threads before the present one, the 20 will indeed be significantly slower than other lenses when you rack focus between something extremely close and infinity (or the reverse) as well as when it hunts. The reason is that in these cases the main bottleneck is the focus mechanism of the lens, which does have a lower max speed for the 20 than for other lenses.

But when you AF between more normal distances (as in the test of mine that I linked to in this thread, where I go between infinity and 0.75 m), the main bottleneck is body processing time, which means that you will get roughly the same result as with other lenses (just as my test shows).

In short: If your need for fast AF includes the range of 0.2 to 0.5 meters (or so), then the test you linked to is relevant. If your need for fast AF doesn't include that range, its results do not apply.

From:

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/04/26/quick-comparison-olympus-17mm-f1-8-vs-panasonic-20mm-f1-7/

Which quotes:

"There is no draw here, the Olympus 17mm simply crushes the Panasonic 20mm when it comes to autofocus speed. In terms of autofocus, I think this may be the fastest lens in the M43 lineup. If autofocus speed is critical to you, then there is no doubt that the 17mm is the way to go for you."

So yeah, I'd say that the 17mm f1.8 actual exceeds the focus speed of the 12mm and 45mm. I will have to stand 'corrected' of my previous claim that the 17mm f1.8 is on par with the 45mm. Its better.

Now of course given that these are ALL secondary sources, you are free to view otherwise.

I have absolutely no problem with the fact that you refer to the tests of others. All I care about is whether they are good and relevant tests.

1. we can agree that IQ wise the PANA wins

We certainly can.

2. I disagree that the Pana has fast AF speed. It doesn't, especially in comparison with the 17mm.

I am not claiming that the 20/1.7 has fast AF. Rather, what I am saying is that its slow AF mechanism is only a problem under certain specific conditions, like those described above.

So I revise my understanding of your view now:

The 20mm f1.7 has 'fast enough' AF under 'normal' conditions. I would say 'specific'.

In your words: 20 will indeed be significantly slower than other lenses when you rack focus between something extremely close and infinity (or the reverse) as well as when it hunts.

its slow AF mechanism is only a problem under certain specific conditions, like those described above."

So we agree! The 20mm f1.7 is INDEED slower when used in a variety of conditions.  Such as when a photographer wants to take a pic of a landscape; then turns to focus on his kid running to him at close quarters.  The 17mm f1.8 INDEED does better in such scenarios.

And maybe less so in a museum where all objects are of a particular focus range.

Cheers.

 Mark Chan's gear list:Mark Chan's gear list
Olympus TG-5
texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8

Mark Chan wrote:

Never tested it? hmmm; he did; here:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/08/23/the-panasonic-20-1-7-ii-lens-on-the-olympus-e-p5/

Others have tested the difference between the two versions:

http://m43blog.com/panasonic-20mm-f1-8-vs-panasonic-20mm-f1-8-ii/

I saw no real tests in either of those links. Just a report of impressions. Let me know if I have missed something.

But I am certainly not arguing that anything has changed with regard to AF when going from version I to version II of the 20/1.7.

and I quote:

"But over time, more lenses have appeared and all recent lenses used faster auto-focus motors. Out of all M43 lenses currently available, the PANASONIC 20MM f/1.7 is now considered one of the slowest when it comes to auto focus speed. So despite having multiple positive traits, some consider this lens unacceptable, which is really unfortunate."

This video for your 'visual study': And yes the initial try was with f5.6 for the pana; since changed to f1.7 later on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLbr1jP9VmU#t=139

Yes I saw that. He makes the same mistake (from a practical-relevance point of view) as I have seen others make. He sets the lens to the minimum focus distance (0.2 m) and then focuses out to a distance of a meter or so. What that means is that the AF mechanism has to travel a very long way. While the distance between 0.2 m and 1 meter is short as measured in meters, it is very long in terms of "focus throw" (how far the AF mechanism has to travel), much much longer than the distance between 1 meter and infinity.

As recognized in this thread here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53295042

and further explained here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53296304

and in many threads before the present one, the 20 will indeed be significantly slower than other lenses when you rack focus between something extremely close and infinity (or the reverse) as well as when it hunts. The reason is that in these cases the main bottleneck is the focus mechanism of the lens, which does have a lower max speed for the 20 than for other lenses.

