If you want only one lens for the OMDs this is it

[Dpreviewmember]

Great traveling companion for the 14-150mm II and the 9mm f8 cap.

Using it on the OM-D E-M10, such a small quality camera set to carry around.

34mm equivalent focal length is perfect for most situations, no distortions on portraits and still fits enough background.

Fast f1.8 allows selective focus and blur that 14-42mm EZ and 14-150mm can't match.

Auto focus is really fast and accurate in good light, also much better than the 14-42mm EZ and 14-150mm II in low light.

Focus clutch is practical, specially in low light situations. Only thing is that I couldn't make it work with the focus assist on the touch screen. I don't know why it doesn't work since it works when not pulled back in manual mode. But the clutch with markings is certainly needed for night photography to focus at infinity, just put the mark a little bit before reaching the infinity symbol works fine for me.

Sharpness is a bit better than the zooms but not as much as I expected for a prime. Comparing photos taken on the same conditions and settings, for example at f4, 17mm same speed and ISO manual settings 14-42mm vs 17mm render quite similar IQ. But the faster 17mm lens really shines when it is darker or at interiors.

Build is exceptional, all metal, small and light but solid. Filter thread is 46mm, using a step-up ring 46 to 55mm and 55mm filters/cap makes the front have the same diameter as the body of the lens.

It's a pleasure to take this little lens everywhere, it's permanently on my camera/bag now and only change it for the 14-150mm II, or 14-42mm EZ (depending on how light I want to pack) when shooting in really good light. Raynox Macro converter 150 and 9mm f8 cap are always on my small bag side pockets. A perfect travel set.

 

[peppermonkey]

As for focusing at infinity, thankfully for Panasonic cameras, it's dead simple for all M43 non-manual lenses. Just push the mount button (without taking off the lens).

Anyhow, would love to try the lens as I do like the 35mm FL, looking at how much I like my Voigtlander 35mm Color-Skopar on my Bessa R. Yet, realistically, with my PL 25mm f1.4, P 20mm f1.7 and P 14mm f2.5 I doubt I would use it much. Then again, I do crave the PL 15mm f1.7 so who knows. I do think sharpness is somewhat overrated. I got really nice photos even from my Oly 17mm f2.8 (when I had it). Yes, it would be nice but not always necessary. To me, the most important aspect is how it renders the scene, which is why I love my PL 25mm so much. Yes, it's really sharp but bought it for how it renders more than how sharp it is etc. In any case, the Oly 17mm, from everything I have read and scene is a really good lens and would definitely satisfy me if I had one. It gets a bad rap here because of it's smidgen lack of sharpness which for certain people may be paramount but for most, I think this lens is a fine fine lens.

Great traveling companion for the 14-150mm II and the 9mm f8 cap.

Using it on the OM-D E-M10, such a small quality camera set to carry around.

34mm equivalent focal length is perfect for most situations, no distortions on portraits and still fits enough background.

Fast f1.8 allows selective focus and blur that 14-42mm EZ and 14-150mm can't match.

Auto focus is really fast and accurate in good light, also much better than the 14-42mm EZ and 14-150mm II in low light.

Focus clutch is practical, specially in low light situations. Only thing is that I couldn't make it work with the focus assist on the touch screen. I don't know why it doesn't work since it works when not pulled back in manual mode. But the clutch with markings is certainly needed for night photography to focus at infinity, just put the mark a little bit before reaching the infinity symbol works fine for me.

Sharpness is a bit better than the zooms but not as much as I expected for a prime. Comparing photos taken on the same conditions and settings, for example at f4, 17mm same speed and ISO manual settings 14-42mm vs 17mm render quite similar IQ. But the faster 17mm lens really shines when it is darker or at interiors.

Build is exceptional, all metal, small and light but solid. Filter thread is 46mm, using a step-up ring 46 to 55mm and 55mm filters/cap makes the front have the same diameter as the body of the lens.

It's a pleasure to take this little lens everywhere, it's permanently on my camera/bag now and only change it for the 14-150mm II, or 14-42mm EZ (depending on how light I want to pack) when shooting in really good light. Raynox Macro converter 150 and 9mm f8 cap are always on my small bag side pockets. A perfect travel set.

