Thank you. I went out and got me one of these lens after watching this video 9 yrs ago. It’s still a great lens today. Also, I just saw your last video from last year and I prayed for you and your family. Thank you for the M43 inspirations and loves.
zoomfx777 My wife has just ordered a wheelbarrow to relieve my shoulders of the weight of my head after that comment :-) Thanks so much, I'm glad you enjoy the videos.
No stupid basball caps inside the house... No heavy metal or country background music... No disgusting tatoos, hair-style or clothes... No poor jokes or cheap talk... No need for big boobs or tiny lingerie to attract more viewers... A calm voice and the skills to explain everything in a simple but complete manner... The knowledge needed to explain the theoretic parts... The experience and ease in the practical / field actions... ...yes, AGREE!!!!!!!
@@davebellamy4867 ...of course!!! I was just talking of the trendy "qualities" that are so dear to the self proclaimed camera clickers but David did not have or need... A simple man and a great photographer... I miss him...may God have his soul in Heaven, among other people of good-will!
This was one of the first primes I ever bought for the system as soon as I could and I have it almost welded to my GX85; accompanied by the 75/45mm f1.8 primes. I find it optically very good indeed and as a general walkabout lens that's as close to 35mm as you can get in the system as possible, it's brilliant. I find myself leaving it in manual focus most of the time for some reason.
David, your videos seem to always leave me smarter. Your background is so valuable... Camera and lens specs are important, but wisdom and experience you apply to your content are worth its weight in gold to me.
Just recently bought it second hand. It is more than superb. Image quality is fantastic and ultra fast. And a real low light performer... Just love it...
The 17mm f/1.8 reminds me of the most lovely old Zuiko lenses from the original 35mm OM camera system. Like the 21mm f/3.5 and the 24, 28 and 35mm f/2.8s.
Because of your review, which I have seen too many times, at last I bought a used copy of this lens today. Took it for a spin on this stormy day and I love it already. 30 yrs ago I owned a Oly OM10 with just 1 lens a 35mm. It was enough then, so it will give lots of fun. Thanks for your inspiring reviews.
I bought it "Used" too but it felt and looked almost like new. Now the new price has come down as of 2022, all the more ironically, as the price of everything else is skyrocketing!
Thanks again David for your insightful reviews. I just purchased this lens slightly used for $300, and it was your review that gave me the confidence to get it. Thanks again!!!
David- thanks for everything you do; you're generally the final authority for me before I make a purchase for my m43. Along with Christopher Frost, when I used my Canon, you two are my favorites.
Andrei Gireada Thanks,Andrei. Yes, I had a 12mm. Very nice but I found used it very little once I'd bought the 12-35 f2.8 zoom. The 12 f2 is very much a wide-angle lens, the 17mm much more general purpose. I'd always go for the 17mm, it's good for so many things.
Yes, the 12-35 f2.8 is a great lens, but the price is quite high as well. My Olympus choice though is due to special prices I can get there + smaller size (the e-p5 has in-body IS). Thanks for the input, it just slighly tilted my balance in the 17mm way :)
dear David, i just bought this lens used on ebay. because i saw many reviews and videos and consider to save so money and buy it. but i have a problem, the lens it supose one of the fastest auto focus but i put it on my lumix g7 and put on auto focus selection and do not do anything, i have to use the manual focus, and even that the images donot look sharp, i think maybe isnot compatible with my panasonic camera, but i have the 45 mm olympus and the 60mm olympus and those 2 autofocus just right and extremely close to sharpness, do i have to set this up some how, let me know your thoughts, i always your deep inside and many of my decitions on equipement have been made after consulting you and see many of your reviews. thanks in advance
Probably my most used of all micro43 lenses - worth every cent - I own Oly 45mm prime too but the 17mm is just so much more useful for most situations - great review as always David
Excellent review, as usual. Clear, well explained and explicit . Perfect timing. I also love this lens myself, but mine is the previous model. I belive that this one is even better. Thanks for all the time you spend with us David. Thanks a lot, i do like your reviews very much. João.
In terms of performance, stopped down to f/4 there's nothing to choose between the two 17mms. Even at f/2/8, it's very sharp in the centre but a bit less so at the edges. It wouldn't be worth changing for sharpness reasons. The f/1.8 feels nicer and is faster with marginally better focusing but if, as most do, you work at around f/4 there's not a lot in it. The compacness of the f/2.8 i it big attraction, as you say.
Goodness...thank you. I recently purchased an Olympus om-d10 mkIII and then purchased this 17mm lens, probably because I udesed to use 35mm when I was young and using film. You are so right. Its fabulous. thanks .
This is my ‘ go to’ site if I want an honest appraisal of a piece of photographic equipment. In this case it was the Olympus 17 mm 1.8. On the strength of that review I bought the lens and am delighted with the choice. Thanks David
0:16 The most aesthetically striking thing is that beautiful little deep red reflection against the black lens. It really fots!the aesthetic of the smalker OMD cameras practically perfectly and gives the cameras such a non intimidating, non intrusive look. As does the 45mm, which is ironically a short telephoto!
Thx for your review, as always, i enjoyed it this time as much as the other times. To the point and concise. I also like it that you don't loose yourself too much in the technicalities and focus on what the reviewed item means to a photographer
Bart Nelis Thank you, Bart. I think that in the final analysis, equipment is a _tool_ for a photographer and optical performance is only a part of its function. Some lenses have character as well. I always know when I really like a lens when I find myself watching TV and playing with a camera/lens at the same time, idly focusing on the TV, framing up on the fireplace. If I try to analyse character, I can't and anyway it is a personal thing. It's interesting to note that, personal as it is, there is often agreement on it. This 17mm has character in spades as does its 45mm brother. The 12-35mm f2.8 Panasonic has none of the attributes that I'd have said give a lens character...but it does have it. Actually, I'm going to give this some thought and see if I can't do a blog piece on it.
@2:29 "it's there just in case" ... "like those vacuum wine bottle stoppers that conserve the remainder of the wine you didn't finish" ~ this cheekster really hit the second time around 😂 truly wonderful review 👏🏽 🌹
Your vids really help me choose my lenses. Not only because they are technicly precised, but also because regarding of the enthousiasm in your voice, in this particular case, I know which one you really prefer between olympus 17mm and lumix 15mm. Thanks !! (Sorry for the mistakes, I'm not natively english writer)
Merci beaucoup, Christophe. Il me plait que vous aimez mes videos. Et notez bien que je ne suis plus un ecriveur de Francais meme que j'habitai a Cahagnolles (pres de Caen) pendant cinq ans. Je suis desole pour le manque d'accents - ils sont dificille avec un clavier Anglais.
hi David. a great review as always now we have a new Olympus lenses and one of them is 17mm f 1.2 what you think about it? ı know you love 17mm f 1.8 lens. is there a big big big difference between two.
I´m happy when a lense has a depth-of-field scale cause I know how to use it :)) IMO a practical camera body without these needless "creative" modes but with manual features and a well-made fast 23/28mm (APS-C) or 17/25mm (M43) or 35/50mm (FX) lens is all enough a beginner should start with to learn the basics of photography - maybe a manual speedlite and a solid tripop with a ballhead as well. This equipment will be totally enough for a longer period of time until a beginner gets more improved and experienced to decide what extra gear he really needs - this will avoid many misinvestments. Way much better than to start with these often low-grade kit zoom lenses. "If your picture isn`t good enough, you`ve been to far away." (Ropert Cappa)
Agree with this review 100%. 17mm f/1.8 is a beautiful performer and I much prefer it to the 20mm. Keep in mind that if you wait for the right discounts to kick in throughout the year, it's not that expensive. In the USA, the Panasonic 20mm is normally about $386 new, the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 was $399 new as recently as a month ago, and that discount seems to happen several times throughout the year.
David, Great review. I just purchased my Olympus E-PL5 and I am LOVING it. I have been looking for the perfect travel camera and I think this is it. I am placing my order for the 17mm based on your review. I plan to do a lot of video and I was happy to see that you found it to be silent. That's what I was hoping for. I'll probably pick up the 45 as well - as soon as I recover from my first lens purchase. I'll be following you channel and look forward to more MFT reviews.
Did you get the 17mm and the 45mm f/1.8s? Eight years after you, I just subscribed to David's channel. I wish he was still here making these videos but he left an excellent legacy and resource.
Thanks for the review, David. I used to use the depth of field scale a lot when I was shooting street photography with a Minox film camera back in the day. If I were to use this camera/lens combination for street photography, I might just use it there too on those instances where I need to be extra quick on the draw, or when I might feel the need to shoot from the hip.
BooLee01 Yes, this is an ideal street lens. In my eyes a straight modern replacement for the old film 35mm lenses. I have had a 35mm or equivalent angle of view all my life. It just hits that sweet spot between wide angle and normal use.
Hmmm, if only every lens or camera review had the same ground-level passion as this one. Thank you, David, for this review. You're a photographer talking candidly about a piece of gear -- that's all I want! And I'm persuaded to give this lens a try on my OMD EM5. Thank you for your time & effort, David.
John Bald Thanks for that, John. As I said, I've always had a fast 17mm or 54ish degree angle of view lens in my kit and this one fits the bill beautifully.
Thanks for the video. The 35mm lens has been a personal favorite of mine for years. I have owned and used the following: 35mm f/3.5 Takumar on Pentax 35mm film SLR 35mm f/2 Nikkor on Nikon 35mm film SLR 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor on Nikon 35mm film SLR 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss on Leica M6 and M10 rangefinders 23mm f/2 Fujinon on Fuji X-Pro1 APS-C digital mirrorless 23mm f/1.4 Fujinon on Fuji X-Pro2 APS-C digital mirrorless However, for some reason, I prefer the 20mm Panasonic to the 17mm Olympus for my micro 4/3 cameras.
Excellent review as always, I'm off to buy one of these. The sharpness queens might not be fanboy's and Girls but the clean image, even tones and manual focus is a win for me. I'm finding myself using manual focus more and more with these M.Zuiko lenses, maybe because I'm over 50 but I suspect it's simply that I feel more involved in the process, the creation of the shot rather than simply click & go which I've never been a fan of.
Thank you, David, for your wonderful review. I've got a chance to try this lens yesterday, indeed it is brilliant. Bought it today together with a PEN F. Best regards Alex
Thanks David! I had the 17 mil....I sold it, bought a used 20mm Pany ver 2, and used the rest towards a Oly 12-40 2.8. You are spot on with your review and between the two it comes down to the focal length and price. Though IMHO, I like the natural contrast and sharpness of the 20mm V2. (I'll live with the focus speed for now.)
I like trading like that myself, sell this to buy that. Great fun and you get a naturally evolving outfit. I'm looking forward to trying the 12-40 Olympus. Great time for M43 lenses and cameras. Loads of choice and not bad buy among them.
Nice to see this David as I've just ordered one [supplementing the 20 f1.7 and 45 f1.8 like yourself]. The idea being to give me a bit more subject isolation than the Oly 12-40 gives me at the same focal length. The only other option being the manual Nokton f0.95 - and my pockets aren't quite that deep [having a lens that heavy in my bag also seems to go some way to defeating the purpose of m4/3 too]. Looking forward to getting my hands on this.
I wonder if you'll keep hold of the 20mm? You may find you don't use it much and the proceeds would go nicely towards a 45mm f1.8. I'm just a troublemaker, really! I agree about the Nokton, nice occasional lens but too big to cart everywhere and a one trick pony in that unless it is opened right up in differs little from other MFT lenses.
David Thorpe I've got the 45 1.8 - it's really a no-brainer at the price. I shot a fairly large series of mug-shot type portraits with it and it's ideal for head and shoulders stuff. I've loved the little 20mm, but you're probably right that it may now seem superfluous. It might however help fund a Leica 25 1.4 - which will be even more useful for DoF control in situation where I can put enough distance between myself and my subjects. Temptation bites again.
Chris Longley Thanks. Yes, it is interesting the way certain focal lengths (angles of view, really), I just work and have carried on doing so since the early part of the last century. Equipment changes but photographers don't!
francesco marullo I had one for the Fs I used at the time. It was regarded as an ultra wide then - equivalent to a 10mm on M4/3 and was a bit too specialist for day to day work. Good lens and very expensive! How would the image quality compare with a Panasonic 20mm do you think? Not that sharpness is the most important thing, I just wondered if it had a 'look' to it.
