"The only way to get to know a lens is to use it for a year.
Lens tests are just shortcuts."
—Unnamed Leica designer; quote could be apocryphal.
-
Here's the lens under discussion:
The Olympus 17mm ƒ/1.8. That's the B&H Photo link. Here it is from Amazon, and from Amazon UK, and here are our other links.
Here's what our readers who use this lens think of it:
[Pace Luke in the Comments section, note that the illustrations are merely to show what people use the lens for, not to provide evidence or proof of its technical optical properties. —Ed.]
Photo by Matti Sulanto
Matti Sulanto: "I got the lens because it is small, fast and it has just about my favourite angle of view. At the time it was also the only choice with AF.
"I use the 17mm when I need a small lens on my Olympus. It is also very simple and not very exciting, but I like that, and it never interferes with my shooting. Optically it is better than its reputation and I have shot many presentable photos with it. I use it mostly for street shooting or similar and most of the time the aperture is set around ƒ/4–5.6, but the relatively bright ƒ/1.8 maximum aperture makes it also really handy after-dark lens, especially with the excellent IBIS of Olympus."
Howard: "I love the lens. I use it on an E-M1. 35mm-equivalent is my favorite focal length. It's small and light. I prefer it to the 20mm Panasonic because I prefer the Olympus rendering and the autofocus is miles faster and quieter. Though I've read it's not as sharp as other options in this focal length—including the 12–40mm Olympus ƒ/2.8 zoom at 35mm-e, which I also own, or the Panasonic 20mm prime which I also own—I have never noticed lack of sharpness to be a problem—and I pixel peep.
"I'd prefer that it were ƒ/1.4, but then it would probably be quite a bit larger and would have other tradeoffs."
Rev. Heng Sure: "With the Olympus 17mm ƒ/1.8 Mounted on my Pen E-P5 I enter my Cartier-Bresson fantasy; I imagine my camera invisible while I merge into the background, capturing decisive moments."
Marc Gibeault: "One thing about this lens stand out for me: its price. I got it from Olympus Canada for CAN$349. So, along with the 45mm ƒ/1.8 and the 25mm ƒ/1.8 [both US$399 —Ed.], I have a trio of primes I wouldn't be able to get from any other system. There's no way I could rationalize more than $1,500 in lenses for one of my numerous hobbies...and the quality, as we'll see in the samples shown here, has nothing to be ashamed of."
Photo by Ståle Prestøy
Ståle Prestøy: "I'm a zoom user and have the M.Zuiko 12–40mm ƒ/2.8 and 40–150mm ƒ/2.8 PROs, which is more than sufficient focal range for me. But I've always wanted to find a decent, normal prime lens for stay-on lens for almost any casual photography.
"I've used 50mm-equivalent lenses both on film and digital cameras, but I never came to a point where this focal length became natural to me. Although I was very happy with bokeh and sharpness the field of view was too narrow and restricting. I also tried the 28mm focal length, and I've got much fun and nice memories from using it. But it soon became clear that it wasn't as versatile as I would have wanted. The wide angle characteristics became too restricting for me, so it too spent most of its time as a dust-gatherer on the shelf.
"Last year I found that it was time for taking a step up from 28mm and bought a 35mm-e in the shape of the M.Zuiko 17mm ƒ/1.8 (...OK, 34mm then ;-) ). I've been using this lens for some months now, mainly on an E-M10 but lately also with an E-M1.
"When some scene catches my eye and I look at it through the viewfinder and this lens, it feels very close to how it seemed like 'in real life.' Looking at the world through it feels like a normal framing for my eyesight—and that's the beauty of the lens for me. Of course, the fact that it's got great sharpness and a wide aperture, is light and small, affordable, and a dream to handle also counts. And with this lens I seem to use manual focusing more frequent than autofocus. It's a no-hassle lens, really.
"So, at last I can say that I've found my normal lens! From now on there will always be a 35mm equivalent at hand, either on the camera or in my camera bag.
"I found this review helpful when deciding to go for this lens."