 

[Airmel]

Great traveling companion for the 14-150mm II and the 9mm f8 cap.

Using it on the OM-D E-M10, such a small quality camera set to carry around.

34mm equivalent focal length is perfect for most situations, no distortions on portraits and still fits enough background.

17mm (34mm equiv) yields "no distortion on portraits"? Surely, you are joking.

The only reason to shoot a portrait at 50mm (equiv) or less, would be to insure the model will never want to work with you again.

Fast f1.8 allows selective focus and blur that 14-42mm EZ and 14-150mm can't match.

Auto focus is really fast and accurate in good light, also much better than the 14-42mm EZ and 14-150mm II in low light.

Focus clutch is practical, specially in low light situations. Only thing is that I couldn't make it work with the focus assist on the touch screen. I don't know why it doesn't work since it works when not pulled back in manual mode. But the clutch with markings is certainly needed for night photography to focus at infinity, just put the mark a little bit before reaching the infinity symbol works fine for me.

Sharpness is a bit better than the zooms but not as much as I expected for a prime. Comparing photos taken on the same conditions and settings, for example at f4, 17mm same speed and ISO manual settings 14-42mm vs 17mm render quite similar IQ. But the faster 17mm lens really shines when it is darker or at interiors.

Build is exceptional, all metal, small and light but solid. Filter thread is 46mm, using a step-up ring 46 to 55mm and 55mm filters/cap makes the front have the same diameter as the body of the lens.

It's a pleasure to take this little lens everywhere, it's permanently on my camera/bag now and only change it for the 14-150mm II, or 14-42mm EZ (depending on how light I want to pack) when shooting in really good light. Raynox Macro converter 150 and 9mm f8 cap are always on my small bag side pockets. A perfect travel set.

The m.zuiko 17mm f/1.8 is certainly a very nice lens, but lets not suggest it defies the laws of physics.

 

[Dpreviewmember]

Great traveling companion for the 14-150mm II and the 9mm f8 cap.

Using it on the OM-D E-M10, such a small quality camera set to carry around.

34mm equivalent focal length is perfect for most situations, no distortions on portraits and still fits enough background.

17mm (34mm equiv) yields "no distortion on portraits"? Surely, you are joking.

The only reason to shoot a portrait at 50mm (equiv) or less, would be to insure the model will never want to work with you again.

Hi Airmel,

The point being made here is for versatility when traveling light, a one all around fast lens, not as a dedicated portrait lens in which case my choice would be the Olympus 45mm f1.8, a great portable inexpensive option.

Yes you are right if you take the photo really close to the subject and subject is not centered. So I guess I should say no distortion if you shoot from a distance of 6 feet or more. I guess as everything else in life all is relative, the laws of physics too by the way ;-)

Also, if you shoot with an Olympus cam distortion is greatly corrected, unless of course you are really close to the subject. So for taking photos that include the upper body it is indeed a good lens.

 

[berni29]

Hi

Yes the Oly 17mm F1.8 is a really great lens. Whats not to like?

 

[windriver]

It's a nice lens, but not a great one.

It has more veiling flare than the Panasonic 20mm. It is less sharp than the Panasonic also. It does focus faster.

The clutch can be a two-edged sword. My wife took a whole series of out-of-focus shots at an important event because she didn't realize the lens ring was pulled back and the lens was in MF mode.

 

[Dpreviewmember]

As for focusing at infinity, thankfully for Panasonic cameras, it's dead simple for all M43 non-manual lenses. Just push the mount button (without taking off the lens).

Someone suggested that trick to me but I tried it with the 14-42mm EZ and didn't work, it seemed to focus "past infinity" which seems weird but that is what happened. Instead I was using a flashlight and auto-focus on somewhat close objects.

Yes, it's really sharp but bought it for how it rendersIn any case, the Oly 17mm, from everything I have read and scene is a really good lens and would definitely satisfy me if I had one. It gets a bad rap here because of it's smidgen lack of sharpness which for certain people may be paramount but for most, I think this lens is a fine fine lens.