+Chilupian. CC&C Yes, it would work fine on your G7. Micro Four Thirds is a standard so any Micro Four Thirds lens will work on any Micro Four Thirds camera. It is one of the things that makes the system so popular because you have an enormous choice of lenses. The major differences between lenses are that most Panasonic (but not all) have stabilization built into the lens while (most) Olympus do not.
I borrowed one for a day when Olympus did one of their Experience days down here in the Summer. Haven't been able to get it out of my head since. The 20mm 1.7 mkI has a decent boost in speed on the G6 so I haven't been able to justify a trade in but I still yearn for it somewhat.
Here's hoping for a 45mm and 25mm f1.8 Mark II with that super useful manual focus clutch. I usually keep my camera in C-AF + TR mode, so it's nice on my lenses that have this to be able to drop into manual focus mode without menu diving if I need to...especially on a camera body with focus peaking and manual focus magnification like my OM-D E-M1.
I've been wondering if I should sell off my 20mm Panasonic and get this. The sloooow focusing of that lens does madden me a bit especially during video. Thanks for the review David, you may have pushed me over the edge.
Thanks David Thorpe for this review but dam it made it hard for me. I got 2 camera bodys a E-m10 and E-pm2 and 14-42 , 40-150 , 45mm f1.8 and 60 mm f2.8 macro. The 60mm were the first non kit lens I got and dam the image quality and result of that one made me leave the 14-42 and 40-150 at home. About a week ago I picked up the 45 mm and now that one is on my camera most of the time. The focal length is working better then the 60mm I'am used to. But I have always wanted a good prime that can sit on my camera 90% of the time and only swap when I have a specific type of work and the panasonic 20mm felt as that one, but after watching this review I'm not sure if I should save a bit more for the Oly 17mm f1.8.
Linus Forss I happen to find the 17mm focal length the closest to a do-it-all lens that there is but it's just personal taste, really. The advantages of the 17mm are that it feels more metallic and solid (that's not to say it is in fact any stronger) and that it focuses more quickly, especially in low light. And for video, it avoids te hunting of the 20mm. Plus you have that focusing collar with distance and depth field scale. Personally, I'd pay the extra for the 17mm because it is a lens that is unlikely to be replaced by something better whereas a faster focusing 20mm Panasonic would be worth the upgrade. That's made it even harder for you - I can only say sorry :-)
Great review, David. I saw another review of this lens wherein the reviewer said that the focus ring wobbled. He was using the silver version (don't know if that makes any difference, and the review was done in March 2013). Have you seen wobbling in this lens? If so, is it a deal breaker?
Thanks! If you hold the ring tightly top and bottom and waggle forcefully it backwards and forwards in the direction of the camera body and then away, it moves. The reason is that it has the facility to pull it back to immediately engage manual focus so cannot be completely rigid like a lens that does not have the that facility. It _has_ to slide. Until you mentioned it, I had never noticed it in fact and whoever the reviewer was must have an OCD tendency. The black and silver versions are identical other than the colour (and, bizarrely, sometimes the price). Deal breaker? No, not even a factor.
Great review, thanks. The photo at Watford Junction is excellent but not being a prof photographer, I can't justify the price of this lense. My question is what is the best budget lens to achieve great morning mists like your photo has. Am I right in thinking it is the cheaper 17 mm f2.8 lens please? Thanks for your help.
The cheaper f/2.8 would do the pic just as well. The f/1.8 is sharper, as it should be for the price, and you'd need a lower shutter speed or a higher ISO with the f/2/8. But, little difference to the viewer in this case. The little Panasonic 12-32mm zoom is amazingly sharp and would do just as well. The trick with shots like that is to get the exposure right so bracketing is a good idea. I like the 17mm f/2.8, very compact.
Hey David. I just subscribed due to your informative and nicely structured reviews. Perhaps a review of the 12-32mm panasonic lens that officially came with the GM1. It has mega OIS and 12mm on the wide end sounds promising, only in Europe they sell the lens seperately so far. :) Take care
I'm glad you appreciate the appreciation! Can I ask your opinion? I can't decide on the Olympus 17mm or the Olympus 25mm. I shoot mainly video and use the wicked little Olympus 45 1.8 for my interviews/portrait lens with the GH4. What beautiful combo. I also have the Pana 14-45 3.5 for daytime run & gun. Since I mainly shoot video I have an eye for a tighter frame so if you only could pick one of len's what would be your thoughts?
zoomfx777 That's difficult. My immediate response is the 17mm but that's because I mainly shoot stills and it is a highly useful all round focal length for that. For video I'd be inclined to go for the 25mm because you have a wider angle than the 45mm but it is long enough to keep control of depth of field. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other though, really. In terms of sharpness, your zoom is excellent so the only video advantage of either lens is the wider aperture. Do you find yourself using the wide angle end of the zoom more than the middle? Basing your decision on your personal experience with the zoom might be the best way. The more I think about it, the more I think i might just toss a coin and decide it that way :-)
In the meanwhile I bought this lens for my om-d em-5 ( black lens on silver body). It indeed is well built and relatively heavy. I 'm very happy with it. Although i was a bit disappointed that - with the ring pulled back (for manual focus) the far right stop ends beyond the ∞ / infinity mark. I'd expect this makes hyperfocal focusing a little bit more tricky. Or am i just nitpicking because everything will be sharp, because it is a gentle wide angle lens ?
Bart Nelis t has always been normal for lenses to turn beyond the infinity mark. My Nikkor 200 and 300 both do, as do the two Olympus f/2.8 zooms. However, the infinity mark does mark infinity focus and turning beyond that blurs the image. The hyperfocal distance is not a set thing anyway, since, while depending on lens aperture and distance, it mainly depends on from what distance you will view the subsequent image and the standard of sharpness you require. Your best bet would be to make some exposures with various distance and aperture settings and see what works best for you. You have a lot of DoF with a 17mm on MFT, of course but it's not nitpicking to see where your personal requirements are met and given the capabilities of the lens and camera it's not nitpicking to maximise them.
David Thorpe Many thanks for your quick reply. I guess my (old) minolta lenses are sort of an exception, then: they all stop on the right side exactly in the middle of the ∞ sign. Didn't cross my mind that not all manufacturers follow this rationale. It is nice though that olympus provides this distance scale.
Bart Nelis I can't think why a lens would focus past infinity and if your Minolta lenses don't then there is obviously no reason why others should. I wonder if anyone knows? Certainly if quality makers like Nikon and Olympus do it, it isn't a matter of sloppy manufacture! Maybe they are future proofing them against yet to be discovered dimensions which exist beyond infinity :-)
The 15 or 17mm length is purely personal choice. I favour 17mm myself because I prefer not to have that ubiquitous 'wide-angle landscape' look. 17 isn't wide enough to look wide-angle and I use mine as a general purpose prime. Both are good lenses as you'd expect, both focus fast and are sharp. Difficult to choose! For me, the 17mm.
thanks for nice review. sorry for my poor english, for the sake of this I couldn't understand what lens you think would be better to an olympus body, the panasonic 20mm f1.7 or a m.zuiko 17mm f1.8. I have a pen epl7 body. I thank your ansewr.
Thanks David for a great collection of reviews on M43 lens and cameras! This 17mm Oly lens is one of the lens I have in mind to buy for my E-P5, but I have it in balance with the 12mm f2 Oly because I can get both of them at somewhat discounted prices. Did you by any chance get your hands on the 12mm lens?
David your reviews are superb and your enthusiasm for the micro four thirds system. I own an Olympus EP-5 and several Olympus and Panasonic prime lenses. The size and weight of this system played a big part in switching from Canon. With the likes of Sony and others producing similar compact systems cameras with larger and full frame sensors how do you see the long term future of micro four thirds? Thanks again for your help and advice.
+Terry Staines Thanks for the kind words, Terry. I think the Micro Four Thirds system will continue to do well in the face of larger sensor equipment because of the lenses available, their variety and their compactness for what they do. Micro Four Thirds image quality is reaching a point now where very few photographers _need_ more. There will always be photographers who want more but the larger sensor inevitably means larger lenses. The large choice of body sizes and lens types and sizes mean that Micro Four Thirds continues to satisfy a wide range of applications from carrying in the pocket to street and nature photography. I hope that the equipment doesn't keep getting more expensive but the main thing would be to equal the best DSLRs in terms of continuous auto-focus. There's a lot more competition for everyone now, DSLRs as well!
Thanks for this great review. Glad made the right decision for my first MFT lens. Moving from Canon APS-C to Olympus MFT. Just don't wanna carry the weight anymore. Sold my L-Lenses years ago. Which lens hood is that in the video, btw?
Glad the video was helpful - thanks Ron! The weight, yes, exactly. The lens hood is a cheapie but a goody - I've gad it years. They are here amzn.to/2Rwxqcp
hey david another great review! was just wondering if you'd recommend the 17mm over the 12-35mm in everyday shooting and low light situations? In the 12-35mm review you said that you were getting almost the same low light performance as other fast primes because of the 12-35's OIS... so was wondering what you'd take as an everyday + low light lens, the 17mm or the 12-35mm?
Thanks, Kim! I like to tote the 17mm as a general purpose lens. it's an angle of view I've always liked, the speed is nice. and I enjoy the feel of it and using it. The zoom is more workaday and certainly much more versatile. Basically I use the 17mm for preference it but if I really need to get certain shots, I'd use the 12-35mm. So, casual use, 17mm, more serious use, the 12-35. It is fast enough for most conditions and with the stabilization can shoot in as low light as the 17mm. But, of course, if you have a moving subject, the stabilization doesn't stop motion blur. Cut to the chase, for practical day to day use, the zoom.
thanks for replying david and keep up the good work! really appreciate the personal, precise and witty perspective in your videos. now on to starving myself to afford the 12-35mm haha....
Although I favor the Leica 15mm, I think the 17mm is the most beautiful looking lens in the m43 lineup. It balances amazingly well on a camera like the GX7.
Andre Nygen It is a looker isn't it? Funny that while Olympus make about the ugliest lenses in MFT, the 60mm macro and the 12-50 zoom (both of which I rate highly) they also make one of the prettiest. The 17 looks great with the cheapo lens hood with the cut-outs from eBay, too.
Then there's the 75mm f/1.8! Though that's not "cute" like the 17mm. The 17 epitomises the elegance of MFT and, in particular Olympus design. It reminds me of the old Olympus wide angles, especially the 21mm f/.5 that was ultra wide angle, tiny and gorgeous.
What struck me when I opened the package and took off the lens cap was that gorgeous, rich, deep red reflection, that can be seen at 0:16. In fact, it's on my camera now, as usual, so I just picked it up and looked at it! It also feels beautifully engineered.
Thanks David for another outstanding MFT lens review on one of my favorite focal lengths. I am curious if you have ever tried/used the Voigtlander 17.5mm and your thoughts on that particular lens as compared to the Olympus? Thx again Dale
Thanks Dale. No, never tried the Voigtlander but tests I've read show it to be a great optic. Two stops faster than the Olympus, three times the price and four times the weight with manual focus only. It's a high price to pay and I think I'd find such a spec more useful on a 25 or 45mm. For me it steps too far out of the MFT core values of balancing size with performance and such a lens would make me question why I didn't just go with full frame. But would I like to try one...yes, I would!
David, having a heck of a time deciding between the Oly 17 f1.8 and the PL 25 f1.4. I hate the size and the hod of the 25mm and while I love the 17mm I wish it let in a bit more light. Which would you choose of the two?
No contest for me. The 17mm. It's the best all rounder focal length for prime, _in my opinion_. Mild wide angle of view for city shots and street, long enough (just about) to make a portrait if you include a bit of background. I've never been without one, whether a 35mm on FF or 17mm for Micro Four Thirds. The speed difference is only 1/2 stop. More is better (all things being equal) but in use it doesn't matter much.
Fantastic review , and really helpful. I am looking to buy a lens and can't decide between this 17mm and the panasonic 25 f1.4 , the price range in pounds is fairly similar , but the oly looks so much better and has the size advantage over the 25mm . Yet the 25 mm has that fast f1.4 aperture. I know that u have review both , which do u recommend ( this is for an pen e-p3 , and I already have the 19mm sigma ) ?
