Admiring Light
Menu
  • Home
  • Review Index
  • Shop Talk
  • Technique and Vision
  • Opinion
  • Portfolio
  • Site Index
  • About
    • Privacy Policy
Menu

Review: Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8

Posted on March 17, 2013March 19, 2013 by Jordan Steele

Contents

  • 1Around the Lens - Build Quality
  • 2Handling and Autofocus
  • 3Image Quality: Sharpness and color
  • 4Bokeh
  • 5Chromatic Aberration, Flare and Distortion
  • 6Conclusion
  • 7Image Samples

Conclusion

Pros

  • Good image sharpness from wide open at closer and medium distances
  • Good central image sharpness in all cases
  • Neutral color rendition with pleasing skin tones
  • Smooth bokeh when shooting closer subjects
  • Extremely fast, accurate and quiet autofocus
  • Great build quality and small size

Cons

  • At longer distances, image edges are a bit soft
  • Bokeh gets nervous at longer distances
  • Lateral chromatic aberration is present at all apertures (though correctable)
  • Olympus doesn’t include a lens hood, and charges obscene money for it after the fact
  • Distortion is very high in uncorrected files, but low in JPEGs and in some RAW converters.

Overall, the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 is an improvement on it’s older f/2.8 brother in nearly every way.  It’s sharper, has less CA, better bokeh, focuses faster and is built much better.  However, it falls short of Olympus’ other recent higher end lenses.  While sharp in the center at all apertures, sharpness fades on the edges and corners, and they never really get super sharp.  Bokeh is good closer up, but falls short at medium to long distances, and chromatic aberration, while correctable, is still present.  Distortion of the native glass is extremely high, though the in-lens correction algorithms work well.

Overall, I think the 17mm f/1.8 is an extremely good lens for environmental portraiture and street shooting, as its image qualities shine in these situations, and the autofocus is blazingly fast.  If you are after this lens as a high quality landscape lens, it’s probably not worth your money, as you can get similar quality from your kit zoom at 17mm stopped down.

The high build quality, autofocus and great rendering at closer distances will make this a must have lens for some shooters, but it’s ultimately a slightly flawed lens that doesn’t quite reach the lofty status of some of Olympus other recent high-end lenses.

Image Samples

Click on an image to enlarge.  You may notice that image samples are in many cases the same as those posted for my Panasonic GH3 review.  As I received both of these items for review at the same time, they were in most cases reviewed together.

Leveque Tower - Olympus 17mm f/1.8 @ f/3.5
Leveque Tower – Olympus 17mm f/1.8 @ f/3.5
Little Building, Big City - Panasonic GH3 with Olympus 17mm f/1.8
Little Building, Big City – Olympus 17mm f/1.8 @ f/1.8 (9 image stitch)
Winter Tree - Panasonic GH3 with Olympus 17mm f/1.8
Winter Tree – Olympus 17mm f/1.8 @ f/4.5
Sarcophagus - Panasonic GH3 with Olympus 17mm f/1.8, ISO 1600
Sarcophagus – Olympus 17mm f/1.8 @ f/1.8
Swirl - - Panasonic GH3 with Olympus 17mm f/1.8, ISO 3200
Swirl – Olympus 17mm f/1.8 @ f/1.8
Peace - Panasonic GH3 with Olympus 17mm f/1.8, ISO 800
Peace – Olympus 17mm f/1.8 @ f/5

 

 

 

 

 

Pages: 1 2 3

12 thoughts on “Review: Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8”

  1. David S says:
    March 17, 2013 at 10:58 am

    Jordan,

    Thank you for the review. Very helpful. I’m looking for a 35mm equivalent lens for either my OM-D or X-E1 and you’ve now convinced me to wait for the Fujinon 23mm 1.4 to make its eventual appearance.

    While this lens sounds good for some uses, I’d also prefer it be good at landscapes too.

    Reply
  2. bousozoku says:
    March 18, 2013 at 6:44 pm

    So, it’s merely good (not great) but since it’s not as expensive as other micro Four-Thirds lenses, it’s a relative bargain?

    I may have missed the part about whether it is sealed for weather and dust but I had always assumed that it was not.

    Maybe, Olympus’ next iteration at 17mm will actually be great, weather-sealed, and remain at the same price.