Frank (partial comment): "I'm not really qualified to judge its optical qualities, but the physicality of the lens makes me want to use it. [...] One optical negative that I've noticed is that taking pictures of neon signs at night really leaves a pronounced ghost. It happens somewhat with other lenses too, though.
For the complete text of partial comments, please see the Comments section. —Ed.
Harold Merklinger: "I have never used this lens, or even seen one, but I think I can still make a useful observation. The lens seems to be lacking a distance scale. There is a decorative depth-of-field scale, but no distance scale with which to use it. I looked at two other photos of this lens model on the internet. One showed a distance scale of somewhat limited scope: the only distance marks were 2, 5, and infinity. The other had no distance scale, but at least had a place for one—unlike the lens in your picture. [The focus ring snaps up and back to shift from manual focus to AF, which accounts for the apparent contradiction in appearance —Ed.] The depth of field scale itself appears to be an 'artist's depiction.' The aperture marks are not spaced quite correctly relative to one another. Mind you, that can be said of some real [i.e., manual —Ed.] lenses I've seen too."
[Old friend Harold retired in 2001 as Director-General of the Defence Research Establishment Atlantic (Canada) in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, where he specialized in sonar research for the Canadian Navy and Air Force. He authored a pioneering article about bokeh in 1997. Several of his excellent photo-tech books are available for download here. —Ed.]
Eric Erickson: "I really do like the lens, and find myself using this lens and the Leica Summilux 25mm the most. I have all the zooms for the Olympus E-M1 but when traveling I like to stick to one lens, generally a prime. The images this lens produces are sharp and the color rendition is perfect.
Photo by Eric Erickson
"This image is a simple street shot from Paris I took last Fall. I had with me only this lens and the camera. It is a very liberating experience to travel with one camera and one lens. I do not have to think about which focal length to use, or whether I need to zoom; I don't have to think about changing the lens and putting something else on the front of the camera, because that is all I am carrying.
"When I travel, we are on and off planes, trains, buses and cars. I do not work from my trunk like a lot of photographers, so whatever equipment I need for the day is with me all day. This is why I continue to travel with the Olympus and several small lenses. I do have a big old Nikon D800 sitting in my closet gathering dust. I like the full frame sensor, and I keep it and the assorted lenses thinking that maybe, just maybe, Nikon will introduce a mirrorless camera at some point. However it does not seem to be happening. Until then, I will use this little gem of a lens and the Olympus E-M1."
Bruce Bodine: "Robin Wong has several photos and comments about the lens and yes I know he is now an Olympus employee. I have found it to be an excellent companion on my EM-1 for those low light interior photos."
Nicholas Dunning (partial comment): "I owned the 17mm for a while and the short summary I could give of it is that it is a good all-round lens that does a lot of things well but nothing great."
Karl: "Love this lens! I'll be starting my one year challenge in the next week or so and it will be what I use.
"Small, light, fast to focus—isn't this the attraction of Micro 4/3 to begin with? I really like how the front element doesn't extend, all focusing is internal. Implies some sort of sealing [Internal focusing often means less dust incursion, but the 17mm is not weather-sealed. —Ed.]. Plus I can put it right up against glass and not have the camera move a bit when it locks focus."
Carl: "I got one of these about five months ago, and it immediately became my most-used lens for digital capture. The focal length is just right for me, it handles and balances great on a Lumix GX7. It has a special 'look' to the images that I won't try to describe technically but I'll just say I like it.
"I'll try inserting a link to this morning's post at my blog, which, like a majority of posts there over the past months, was made with this lens."
JK: "I’ve already written about this lens for TOP (here) but I’ll add just a bit. There’s something smooth yet sharp to its rendering that I find totally addictive. It reminds me of the old 35mm Summicron, or that lovely lens on the original Konica Hexar. In any case it spends a lot more time on my camera than this 50mm shooter would have ever imagined. Recent example here.
"By current Micro 4/3 lens standards, the Panasonic 20mm is a bit pokey to focus in good light, but it's no deal breaker. The real problem is in lower light, where focus slows to a crawl, hunts, and sometimes fails altogether."