Thanks Kenny. You don't present an easy choice, do you :-) The 25 and 17 are really quite different lenses and it would make perfect sense to have both, leaving aside money considerations. For one or the other, I'd pick the 17mm because it is such a versatile focal length. The 25mm is a half stop faster and will give slightly less depth of field. Sharpness, in day to day use you won't notice any real difference, though the 25mm tests better. But then you have the 19mm, which is an excellent performer. To tell you the truth, since you have the 19mm, I'd buy the 45mm f1.8 Olympus. They complement one another very well. If you shop around carefully you might get that _and_ a Panasonic 14mm f2.5 for not much more than the 25mm alone. Those 3 would a make very complete outfit
Hello David... As a beginner, I am considering the 17mm(since it is wide angle) for landscape, but on further research realized that for landscape requires small F-stop(8 or beyond) which I can get from the kit lens itself(14-42mm 3.5-5.6). So other than the obvious low light advantage(which also I can overcome with tripod and reduced shutter speed), what is the real advantage of this lens? Also, with panorama available through software, is wide angle still that much advantage for landscape? Sorry for lots of questions, but would greatly appreciate your thoughts
The big advantage of the 17mm f/1.8 is not only its speed but that it is a lot sharper than the pancake kit kits lens that comes with many cameras. The bigger Olympus kit lenses are better but even so, the 17mm will be a lot sharper. The best sharpness of the f/1.8 lens is about f/5.6. Stopping down to f/8 takes the edge off the sharpness of many Micro Four Thirds lenses due diffraction starting to set in. Unless you have something very close to the camera, you usually don't need to stop down to f/8 for landscape anyway. Panoramas, they're great but quite specialized in that they give a wide but narrow picture which, while showing you the scene, is not usually very pleasing to the eye. The standard 4:3 gives a much more compositionally pleasing picture but it's not really landscape in the general meaning of the word. For example, viewed in a tablet or phone, it gives a thin strip of a picture, too small to show much detail. The 17mm is a superb general purpose lens in its own right, of course.
Thank you for review! I'm trying to choose the lens for my EM5MII. Main aim is night landscape photography. I am considering samyang 12mm f2 and Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm f1.8. I could not find a comparative review of the pair of lenses. Especially important for me the sharpness of the lenses at fastest aperture and coma aberration. Can you advise me anything? Thank you!
+Viktor Gabyshev The Achilles heel of any fast wide-angle is edge sharpness wide open. You need to stop down about 2 stops to get the best of any of them The 17mm Olympus is better wide open than the Samyang by a long chalk but none, including the 15mm Panasonic will stand up to close scrutiny. This may not be what you expected but at 12mm, the 12-40mm f/2.8 Olympus zoom is crisp edge to edge and much better than any of the primes, centre and edge. It's just as good at 17mm. Plus, CA and distortion is low. Given the superb image stabilization of the E-M5ll, a stop less light gathering is not crucial.
+David Thorpe Thanks for reply! Unfortunately 12-40mm f/2.8 Olympus zoom is too expensive for me as well as Zuiko 12mm f/2.0. Do you consider that samyang 12mm f2 is a APS-C lens? It means the edge will be cutted on MFT body. I hope it make final image sharper. Thank you!
+Viktor Gabyshev If you stop the Samyang down to f/5.6 it is as good as any lens available. It is actually an MFT lens. It really all depends on how critical you will be. No wide aperture wide angle made will give good edge sharpness wide open. For myself that doesn't worry me. For landscape you can usually use a tripod but your Olympus body has such good stabilization that stopping down to f/4 or 5.6 should not be a problem. Centre sharpness of the Samyang is superb, by the way. Funnily enough, I use a 45mm for a lot of my landscapes rather than wideangle.
Nice review David. Curious, now that you've owned this lens for several months. Have you actively used video recording with CAF? There's a common problem where the lens eventually rattles/makes clicking sounds during video with CAF engaged.
No, I haven't used it for video much. There's so much work going on behind the scenes with video on continuous auto focus and auto exposure that I guess it's not surpising some noise gets through. I try it out - is it very loud?
Martial Studiôs That example is quite extreme and enough to spoil a video. I've just tried my 17mm f1.8 and, yes there is a bit clicking but it's only apparent with the mic gain turned right up and in a practically silent room. I don't have an Olympus body to hand so this is on my GX7 which has very sensitive audio recording. It wouldn't be a problem under normal conditions. On the other hand, the same conditions with my Panasonic 12-32mm yield a _completely_ silent video so I suppose there need be no clicking at all with an MFT lens. Certainly clicking as loud as in the video you quote must be a faulty lens.
Thanks in major part {99%} to your review, I bought the Olympus 17mm f1.8 for my new Olympus E M10 two days ago. I haven't had a chance to use it yet but i'm looking forward to it. I also bought the Sigma 30mm newest edition."I'm new to this" photography, so I need all the advise I can get. Your pictures are beautiful!!! Thanks again.
Stella Townsend I'm glad my videos are helpful, even more flattered that you like my pictures. You'll love the 17mm and probably never get rid of it. As I always say, if I was restricted to one, non-zoom lens for anything I wanted to do, it's have to be the 17mm. It's great to be new to photography - all that fun and exploration of how the camera sees.
Hi David Thorpe ... Am seriously considering getting the Panasonic GM5 and was wondering if you could tell me if this lens' features work on it 100%. You mentioned that it did for your GX7 (at least switching from manual to auto aperture). Am particularly interested on image stabilization with this lens and the GM5. Would also be interested to hear your thoughts about getting the GM5 with the Leica 15mm 1.7 lens as there seems to be a GM5 packaged with this lens... Thanks in advance.
It's an MFT standard lens so will function any any MFT camera. The 17mm functions perfectly with the GM5 and doesn't jut out under the body slightly as it does with the GM1. The manual focus collar works fine BUT - there is no image stabilization. The GX7 has IS built into the body but is the only Panasonic to do so. Neither this lens or the 15mm are stabilized. It's less necessary with a wide angle lens, especially a fast one but I'd prefer to have it than not! I have a review on the 15mm and it's a lovely lens but I just prerer the 17mm focal length. The GM5 is ideally suited to the 12-32mm zoom - tiny and stabilized.
Yes, I've seen your review of both lenses and noticed that you did have the preference over the Olympus. I actually love the design of the Olympus as well as the 35mm focal length. Are you still enjoying the GM5? Is there anything that the GM5 has that the GX7 doesn't?
Ron Festejo The GM5 has the snap movie facility that the GX7 doesn't and in theory the focusing would be faster but I can't feel it. The simple fact that the GX7 has in body stabilization swings it for me with this lens. The GM5 is better _only if _ the size is crucial. The Olympus 17mm just feels like a lens should to me.
David Thorpe Size isn't crucial... but it is the main factor for my next camera. I love having something that you can take anywhere. It makes want to carry it around everywhere I go. I think the GM5 has a good mix between features and size, for me. I think that if I end up getting the GM5 I'll probably get it with its normal kit lens and just buy the Olympus 17mm separately. Can't go wrong with that eh? :)
Great videos! I have the Olympus OMD E-M5 and want to get a prime lens as I don't own any. Which one should I get? I was planning to get the Panasonic 25mm or the Olympus 25mm but if there is a just own lens please let me know. Thanks!
The one prime lens I think _every_ MFT user should have is the Olympus 45mm f1.8. It can give nicely narrow depth of field wide open, is very sharp and cheap as well. It's great for portraits and landscape and as a street lens too. Otherwise, this 17mm or maybe the Panaonic 15mm f1.7. I don't find so much use for 25mm lenses but either of you mention are good performers, so just go on feel and price.
To be honest, I have the 17mm f1.8 and I think it should be a lot sharper for the price. Maybe just save up and get the Olympus 12mm since that's sharper and better for landscape, while still alright for street etc. Or get the Pansonic "Leica" 25mm which is also amazing. The 17mm f1.8 is, however, a great street and travel lens. It's a bit below the best of the best in MFT lenses though. The 45mm that David mentions is probably my #1 recommendation for the price. It takes really amazing pictures and you can get it for like three hundred dollars these days. However, you'll find that it's not a good general purpose lens--since is a 90mm equivalent it's really only good for taking pictures of peoples upper bodies, or pictures of similarly small areas. Also it really cannot focus very close so it's not good for restaurant shots. It takes GREAT pictures, but it's of limited used compared to buying a 12mm, 17mm, 20mm, or 25mm.
I will have to see what Davies take in this is to know what's what. No worries that you had not got around to it yet as I found this review on a lens I have. To be shown places I know as seen by you makes me want to try harder. I had the Mk 1 20mm f1.7 Panasonic once and replaced it with this, I wonder if you would have the same. A terrific informative entertaining nailed review as always although I don't suppose you were thanked for one image included.
Thanks, Michael. Glad you like the pix, I do try to avoid just taking stuff that simply shows the technical capabilities of a lens but major more on what it might be good for. I actually did replace my 20mm with this lens, no surprise since we know that great minds think alike! 😎
your videos are so calming and humorous. i'm in a dilemma of choosing an oly 17mm f1.8 or a panny 25mm f/1.7. i'm leaning towards the 25mm because it's much cheaper, but is the 35mm focal length equivalent worth more? i just want one super versatile prime lens and so stumped. also does the oly 17mm distort the face if i shoot decently close up portraits? thank you in advance!
Thanks! I prefer the 17mm because it is mildly wide angle which gives it a little more versatility in street and urban situations. It is usually much easier to get a little closer than it is to back away in towns. However, is used for frame filling portraits, it will tend to give the big nose effect, simply as a result of being closer to your subject. If you want a lens predominantly for close up portraits, therefore, the 25mmm will be better. If you are going to be doing mainly half length portraits, waist up, sau and general purpose things, then the 17mm will be better. Many portraits are shot with some background included to give a sense of location. A 17mm will do this better. For me, there is no question, like every news and press photographer I have always used a 17mm (35mm in FF) as a standard lens as simply the best all-rounder. But I would stress, it will always be a matter of personal preference in the end.
also 1 more question: is the oly 17mm snap back focus ring spin forever like the 25mm or is does it stop? i'm looking for an autofocus lens that has a manual focus feel for video, although both are by wire.
for someone just moving to m4/3 it's probably a great deal when bought with the EP-5 and viewfinder ( prices have just dropped again...) unfortunately they don't seem to offer it as a kit with much else ( bean counters are counting...) eg- the EM-1 only has the 12-40 as a kit lens...just wish they would let you mix 'n match...
It'd be nice to get a discount on any lens bought with the body. It's all marketing, though and I'm guessing that they can sell all the primes they want without any financial incentive,
Hi David, This 17 is really an under-rated prime. I compared it to the Pana 20/1.7. Very close in image quality at well-lit conditions, but in low light -- no contest. The focus speed of the 17 wins hands down. What's your opinion about a compact travel companion? 17 + the 25/1.8? Or the 45/1.8? I don't do a lot of portraits, and I find the 45 is too tight for indoor situations like museums. But its optical quality is incredible. I know you're nuts about the 45, and justifiably so. The 25 is a more "natural" vantage lens, I suppose. Our eyes see the world in 50mm (25 MFT) or very close to it. Thanks for some very useful and well-produced videos! Pete
Glad you like the videos, Peter, thanks. I'd prefer to pair the 17 with the 45mm myself because the 17 can do most of what you might want for a 25mm and the 45 is really different. For me it's not just portraits but I do like it for landscapes too. But we all have our own feelings on things like that - the answer is just to buy one of everything! I'm kidding, course. If I'm going out with just one lens, it's the 17mm.
Thank you, David. Good advice as usual. +10. I only realized the 17 could "mimic" the 25, by moving meself around more actively. Duh. (btw The 17 at f2.8 to f4 is really unbeatable under sunlit conds. ) Keep up the great work. P.
Hi Peter - a point I often mention about zoom lenses is that they shouldn't be used to just fill the frame from where you happen to be standing to save walking. Filling the frame with the same shot at 14mm or 25mm or 42mm makes a huge difference to the perspective and thus the picture.
Hi - yes it's a Micro Four Thirds lens so will fit any Micro Four Thirds camera and work as expected. Glad the video was helpful - enjoy the 17mm, I do!