I agree, I read lots of bad reviews pointing the supposedly low sharpness but I really liked the IQ including contrast and sharpness. I'm not a PRO but Robin Wong is and gave a very positive review, I truly like his reviews they are practical, also other PRO photographers did.

Loading…

robinwong.blogspot.com

I've been using this little gem with the OMD and love how it feels, works and IQ. Olympus cams auto correct distortions to a great degree, that is a plus for choosing this lens over non Olympus ones.

 

[Dpreviewmember]

It's a nice lens, but not a great one.

Well, nice vs great is quite relative don't you think ?

IMHO is great for a small-sensor-small-light-cam, like the OMD-10, great travel companion for low light situations and even great all-in-one solution.

It is maybe no PRO lens, but again most PRO photographers will tell you that M43 sensors are not PRO anyway :-D

It has more veiling flare than the Panasonic 20mm. It is less sharp than the Panasonic also. It does focus faster.

I did try the Pana 20 mainly because is was less expensive but didn't go for it because :

1. focus with the Pana 20 + OMD-10 was much slower, perceptibly slower even in good light.

2. I wanted a "manual focus" with markings, specially for low light / night photography where it definitely delivers.

3. It is an Oly lens for a Oly cam, distortions are corrected automatically.

4. 34mm equivalent fits a little bit more of the scene than 20mm.

5. Built quality is clearly superior, worth the price tag in my opinion.

The clutch can be a two-edged sword. My wife took a whole series of out-of-focus shots at an important event because she didn't realize the lens ring was pulled back and the lens was in MF mode.

Yes have to be careful with that, always check all settings before shooting !

However is not easy at all to pull it back by accident, it is very firm.

You can also set it at some hyper-focal point and f4 for example and go shooting on the street without thinking.

An important point, that I was not used to with my zoom lenses, is that DOF is quite shallow at large apertures, sometimes I shoot something at close distances and only a small part of it was in focus. It is so shallow that a face can have the tip of the nose in focus and the rest not, so be careful even when going with auto-focus and keep auto-focus setting with eye priority that helps with faces.

 

[peppermonkey]

As for focusing at infinity, thankfully for Panasonic cameras, it's dead simple for all M43 non-manual lenses. Just push the mount button (without taking off the lens).

Someone suggested that trick to me but I tried it with the 14-42mm EZ and didn't work, it seemed to focus "past infinity" which seems weird but that is what happened. Instead I was using a flashlight and auto-focus on somewhat close objects.

You tried this on a Panasonic camera? I don't think it works on Olympus cameras. I have never seen it fail on me on my Panasonic cameras (GX8 and GF1).

Yes, it's really sharp but bought it for how it rendersIn any case, the Oly 17mm, from everything I have read and scene is a really good lens and would definitely satisfy me if I had one. It gets a bad rap here because of it's smidgen lack of sharpness which for certain people may be paramount but for most, I think this lens is a fine fine lens.

I agree, I read lots of bad reviews pointing the supposedly low sharpness but I really liked the IQ including contrast and sharpness. I'm not a PRO but Robin Wong is and gave a very positive review, I truly like his reviews they are practical, also other PRO photographers did.

https://robinwong.blogspot.com/2012/11/olympus-mzuiko-17mm-f18-review-street.html

Well, to be fair, Robin Wong can make a shot glass take beautiful photos And being an Oly employee, I doubt he would ever give a negative review... Still, the point that he can take fabulous photos with such a lens means we could also if we had the skills (which I unfortunately don't ) so we shouldn't be too hung up on a slight lack of sharpness.

I've been using this little gem with the OMD and love how it feels, works and IQ. Olympus cams auto correct distortions to a great degree, that is a plus for choosing this lens over non Olympus ones.

Well, modern Olympus cameras would auto correct distortions on Panasonic lenses as well...(and vice versa of course).

Glad the 17mm works out for you. Would love to try it one day and would if I could snaggle one for cheap. Unfortunately have too many other lenses close to that FL that I can justify buying one (that is, without angering my better half). Keep on having fun with it!