Photo by sneye
sneye: "I've been using the Olympus 17mm ƒ/1.8 for almost two years. I have mixed feelings about it. In physical terms it is excellent: small, light, metal-clad and solid. Love the manual-focus mechanism with its distance scale, which makes it street ready. Optically, I've seen sharper glass (especially for distant subjects). It also suffers from the dreaded 'shutter shock' more than other lenses I use, but there are ways to avoid issues.
"Importantly for me, it has a very fine micro contrast which makes it highly suitable to monochrome. I would not recommend it for landscape or architecture photography, but it's more than adequate for human subjects and their environment."
Ash: "The 17mm ƒ/1.8!
"I used this lens heavily for two years, and it hit all of the right buttons. Sharp, small, fast autofocus, classic focal length, nice build quality. Combine it with the Olympus 45mm ƒ/1.8 for a great two-lens combo.
"If you enjoy shooting the 35mm view, then this lens deserves your consideration.
"It is good for family: 
"Good for streets and travel: 
"And handles flare in a very pleasing manner, especially when used wide open at night." 
Photos by Ash
Rod Thompson: "I have a real love/hate relationship with this lens. In a recent comparison with the brilliant 23mm Fuji (on an X-E1), I duplicated a morning's mixed pictures with the two (RAW with the Olympus and JPEG with the Fuji) and printed them (on a Canon Pixma PRO9000 Mark II).
"At 11x14 size, I could not split them! The Olympus system usually won on accuracy of focus and had the added depth-of-field benefit; the Fuji lens was on close inspection the sharper optic, but this was lost in the prints. I have had and am looking at getting again the Panasonic 20mm for the added 'snap,' but the Olympus is still my choice for fast street shooting.
"I must admit to having regular crisis of confidence regarding the lens, but it constantly stands up to comparison. It is not super sharp first shot, but sharpens well as long as the photo is not murky and noisy, where noise reduction can make sharpening a real tug of war. With plenty of contrast and good exposure, it goes well.
"Ming Thein has a good review, Steve Huff also. It is a real test of sufficiency in optics balanced against a great handling experience. I had to agree with 'A Little Lens Tale' on this blog as I have owned both of the noted lenses (the 28mm Canon and the 17mm Olympus)."
Eamon Hickey: "When I did the 'shooter's report' for Imaging Resource's review of the Olympus E-P5, the camera came with the 17mm ƒ/1.8. There's a plethora of my pictures and a short-ish write-up in the IR review and in the gallery associated with it (scroll down to the shooter's report section).
"Executive summary: I really liked it for street and travel shooting. Very compact but well-built. Love the 'snap focus' feature. It exhibits some distortion, chromatic aberration, and 'bokeh fringing,' but I personally really liked its rendering quality, which I would call smooth, for lack of a smarter observation.
"Imaging-Resource also did a formal set of tests of the lens, and there's a link to that test in the review I mentioned above.
"Here's a picture of a New York City summer evening that I liked but IR didn't see fit to publish:
Photo by Eamon Hickey
Alan Ross: "The Micro 4/3 forum has a thread of sample images from each of the Micro 4/3 lenses. The one for the Olympus 17mm ƒ/1.8 is here. I'm shopping for a 'normalish' prime lens, so will be interested in the feedback you get."
Photo by Dori
Dori: "This is a photograph I took in Venice, Italy, at night. I love how well the E-P5 and the 17mm worked in such low light. The colors are great."
Ctein: "I find that Photozone's reviews come closest to my experiences with (and tests of) lenses.I find them especially valuable when I'm comparing across lenses where I already own one of the lenses they've reviewed. They're my go-to place. Also, their sample photos actually tend to be useful! Wonder of wonders. Here's their review of the 17mm."
Andre T. Nygen: "I used mine for about a year but replaced it with the Panasonic/Leica 15mm which is much sharper wide open; an important factor for me since I shoot portraits and require that narrow depth-of-field so very precious to Micro 4/3 shooters. Comparing prints by looking at individual eyelashes of my subjects, I find the Leica-branded lens to be superior in terms of sharpness. When stopped down, they are both very similar."
