Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8
November 14, 2012 at 13:58 I think it was Homer Simpson who said: "35mm is a way of life, 35mm is my way of life, and I aim to keep it." Maybe he just didn´t mention explicitly 35mm? D´oh, anyway, I do mention and I mean it. 35mm lens is my way of life. 35mm lens lends my way of seeing the world to my images. Now 17mm is the new 35mm as I shoot with Olympus OM-D. Cameras may change but 35mm way of photography was the same for me in the -70´s:
In the -80´s:
In the -90´s:
In the 2000´s:
And last Saturday night:
Long-awaited
The last one of these images is shot with the new Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens. I think I have never been waiting for any lens to arrive so much and for so long. For over three years, ever since I started using PEN E-P1. The original 17mm f/2.8 pancake introduced with PEN series was not good enough for me. I sold it quickly away. Luckily the Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7 lens came soon afterwards and it has been my 35mm substitute ever since. The other substitute has been the 12-60mm f/2.8-4 zoom from Olympus FT series. The latter lens is by far better than Lumix by image quality, but at 17mm its speed is only f/3.1, focusing is very slow and it´s too big and heavy to be carried around always and everywhere. So the Lumix 20mm has been my most used lens with the next used (12-60mm) seeing only a little over half as many exposures. I have never liked my Lumix too much because its field of view is a bit too narrow for my taste, its corners have too soft contrast relative to the excellent center and it shows huge fringing against the light. I have learned to use it but hate it every time I prepare images for bigger prints. Too much work just correcting contrast differences and fringing. Note: Everything I write in this blog is in the context of shooting RAW with Olympus OM-D (or new PENs) and tweaking files in Adobe Lightroom 4.
Is this lens IT?
Here´s a typical scene where Lumix 20mm runs into troubles with fringing. The new 17mm lens on the left shows practically no fringing, only slight longitudinal chromatic aberration is seen after Lightroom´s CA correction is on for both lenses. From the point of correcting fringing, this scene would be easy. A million branches and leaves of trees is different because fringing can usually be corrected only partially with Lightroom´s Defringe tool. As you can see the Lumix lens has a different kind of rendition than Olympus. Edges are "edgier" but at the same time the railings are more eaten by light. Aperture is here at f/2.8.
This comparison (of 100% crops) has Olympus 17mm in top row, left: center, right: corner. Bottom row is Lumix 20mm, left: center, right: corner. Aperture is again at f/2.8. Corner crop is from where the corner focusing point is situated. Neither lens shows de-centering and both have practically perfect automatic (software/Lightroom) distortion correction. Lumix shows slight slanting of rectangles in spite of it in the corners. The main difference here is that the center of frame is noticeably better in Lumix. Corners are similar for any practical need. Actually even there Lumix shows more resolution but has also weaker (micro) contrast.
None of these differences would be noticeable in an A3 print. On a 1920x1080 screen looking at maximum size (fit) image, this is what really is seen:
No difference at all... While pixel peeping, you must always think about what you actually need and will use.
I wrote earlier about the difficulties with marked center-to-corner difference. In fact, what we see above in 100% crops is slightly favoring Lumix because it keeps worsening to the absolute corners while Olympus is more even across the frame. Those crops above have the same sharpening/noise reduction in Lightroom. Lumix is so sharp in the middle that any more sharpening risks halos. Olympus could tolerate some more sharpening and/or clarity (which above is at 0).
Here I added a small amount of USM sharpening (90/0,5/0) to the Olympus row. Lumix has still more resolution both in the center and corner because no sharpening can introduce anything which isn´t there in the first place. But still, already now both Olympus frames look sharper... Sharpness is a strange thing, it is not just about resolution but very much about (micro) contrast. In that category Olympus is better, and because its image quality is so even across the frame it is easier to work with. Now, with local adjustment brushing Lumix corners could again be raised to the same (or higher) level. I have done this so many times... doable yes, it only means more work. If you look at my images, it is so obvious why I want sharpness across the whole image. Some of you shoot differently and are happier with other kind of rendition. Well, the IT question seems to be unanswered still!
How about other apertures?
Aperture f/2.8 is very illustrative because it shows the trend which goes throughout all apertures from wide open up to f/8 which was the smallest I tested. Both lenses reach their top by f/4 and become clearly diffraction limited by f/8. Olympus 17mm is as good as it gets already by f/2.5 in the center. All in all these lenses are quite close to each other and already small "mistakes" in comparison can turn the tables like my little sharpening example above shows.
Oh no, here it comes again!
So, what is this then? This is what IT should have looked like, at least. Left: center, right: corner. These crops are shot with Zuiko D. 12-60mm f/2.8-4 zoom lens at 17mm and wide open, i.e. f/3.1. That´s why I did not bother to show any more comparisons between those two primes. Neither of them gets nearly this good at any aperture nor with any fancy sharpening. This is why I will keep on using this zoom and hoping that some day Olympus will learn to make THE REAL 17mm prime lens. Still, I will buy this new 17mm lens because, after all, it is a step forward in my use for reasons illustrated.