 

[Roger Engelken]

This is a very fine lens, one I only recently acquired. Nevertheless, I am glad I have several others to choose from. We have a robust system and choice of lenses, and I for one am glad to have that variety...well except for the occasional GAS problem.

 

[Airmel]

Great traveling companion for the 14-150mm II and the 9mm f8 cap.

Using it on the OM-D E-M10, such a small quality camera set to carry around.

34mm equivalent focal length is perfect for most situations, no distortions on portraits and still fits enough background.

17mm (34mm equiv) yields "no distortion on portraits"? Surely, you are joking.

The only reason to shoot a portrait at 50mm (equiv) or less, would be to insure the model will never want to work with you again.

Hi Airmel,

The point being made here is for versatility when traveling light, a one all around fast lens, not as a dedicated portrait lens in which case my choice would be the Olympus 45mm f1.8, a great portable inexpensive option.

Yes you are right if you take the photo really close to the subject and subject is not centered. So I guess I should say no distortion if you shoot from a distance of 6 feet or more. I guess as everything else in life all is relative, the laws of physics too by the way ;-)

The problem above is not about lens distortion as such. The reason it is unwise to shoot portraits with a wide angle lens, is due to the perspective required in order to frame the model's face, or head and shoulders.

Doing so will require a subject distance in the range of two feet - give or take. With the camera this close to the subject, the closer parts of the face (nose and closest cheek for instance), will be enlarged when compared with the rest of the face and head.

This phenomenon is unlikely to be noticed when shooting a subject such as a flower or plant. However when shooting a person's face, it creates an unpleasant effect which is very noticeable to humans, since their brains are highly tuned to analyze facial features.

Also, if you shoot with an Olympus cam distortion is greatly corrected, unless of course you are really close to the subject. So for taking photos that include the upper body it is indeed a good lens.

This effect cannot be corrected in software. It is caused by perspective, the only remedy for which is to get farther away from the subject. This will in turn, require a longer focal length such as the 45mm (90mm equiv), in order to properly frame the portrait.

 

[Dpreviewmember]

The point being made here is for versatility when traveling light, a one all around fast lens, not as a dedicated portrait lens in which case my choice would be the Olympus 45mm f1.8, a great portable inexpensive option.

Yes you are right if you take the photo really close to the subject and subject is not centered. So I guess I should say no distortion if you shoot from a distance of 6 feet or more. I guess as everything else in life all is relative, the laws of physics too by the way ;-)

The problem above is not about lens distortion as such. The reason it is unwise to shoot portraits with a wide angle lens, is due to the perspective required in order to frame the model's face, or head and shoulders.

Doing so will require a subject distance in the range of two feet - give or take. With the camera this close to the subject, the closer parts of the face (nose and closest cheek for instance), will be enlarged when compared with the rest of the face and head.

Shooting from about 6 feet, to frame from the torso and up, I didn't notice any distortion at all in people faces !

Here you can see some portraits with distortion, basically framing the head only, and others with no distortion :

Loading…

robinwong.blogspot.com

But again, of course IF I wanted a DEDICATED portrait lens my choice would be the 45mm f1.8 (90mm equivalent) but what I wanted was ONLY ONE small light lens for most situations including eventual portraits wit enough background + landscapes etc and this focal length seems to be a good choice.

My second choice was the 12-40 f2.8 PRO but didn't go for it because it is too big and heavy for what I wanted and I already have a 14-150 zoom excellent for good light situations. If that is not a problem for you I would recommend going for that PRO lens, goes from landscapes to portraits quite fast, sharp, has the focus clutch and is weather proof = great all in one BIG-HEAVY lens

 

[Airmel]

The point being made here is for versatility when traveling light, a one all around fast lens, not as a dedicated portrait lens in which case my choice would be the Olympus 45mm f1.8, a great portable inexpensive option.

Yes you are right if you take the photo really close to the subject and subject is not centered. So I guess I should say no distortion if you shoot from a distance of 6 feet or more. I guess as everything else in life all is relative, the laws of physics too by the way ;-)

The problem above is not about lens distortion as such. The reason it is unwise to shoot portraits with a wide angle lens, is due to the perspective required in order to frame the model's face, or head and shoulders.