David Littlejohn: "This is the lens I use to document my life. Mounted on a Panasonic GF6, it is generally in my jacket pocket or in my hand when I leave the house. It gets used mostly in social situations: holidays, parties, vacations, hanging out. Inside, I shoot it wide open to one stop down. I find that it's usually better to shoot wide open and get a higher shutter speed. When conditions are good, I shoot it at ƒ/4.
"I have to turn on Remove Chromatic Aberration in LR. And I sometimes lighten up the corners a bit to counteract vignetting. Other than that, the lens is trouble-free and makes very nice pictures."
Alan: "I'll throw in my two cents. This is my most-used Micro 4/3 lens, which is a secondary system for me. It has a relatively sharp center, has good color, bokeh, and flare control. Its relatively compact, focuses fast, and is light weight.
"However, it is bigger and more expensive than the Panasonic 20mm 1.7, its finish wears pretty easily (especially on the focus ring), and has a fair bit of software correction (particularly distortion and vignetting). That means softer and noisier edges.
"I use it on an E-PL5 mostly, as a lightweight, fast, compact setup. I think the 20mm 1.7 is a better lens optically (not to mention I love its size) but the autofocus is miles better on the Olympus. I have not tried the Panasonic 15mm ƒ/1.7 but looks around the same size, and is more expensive. I do not find I use the focus clutch much, as I find its autofocus pretty reliable. Its important on this system to be compact, fast focusing, light weight, and relatively inexpensive. This lens checks all those boxes.
Jayson Merryfield: "About me: I shoot people mostly, and am a part-time professional wedding and portrait photographer who has been shooting with Olympus gear for a few years now, starting in 2009. Last spring I bought an E-M1 and picked up this lens at the same time, and it remains my only native Micro 4/3 lens. I convert the rest of my lens collection to the E-M1 via convertor, which works well enough for me at this point.
Photo by Jayson Merryfield
"About the lens: the number one thing that leaps out to me (and anyone else I show it to) is just how preposterously small it is, particularly compared to the full frame equivalents that my industry peers here use. Almost any body that it’ll pair with is small enough to be notable, but the sheer difference in lens size borders on incredible.
"Image quality wise, I am not a great reviewer, as I have limited experience with other brands. After shooting for a year with this lens, nothing stands out as a negative in this area. Focus is quick and accurate in good light and in bad. Detail and sharpness is more than adequate without being overmuch, and in particular I find this lens is very friendly with faces and people in general.
"Honestly, I have a lot of difficulty separating the overall image quality of this lens from my excitement in having a fast, slightly wide lens from Olympus. Being able to get any amount of background separation when shooting wide has been a want of mine for years, and I’m finally able to get it. Plus, I’m finding that 35mm-e is just a wonderful focal length for environmental portraiture."
Photo by Andrei Kozlov
Andrei Kozlov: "To me this 17mm is a perfect vacation lens. It has very natural field of view: large enough, but not too wide to cause distortions. Additional bonus: when 'developing' RAWs in Capture One, you get quite a bit of extra, perfect for situations when you'd wanted it just a little bit wider....
"Here is an example set—spring break vacation with our son that was shot mostly with 17mm. (I am building my personal time machine with these photos, and 35mm equivalent field of view is just perfect for it.)"
And the last word from...
Gordon Lewis: "I shot this photo while testing the Olympus EP-5 (Part I, Part II) with 17mm ƒ/1.8 Zuiko for TOP. What impresses me most about this lens is that I could get so much depth-of-field and center-to-edge sharpness at ƒ/4.5 and so little veiling glare, even with heavy backlighting. The tonality of the sheen on the water is amazing, as is the amount of detail in the vegetation. Its ability to render a demanding scene like this so well tells me more than any lines-per-millimeter or MTF chart ever could."
I hope you enjoyed this variety of opinions from many users. I want to thank everyone who commented and who sent me pictures, especially the pictures I was not able to use—I received far more than I could publish. Thanks to all.
