How bad (or good) is the Olympus 17mm really?

[nightfly]

I've seen a lot of flack on the web about the Olympus 17mm lens for the EP 1 and 2 particularly compared to the Panasonic 20mm. I really dislike the 40mm equivalent field of view not wide enough for street not close enough for anything else and would lean toward the 17 simply for it's field of view. Not sure if it's really bad or it's the internet echo chamber talking. Yes, I realize it's ironic to ask about the internet echo chamber on the internet.

Would be using the camera (which I'm still contemplating) like my Leica, pre-focus, quick glance through the viewfinder for framing only and shoot. The accessory view finder that comes with it appeals to me for this too.

I like the look of the shots I've seen coming from the Oly, particularly the higher ISO color stuff. It looks very rich and film like.

Do you think this lens would work or is there anything coming that's more like a 28mm that might do the job? The 2.8 aperture doesn't bother me so much, I usually use the CV 28 3.5 on my Leica but use the 35 Summicron when I need something faster. Being able to get a bit of out of focus areas would be nice but not worth giving up the field of view. I don't like the everything in focus look of digital point and shoots but the Micro 4/3 looks like it has just enough to bring the eye to the focal point of the photo.

 

[Finder]

I find the lens quite acceptable. I enjoy using it.

 

[Finder]

This guy likes it:

http://stevesheppardphotography.wordpress.com/category/olympus-e-p1/

 

[Paul T.]

I hate to say this, but his photos are incredibly dull. The one of the bride's shoes is simply awful, has nothing about it at all.

Strange, too, that Olympus introduced the 25mm with the 4/3 SLRs, and don't do a version for micro 4/3rds - yet the adapter from one format to the other is hugely expensive. If they produced the 25mm in a micro version, that would be a focal length Panasonic at present don't cover, R&D would be minimal, yet still they seem to focus (yes) on consumer zooms. Grrrr.

 

[nightfly]

Agreed about the guys photos, but they don't seem to be the lens's fault.

 

[Paul T.]

It's easier for a mediocre photographer - ie me - to make a still life like that looks more intriguing by using a shallow depth of field and exaggerating the perspective. Is that lens or photog? Good question.

 

[shep64]

Thanks Paul

Thanks Paul

I hate to say this, but his photos are incredibly dull.

Paul,
I always check out incoming links to my blog. It was quite a surprise to see one coming from the rangefinderforum which I have been a member of since 2005. Since I haven't posted anything in several years, it appears my membership is inactive. I had to register again to make this post. I could still log in but was unable to post.

Anyway, thanks for your comments. It's the first time I have ever clicked on an incoming link and read anything negative. I have been a photographer and writer for the past 24 years and have made a very nice living. I am quite busy despite the economy.

Isn't the internet great.

Steve
http://stevesheppardphotography.wordpress.com/

 

[M4streetshooter]

The 17mm gets a bad rap. The lens performs well and with the finder, it's a great street camera. I have the 20mm and use it a lot but my natural FOV is the 17. I use the Pen 1 and it sets up beautiful.
You won't be regretting getting the lens.
shooter

 

[andredossantos]

I have the ep1 and the 17mm is the only lens i have in m4/3 mount. I haven't had any problems with it thus far. It's sharp, it's compact, and is a nice FOV (at least for my preferences). Also, with the in-body stabilization, the f2.8 aperture is mitigated to some degree and I can get useable hand held shots down to 1/5 or so.

 

[Avotius]

I have used the 17 a bit but I went for the zoom on my ep1. The 17 is nice and small with decent quality but not stellar. I dont like 35s and am saving for that panasonic 20 unless a 25 comes out. Also panasonic has a 14 f2.8 in the pipeline

 

[kbg32]

I use it on my GF1. Sharp and contrasty. Beautiful color.

 

[andredossantos]

Beautiful color.

+1

The color rendition is superb. For me, that is more important than razor sharpness, distortion, and resolution.

 

[nightfly]

Thanks for the feedback. The color shots from this camera are what grabbed me initially, actually some of Avotius' stuff he posted awhile back with I'm guessing the kit zoom, so it sounds like the lens is a go for me.

I'm definitely more enamored of rendition and feel of the shots than absolute sharpness, distortion or resolution.

 

[Wiyum]

If it is a 28mm FOV you want, Panasonic's 14mm f/2.8 pancake, due this Spring, should be the ticket.

 

[nightfly]

Great. Probably not buying the camera very soon anyway so can wait for the lens and the prices on the EP-1s to fall further. Guess it could be paired with CV viewfinder.

 

[gavinlg]

zuiko 17mm is decent. Not fantastic, but nothing wrong with it at all - especially for the price. It's not a soft lens by any means but it's not clinically sharp. Sort of almost a classic sort of sharpness.

 

[jsrockit]

I use it and have found nothing horrible about it.

 

[NickTrop]

I really dislike the 40mm equivalent field of view not wide enough for street not close enough for anything else

I've heard this comment before - and, with all due respect, kinda don't get it. Is 35mm okay? That seems to be one of the preferred focal lengths of prime lens shooters. The "lauded" 35 is, like, a step back from the derided 40. Would you even know, or care, if you were shooting at 35 or 40 using a zoom? It seems to me that it was difficult for lens makers - for whatever engineering or physics-related reason, to make a 2.0 or faster 35mm lens at a reasonable price. There are very few samples of this spec, all are fairly pricey. Most 35's are f2.8-ish or slower. On the other hand, it seems that lens makers were able to make anything above 40mm (to 55mm) at f2 or faster all day long at reasonable prices. I'll take the faster by a stop or two 40/45, spend way less, have more lenses to chose from, and take one step back. Viola!

 

[Paul T.]

I disagree - and I love the 40mm. They are my two main lenses and they feel very different. I much prefer the 40mm FOV, but my main photos are taken on the Hexar AF, so I make do with its 35mm ... the FOV might not be my taste, but the camera and quality is.

I think if you really like 35mm, 40mm is markedly different, even thought 5mm might not sound like much.

 

[M4streetshooter]

There is a marked difference between the 17 & 20.
I am natural with the 35 fov after 35+ years.
The 40 is stellar and I use it all the time.
I am being trained by the lens to see it's fov in a more natural mode.
That being said, I carry both most times.
The 17 is no slouch and on the Pen 1 with the is,
it's a good all around eye.