    Reply
    1. Scott says:
      March 19, 2013 at 12:19 am

      I paid the equivalent of US $490 for my one, and at that price it is not a bargain. Not many m43 primes are more expensive – only the 12/2.0, 45/2.8 Macro and 75/1.8 that I can think of.

      It is not weathersealed.

      The clutch-focus system is pretty useless – something that this reviewer has not mentioned.

      However, I still like the lens a lot. My one is plenty sharp in the centre and is screamingly fast to autofocus. Corner sharpness is pretty good when stopped down to f8.

      Reply
      1. bousozoku says:
        March 19, 2013 at 2:34 pm

        That makes me sad. I hope you don’t feel cheated.

        I took the leap to micro Four-Thirds a few weeks ago but I’m really uncomfortable with the choices and I ended up buying the Olympus MMF-3 adapter to compensate, so that I can use my Four-Thirds lenses. I need to be able to shoot in the rain and after photographing out in three hurricanes with Olympus equipment and no trouble, I need to remind myself not to take my Four-Thirds mount Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 out in the rain.

        I hope Olympus (and Panasonic) come to their senses and treat more than the hobbyists.

        Reply
      2. Don Pope says:
        March 20, 2013 at 7:10 am

        I find the manual focusing system to be quite excellent. Feels almost like a legacy manual focus lens. What is not as useful is the DOF scale. It is rather vague and imprecise. They should have put more numbers in the “near” end of the scale.

        Reply
        1. Gert Jan Bollen says:
          January 12, 2015 at 4:27 pm

          I am confused with the DOF scale it is way to pessimistic!

          If I compare it with the DOF calculator.
          set to 3 meter it is sharp (circle of Confusion for Mft = 0.015mm) from inf to 1.35 meter at aperture 8

          But according the lens scale i need aperture 22 🙂

          Reply
        2. Gert Jan Bollen says:
          January 12, 2015 at 4:29 pm

          I am confused with the DOF scale it is way to pessimistic!

          If I compare it with the DOF calculator.
          set to 3 meter it is sharp (circle of Confusion for Mft = 0.015mm) from inf to 1.35 meter at aperture 8

          But according the lens scale i need aperture 22 🙂

          Kind regards Gert Jan newbe in MFT

          Reply
  3. Pingback: A new review of Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 lens - Blog for micro four third and competing cameras
  4. Big C says:
    September 22, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    This 17mm f/1.8 is a big disappointment if you ask me. Way too expensive for what you get. Merely good image quality. The Panasonic 20mm is mulch sharper and contrastier then this dud. The only thing it has going for it, is it’s focus speed. But I wouldn’t pay premium for that alone. Maybe if the price becomes more realistic (about 300 dollars) I would consider it. For now, I just hold on to my beloved Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 pancake. Smaller, cheaper, and optically noticeably better.

    Reply
  5. Julianne says:
    March 11, 2015 at 5:13 am

    Hi blogger, i found this post on 11 spot in google’s search results.

    You should reduce your bounce rate in order to rank in google.
    This is major ranking factor nowadays. There is very useful wordpress plugin which can help you.
    Just search in google for:
    Sisonum’s Bounce Plugin

    Reply
  6. Pingback: ??AF?????????? M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 17mm F1.8??????? | ?????????????
  7. Pingback: ????? M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 17mm F1.8?????????????????????????? | ?????????????

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Follow Me:

Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterFollow Us on RSSFollow Us on Instagram

Most Popular Posts

  • "Full Frame Equivalence" and Why It Doesn't Matter (286)
  • Fuji X-Pro 2 vs. Sony A7 II: Noise Comparison (70)
  • Fuji 56mm f/1.2 vs. Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 Nocticron (63)
  • Review: Metabones Speed Booster (Canon FD to Fuji X) (56)
  • Review: Olympus OM-D E-M5 (48)

Recent Comments

  • Mr Mark Dell on Review: Fujifilm XF10
  • Bob Dumon on Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 vs Fujinon 14mm f/2.8 R
  • Bob Dumon on Review: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 16mm f/2.8 R WR
  • Jordan Steele on Review: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 16mm f/2.8 R WR
  • Bob Dumon on Review: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 16mm f/2.8 R WR

Archives

©2022 Admiring Light | Theme by SuperbThemes
We use cookies to personalize content and ads and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information that you’ve provided to them or that they’ve collected from your use of their services. You may consent to the use of cookies or opt out. Accept Reject Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

SAVE & ACCEPT