Yes, Olympus do skimp on things like that. I use ones from my Panasonic lenses. Forgot the lens hood. Amazon have them here amzn.to/2EpQt1H (UK) or amzn.to/2E4wWUP (USA).
victorbart yes i know, in fact i wrote fast prime not wide angle ;) my question was more like: is for example the olympus 45 1.8 comparable to a canon 50mm 1.8 FD? sorry if it's a bit OT
victorbart It would be interesting to know how an older Nikkor 20mm, an extreme wide in its day, would perform on M43 since you'd be using just the centre section. But even then it'd only be a 40mm. Back in the 70s my newspaper was lent a 14mm extreme wide to play with but that was mounted permanently on the body to get the lens/ body registration exact
mayspeis I don't have any real vintage lenses but I have been using a Pentax Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro with a Pentax>M43 mount. It works superbly well but is hard to keep still on macro due to the 4x mag. I'm just trying an Olympus 60mm macro and find the shorter focal length much easier to handle.
The 17mm 1.8 is my first high quality lens. It rarely leaves my camera because the image quality is just superb. This little lens just works, even wide open It's difficult to get a bad shot. I do lots of night shooting around Bangkok which has so many photo-opportunities. It has a remarkable dynamic range that lends itself to the environment I like to shoot. Bummer about the lens hood though.
Great lens, you sum up exactly, it just works, The lens hood, it's just so silly but the one I have is very cheap. Nevertheless, a petty annoyance. Especially when Olympus want £60 for their own.
Thank you sir! I look forward to seeing the 25mm 1.8. The Panasonic 1.4 fills the bill for the focal length but it's about time Olympus had their own nice metal example. I'd love a 45mm f1.8 with similar quality build to the 17mm for the 45mm too, same optics would be fine..Then Olympus would have as good a set of basic primes as you can get - 12, 17, 25, 45, 75. Add a 150mm f2,8 with the same build and what a set of lenses!
David Thorpe Hi! What do you mean by "I'd love a 45mm f1.8 with similar quality build to the 17mm" ? I have a 45mm from olympus, and i'm getting now the 17mm, but you think the 45mm has inferior built quality? Thanks :)
In the long term, the Olympus would be cheaper because there's no reason why you would ever want to get rid of it. A great pairing with the 45mm, too. At the short end of your zoom, the Sigma (a very good lens in its own right) only gives you a half stop more light gathering. The 17mm is offering nearly 2 stops more, well worth having.
Yes, I do. The two f/2.8 zoom, 40-150 and 12-40. Downside, size and weight (though _only_ relative to Micro Four Thirds standards), upside image and build quality. And they feel great in the hand, too.
I bought my e-m10 with the Oly 25 1.8 and 45 1.8. I also have a used Oly 40-150. For wide angle, is this 17mm better than the Panasonic 14mm? I think my main lens is the 25mm. Does it make sense to spend twice the money for something that doesn't see a lot of use? I never owned a 35 mm equivalent lens. Tried it on the kit lens, not sure if I like it more or less than the 50mm equivalent.
+Michael Yang The 14mm is a better addition to your lens set anyway since it has that much more angle of view and gives you the classic prime set of each one being about twice the focal length of the next one. I happen to like the 17mm angle of view but many photographers prefer 25mm. The 24mm is lovely and compact as well as being a good performer at a good price.
+David Thorpe Thanks for your comments! My original plan was to get the 17, 25 and 45. But the panasonic 14 is a lot cheaper and smaller. I thought it might be a better 'secondary' lens, which stays in the bag most of the time. But every time I watch your review of the 17, I want to go out and buy it. There's something special about the metal built, maybe. Bought a 14 on eBay yesterday. If I see the 17 go on sale again, I might still get it just to try out. Love your videos. Thanks for sharing them with us.
+Michael Yang Hi Michael - yes, the 17mm is nice because of the feel and build and the manual focusing collar. But it would be less useful for you than the 14mm. I don't think of the 17mm as being part of a set, more as a standalone general purpose lens. So if I'm going out I'll often just take that lens. It' just a useful compromise, really. Not great for anything but good enough for most things. It's not better optically than the 14mm but like I say just an all round useful lens. Some people prefer a 25mm but I always use to base my film kit around 24mm - 35mm - 85mm - 180mm so the 17mm got to be a habit. Thanks for the kind words, by the way.
+David Thorpe Thank you again for your response. I don't know enough or have enough experience to say which focal length suits me best, obviously :-) If I go out with just one lens, it'll be the 25mm. I think you also have the 12-32. Is it a better choice than the 14mm to complement the 25 or 17 plus the 45? A friend is selling his for $100. I tend to buy lenses that don't get used as much as they should. Normally, one lens would end up on the body for 70-80% of the time. Not sure if it's the same for others ...
+Michael Yang The 12-32 is a very sweet lens. Not much bigger than the 14mm and at that price, if it is all in good condition an excellent buy. A very good complement to your other lenses. You lose a bit of speed, of course but that's an inevitable trade-off for the versatility. There is a tendency with some of the earlier 12-32mm for the lens barrel to come unstuck. Mine did but some resin glue did the trick. Might be worthwhile asking if your friend's has had that problem.
Dear David, I am trying to move away from my Nikon D800 because of my travel requirements. I am looking at Olympus EM5 Mark ii and I am looking at these lenses: 12mm f2.0, 17mm f2.0, 25mm f1.8, 45mm f1.8 and the cheap 40-150 for $100, I am a prime shooter. I would like to ask for your professional opinion. Which of these lenses would you buy for Landscape, Street shooting and possibly Portrait. FYI: I already own the Fujifilm XT-1 with 18-55 2,8-4.0. But in Camera stabilization has attracted me to Olympus. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
Massoud Zamani I use the 45mm a lot for landscape because I like the perspective it gives. The two must have lenses in my view are the 17mm f/1.8 and the 45mm f/1.8. The 40-150 is an amazing lens for the price, light , compact and sharp, an excellent travel lens. However, for conventional landscape, the 12mm, street the 17mm and portrait the 45mm. I'd add the 40-150 to make an incredibly effective travel outfit. I'm just finishing a review of the E-M5 Mk2 - it's a little small for my preferences but that's not a problem if it is set up carefully. The stabilization is beyond wonderful and for travel would mean that you' rarely need a tripod. The 25mm focal length, I've never found great use for it myself and would leave that one out. You'll feel the benefit of MFT when you are travelling - your entire outfit can probably be held in the palm of one hand. Yet you give away virtually no _meaningful_ IQ.
Funny....I am re-purchasing all of these smaller primes as my kit got quite advanced and larger with the likes of the EM-1 II and the Oly PRO lenses..I sold some of the small lenses off to finance the new gear.....I currently have a couple of PEN-F bodies (and more money than I used to!), and I want to make a "small" street/all-round kit and I have one of these coming in from Hong Kong on a bargain price. I think I am trying to put the "micro" back into my Micro Four Thirds. I am amazed at the WIDE varying opinions regarding this lens (David touches on that at the beginning of the review). Many reviewers (and a fews owners) put the image quality of the lens down quite significantly. I had the lens when it was new on a E-P5 Kit that I purchased and just loved it. Thought that the reviewers had it wrong, (what they got right was the occasional shutter shock on the E-P5! LOL)...but is it perhaps wide variation in individual copies (Olympus is not known for that)??? Not sure... I have seen one Sharpness Chart at ePhotozine and it was quite good (like I remember about the lens that I owned), sharp in center wide open and sharp across the frame at f/4.. Not sure what to make of it all. Hope that I am going to get a good copy and I will definitely take a close look at the results from my Hong Kong special, LOL!...but I am expecting the joyful results that David talks about in his review above. I think he has it right, and perhaps many others got it wrong.....We shall see.
I've seen nothing to suggest Olympus lenses vary a great deal from copy to copy but there are bound to be variations I suppose. My 17mm is very good and I use it at f/2 most of the time. With the kind of streetish stuff I do with it edge sharpness doesn't affect my images, though that's not to say it doesn't matter. don't find it lacking, though. For me, it has a decent wide aperture, is compact, fast focusing and a sturdy build. I think with lenses like this testing them on lens charts at close distances doesn't do them justice. The reviewers who actually _use_ this lens don't seem to complain about its sharpness. There are faster (and bigger) and maybe sharper lenses of this genre but the little Olympus on a GX80 or Pen F just feels and works right. I'm sure yours will turn out to be good - this is a truly classic MFT lens as far as I'm concerned.
Dave I need a lens for low light in churches etc, what's the best Olympus variant I'm stuck between the 17 and 45 any others? My current is the 12 40 pro thanks
MrTobamory There's the 12mm f/2 which would sound like your best bet. It's a stop faster but no sharper (probably not as sharp) as the 12-40 zoom. I'm not sure the cost benefit ratio would be worth it. Voightlander do a 10.5mm f.0.95 but that would have very little depth of field and is manual. Olympus have the 25mm f/1.8, of course and you might think about the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4. All in all, I think you ay be best to stay with the zoom and just up the ISO!
Thank you. I went out and got me one of these lens after watching this video 9 yrs ago. It’s still a great lens today. Also, I just saw your last video from last year and I prayed for you and your family. Thank you for the M43 inspirations and loves.
David Thorpe's videos are like fine aging wine.
I've come to a conclusion David that you are the best reviewer on TH-cam hands-down, keep up the great work!!
zoomfx777 My wife has just ordered a wheelbarrow to relieve my shoulders of the weight of my head after that comment :-) Thanks so much, I'm glad you enjoy the videos.
No stupid basball caps inside the house...
No heavy metal or country background music...
No disgusting tatoos, hair-style or clothes...
No poor jokes or cheap talk...
No need for big boobs or tiny lingerie to attract more viewers...
A calm voice and the skills to explain everything in a simple but complete manner...
The knowledge needed to explain the theoretic parts...
The experience and ease in the practical / field actions...
...yes, AGREE!!!!!!!
@@GAUROCH2 Plus GREAT photographs!
@@davebellamy4867
...of course!!!
I was just talking of the trendy "qualities" that are so dear to the self proclaimed camera clickers but David did not have or need...
A simple man and a great photographer...
I miss him...may God have his soul in Heaven, among other people of good-will!
RIP. What a wonderful man.
This was one of the first primes I ever bought for the system as soon as I could and I have it almost welded to my GX85; accompanied by the 75/45mm f1.8 primes. I find it optically very good indeed and as a general walkabout lens that's as close to 35mm as you can get in the system as possible, it's brilliant. I find myself leaving it in manual focus most of the time for some reason.
David, your videos seem to always leave me smarter. Your background is so valuable... Camera and lens specs are important, but wisdom and experience you apply to your content are worth its weight in gold to me.
Thanks so much! I try to think through my videos and its nice to know it is noticed.
Just recently bought it second hand. It is more than superb. Image quality is fantastic and ultra fast. And a real low light performer... Just love it...
I still miss your reviews David! RIP 🙏
David, you're the best. Poetic and concise, thanks!
+G Arfaras Wow! Thanks very much.
The 17mm f/1.8 reminds me of the most lovely old Zuiko lenses from the original 35mm OM camera system. Like the 21mm f/3.5 and the 24, 28 and 35mm f/2.8s.
Because of your review, which I have seen too many times, at last I bought a used copy of this lens today. Took it for a spin on this stormy day and I love it already. 30 yrs ago I owned a Oly OM10 with just 1 lens a 35mm. It was enough then, so it will give lots of fun. Thanks for your inspiring reviews.
Lovely to hear that, thanks. I've just been out, one camera with my 17mm on it. I just shoot at f/2 most of the time. A classic lens.
I bought it "Used" too but it felt and looked almost like new. Now the new price has come down as of 2022, all the more ironically, as the price of everything else is skyrocketing!
I really look forward to all your reviews, David. You've made me a an M43 fan. Thank you!
Thanks Dustin. It's a good system isn't it?
I rarely ever leave comments but wanted to let you know that your reviews are absolutely great!
+Jaladhi Pujara Your comments may be rare but this one is appreciated! Thanks.
Thanks again David for your insightful reviews. I just purchased this lens slightly used for $300, and it was your review that gave me the confidence to get it. Thanks again!!!
David- thanks for everything you do; you're generally the final authority for me before I make a purchase for my m43. Along with Christopher Frost, when I used my Canon, you two are my favorites.