But when you AF between more normal distances (as in the test of mine that I linked to in this thread, where I go between infinity and 0.75 m), the main bottleneck is body processing time, which means that you will get roughly the same result as with other lenses (just as my test shows).

In short: If your need for fast AF includes the range of 0.2 to 0.5 meters (or so), then the test you linked to is relevant. If your need for fast AF doesn't include that range, its results do not apply.

From:

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/04/26/quick-comparison-olympus-17mm-f1-8-vs-panasonic-20mm-f1-7/

Which quotes:

"There is no draw here, the Olympus 17mm simply crushes the Panasonic 20mm when it comes to autofocus speed. In terms of autofocus, I think this may be the fastest lens in the M43 lineup. If autofocus speed is critical to you, then there is no doubt that the 17mm is the way to go for you."

So yeah, I'd say that the 17mm f1.8 actual exceeds the focus speed of the 12mm and 45mm. I will have to stand 'corrected' of my previous claim that the 17mm f1.8 is on par with the 45mm. Its better.

Now of course given that these are ALL secondary sources, you are free to view otherwise.

I have absolutely no problem with the fact that you refer to the tests of others. All I care about is whether they are good and relevant tests.

1. we can agree that IQ wise the PANA wins

We certainly can.

2. I disagree that the Pana has fast AF speed. It doesn't, especially in comparison with the 17mm.

I am not claiming that the 20/1.7 has fast AF. Rather, what I am saying is that its slow AF mechanism is only a problem under certain specific conditions, like those described above.

So I revise my understanding of your view now:

Be aware that while you are revising your understanding of Anders' statements regarding the focus speed of the 20mm f/1.7, he has been remarkably consistent in those statements for months now (as anyone can confirm for himself by visiting some of the earlier discussions on this topic to which Anders has linked several times in this current thread). So it's not his statement that is under revision, rather, it is purely your interpretation thereof. You are finally bringing your interpretation of his statement into line with what he's been saying all along.

Perhaps in the future you'll take a little more time to understand what someone is saying before becoming rude, combative and aggressive.

The 20mm f1.7 has 'fast enough' AF under 'normal' conditions. I would say 'specific'.

In your words: 20 will indeed be significantly slower than other lenses when you rack focus between something extremely close and infinity (or the reverse) as well as when it hunts.

its slow AF mechanism is only a problem under certain specific conditions, like those described above."

So we agree!

If you agree with Anders now, you have agreed with him all along, so your over aggressive tone in this thread was plainly foolish and uncalled for from the start.

The 20mm f1.7 is INDEED slower when used in a variety of conditions.

In my experience, the condition in which the 20mm f/1.7 is slower to autofocus (that of switching back and forth between focusing on something between 0.2 and 0.5 meters and something between 0.75 meters and infinity) is an absolute rarity.

I accept that this may not be the case for others, however.

Such as when a photographer wants to take a pic of a landscape; then turns to focus on his kid running to him at close quarters. The 17mm f1.8 INDEED does better in such scenarios.

If your kid is running at you and is less than 0.5 meters away from you, I doubt there are many lens/camera combinations that will focus on him before he bowls you over. But yes, the 17mm may do better in this (rare, in my experience) scenario.

And maybe less so in a museum where all objects are of a particular focus range.

Or just about 99.9% of all photographic situations in which I find myself. Again, YMMV.

Cheers.

 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
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8
1

Mark Chan wrote:

Never tested it? hmmm; he did; here:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/08/23/the-panasonic-20-1-7-ii-lens-on-the-olympus-e-p5/

Others have tested the difference between the two versions:

http://m43blog.com/panasonic-20mm-f1-8-vs-panasonic-20mm-f1-8-ii/

I saw no real tests in either of those links. Just a report of impressions. Let me know if I have missed something.

But I am certainly not arguing that anything has changed with regard to AF when going from version I to version II of the 20/1.7.

and I quote:

"But over time, more lenses have appeared and all recent lenses used faster auto-focus motors. Out of all M43 lenses currently available, the PANASONIC 20MM f/1.7 is now considered one of the slowest when it comes to auto focus speed. So despite having multiple positive traits, some consider this lens unacceptable, which is really unfortunate."

