Wiyum
Established
While I can agree with many of your conclusions, this point is patently false. Canon and Nikon both make f/2.0 35mm lenses that are quite cheap, quite compact, and quite good for their price. Further, I can only think of one in-production 35mm/2.8 lens, and that's the Zeiss C-Biogon, a lens that's smaller but not markedly cheaper than their 35mm f/2.0 M-mount lens. Leica and Cosina make 35mm f/2.5 lenses, but they also offer faster variations, Cosina again for not much more money. As in all things, the Leica glass is just pricey at every level.
Olympus either got lazy, or cheap, or both in not designing their 17mm lens to be an f/2.0.
count_zero
Established
I agree, other than the pancake form factor, there isn't much value vs. the 14-42mm. The panny 20mm is a much more useful lens for indoor shooting, but like everything wide and fast, it's way over priced.
nightfly
Well-known
All I can say re:40 vs 35 is that I bought a 40mm Summicron because it was cheap when I first bought a Leica and I found myself constantly frustrated by the field of view so I sold it and bought an optically identical 35mm Summicron for significantly more money and was much more pleased. 35 has the ability to look wide or normal to me, depending on how it's used. Field of view matters more to me than speed. I generally shoot pretty quickly in the street and the option of stepping forward or back isn't really open to me, I like to have a focal length that works for my usual shooting distance. Never used zooms so I guess I really don't know how they would figure but if I have the correct focal length for me, I don't feel the need to switch.
Again for me the pancake would be the better option because the sole reason to by a camera like this is the small form factor and difference between the pancake and the zoom is the difference between grabbing it or not.
All could be psychological but whatever, that's how I am.
Again for me the pancake would be the better option because the sole reason to by a camera like this is the small form factor and difference between the pancake and the zoom is the difference between grabbing it or not.
All could be psychological but whatever, that's how I am.
Last edited:
Finder
Veteran
Actually, your line of reasoning is off. Olympus did not make a 35mm lens. They made a 17mm lens (which is about $60 cheaper than the Nikon 35mm). The Nikon (and you would have to include the flange distance) would be huge compared with the Olympus. The closest to the Olympus (following your reasoning) would be a Voightlander 15mm, which is an f/4.5, is significantly more expensive and has no AF or aperture control.
And then the business model is entirely different--how long has the Nikon been in production? Lens, BTW, that was designed for the tolerances of 35mm film, not a m4/3 sensor.
The Olympus is an inexpensive, reasonably priced lens. Going to f/2.0 would have made it much more expensive.
Wiyum
Established
I hear you, but I think that between the flange distance and the image circle, the proper point of comparisson is with the 35mm lenses, scaling all things. Either way, there's no way the difference of 3mm makes that big a difference in possible aperture at a given price point. That a 17mm lens of same size and cost needs to be slightly slower or slightly pricier than a 20mm, I buy; that it needs to be a full stop and a half slower than the Panasonic, I don't. It was a business move, and it likely worked out for them. But I don't believe for a second that the 17mm couldn't be faster and remain price competitive with the 20mm. I imagine Oly simply makes more per lens than Panasonic, and also didn't anticipate Panasonic's lens.
Finder
Veteran
I am not sure your scaling hypothesis works. It does not explain why medium and large format lenses are not only more expensive, but also slower.
Don't get your reasoning. How can $300 lens make more money for Olympus than the $400 lens Panasonic sells. Actually, both those lenses are probably money losers for both companies as novelty lenses tend to be. At best they will get a 5% return on them. However, if the Digital Pen is a great gold mine for Olympus, it does not explain why they made a net loss of 10% last year--camera companies do well if they can clear a 5% profit.
I hate to break the bad news, but you get what you pay for in optics. The competition in this business is fierce--especially if you are not following the pack as Olympus decided to do with their 4/3 and m4/3 line (which is why they are sharing it with Panasonic and Leica). Be grateful that Olympus lost their mind and made the 17mm. They are certainly not price gouging.
I've used the Olympus 17mm some more and I cannot find anything I want to knock about this lens. I guess it isn't the sharpest lens, but it sure is adequate and definetely doesn't seem to have any horrible qualities.