Doing so will require a subject distance in the range of two feet - give or take. With the camera this close to the subject, the closer parts of the face (nose and closest cheek for instance), will be enlarged when compared with the rest of the face and head.

Shooting from about 6 feet, to frame from the torso and up, I didn't notice any distortion at all in people faces !

The issue we are talking about here is shooting portraits. A 17mm at 6ft will capture nearly the entire length of a person's body, not a portrait.

Here you can see some portraits with distortion, basically framing the head only, and others with no distortion :

I would have to disagree with you there. The little girl's picture is certainly adorable, but if you look closely at her nose and mouth, you will see they are proportionally much larger than say her ears. The image of her face is so highly distorted, I'll bet that if you were to show the photo to her mother, she might tell you it wasn't her daughter.

Since the little girl is shot straight on, the perspective enlargement is not quite as objectionable as it would be otherwise. On the other hand, if you look at the fellow in the orange shirt collar who is looking to the left, you will see that his nose and left cheek are well out of proportion, in much the same way a cartoonist distorts facial features of his subject to give them a humorous look.

Here is an example what we are talking about: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40948782

Certainly such distortions are sometimes useful to emphasize your closeness to the subject, and perhaps a party atmosphere, however, as I indicated previously, if you use such a combination shooting a portrait of a model, it will definitely be the last you see of her.

https://robinwong.blogspot.com/2012/11/olympus-mzuiko-17mm-f18-review-street.html

But again, of course IF I wanted a DEDICATED portrait lens my choice would be the 45mm f1.8 (90mm equivalent) but what I wanted was ONLY ONE small light lens for most situations including eventual portraits wit enough background + landscapes etc and this focal length seems to be a good choice.

My second choice was the 12-40 f2.8 PRO but didn't go for it because it is too big and heavy for what I wanted and I already have a 14-150 zoom excellent for good light situations. If that is not a problem for you I would recommend going for that PRO lens, goes from landscapes to portraits quite fast, sharp, has the focus clutch and is weather proof = great all in one BIG-HEAVY lens

--
AirMel
http://www.mel-photo.com
There are 10 types of people in this world.
Those that know binary and those that don't.

 

[stagedoor]

The clutch can be a two-edged sword. My wife took a whole series of out-of-focus shots at an important event because she didn't realize the lens ring was pulled back and the lens was in MF mode.

That happened to me once - though I realised part way through shooting what had happened.

What I didn't know until recently is that 'settings' menu A3 (on the mk ii - but it is also somewhere on the mk i) can disable the lens ring function. I now just turn ON the setting when I choose to use manual focus to prevent accidental shifts into manual focus.

 

[rsmithgi]

If I had to choose one lens, it would be one of the fine zooms. I love primes, but for me, they are just too restrictive. I would trade either size (with the 12-40 pro) or speed (with the 14-42 EZ) for the increase in flexibility, depending on my particular needs.

Now if you are talking one PRIME lens, they you have (IMO) a better argument. I'd make the case for the Oly 25 F1.8, but I can see the attraction to the 17mm. It is on my wish list.

 

[samtheman2014]

As for focusing at infinity, thankfully for Panasonic cameras, it's dead simple for all M43 non-manual lenses. Just push the mount button (without taking off the lens).

Someone suggested that trick to me but I tried it with the 14-42mm EZ and didn't work, it seemed to focus "past infinity" which seems weird but that is what happened. Instead I was using a flashlight and auto-focus on somewhat close objects.

You tried this on a Panasonic camera? I don't think it works on Olympus cameras. I have never seen it fail on me on my Panasonic cameras (GX8 and GF1).

It is a handy wee feature , I have also been using it since the GF1 a lot of folk seem to not be aware of it

Yes, it's really sharp but bought it for how it rendersIn any case, the Oly 17mm, from everything I have read and scene is a really good lens and would definitely satisfy me if I had one. It gets a bad rap here because of it's smidgen lack of sharpness which for certain people may be paramount but for most, I think this lens is a fine fine lens.