No camera porn?
No, no product shots this time. Go to any Olympus web site.
M. Zuiko 17mm lens is a nice lens to use. Small and well made. Autofocusing is lightning fast and silent. It is a joy to walk with; walk to the spot where you by experience know you get the right angle, raise the camera, shoot, walk on... Fast, unobtrusive. It also has the same, very practical pull-push focusing ring as M. Zuiko 12mm lens. And it also comes in the same champagne silvery finish, sadly with no hood, of course. You should always use lens hood for the sake of (micro) contrast. The starting price is 499 €, which, I may say, told me already before I tried this lens where it sits optically. Price and quality goes hand in hand. If you feel this is expensive, you will also find this lens being very good. For me the goodness starts to be seen from size A2. Speaking of drawing conclusions, actually I already said good bye to my highest hopes a few months ago when I first saw the prototype of this lens with its small front element. It shouts out so loudly: Hey mister photographer, I am heavily software corrected! Have a nice day!
Some images
I really had nice time seeing through this lens. Hopefully it shows!
-p-
Reader Comments (47)
Wow, thanks for posting these up so quickly! I will stay tuned for more news and samples of this lens. Very exciting release by Olympus!
Thanks for this. It looks like I don't gain much by switching away from the Panasonic 20mm.
I was surprised that you didn't compare it to the Voigtlander 17.5, though...
Great article. How do they compare wide open?
Thanks for the fast review. I think that if someone enters m4/3 now, this is a good lens to start. But since m4/3 counts some years of existence (wow, I just thought about it!) , maybe it's to late for someone like me, having the panys' duet - 14/2,5+20/1,7. Unless you HAVE to go out with just one lens...
Mike: I have tested 17,5 mm Nokton previously:
http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/6/28/voigtlander-nokton-175mm-f095.html
These two lenses are quite different. I would say that M.Zuiko 17mm is a general purpose lens and Voigtländer with its mixed characteristics is a specialist lens. For what I do with this focal length Zuiko is better.
-p-
Donsantos: like I wrote in my text, the same relative trend goes through all apertures from wide open up to f/8 which was the smallest aperture tested. They both are softer at f/1.8, of course, which makes difference in the center less noticeable than at f/2.8. Olympus files are easier to handle because they sharpen up nicely across the whole frame.
-p-
So basically 12mm's performance at different focal length.
At least price is this time more in line with "good but simply not high"-performance.
Fancy thing...
In the past it was zooms which were optically mediocre at best because amount of design work needed for making them good was such that only Hollywood (or military) could afford them.
Now high quality optics can be designed very easily using computer simulations. But despite of that traditionally easier to do primes have hard time in reaching quality of few years earlier zooms.
"Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards."
Aldous Huxley
Any chance that what you describe as fringing is actually sensor blooming?
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-corrections.htm
Pekka, do you have any experience with the Panasonic 12-35? I'm currently a bit torn between that zoom and getting more primes, with the weather sealing of the zoom being qiute a strong argument since I intend to use the lens from my kayak.
K1csi: Sensor blooming with Lumix 20mm lens but not with Olympus 17mm or 12-60mm lenses in same conditions? A interesting idea and I did not think this phenomena from this point of view. I would have to consider this more and do some testing - if I have time... Anyway this really is present only with one of these lenses and it was not notable with, say, E-P3. Would Lumix 20mm and Sony sensor be incompatible because of some reason? Software?
There is another strange peculiarity with Lumix and OM-D. If you do AF with cornermost focusing square using eg. f/2, the image does not come out right. Center-AF the same subject and everything is okay. If you have these try it. IS is not the reason as it happens with or without IS.
-p-
Rasmus: Sadly no. Panasonic has a very weak presence in Finland and I have never been contacted by them for a chance to try some of their stuff.
-p-
Pekka: The conditions were ideal for sensor blooming. Highlight clipping or close to highlight clipping and sharp edges.
I've never had the 17 but from among those primes that I've checked or own the 20 1.7 seems to have the highest contrast. Some very minor exposure difference or more important the better contrast of the 20 1.7 near the picture edge could easily explain the blooming if it was indeed sensor blooming (so that the OM-D sensor may have some issue with high contrast transition areas).
Of course I can be totally wrong but this is something that maybe worth checking...
Thanks for the first impressions, nicely balanced review that skipped the Hype (go for Amazon.com and Pana20mm reviews to see one).
couple of questions:
1. you have some SERIOUS magenta cast in all of your images - is it the lens (Pana renders 'blueish' on Oly bodies) or is it the known OM-D red channel overdoing error? All images are like from '300' movie or as if some LR preset was applied to them...
2. what about the Oly FT 14-54 mkII zoom? It is faster than 12-60 (at numerous focal lenght the aperture is bigger), smaller, lighter and focuses twice as fast in MKII version. Optical quality is the same - e.g. stellar. You loose 12mm though...