Here again is the B&H Photo link. Here is the 17mm ƒ/1.8 from Amazon, and from Amazon UK, and here are our other links.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
This must be like trying to give birth in 1 month by using 9 women. :)
Posted by: Andre Y | Wednesday, 11 March 2015 at 11:07 PM
The idea is potentially very hopeful, particularly starting with a rather seriously knowledgeable pool of players as we do here, and with somebody sane moderating the results (that'd be you).
I have evaluated quite a few lenses by searching Flickr for photos taken with them. While of course the fine points can't be figured out from small web images (or even large web images), I've been very happy with the results, and I think I know why.
First, a lot of the important things about how a lens interprets scenes are visible in even small prints, including web images.
Second, people who take a lot of images that look really good at web size usually actually know what they're doing -- and the lenses they use aren't crap. (And I tended to find groups of images by the same photographer that I liked taken with the lens I'm checking out; singular examples among a field of crap do NOT count in favor of the lens.)
Don't have nearly enough experience to comment on the 17mm myself; we use it at video shoots some, but usually it's on somebody else's camera not mine, and it's video not stills.
Posted by: David Dyer-Bennet | Wednesday, 11 March 2015 at 11:35 PM
I owned the 17mm for a while and the short summary I could give of it is that it is a good all-round lens that does a lot of things well but nothing great.
http://thisisnotaprint.blogspot.dk/2013/06/olympus-om-d-em-5-olympus-17mm-f18-vs.html
Posted by: Nicholas Dunning | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 03:24 AM
Sorry for a third post, but a word on bokeh. The Panasonic 20mm has the very modern sharp/soft look and the Olympus the "old fashioned", long draw of background blurring. Its great for street grabs as the background has extended clarity and cohesion, even wide open. Its great for near misses looking near enough to in focus.
Posted by: Rod Thompson | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 06:10 AM
17mm seems to be a "blind spot" for Zuiko lens designers.
I enjoy the reviews at Polish site LensTip.com. Very thorough.
http://www.lenstip.com/357.1-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_17_mm_f_1.8_Introduction.html
Posted by: beuler | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 06:13 AM
But..., but...
800 px is a THUMBNAIL.
That's a 4 inch print.
[ :-) That's okay, Luke. I just want to see the pictures people are taking with it. --Mike]
Posted by: Luke | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 06:42 AM
I use this Oly 17mm frequently on my Panasonic GX7. I'm not really qualified to judge the image quality. Some reviewers online have said it's soft wide open. Perhaps, but I haven't found this to be so. This shot, from Philadelphia's Italian Market, was taken at f/2.0:
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-X9rfN7c/0/X3/i-X9rfN7c-X3.jpg
What I like most is that it is small and light, perfect for the kind of street photography I like to do. And on my GX7, at least, it focuses extremely fast. The ability to switch to manual focus quickly by pulling the focus ring back may appeal to some. I hardly use it. All in all, a very appealing lens.
Posted by: Carl Siracusa | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 07:37 AM
Thanks for this post! I'm tempted by the 17/1.8 but online reviews are mixed so I soldier on with my Olympus 17/2.8. Very interested to see what the TOP brain trust has to say about this lens.
Posted by: Andrew | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 07:43 AM
A fantastic lens for street work, small enough to fit in a coat pocket when mounted on the E-M5, inconspicuous and fast at night. Highly recommendable if you have a feeling for the 35mm-e focal length
Posted by: Markus Spring | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 08:34 AM
Great idea! I have only the 17/2.8 due to my finances but have often wondered if the 1.8 was really as much better as has often been claimed - I certainly don't think the 2.8 is as bad as some have said so I'm looking forward to seeing what everyone here has to say on this lens. Maybe I'll have to find a way to get it after I finally scrounge enough for the 25/2.8 :D
Posted by: Willam Lewis | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 09:11 AM
I think this is a great idea. Hope if works. Maybe you could explain why you chose this lens to crowdsource, given that your current camera is a Fuji?