I'm flattered you feel that way. Thanks and I hope my stuff continues to be of use to you.
Andrei Gireada Thanks,Andrei. Yes, I had a 12mm. Very nice but I found used it very little once I'd bought the 12-35 f2.8 zoom. The 12 f2 is very much a wide-angle lens, the 17mm much more general purpose. I'd always go for the 17mm, it's good for so many things.
Yes, the 12-35 f2.8 is a great lens, but the price is quite high as well. My Olympus choice though is due to special prices I can get there + smaller size (the e-p5 has in-body IS). Thanks for the input, it just slighly tilted my balance in the 17mm way :)
Andrei Gireada That's true, the 12-35 is much more expensive. I'm a big fan of the 17mm f1.8 and the 45mm f1.8 too.
Thanks to your review on 17mm f1.8, I got this lens and I am very happy with the results. Not too sharp! The pictures look just right!!!
Lovely lens and so versatile. You'll like it more and more.
dear David, i just bought this lens used on ebay. because i saw many reviews and videos and consider to save so money and buy it. but i have a problem, the lens it supose one of the fastest auto focus but i put it on my lumix g7 and put on auto focus selection and do not do anything, i have to use the manual focus, and even that the images donot look sharp, i think maybe isnot compatible with my panasonic camera, but i have the 45 mm olympus and the 60mm olympus and those 2 autofocus just right and extremely close to sharpness, do i have to set this up some how, let me know your thoughts, i always your deep inside and many of my decitions on equipement have been made after consulting you and see many of your reviews.
thanks in advance
Probably my most used of all micro43 lenses - worth every cent - I own Oly 45mm prime too but the 17mm is just so much more useful for most situations - great review as always David
Thanks. Yes, It seems about the single most useful prime focal length there is. Wide but not too wide and long enough to give a natural perspective.
Excellent review, as usual. Clear, well explained and explicit . Perfect timing.
I also love this lens myself, but mine is the previous model. I belive that this one is even better. Thanks for all the time you spend with us David.
Thanks a lot, i do like your reviews very much.
João.
Thanks João, I appreciate your kind words very much. Is yours the f/2.8? it's less sharp but much more compact.
+David Thorpe yes, it is 2.8. I really like it is só small and compact.
Regards David.
In terms of performance, stopped down to f/4 there's nothing to choose between the two 17mms. Even at f/2/8, it's very sharp in the centre but a bit less so at the edges. It wouldn't be worth changing for sharpness reasons. The f/1.8 feels nicer and is faster with marginally better focusing but if, as most do, you work at around f/4 there's not a lot in it. The compacness of the f/2.8 i it big attraction, as you say.
+David Thorpe Thanks David. Best regards.
Goodness...thank you. I recently purchased an Olympus om-d10 mkIII and then purchased this 17mm lens, probably because I udesed to use 35mm when I was young and using film. You are so right. Its fabulous. thanks .
This is my ‘ go to’ site if I want an honest appraisal of a piece of photographic equipment. In this case it was the Olympus 17 mm 1.8. On the strength of that review I bought the lens and am delighted with the choice. Thanks David
0:16 The most aesthetically striking thing is that beautiful little deep red reflection against the black lens. It really fots!the aesthetic of the smalker OMD cameras practically perfectly and gives the cameras such a non intimidating, non intrusive look. As does the 45mm, which is ironically a short telephoto!
Thx for your review, as always, i enjoyed it this time as much as the other times. To the point and concise. I also like it that you don't loose yourself too much in the technicalities and focus on what the reviewed item means to a photographer
Bart Nelis Thank you, Bart. I think that in the final analysis, equipment is a _tool_ for a photographer and optical performance is only a part of its function. Some lenses have character as well. I always know when I really like a lens when I find myself watching TV and playing with a camera/lens at the same time, idly focusing on the TV, framing up on the fireplace.
If I try to analyse character, I can't and anyway it is a personal thing. It's interesting to note that, personal as it is, there is often agreement on it. This 17mm has character in spades as does its 45mm brother. The 12-35mm f2.8 Panasonic has none of the attributes that I'd have said give a lens character...but it does have it. Actually, I'm going to give this some thought and see if I can't do a blog piece on it.
@2:29 "it's there just in case" ... "like those vacuum wine bottle stoppers that conserve the remainder of the wine you didn't finish" ~ this cheekster really hit the second time around 😂 truly wonderful review 👏🏽 🌹
Your vids really help me choose my lenses. Not only because they are technicly precised, but also because regarding of the enthousiasm in your voice, in this particular case, I know which one you really prefer between olympus 17mm and lumix 15mm. Thanks !! (Sorry for the mistakes, I'm not natively english writer)
Merci beaucoup, Christophe. Il me plait que vous aimez mes videos. Et notez bien que je ne suis plus un ecriveur de Francais meme que j'habitai a Cahagnolles (pres de Caen) pendant cinq ans. Je suis desole pour le manque d'accents - ils sont dificille avec un clavier Anglais.
Now THIS is how a review should be!
Stellar - thx.
Thanks you, Stefan!
Great review....once again. A stunning lens. Clarity, lightness and super focus even for low light street work.. love it...
Thanks!
A brilliant video review and perspective David. Your videos are always a pleasure to watch.
Thanks Paul - glad you enjoyed it.
hi David. a great review as always
now we have a new Olympus lenses and one of them is 17mm f 1.2
what you think about it? ı know you love 17mm f 1.8 lens. is there a big big big difference between two.
I´m happy when a lense has a depth-of-field scale cause I know how to use it :))
IMO a practical camera body without these needless "creative" modes but with manual features and a well-made fast 23/28mm (APS-C) or 17/25mm (M43) or 35/50mm (FX) lens is all enough a beginner should start with to learn the basics of photography - maybe a manual speedlite and a solid tripop with a ballhead as well. This equipment will be totally enough for a longer period of time until a beginner gets more improved and experienced to decide what extra gear he really needs - this will avoid many misinvestments. Way much better than to start with these often low-grade kit zoom lenses. "If your picture isn`t good enough, you`ve been to far away." (Ropert Cappa)
Agree with this review 100%. 17mm f/1.8 is a beautiful performer and I much prefer it to the 20mm. Keep in mind that if you wait for the right discounts to kick in throughout the year, it's not that expensive. In the USA, the Panasonic 20mm is normally about $386 new, the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 was $399 new as recently as a month ago, and that discount seems to happen several times throughout the year.
David, Great review. I just purchased my Olympus E-PL5 and I am LOVING it. I have been looking for the perfect travel camera and I think this is it. I am placing my order for the 17mm based on your review. I plan to do a lot of video and I was happy to see that you found it to be silent. That's what I was hoping for. I'll probably pick up the 45 as well - as soon as I recover from my first lens purchase. I'll be following you channel and look forward to more MFT reviews.
Thanks! The 17mm and 45mm, classic combo. You'll love the 45mm too. and a bargain price for such an optic.
Did you get the 17mm and the 45mm f/1.8s? Eight years after you, I just subscribed to David's channel. I wish he was still here making these videos but he left an excellent legacy and resource.
Thanks for the review, David.
I used to use the depth of field scale a lot when I was shooting street photography with a Minox film camera back in the day. If I were to use this camera/lens combination for street photography, I might just use it there too on those instances where I need to be extra quick on the draw, or when I might feel the need to shoot from the hip.
BooLee01 Yes, this is an ideal street lens. In my eyes a straight modern replacement for the old film 35mm lenses. I have had a 35mm or equivalent angle of view all my life. It just hits that sweet spot between wide angle and normal use.
Hmmm, if only every lens or camera review had the same ground-level passion as this one. Thank you, David, for this review. You're a photographer talking candidly about a piece of gear -- that's all I want! And I'm persuaded to give this lens a try on my OMD EM5. Thank you for your time & effort, David.
John Bald Thanks for that, John. As I said, I've always had a fast 17mm or 54ish degree angle of view lens in my kit and this one fits the bill beautifully.
I love all your reviews...... It makes me really want to listen again and again
It's very good to heart that - thanks Oyeleye!
Thanks for the video.
The 35mm lens has been a personal favorite of mine for years.
I have owned and used the following:
35mm f/3.5 Takumar on Pentax 35mm film SLR
35mm f/2 Nikkor on Nikon 35mm film SLR
35mm f/1.4 Nikkor on Nikon 35mm film SLR
35mm f/1.4 Zeiss on Leica M6 and M10 rangefinders
23mm f/2 Fujinon on Fuji X-Pro1 APS-C digital mirrorless
23mm f/1.4 Fujinon on Fuji X-Pro2 APS-C digital mirrorless
However, for some reason, I prefer the 20mm Panasonic to the 17mm Olympus for my micro 4/3 cameras.
Excellent review as always, I'm off to buy one of these. The sharpness queens might not be fanboy's and Girls but the clean image, even tones and manual focus is a win for me. I'm finding myself using manual focus more and more with these M.Zuiko lenses, maybe because I'm over 50 but I suspect it's simply that I feel more involved in the process, the creation of the shot rather than simply click & go which I've never been a fan of.
Thanks, Martyn. I especially like the fact that it has proper and stops to the manual focusing too.
Thank you, David, for your wonderful review. I've got a chance to try this lens yesterday, indeed it is brilliant. Bought it today together with a PEN F.
Best regards
Alex
Pen F and the 17mm - great combo! For even better good looks, get the cheapo lens hood with the gaps in it!
Thank you, already got one! :)
Dirt cheap yet nicely made of metal and very stylish. No wonder you've got one already!
I use a nikkor 20mm from 1983 beautiful and superb quality one of my best lens on my gh3 and it help me learning the photography
your channel is a great source of information for people (like me) considering M43
That's what I intend and I'm glad to heart it - thanks!
Excellent review. I'm glad you compared the Oly to the 20mm Panny, as those were the two I've been trying to decide between. Thanks!
Excellent! Thanks
Thanks David! I had the 17 mil....I sold it, bought a used 20mm Pany ver 2, and used the rest towards a Oly 12-40 2.8. You are spot on with your review and between the two it comes down to the focal length and price. Though IMHO, I like the natural contrast and sharpness of the 20mm V2. (I'll live with the focus speed for now.)
I like trading like that myself, sell this to buy that. Great fun and you get a naturally evolving outfit. I'm looking forward to trying the 12-40 Olympus. Great time for M43 lenses and cameras. Loads of choice and not bad buy among them.
Nice to see this David as I've just ordered one [supplementing the 20 f1.7 and 45 f1.8 like yourself]. The idea being to give me a bit more subject isolation than the Oly 12-40 gives me at the same focal length. The only other option being the manual Nokton f0.95 - and my pockets aren't quite that deep [having a lens that heavy in my bag also seems to go some way to defeating the purpose of m4/3 too].
Looking forward to getting my hands on this.
I wonder if you'll keep hold of the 20mm? You may find you don't use it much and the proceeds would go nicely towards a 45mm f1.8. I'm just a troublemaker, really!
I agree about the Nokton, nice occasional lens but too big to cart everywhere and a one trick pony in that unless it is opened right up in differs little from other MFT lenses.
David Thorpe I've got the 45 1.8 - it's really a no-brainer at the price. I shot a fairly large series of mug-shot type portraits with it and it's ideal for head and shoulders stuff. I've loved the little 20mm, but you're probably right that it may now seem superfluous. It might however help fund a Leica 25 1.4 - which will be even more useful for DoF control in situation where I can put enough distance between myself and my subjects. Temptation bites again.
thanks, you touched on all my questions - and did the comparison to the 20mm - as a street guy for my focus speed is important, cheers!
Glad it was useful, Thorsten.
Great review, also loved the background info on the history / popularity of the focal length
Chris Longley Thanks. Yes, it is interesting the way certain focal lengths (angles of view, really), I just work and have carried on doing so since the early part of the last century. Equipment changes but photographers don't!
francesco marullo I had one for the Fs I used at the time. It was regarded as an ultra wide then - equivalent to a 10mm on M4/3 and was a bit too specialist for day to day work. Good lens and very expensive!
How would the image quality compare with a Panasonic 20mm do you think? Not that sharpness is the most important thing, I just wondered if it had a 'look' to it.
If you want i will send you a raw let me see if i find a good Image
A proper review! Thanks very much, you made a lot of good and interesting points. The AF demo was incredible!