3. You don't seem too excited about the Oly lens, so I'll stay with my Panasonic. Just out of curiosity, what is your sharpening procedure with Pana20mm in LR? Just using the brush (sharpen) to do corners? From which area of image do you start? Or are there any tricks how to sharpen just the corners in circular cut?
once again, thanks for the first impressions, I'm not too excited to jump to this right now...
Pekka: Could you please check this blooming issue with another RAW converter?
It's simply so hard me to imagine that the rails are rendered narrower by the lens when the background is lighter.
K1csi: It is NOT just this one situation. This problem is the trademark of Lumix 20mm lens (when used with OM-D and Lightroom 4). I have shot thousand of frames with it every year since it was available and some 20.000 frames with OM-D. Lumix 20mm IS totally different here than any other lens. Also I have several lenses with better contrast ability. While a good lens, it is not that special. Rails: Lumix 20mm has always been sensitive to bright lights, with every camera body and Lightroom version I have used. It´s worse there than Olympus 17mm. Simple as that.
-p-
Just curious how was the autofocus in video mode? Reason I ask is I have no interest in this lens, BUT BUT BUT, love the 12mm Olympus AF ability on a steadicam. If the 17mm 1.8 has decent AF I may be curious and rent/try it for steadicam purposes. 1.8 is a bit slow and it's pricy vs. competing lenses, but if it has steadicam friendly af for video that may change my mind. Thanks.
Thanks Charles, like I always have said, I test for myself and I do not like to mislead myself...
What I write about the new 17mm lens is also in context of my wishes. While it is a good to very good lens, when understood right, it is not what I was wishing for. I would pay triple the price for an excellent 17mm prime. There is none yet. The new 17mm is better for me than Lumix 20mm, that´s why I´m getting it, one step forward...
I sharpen Lumix images selectively with adjustment brush according to the subject. Of course not all images but those which will be printed big enough to gain from it.
-p-
Gary: AF was just like with 12mm lens in video. I did not notice anything different, although I only tried briefly.
-p-
"Lumix 20mm has always been sensitive to bright lights, with every camera body and Lightroom version I have used."
A lens is not sensitive to light, it simply transits light. Sensor is an entirely different story, it is indeed sensitive to light.
Oh and we've never heard any issues of OM-D with Panasonic 20 1.7 before...
Like this:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/06/12/Olympus-acknowledges-OM-D-E-M5-banding-with-panasonic-20mm-f1-7-lens
Please don't misunderstand me I'm not a Panasonic fan-boy and happen to own also the Olympus 12 f/2 and 45 1.8 but what you call fringing/I call sensor blooming is strange indeed and we don't seem to have an explanation.
It's also strange to me that you having so many shots with the Panasonic lens (apparently this angle of view is your favorite one) and yet you've never sought for a good enough explanation either from the vendors or from forums members.
In your place I'd have been on my knees to get one...
K1csi wrote: "It's also strange to me that you having so many shots with the Panasonic lens (apparently this angle of view is your favorite one) and yet you've never sought for a good enough explanation either from the vendors or from forums members.
In your place I'd have been on my knees to get one..."
How do you know what I have done or not? Yesterday was the last time I discussed about this issue with a fellow professional photographed, who had also tested these two lenses.
But then, maybe I do not take things as seriously. Lenses come and go. There is no perfect lens, no perfect camera, I am not a perfect photographer. I do not need to get desperate over of some issues even if I don't like them. Be happy, enjoy photography...
-p-
Pekka, thanks for the review, especially the comparison to the Panny 20mm, which is what I really wanted to see. I once read a review of the 20mm where the reviewer went into great depth to praise all it's excellent features, but had to end up saying 'but I don't love it'. Sounds like your experience is similar. This drove me to get the 25mm Leica and wait (for so long!) for the 17mm. What do you think, how special is the new 17mm, is it going to capture our hearts, or just be another pretty good lens.
Thanks for your review. While it's a shame that we're not getting wide primes that compete with the IQ of the 12-60mm, what I'm seeing from this lens so far is encouraging. Evenness across the frame, lack of purple fringing, and adequately controlled CA are all big positives. (I have the Panasonic 14mm and it fares poorly on all these counts.) Bokeh seems fairly smooth in other samples I've seen, and sharpness is adequate. Not thrilling perhaps, but very useful.
Hi! Thank you very much for your review. Very useful. I want to ask about the first comparison, of the railings, where you show the fringing, with the 17 on the left and the 20mm on the right. It seems that you shot from the same spot, but in the 17mm there are railings missing. If you count, there are 5 longitudinal railings on the Olympus and 7 on the Panasonic. How is that possible? Thank you again for the useful review.
Hi! If you like microcontrast , try capture one (phase one) as raw converter.
Dannecus, thanks! I have used so many brands and lenses during my career that I can no more be as emotional as you suggest with gadgets. For me they are tools of the trade, absolutely important as such but nothing more.
-p-