Posted by: Mickld | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 09:17 AM
I have this lens but I haven't used it enough, in part because I've been trying to stay with a 25mm for the OC/OL/OY thing (and failing, I have to admit). I used the 17 yesterday, just to try something different. It focuses quickly, is plenty sharp to me (though not up to the level of my 4/3 12-60 at 17mm) and feels very solid. It gets the job done nicely. My copy is sharp across the frame until the far corners where it softens just a little (visible at 100 percent). Compared to my Panasonic 20mm, I think the Panasonic has what one might call a nicer "draw," which I take to be some combination of sharpness and microcontrast. But the 17 kills it on focus speed when using an Oly.
Posted by: John Krumm | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 09:27 AM
Here is one of mine, and there are others in that account, though other lenses and Sony RX100 bodies are mixed in.
My very non-technical review is that while the lens is nice it lacks... something. Zip? Colors? It's hard to say and an intensely personal preference here. I love the Olympus 25mm f 1.8, and I've used briefly the Panasonic 15mm 1.7, and I think the latter might be a better choice.
Although I'm tempted to switch to the Panasonic 15mm, I don't quite shoot at that focal length often enough to justify the cash.
Posted by: jseliger | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 10:10 AM
I have this lens and the 75mm f/1.8 for my E-M1.
I normall run around with the black&white art filter turned on, the camera in aperture priority and the lens wide open.
The 17mm is perfect. (sharpness, contrast, bokeh, etc...) With it I can get the exact look I always wanted from my Leica... A slightly gritty, slightly contrasty B&W that strongly reminds me of Tri-X in Rodinal, but without the insane amounts of grain.
In general, though, I don't even think about the lens... It does exactily what I want and I can go about happily getting the photos without thinking about the equipment.
And that's the higest compliment I can give.
Posted by: Jim in Denver | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 10:53 AM
Just bought this lens today, on a OM-D EM 5 Mk II camera. You and others have been complimentary of this camera/lens combo. Excited. Will let you know in a few weeks.
Posted by: Kurt Kramer | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 11:43 AM
One more thing... as long as we are talking lenses today, the UPS man just arrived with a 12-40 2.8. I took around 15 test shots in the yard, and so far it looks like it easily bests both my 17mm and 25mm 1.8 Oly primes in outdoor light. There is a "glassy" quality to the rendering that I like a lot. Not a technical term I know, glassy, but that's what comes to mind, like looking through good binoculars.
Posted by: John Krumm | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 01:15 PM
Chandelier
I really like this lens. I'm not really qualified to judge its optical qualities, but the physicality of the lens makes me want to use it. The snap ring is really quite useful and seems to be better implemented than the one on the 12mm. It's one of the two things I miss on the 45mm (the other is the 46mm filter ring; I added a step-up ring, but it makes the 45 longer). I do think that the lens cap is janky and does't fit the overall high quality of the lens. So I just replaced it with a Lumix center-pinch cap. It's good to have many manufacturers in the m43 camp! :-)
One optical negative that I've noticed is that taking pictures of neon signs at night really leaves a pronounced ghost. It happens somewhat with other lenses too, though.
Posted by: Frank | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 02:01 PM
I like the lens. I wanted something that focused faster than the Panasonic 20 mm to help me in taking pictures of my kids, and this fit the bill. It's great for the purpose for which I bought it, and I've even taken a couple of more artistic pictures with it. It doesn't seem quite as bitingly sharp as the 20 mm, but it's more than sufficient for anything I do with hit. Here is an example: https://flic.kr/p/quJPEy
Posted by: Nicholas Condon | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 02:27 PM
larger
1. Looks lovely, has just the right weight/density/size. Main body feels sturdy and metallic, but the snap-focus ring can feel a little wobbly when snapping; this could be improved.
2. Snap-focus ring is a really nice option to have. I don't actually use it often because I forget it's there alot of the time, and the AF is so accurate and fast that most of the time I don't need it. However, it can make shooting slightly more fun.
3. Angle of view is very useful as a day-to-day general lens for when you aren't sure what you will be shooting. For those who use a camera as a sort of visual notebook, and/or those accustomed to their iPhone's semi-wide angle of view.