***** Thanks - good to hear that!
Im kind of new to MfT, Would this work on my panasonic G7? Would the autofocus work as normal? Many thanks for your channel!
+Chilupian. CC&C Yes, it would work fine on your G7. Micro Four Thirds is a standard so any Micro Four Thirds lens will work on any Micro Four Thirds camera. It is one of the things that makes the system so popular because you have an enormous choice of lenses.
The major differences between lenses are that most Panasonic (but not all) have stabilization built into the lens while (most) Olympus do not.
Another great video! Thanks. I always wait for them.
Thanks! I aim to keep them coming.
I borrowed one for a day when Olympus did one of their Experience days down here in the Summer. Haven't been able to get it out of my head since. The 20mm 1.7 mkI has a decent boost in speed on the G6 so I haven't been able to justify a trade in but I still yearn for it somewhat.
I know that emotion!. It's a really nice feeling lens but not necessarily worth the cost of 'upgrading' when looked at strictly rationally.
You are one of my favourite reviewers David. I would like to see you do a review on the Olympus 12mm-f2 M.Zuiko lens.
Thanks, Anthony. I used to have a 12mm f/2 but sld it to buy the 12-40mm f/2.8 zoom. But if one comes my way, I'll certainly review it.
Here's hoping for a 45mm and 25mm f1.8 Mark II with that super useful manual focus clutch. I usually keep my camera in C-AF + TR mode, so it's nice on my lenses that have this to be able to drop into manual focus mode without menu diving if I need to...especially on a camera body with focus peaking and manual focus magnification like my OM-D E-M1.
Was about to get the panny 25 1,8. Got this one used for 300 euro. I think I made a good deal. I will recieve it tomorrow! Can't wait!
One of my must have lenses. I've had a fast 17mm or equivalent ever since I started using 35mm cameras back when.
One word - Quality.
Thanks again.
Thank you, Paul!
I've been wondering if I should sell off my 20mm Panasonic and get this. The sloooow focusing of that lens does madden me a bit especially during video. Thanks for the review David, you may have pushed me over the edge.
Thanks David Thorpe for this review but dam it made it hard for me. I got 2 camera bodys a E-m10 and E-pm2 and 14-42 , 40-150 , 45mm f1.8 and 60 mm f2.8 macro. The 60mm were the first non kit lens I got and dam the image quality and result of that one made me leave the 14-42 and 40-150 at home. About a week ago I picked up the 45 mm and now that one is on my camera most of the time. The focal length is working better then the 60mm I'am used to. But I have always wanted a good prime that can sit on my camera 90% of the time and only swap when I have a specific type of work and the panasonic 20mm felt as that one, but after watching this review I'm not sure if I should save a bit more for the Oly 17mm f1.8.
Linus Forss I happen to find the 17mm focal length the closest to a do-it-all lens that there is but it's just personal taste, really. The advantages of the 17mm are that it feels more metallic and solid (that's not to say it is in fact any stronger) and that it focuses more quickly, especially in low light. And for video, it avoids te hunting of the 20mm. Plus you have that focusing collar with distance and depth field scale.
Personally, I'd pay the extra for the 17mm because it is a lens that is unlikely to be replaced by something better whereas a faster focusing 20mm Panasonic would be worth the upgrade. That's made it even harder for you - I can only say sorry :-)
Great review, David. I saw another review of this lens wherein the reviewer said that the focus ring wobbled. He was using the silver version (don't know if that makes any difference, and the review was done in March 2013). Have you seen wobbling in this lens? If so, is it a deal breaker?
Thanks! If you hold the ring tightly top and bottom and waggle forcefully it backwards and forwards in the direction of the camera body and then away, it moves. The reason is that it has the facility to pull it back to immediately engage manual focus so cannot be completely rigid like a lens that does not have the that facility. It _has_ to slide.
Until you mentioned it, I had never noticed it in fact and whoever the reviewer was must have an OCD tendency. The black and silver versions are identical other than the colour (and, bizarrely, sometimes the price). Deal breaker? No, not even a factor.
Thanks again. I will order the lens without concern now. You are a gem, sir.
***** You'll love the lens!
Great review, thanks. The photo at Watford Junction is excellent but not being a prof photographer, I can't justify the price of this lense. My question is what is the best budget lens to achieve great morning mists like your photo has. Am I right in thinking it is the cheaper 17 mm f2.8 lens please? Thanks for your help.
The cheaper f/2.8 would do the pic just as well. The f/1.8 is sharper, as it should be for the price, and you'd need a lower shutter speed or a higher ISO with the f/2/8. But, little difference to the viewer in this case.
The little Panasonic 12-32mm zoom is amazingly sharp and would do just as well. The trick with shots like that is to get the exposure right so bracketing is a good idea. I like the 17mm f/2.8, very compact.
Hey David. I just subscribed due to your informative and nicely structured reviews. Perhaps a review of the 12-32mm panasonic lens that officially came with the GM1. It has mega OIS and 12mm on the wide end sounds promising, only in Europe they sell the lens seperately so far. :) Take care
Just received mine, very impressive little gem. thxs for the review!
Great video! I am sold on this lens. Thank you so much for sharing your review.
Thanks, Eddie. An E-M1 Mk2 is sitting on my desk at this very moment - with this lens on it.
😄
I'm glad you appreciate the appreciation! Can I ask your opinion? I can't decide on the Olympus 17mm or the Olympus 25mm. I shoot mainly video and use the wicked little Olympus 45 1.8 for my interviews/portrait lens with the GH4. What beautiful combo. I also have the Pana 14-45 3.5 for daytime run & gun. Since I mainly shoot video I have an eye for a tighter frame so if you only could pick one of len's what would be your thoughts?
zoomfx777 That's difficult. My immediate response is the 17mm but that's because I mainly shoot stills and it is a highly useful all round focal length for that. For video I'd be inclined to go for the 25mm because you have a wider angle than the 45mm but it is long enough to keep control of depth of field. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other though, really. In terms of sharpness, your zoom is excellent so the only video advantage of either lens is the wider aperture. Do you find yourself using the wide angle end of the zoom more than the middle? Basing your decision on your personal experience with the zoom might be the best way. The more I think about it, the more I think i might just toss a coin and decide it that way :-)
In the meanwhile I bought this lens for my om-d em-5 ( black lens on silver body). It indeed is well built and relatively heavy. I 'm very happy with it. Although i was a bit disappointed that - with the ring pulled back (for manual focus) the far right stop ends beyond the ∞ / infinity mark. I'd expect this makes hyperfocal focusing a little bit more tricky. Or am i just nitpicking because everything will be sharp, because it is a gentle wide angle lens ?
Bart Nelis t has always been normal for lenses to turn beyond the infinity mark. My Nikkor 200 and 300 both do, as do the two Olympus f/2.8 zooms. However, the infinity mark does mark infinity focus and turning beyond that blurs the image. The hyperfocal distance is not a set thing anyway, since, while depending on lens aperture and distance, it mainly depends on from what distance you will view the subsequent image and the standard of sharpness you require. Your best bet would be to make some exposures with various distance and aperture settings and see what works best for you. You have a lot of DoF with a 17mm on MFT, of course but it's not nitpicking to see where your personal requirements are met and given the capabilities of the lens and camera it's not nitpicking to maximise them.
David Thorpe Many thanks for your quick reply. I guess my (old) minolta lenses are sort of an exception, then: they all stop on the right side exactly in the middle of the ∞ sign. Didn't cross my mind that not all manufacturers follow this rationale. It is nice though that olympus provides this distance scale.
Bart Nelis I can't think why a lens would focus past infinity and if your Minolta lenses don't then there is obviously no reason why others should. I wonder if anyone knows? Certainly if quality makers like Nikon and Olympus do it, it isn't a matter of sloppy manufacture! Maybe they are future proofing them against yet to be discovered dimensions which exist beyond infinity :-)
Nice one, David. Does this stuff fit for landscapes or maybe getting the leica 15mm f1.7 would be better? Thank you, David.
The 15 or 17mm length is purely personal choice. I favour 17mm myself because I prefer not to have that ubiquitous 'wide-angle landscape' look. 17 isn't wide enough to look wide-angle and I use mine as a general purpose prime. Both are good lenses as you'd expect, both focus fast and are sharp. Difficult to choose! For me, the 17mm.
thanks for nice review. sorry for my poor english, for the sake of this I couldn't understand what lens you think would be better to an olympus body, the panasonic 20mm f1.7 or a m.zuiko 17mm f1.8. I have a pen epl7 body. I thank your ansewr.
Thanks David for a great collection of reviews on M43 lens and cameras! This 17mm Oly lens is one of the lens I have in mind to buy for my E-P5, but I have it in balance with the 12mm f2 Oly because I can get both of them at somewhat discounted prices. Did you by any chance get your hands on the 12mm lens?
David your reviews are superb and your enthusiasm for the micro four thirds system. I own an Olympus EP-5 and several Olympus and Panasonic prime lenses. The size and weight of this system played a big part in switching from Canon. With the likes of Sony and others producing similar compact systems cameras with larger and full frame sensors how do you see the long term future of micro four thirds? Thanks again for your help and advice.
+Terry Staines Thanks for the kind words, Terry. I think the Micro Four Thirds system will continue to do well in the face of larger sensor equipment because of the lenses available, their variety and their compactness for what they do.
Micro Four Thirds image quality is reaching a point now where very few photographers _need_ more. There will always be photographers who want more but the larger sensor inevitably means larger lenses. The large choice of body sizes and lens types and sizes mean that Micro Four Thirds continues to satisfy a wide range of applications from carrying in the pocket to street and nature photography.
I hope that the equipment doesn't keep getting more expensive but the main thing would be to equal the best DSLRs in terms of continuous auto-focus. There's a lot more competition for everyone now, DSLRs as well!
That's so helpful David. Many thanks for your reply.
Thanks for this great review. Glad made the right decision for my first MFT lens. Moving from Canon APS-C to Olympus MFT. Just don't wanna carry the weight anymore. Sold my L-Lenses years ago. Which lens hood is that in the video, btw?
Glad the video was helpful - thanks Ron! The weight, yes, exactly. The lens hood is a cheapie but a goody - I've gad it years. They are here amzn.to/2Rwxqcp
Superb review David, well done! I always look forward to your next review, keep them coming please.
Thanks Farouk - I hope to keep them coming.
Wonderful presentation - as usual. Thanks
hey david another great review! was just wondering if you'd recommend the 17mm over the 12-35mm in everyday shooting and low light situations? In the 12-35mm review you said that you were getting almost the same low light performance as other fast primes because of the 12-35's OIS... so was wondering what you'd take as an everyday + low light lens, the 17mm or the 12-35mm?
Thanks, Kim! I like to tote the 17mm as a general purpose lens. it's an angle of view I've always liked, the speed is nice. and I enjoy the feel of it and using it. The zoom is more workaday and certainly much more versatile. Basically I use the 17mm for preference it but if I really need to get certain shots, I'd use the 12-35mm. So, casual use, 17mm, more serious use, the 12-35. It is fast enough for most conditions and with the stabilization can shoot in as low light as the 17mm. But, of course, if you have a moving subject, the stabilization doesn't stop motion blur.
Cut to the chase, for practical day to day use, the zoom.
thanks for replying david and keep up the good work! really appreciate the personal, precise and witty perspective in your videos. now on to starving myself to afford the 12-35mm haha....
Although I favor the Leica 15mm, I think the 17mm is the most beautiful looking lens in the m43 lineup. It balances amazingly well on a camera like the GX7.
Andre Nygen It is a looker isn't it? Funny that while Olympus make about the ugliest lenses in MFT, the 60mm macro and the 12-50 zoom (both of which I rate highly) they also make one of the prettiest. The 17 looks great with the cheapo lens hood with the cut-outs from eBay, too.
Then there's the 75mm f/1.8! Though that's not "cute" like the 17mm. The 17 epitomises the elegance of MFT and, in particular Olympus design. It reminds me of the old Olympus wide angles, especially the 21mm f/.5 that was ultra wide angle, tiny and gorgeous.
What struck me when I opened the package and took off the lens cap was that gorgeous, rich, deep red reflection, that can be seen at 0:16. In fact, it's on my camera now, as usual, so I just picked it up and looked at it! It also feels beautifully engineered.
Thanks David for another outstanding MFT lens review on one of my favorite focal lengths. I am curious if you have ever tried/used the Voigtlander 17.5mm and your thoughts on that particular lens as compared to the Olympus? Thx again Dale
Thanks Dale. No, never tried the Voigtlander but tests I've read show it to be a great optic. Two stops faster than the Olympus, three times the price and four times the weight with manual focus only. It's a high price to pay and I think I'd find such a spec more useful on a 25 or 45mm.
For me it steps too far out of the MFT core values of balancing size with performance and such a lens would make me question why I didn't just go with full frame. But would I like to try one...yes, I would!
David, having a heck of a time deciding between the Oly 17 f1.8 and the PL 25 f1.4. I hate the size and the hod of the 25mm and while I love the 17mm I wish it let in a bit more light. Which would you choose of the two?
No contest for me. The 17mm. It's the best all rounder focal length for prime, _in my opinion_. Mild wide angle of view for city shots and street, long enough (just about) to make a portrait if you include a bit of background. I've never been without one, whether a 35mm on FF or 17mm for Micro Four Thirds. The speed difference is only 1/2 stop. More is better (all things being equal) but in use it doesn't matter much.
Love your videos. Thanks!
+wyo russ Thank you for telling me - much appreciated!
Fantastic review , and really helpful. I am looking to buy a lens and can't decide between this 17mm and the panasonic 25 f1.4 , the price range in pounds is fairly similar , but the oly looks so much better and has the size advantage over the 25mm . Yet the 25 mm has that fast f1.4 aperture. I know that u have review both , which do u recommend ( this is for an pen e-p3 , and I already have the 19mm sigma ) ?
Thanks Kenny. You don't present an easy choice, do you :-)
The 25 and 17 are really quite different lenses and it would make perfect sense to have both, leaving aside money considerations.
For one or the other, I'd pick the 17mm because it is such a versatile focal length. The 25mm is a half stop faster and will give slightly less depth of field. Sharpness, in day to day use you won't notice any real difference, though the 25mm tests better. But then you have the 19mm, which is an excellent performer.
To tell you the truth, since you have the 19mm, I'd buy the 45mm f1.8 Olympus. They complement one another very well. If you shop around carefully you might get that _and_ a Panasonic 14mm f2.5 for not much more than the 25mm alone. Those 3 would a make very complete outfit
Good overview. My go to lens on M43.
Thanks Kevin. I agree, a true general purpose lens that is a pleasure to use as well.
Hello David... As a beginner, I am considering the 17mm(since it is wide angle) for landscape, but on further research realized that for landscape requires small F-stop(8 or beyond) which I can get from the kit lens itself(14-42mm 3.5-5.6). So other than the obvious low light advantage(which also I can overcome with tripod and reduced shutter speed), what is the real advantage of this lens? Also, with panorama available through software, is wide angle still that much advantage for landscape? Sorry for lots of questions, but would greatly appreciate your thoughts
The big advantage of the 17mm f/1.8 is not only its speed but that it is a lot sharper than the pancake kit kits lens that comes with many cameras. The bigger Olympus kit lenses are better but even so, the 17mm will be a lot sharper. The best sharpness of the f/1.8 lens is about f/5.6. Stopping down to f/8 takes the edge off the sharpness of many Micro Four Thirds lenses due diffraction starting to set in. Unless you have something very close to the camera, you usually don't need to stop down to f/8 for landscape anyway.
Panoramas, they're great but quite specialized in that they give a wide but narrow picture which, while showing you the scene, is not usually very pleasing to the eye. The standard 4:3 gives a much more compositionally pleasing picture but it's not really landscape in the general meaning of the word. For example, viewed in a tablet or phone, it gives a thin strip of a picture, too small to show much detail.
The 17mm is a superb general purpose lens in its own right, of course.
Thank you for review! I'm trying to choose the lens for my EM5MII. Main aim is night landscape photography. I am considering samyang 12mm f2 and Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm f1.8. I could not find a comparative review of the pair of lenses. Especially important for me the sharpness of the lenses at fastest aperture and coma aberration. Can you advise me anything? Thank you!
+Viktor Gabyshev The Achilles heel of any fast wide-angle is edge sharpness wide open. You need to stop down about 2 stops to get the best of any of them The 17mm Olympus is better wide open than the Samyang by a long chalk but none, including the 15mm Panasonic will stand up to close scrutiny.
This may not be what you expected but at 12mm, the 12-40mm f/2.8 Olympus zoom is crisp edge to edge and much better than any of the primes, centre and edge. It's just as good at 17mm. Plus, CA and distortion is low. Given the superb image stabilization of the E-M5ll, a stop less light gathering is not crucial.
+David Thorpe Thanks for reply! Unfortunately 12-40mm f/2.8 Olympus zoom is too expensive for me as well as Zuiko 12mm f/2.0. Do you consider that samyang 12mm f2 is a APS-C lens? It means the edge will be cutted on MFT body. I hope it make final image sharper. Thank you!
+Viktor Gabyshev If you stop the Samyang down to f/5.6 it is as good as any lens available. It is actually an MFT lens. It really all depends on how critical you will be. No wide aperture wide angle made will give good edge sharpness wide open. For myself that doesn't worry me. For landscape you can usually use a tripod but your Olympus body has such good stabilization that stopping down to f/4 or 5.6 should not be a problem.
Centre sharpness of the Samyang is superb, by the way. Funnily enough, I use a 45mm for a lot of my landscapes rather than wideangle.
Thank you! I made my choice. I just recieved my samyang 12 mm, and it's true, it is very sharp! Thanks for examples!
Nice review David. Curious, now that you've owned this lens for several months. Have you actively used video recording with CAF? There's a common problem where the lens eventually rattles/makes clicking sounds during video with CAF engaged.
No, I haven't used it for video much. There's so much work going on behind the scenes with video on continuous auto focus and auto exposure that I guess it's not surpising some noise gets through.
I try it out - is it very loud?
Martial Studiôs That example is quite extreme and enough to spoil a video. I've just tried my 17mm f1.8 and, yes there is a bit clicking but it's only apparent with the mic gain turned right up and in a practically silent room. I don't have an Olympus body to hand so this is on my GX7 which has very sensitive audio recording. It wouldn't be a problem under normal conditions.
On the other hand, the same conditions with my Panasonic 12-32mm yield a _completely_ silent video so I suppose there need be no clicking at all with an MFT lens. Certainly clicking as loud as in the video you quote must be a faulty lens.
Thanks in major part {99%} to your review, I bought the Olympus 17mm f1.8 for my new Olympus E M10 two days ago. I haven't had a chance to use it yet but i'm looking forward to it. I also bought the Sigma 30mm newest edition."I'm new to this" photography, so I need all the advise I can get. Your pictures are beautiful!!! Thanks again.
Stella Townsend I'm glad my videos are helpful, even more flattered that you like my pictures. You'll love the 17mm and probably never get rid of it. As I always say, if I was restricted to one, non-zoom lens for anything I wanted to do, it's have to be the 17mm. It's great to be new to photography - all that fun and exploration of how the camera sees.
Thank you I have much to look forward to experiencing.
Hi David Thorpe ... Am seriously considering getting the Panasonic GM5 and was wondering if you could tell me if this lens' features work on it 100%. You mentioned that it did for your GX7 (at least switching from manual to auto aperture). Am particularly interested on image stabilization with this lens and the GM5.
Would also be interested to hear your thoughts about getting the GM5 with the Leica 15mm 1.7 lens as there seems to be a GM5 packaged with this lens... Thanks in advance.
It's an MFT standard lens so will function any any MFT camera. The 17mm functions perfectly with the GM5 and doesn't jut out under the body slightly as it does with the GM1. The manual focus collar works fine BUT - there is no image stabilization. The GX7 has IS built into the body but is the only Panasonic to do so. Neither this lens or the 15mm are stabilized. It's less necessary with a wide angle lens, especially a fast one but I'd prefer to have it than not! I have a review on the 15mm and it's a lovely lens but I just prerer the 17mm focal length.
The GM5 is ideally suited to the 12-32mm zoom - tiny and stabilized.
Yes, I've seen your review of both lenses and noticed that you did have the preference over the Olympus. I actually love the design of the Olympus as well as the 35mm focal length. Are you still enjoying the GM5? Is there anything that the GM5 has that the GX7 doesn't?
Ron Festejo The GM5 has the snap movie facility that the GX7 doesn't and in theory the focusing would be faster but I can't feel it. The simple fact that the GX7 has in body stabilization swings it for me with this lens. The GM5 is better _only if _ the size is crucial. The Olympus 17mm just feels like a lens should to me.
David Thorpe Size isn't crucial... but it is the main factor for my next camera. I love having something that you can take anywhere. It makes want to carry it around everywhere I go. I think the GM5 has a good mix between features and size, for me. I think that if I end up getting the GM5 I'll probably get it with its normal kit lens and just buy the Olympus 17mm separately. Can't go wrong with that eh? :)
Great videos!
I have the Olympus OMD E-M5 and want to get a prime lens as I don't own any. Which one should I get? I was planning to get the Panasonic 25mm or the Olympus 25mm but if there is a just own lens please let me know. Thanks!
The one prime lens I think _every_ MFT user should have is the Olympus 45mm f1.8. It can give nicely narrow depth of field wide open, is very sharp and cheap as well. It's great for portraits and landscape and as a street lens too.
Otherwise, this 17mm or maybe the Panaonic 15mm f1.7. I don't find so much use for 25mm lenses but either of you mention are good performers, so just go on feel and price.
To be honest, I have the 17mm f1.8 and I think it should be a lot sharper for the price. Maybe just save up and get the Olympus 12mm since that's sharper and better for landscape, while still alright for street etc. Or get the Pansonic "Leica" 25mm which is also amazing. The 17mm f1.8 is, however, a great street and travel lens. It's a bit below the best of the best in MFT lenses though.
The 45mm that David mentions is probably my #1 recommendation for the price. It takes really amazing pictures and you can get it for like three hundred dollars these days. However, you'll find that it's not a good general purpose lens--since is a 90mm equivalent it's really only good for taking pictures of peoples upper bodies, or pictures of similarly small areas. Also it really cannot focus very close so it's not good for restaurant shots. It takes GREAT pictures, but it's of limited used compared to buying a 12mm, 17mm, 20mm, or 25mm.
Thank you for this great review David. Will the GX7 auto correct Chromatic Aberration for this lens?
I will have to see what Davies take in this is to know what's what. No worries that you had not got around to it yet as I found this review on a lens I have. To be shown places I know as seen by you makes me want to try harder. I had the Mk 1 20mm f1.7 Panasonic once and replaced it with this, I wonder if you would have the same. A terrific informative entertaining nailed review as always although I don't suppose you were thanked for one image included.
Thanks, Michael. Glad you like the pix, I do try to avoid just taking stuff that simply shows the technical capabilities of a lens but major more on what it might be good for. I actually did replace my 20mm with this lens, no surprise since we know that great minds think alike! 😎
your videos are so calming and humorous. i'm in a dilemma of choosing an oly 17mm f1.8 or a panny 25mm f/1.7. i'm leaning towards the 25mm because it's much cheaper, but is the 35mm focal length equivalent worth more? i just want one super versatile prime lens and so stumped. also does the oly 17mm distort the face if i shoot decently close up portraits? thank you in advance!
Thanks! I prefer the 17mm because it is mildly wide angle which gives it a little more versatility in street and urban situations. It is usually much easier to get a little closer than it is to back away in towns. However, is used for frame filling portraits, it will tend to give the big nose effect, simply as a result of being closer to your subject.
If you want a lens predominantly for close up portraits, therefore, the 25mmm will be better. If you are going to be doing mainly half length portraits, waist up, sau and general purpose things, then the 17mm will be better. Many portraits are shot with some background included to give a sense of location. A 17mm will do this better.
For me, there is no question, like every news and press photographer I have always used a 17mm (35mm in FF) as a standard lens as simply the best all-rounder. But I would stress, it will always be a matter of personal preference in the end.
David Thorpe thanks! you're a hero!
also 1 more question: is the oly 17mm snap back focus ring spin forever like the 25mm or is does it stop? i'm looking for an autofocus lens that has a manual focus feel for video, although both are by wire.