I agree, I read lots of bad reviews pointing the supposedly low sharpness but I really liked the IQ including contrast and sharpness. I'm not a PRO but Robin Wong is and gave a very positive review, I truly like his reviews they are practical, also other PRO photographers did.

https://robinwong.blogspot.com/2012/11/olympus-mzuiko-17mm-f18-review-street.html

Well, to be fair, Robin Wong can make a shot glass take beautiful photos And being an Oly employee, I doubt he would ever give a negative review... Still, the point that he can take fabulous photos with such a lens means we could also if we had the skills (which I unfortunately don't ) so we shouldn't be too hung up on a slight lack of sharpness.

I've been using this little gem with the OMD and love how it feels, works and IQ. Olympus cams auto correct distortions to a great degree, that is a plus for choosing this lens over non Olympus ones.

Well, modern Olympus cameras would auto correct distortions on Panasonic lenses as well...(and vice versa of course).

Glad the 17mm works out for you. Would love to try it one day and would if I could snaggle one for cheap. Unfortunately have too many other lenses close to that FL that I can justify buying one (that is, without angering my better half). Keep on having fun with it!

 

[tt321]

As for focusing at infinity, thankfully for Panasonic cameras, it's dead simple for all M43 non-manual lenses. Just push the mount button (without taking off the lens).

Someone suggested that trick to me but I tried it with the 14-42mm EZ and didn't work, it seemed to focus "past infinity" which seems weird but that is what happened. Instead I was using a flashlight and auto-focus on somewhat close objects.

You tried this on a Panasonic camera? I don't think it works on Olympus cameras. I have never seen it fail on me on my Panasonic cameras (GX8 and GF1).

It is a handy wee feature , I have also been using it since the GF1 a lot of folk seem to not be aware of it

Just tried it on my GX80; does not seem to work. Nothing happened when pressing the mount button. Will try with the G3 later at home.

 

[windriver]

It's a nice lens, but not a great one.

Well, nice vs great is quite relative don't you think ?

IMHO is great for a small-sensor-small-light-cam, like the OMD-10, great travel companion for low light situations and even great all-in-one solution.

It is maybe no PRO lens, but again most PRO photographers will tell you that M43 sensors are not PRO anyway :-D

It has more veiling flare than the Panasonic 20mm. It is less sharp than the Panasonic also. It does focus faster.

I did try the Pana 20 mainly because is was less expensive but didn't go for it because :

1. focus with the Pana 20 + OMD-10 was much slower, perceptibly slower even in good light.

2. I wanted a "manual focus" with markings, specially for low light / night photography where it definitely delivers.

3. It is an Oly lens for a Oly cam, distortions are corrected automatically.

4. 34mm equivalent fits a little bit more of the scene than 20mm.

5. Built quality is clearly superior, worth the price tag in my opinion.

The clutch can be a two-edged sword. My wife took a whole series of out-of-focus shots at an important event because she didn't realize the lens ring was pulled back and the lens was in MF mode.

Yes have to be careful with that, always check all settings before shooting !

However is not easy at all to pull it back by accident, it is very firm.

You can also set it at some hyper-focal point and f4 for example and go shooting on the street without thinking.

An important point, that I was not used to with my zoom lenses, is that DOF is quite shallow at large apertures, sometimes I shoot something at close distances and only a small part of it was in focus. It is so shallow that a face can have the tip of the nose in focus and the rest not, so be careful even when going with auto-focus and keep auto-focus setting with eye priority that helps with faces.

The Olympus is not as sharp as the Panasonic.

It has more veiling flare than the Panasonic.

The clutch can sometimes cause problems.

 

[third son]

The clutch can be a two-edged sword. My wife took a whole series of out-of-focus shots at an important event because she didn't realize the lens ring was pulled back and the lens was in MF mode.

Focus confirmation is a wonderful thing. I am surprised she didn't think something was amiss during her shooting. The snap focus ring is awesome.

 

[kaphinga]

Great traveling companion for the 14-150mm II and the 9mm f8 cap.

Using it on the OM-D E-M10, such a small quality camera set to carry around.

The 17mm is definitely my most used prime. It's just so versatile. It's a great minimal, go-anywhere-do-anything lens, and it always seems to find a place in my bag on long trips.

I have no regrets about adding it to my collection.