Will often reach for this if I decide to only bring 1 lens out. Also works well in a pair with the 45mm.
Posted by: Julian Camilo | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 05:14 PM
Chocolate Emporiaum, Bar Harbor, ME
This image was taken with my-then E-M5 and the 17/1.8 (I've subsequently upgraded to the E-M1 and GX7). The image was, in a sense, a grab shot; I was waiting on line for ice cream and bored, had my camera with me, and saw this alignment. Handheld, obviously, and courtesy of the E-M5's IBIS.
The 17mm lens seems to represent about 5% of the shots in my library since I got it, and 3% of those that made into one of my albums. Don't know what this means, except that I use zooms a lot (I have the 12-35 and 35-100 2.8s).
I often bring it because it's small and lightweight, and is a good general-purpose lens given it's FoV and aperture. I can't say I've really peeped at the results other than examining a specific image as part of PP; I just shoot with it and don't find any obvious flaws that get in the way of my photography. I'd recommend it for general-purpose use.
Posted by: Scott | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 06:36 PM
Purple People Bridge, Cincinnati, in the morning fog
Here's another image showing some straight lines. This one was taken a few days after I first got the E-M5 and the 17/1.8. I believe the waviness in the railings are really there.
Posted by: Scott | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 06:43 PM
A beautiful lens. I bought it with the E-P5, a great camera flawed by the missing (integral) VF. Yes, I know there was an E-M5 but it's not a 'Pen'.
The image above is cropped from the original file (I was on the Staten Island ferry with just the 17/1.8 on the E-P5), but not drastically so.
And in B&W:
Those are not even the people & family pictures I made with this lens - which are where the little 17mm really excels. It's a great focal length to just have with you - normal-ish, just wide enough.
+Optically pleasing esp. for portraits
+Fast focusing, silent AF
+Handles flare well
+Push/pull ring for manual focus override works great
A gem of a lens - highly recommended.
Posted by: A Arun | Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 08:35 PM
Link to portfolio images using the Olympus 17mm 1.8
At the link above, you'll see a collection of images exclusively shot with this lens on my OM-D E-M1, as part of thephotofrontier.com's 2015 WE35 project. For this, every participant is using a lens with the field of view of around 35mm in full frame terms. Obviously, the Olympus 17mm is notionally 34mm, but it's close enough!
I've had the lens since last August, and I got it at the same time as the E-M1. Overall, it's by far and away my most commonly used lens. I got it to give me that 35mm field of view and fast aperture, primarily for street photography. In that instance, the large depth of field of m43 is a bonus - more in focus in fast moving environments. I normally use it for street photography, where its super quick AF is rarely, if ever, wrong. The clutch MF is also stellar, and really well implemented. Therefore, it's ergonomically excellent to use, and a perfect pairing with the E-M1 for a high performance but still discrete street setup.
Technically speaking, it is not the sharpest lens I own. I've grown accustomed to its rendering and sharpness, but used my PanaLeica 25mm 1.4 for the first time in ages at the weekend during a street fashion shoot and was reminded of how much better a performer that lens is, when sharpness/clarity is important. (You can see one or two shots taken with that camera in the 'people' folder on my page, linked above.)
Regarding weaknesses, I dislike that Olympus doesn't include a hood for the price. Lucky for me, JJC makes a nice third party metal hood that compliments the lens and camera perfectly.
Overall, despite its moderate shortcomings with the fact it's not the sharpest lens in my bag, I'd still rate the lens at a strong 9/10. It ticks the boxes of what I expect from a micro four thirds lens, and just allows me to get on with shooting in near enough any environment.
Posted by: Mike Andrews | Friday, 13 March 2015 at 05:33 AM
My first m4/3 lens. Excellent build quality, great manual focus feature, sharp, lovely rendering, fast AF, and versatile focal length. What's not to love. No negatives in my view.
Posted by: Jonathan Barnett | Friday, 13 March 2015 at 08:00 AM
Hi Mike,
I use the Oly 17/1.8 on my E-M5 and I've found it to be a speedy (in both senses of the word) and reliably solid little lens. As you can see in this photo, it focused quickly and didn't distort the floorboards:
Some other examples taken with it:
Posted by: Maggie Osterberg | Friday, 13 March 2015 at 11:08 AM
Great timing for this thread from my end. Just before Christmas I picked up a Fuji X-Pro-1 along with with the 35mm/1.4. I chose this camera over the X100S as I like the option of interchangeable lenses (but wanted to retain a 'rangefinder' style camera). I also have an EM-5 but with only the 25mm Lumix lens, beautiful results but the rattlesnake effect is crazy bad. I then thought of selling the EM-5 and adding an X100S to have both a 50mm & 35mm focal length handy without having to swap lenses on the XP1. But it occurred to me that that the EM-5 really isn't worth much on the resale market these days, so I researched getting a 35mm equivalent lens for the camera as I do like the system. After research I decided the Oly 17/1.8 was the answer and I haven't looked back ... although I am still hankering for a X100S but the price is still a bit high for my budget.
Posted by: Darren Gust | Monday, 16 March 2015 at 10:52 AM
Harold: It has a distance scale. When the focus ring is pulled back to manual focus, the scale is exposed.
Posted by: D. Hufford. | Monday, 16 March 2015 at 11:06 AM
I like the 17mm for hyperfocal snapshots at f/6.3 using the lens' 3m mark. The 12mm also works well this way at f/6.3, but using the 5ft mark. These lenses helped eased the transition from my old Ricoh GX100/200 (with their snap focus modes) to m4/3.
Posted by: tiltingatwindmills | Monday, 16 March 2015 at 11:32 AM
I've never used the lens nor a system that can use the lens, but I just love that picture by Andrei Kozlov.
Posted by: Mike | Monday, 16 March 2015 at 01:52 PM
I have this lens. But I almost always end up using either something shorter or longer instead. Something about the 4x3 makes this field of view look wrong.
Posted by: psu | Monday, 16 March 2015 at 02:13 PM
I carried around the Panasonic GF1 and 20mm combo for around 5 years. I still love how the GF1 handles as a camera, and intimately know the characteristics of the Panasonic 20/1.7... After using the Olympus 17/1.8 for around 5 months, I've come to the conclusion that the Oly 17 is a BETTER lens... I'm more surprised than anyone ;-)
I believe this is the best complement you can give to the Oly 17/1.8 !
Posted by: Shadzee | Monday, 16 March 2015 at 02:40 PM
That photo by Eamon Hickey is pretty much everything I love about photography. Wonderful.
Posted by: Paddy C | Monday, 16 March 2015 at 04:23 PM
the day i bought the olympus 17 1.8 my panasonic 20 1.7 started collecting dust . . . . . the only thing i like better about the 20 is the little raised dot that makes for quicker aligning in the dark . .. . i don't know why everybody doesn't do that on all there lenses . . .
Posted by: gary isaacs | Monday, 16 March 2015 at 05:47 PM
One small thing I've found with this lens, if you get the front element dirty / smudged, it can be hard to clean to the edge of the element. I'm not sure if its really necessary to do that. I now keep a UV filter on.
Posted by: Kazi | Tuesday, 17 March 2015 at 01:53 AM
I think it cannot be emphasized too much that this lens has great microcontrast. That becomes most obvious and really makes a difference when printing large and when converted to monochrome. Andrei Kozlov's extensive pix that he offers (shot on a G3) are one of the best examples of all those offered. Put otherwise, it is not what normally passes for "super sharp" in many modern lenses but does have very nice smooth tonal relationships while holding clarity of detail.
Posted by: Dovydas | Wednesday, 18 March 2015 at 06:16 PM
Bravo! This is what a lens review ought to be - how it inspires people to take photos and how they look - not just a bunch of dry numbers. Inspires me to shoot more with mine, it's sitting on the shelf too much.
Posted by: Jim | Thursday, 19 March 2015 at 02:11 AM