It has stops at closest and infinity, plus when it snaps back you can see a depth of field scale.
for someone just moving to m4/3 it's probably a great deal when bought with the EP-5 and viewfinder ( prices have just dropped again...) unfortunately they don't seem to offer it as a kit with much else ( bean counters are counting...) eg- the EM-1 only has the 12-40 as a kit lens...just wish they would let you mix 'n match...
It'd be nice to get a discount on any lens bought with the body. It's all marketing, though and I'm guessing that they can sell all the primes they want without any financial incentive,
Hi David,
This 17 is really an under-rated prime. I compared it to the Pana 20/1.7. Very close in image quality at well-lit conditions, but in low light -- no contest. The focus speed of the 17 wins hands down.
What's your opinion about a compact travel companion? 17 + the 25/1.8? Or the 45/1.8? I don't do a lot of portraits, and I find the 45 is too tight for indoor situations like museums. But its optical quality is incredible. I know you're nuts about the 45, and justifiably so. The 25 is a more "natural" vantage lens, I suppose. Our eyes see the world in 50mm (25 MFT) or very close to it.
Thanks for some very useful and well-produced videos!
Pete
Glad you like the videos, Peter, thanks. I'd prefer to pair the 17 with the 45mm myself because the 17 can do most of what you might want for a 25mm and the 45 is really different. For me it's not just portraits but I do like it for landscapes too. But we all have our own feelings on things like that - the answer is just to buy one of everything! I'm kidding, course. If I'm going out with just one lens, it's the 17mm.
Thank you, David. Good advice as usual. +10.
I only realized the 17 could "mimic" the 25, by moving meself around more actively. Duh.
(btw The 17 at f2.8 to f4 is really unbeatable under sunlit conds. )
Keep up the great work.
P.
Hi Peter - a point I often mention about zoom lenses is that they shouldn't be used to just fill the frame from where you happen to be standing to save walking. Filling the frame with the same shot at 14mm or 25mm or 42mm makes a huge difference to the perspective and thus the picture.
Great review David. So this will fit my Panasonic Gh5 just fine? Looks like this will be my 2nd lens.
Hi - yes it's a Micro Four Thirds lens so will fit any Micro Four Thirds camera and work as expected. Glad the video was helpful - enjoy the 17mm, I do!
The hardest part is finding a lens cover
Yes, Olympus do skimp on things like that. I use ones from my Panasonic lenses. Forgot the lens hood. Amazon have them here amzn.to/2EpQt1H (UK) or amzn.to/2E4wWUP (USA).
Hi David, talking about fast prime, do you use any vintage lenses like canon FD mount with your micro 4/3 bodies?
And due the MFT crop factor of 2, there are not many wide angle options in old lenses.
victorbart yes i know, in fact i wrote fast prime not wide angle ;) my question was more like: is for example the olympus 45 1.8 comparable to a canon 50mm 1.8 FD? sorry if it's a bit OT
victorbart It would be interesting to know how an older Nikkor 20mm, an extreme wide in its day, would perform on M43 since you'd be using just the centre section. But even then it'd only be a 40mm. Back in the 70s my newspaper was lent a 14mm extreme wide to play with but that was mounted permanently on the body to get the lens/ body registration exact
mayspeis I don't have any real vintage lenses but I have been using a Pentax Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro with a Pentax>M43 mount. It works superbly well but is hard to keep still on macro due to the 4x mag. I'm just trying an Olympus 60mm macro and find the shorter focal length much easier to handle.
The 17mm 1.8 is my first high quality lens. It rarely leaves my camera because the image quality is just superb. This little lens just works, even wide open It's difficult to get a bad shot. I do lots of night shooting around Bangkok which has so many photo-opportunities. It has a remarkable dynamic range that lends itself to the environment I like to shoot. Bummer about the lens hood though.
Great lens, you sum up exactly, it just works, The lens hood, it's just so silly but the one I have is very cheap. Nevertheless, a petty annoyance. Especially when Olympus want £60 for their own.
Great Video, I always watch your videos with a little classical music in the background. 😊
I find that very pleasing thought - thanks very much, Ervin
Fantastic as always!
How excited are you for the new Olympus 25mm f1.8 that's coming out?
Thank you sir! I look forward to seeing the 25mm 1.8. The Panasonic 1.4 fills the bill for the focal length but it's about time Olympus had their own nice metal example.
I'd love a 45mm f1.8 with similar quality build to the 17mm for the 45mm too, same optics would be fine..Then Olympus would have as good a set of basic primes as you can get - 12, 17, 25, 45, 75. Add a 150mm f2,8 with the same build and what a set of lenses!
David Thorpe Hi! What do you mean by "I'd love a 45mm f1.8 with similar quality build to the 17mm" ? I have a 45mm from olympus, and i'm getting now the 17mm, but you think the 45mm has inferior built quality? Thanks :)
is it worth the extra money going for this or should I get a sigma 19mm 2.8 as an always on lens? I already own the 14-42mm kit lens and the 45mm 1.8.
In the long term, the Olympus would be cheaper because there's no reason why you would ever want to get rid of it. A great pairing with the 45mm, too. At the short end of your zoom, the Sigma (a very good lens in its own right) only gives you a half stop more light gathering. The 17mm is offering nearly 2 stops more, well worth having.
+David Thorpe guess i'll save up for the 17mm then :--)
thank you
Thank you David. Just curious, do you ever use anynof the Olympus zoom lenses? Thanks
Yes, I do. The two f/2.8 zoom, 40-150 and 12-40. Downside, size and weight (though _only_ relative to Micro Four Thirds standards), upside image and build quality. And they feel great in the hand, too.
I bought my e-m10 with the Oly 25 1.8 and 45 1.8. I also have a used Oly 40-150. For wide angle, is this 17mm better than the Panasonic 14mm? I think my main lens is the 25mm. Does it make sense to spend twice the money for something that doesn't see a lot of use?
I never owned a 35 mm equivalent lens. Tried it on the kit lens, not sure if I like it more or less than the 50mm equivalent.
+Michael Yang The 14mm is a better addition to your lens set anyway since it has that much more angle of view and gives you the classic prime set of each one being about twice the focal length of the next one.
I happen to like the 17mm angle of view but many photographers prefer 25mm. The 24mm is lovely and compact as well as being a good performer at a good price.
+David Thorpe Thanks for your comments!
My original plan was to get the 17, 25 and 45. But the panasonic 14 is a lot cheaper and smaller. I thought it might be a better 'secondary' lens, which stays in the bag most of the time. But every time I watch your review of the 17, I want to go out and buy it. There's something special about the metal built, maybe.
Bought a 14 on eBay yesterday. If I see the 17 go on sale again, I might still get it just to try out.
Love your videos. Thanks for sharing them with us.
+Michael Yang Hi Michael - yes, the 17mm is nice because of the feel and build and the manual focusing collar. But it would be less useful for you than the 14mm. I don't think of the 17mm as being part of a set, more as a standalone general purpose lens. So if I'm going out I'll often just take that lens.
It' just a useful compromise, really. Not great for anything but good enough for most things. It's not better optically than the 14mm but like I say just an all round useful lens. Some people prefer a 25mm but I always use to base my film kit around 24mm - 35mm - 85mm - 180mm so the 17mm got to be a habit.
Thanks for the kind words, by the way.
+David Thorpe Thank you again for your response. I don't know enough or have enough experience to say which focal length suits me best, obviously :-) If I go out with just one lens, it'll be the 25mm.
I think you also have the 12-32. Is it a better choice than the 14mm to complement the 25 or 17 plus the 45? A friend is selling his for $100.
I tend to buy lenses that don't get used as much as they should. Normally, one lens would end up on the body for 70-80% of the time. Not sure if it's the same for others ...
+Michael Yang The 12-32 is a very sweet lens. Not much bigger than the 14mm and at that price, if it is all in good condition an excellent buy. A very good complement to your other lenses. You lose a bit of speed, of course but that's an inevitable trade-off for the versatility.
There is a tendency with some of the earlier 12-32mm for the lens barrel to come unstuck. Mine did but some resin glue did the trick. Might be worthwhile asking if your friend's has had that problem.
David I always enjoy you're reviews... Cheers...
Great to hear that - thanks!
Dear David, I am trying to move away from my Nikon D800 because of my travel requirements. I am looking at Olympus EM5 Mark ii and I am looking at these lenses:
12mm f2.0, 17mm f2.0, 25mm f1.8, 45mm f1.8 and the cheap 40-150 for $100, I am a prime shooter. I would like to ask for your professional opinion. Which of these lenses would you buy for Landscape, Street shooting and possibly Portrait. FYI: I already own the Fujifilm XT-1 with 18-55 2,8-4.0. But in Camera stabilization has attracted me to Olympus.
Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
Massoud Zamani I use the 45mm a lot for landscape because I like the perspective it gives. The two must have lenses in my view are the 17mm f/1.8 and the 45mm f/1.8. The 40-150 is an amazing lens for the price, light , compact and sharp, an excellent travel lens. However, for conventional landscape, the 12mm, street the 17mm and portrait the 45mm. I'd add the 40-150 to make an incredibly effective travel outfit. I'm just finishing a review of the E-M5 Mk2 - it's a little small for my preferences but that's not a problem if it is set up carefully. The stabilization is beyond wonderful and for travel would mean that you' rarely need a tripod. The 25mm focal length, I've never found great use for it myself and would leave that one out.
You'll feel the benefit of MFT when you are travelling - your entire outfit can probably be held in the palm of one hand. Yet you give away virtually no _meaningful_ IQ.
such a beautiful review ! Thanks, mate !
Glad you liked it -thanks!
Funny....I am re-purchasing all of these smaller primes as my kit got quite advanced and larger with the likes of the EM-1 II and the Oly PRO lenses..I sold some of the small lenses off to finance the new gear.....I currently have a couple of PEN-F bodies (and more money than I used to!), and I want to make a "small" street/all-round kit and I have one of these coming in from Hong Kong on a bargain price. I think I am trying to put the "micro" back into my Micro Four Thirds. I am amazed at the WIDE varying opinions regarding this lens (David touches on that at the beginning of the review). Many reviewers (and a fews owners) put the image quality of the lens down quite significantly. I had the lens when it was new on a E-P5 Kit that I purchased and just loved it. Thought that the reviewers had it wrong, (what they got right was the occasional shutter shock on the E-P5! LOL)...but is it perhaps wide variation in individual copies (Olympus is not known for that)??? Not sure... I have seen one Sharpness Chart at ePhotozine and it was quite good (like I remember about the lens that I owned), sharp in center wide open and sharp across the frame at f/4.. Not sure what to make of it all. Hope that I am going to get a good copy and I will definitely take a close look at the results from my Hong Kong special, LOL!...but I am expecting the joyful results that David talks about in his review above. I think he has it right, and perhaps many others got it wrong.....We shall see.
I've seen nothing to suggest Olympus lenses vary a great deal from copy to copy but there are bound to be variations I suppose. My 17mm is very good and I use it at f/2 most of the time. With the kind of streetish stuff I do with it edge sharpness doesn't affect my images, though that's not to say it doesn't matter. don't find it lacking, though.
For me, it has a decent wide aperture, is compact, fast focusing and a sturdy build. I think with lenses like this testing them on lens charts at close distances doesn't do them justice. The reviewers who actually _use_ this lens don't seem to complain about its sharpness. There are faster (and bigger) and maybe sharper lenses of this genre but the little Olympus on a GX80 or Pen F just feels and works right. I'm sure yours will turn out to be good - this is a truly classic MFT lens as far as I'm concerned.
great video David! it's going to be this or the 25mm for my GX85.
Thanks! As I say here and say many times, I've always had the equivalent of a 17mm no matter what cameras I've owned so my preference it clear!
great thanks!
Dave I need a lens for low light in churches etc, what's the best Olympus variant I'm stuck between the 17 and 45 any others? My current is the 12 40 pro thanks
MrTobamory There's the 12mm f/2 which would sound like your best bet. It's a stop faster but no sharper (probably not as sharp) as the 12-40 zoom. I'm not sure the cost benefit ratio would be worth it. Voightlander do a 10.5mm f.0.95 but that would have very little depth of field and is manual. Olympus have the 25mm f/1.8, of course and you might think about the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4. All in all, I think you ay be best to stay with the zoom and just up the ISO!