This video for your 'visual study': And yes the initial try was with f5.6 for the pana; since changed to f1.7 later on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLbr1jP9VmU#t=139

Yes I saw that. He makes the same mistake (from a practical-relevance point of view) as I have seen others make. He sets the lens to the minimum focus distance (0.2 m) and then focuses out to a distance of a meter or so. What that means is that the AF mechanism has to travel a very long way. While the distance between 0.2 m and 1 meter is short as measured in meters, it is very long in terms of "focus throw" (how far the AF mechanism has to travel), much much longer than the distance between 1 meter and infinity.

As recognized in this thread here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53295042

and further explained here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53296304

and in many threads before the present one, the 20 will indeed be significantly slower than other lenses when you rack focus between something extremely close and infinity (or the reverse) as well as when it hunts. The reason is that in these cases the main bottleneck is the focus mechanism of the lens, which does have a lower max speed for the 20 than for other lenses.

But when you AF between more normal distances (as in the test of mine that I linked to in this thread, where I go between infinity and 0.75 m), the main bottleneck is body processing time, which means that you will get roughly the same result as with other lenses (just as my test shows).

In short: If your need for fast AF includes the range of 0.2 to 0.5 meters (or so), then the test you linked to is relevant. If your need for fast AF doesn't include that range, its results do not apply.

From:

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/04/26/quick-comparison-olympus-17mm-f1-8-vs-panasonic-20mm-f1-7/

Which quotes:

"There is no draw here, the Olympus 17mm simply crushes the Panasonic 20mm when it comes to autofocus speed. In terms of autofocus, I think this may be the fastest lens in the M43 lineup. If autofocus speed is critical to you, then there is no doubt that the 17mm is the way to go for you."

So yeah, I'd say that the 17mm f1.8 actual exceeds the focus speed of the 12mm and 45mm. I will have to stand 'corrected' of my previous claim that the 17mm f1.8 is on par with the 45mm. Its better.

Now of course given that these are ALL secondary sources, you are free to view otherwise.

I have absolutely no problem with the fact that you refer to the tests of others. All I care about is whether they are good and relevant tests.

1. we can agree that IQ wise the PANA wins

We certainly can.

2. I disagree that the Pana has fast AF speed. It doesn't, especially in comparison with the 17mm.

I am not claiming that the 20/1.7 has fast AF. Rather, what I am saying is that its slow AF mechanism is only a problem under certain specific conditions, like those described above.

So I revise my understanding of your view now:

The 20mm f1.7 has 'fast enough' AF under 'normal' conditions. I would say 'specific'.

You may call it what you want. What I mean by "normal" conditions is AF within the focus range from 0.75 m to infinity on a target and under light conditions such that the lens won't hunt. Even if you extend that range to the one from 0.5 m to infinity, the difference in AF speed is likely to be small (about 0.1 s with my E-M5).

In your words: 20 will indeed be significantly slower than other lenses when you rack focus between something extremely close and infinity (or the reverse) as well as when it hunts.

its slow AF mechanism is only a problem under certain specific conditions, like those described above."

So we agree! The 20mm f1.7 is INDEED slower when used in a variety of conditions. Such as when a photographer wants to take a pic of a landscape; then turns to focus on his kid running to him at close quarters. The 17mm f1.8 INDEED does better in such scenarios.

No. Unless you try catching the kid at a focus distance of less than 0.75 m, in which case the difference would be uninteresting since you'd miss the shot with any lens.

And maybe less so in a museum where all objects are of a particular focus range.

In any condition meeting the requirements already stated above.

 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
tt321
tt321 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,346
Re: New Olympus 17mm 1.8

texinwien wrote:

In my experience, the condition in which the 20mm f/1.7 is slower to autofocus (that of switching back and forth between focusing on something between 0.2 and 0.5 meters and something between 0.75 meters and infinity) is an absolute rarity.

Not so fast.

I sometimes have this work flow: See something, turn on the camera, (roughly) frame, focus, and take one shot or a number of bracketed shots. Turn off the camera.

With this, every shot could potentially fall into this category, as that one focus could potentially be (and such is my luck usually be) radically far away from what the lens was set when the camera was off.

With more deliberate shooting and taking a number of shots and re-focusing each shot on the same subject with only slight adjustments of composition, 'absolute rarity' makes some sense. But this is not what I use that lens for as that lens is on the camera when the latter is in a pocket for opportunistic grab shots whilst the main activity of the day/morning/afternoon is not photography.

It can be argued that when what you called rare happens, the focus speed is usually very important, and when what you don't think is rare happens, the focus speed is less important.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads