43 RumorsLog in

So, the new 17 mm f/1.8 seems “only” faster than the Panasonic 20 mm…

Wow, those tiled crop shots pretty make the advantage of the Panasonic so obvious there’s no even contest for corner contrast and sharpness… I’ll still miss the Olympus’ faster AF though.

Black body and silver lens. I think it looks better with the 20mm black lens. Stubborn Oly marketing.

While these reviews point to the excellent IQ due to the new EM5 sensor they are less than objective when failing to point out the weaker points with these cameras and that is the lack of inbody flash and more importantly the very small 16:9 screen size. When shooting 4:3 format the active picture screen is only 1.5 inches in diagonal not 3 inches so use of optional EVF much more essential. Earlier EPL model had both a larger screen as well as flash so a step backwards in that regard. What is the point in having a small touch screen to select point of focus when your finger print will cover 1/4 of the screen? Also disappointing is the higher prices Oly is charging for these models as older ones available for half the price. Neither review mentions much about the old image stabilization system used and the fact the view on LCD or thru EVF is not stabilized until the picture is taken. Also note for video the IBIS is deactivated and less effective electronic IS used instead I believe. Just some conveniently frequently omitted factors which should be taken into consideration in their rankings in these reviews in my opinion.

I say the 17mm f1.8 is sharp enough. I know some of you want ‘ultimate sharpness’ but it really doesn’t make a difference if the lens is sharp enough to make large prints. This lens is ‘sharp’ enough. The other details about the lens should be your deciding factor. Is it expensive at $499? No, not really. Consider the construction and the unique build of the lens, it’s worth an extra $150 over the Panasonic.

I find this statement of Ming’s to be utter NONSENSE:
“the 20/1.7 is punchier but has slightly lower microcontrast; the 17/1.8 has lower macrocontrast but better reproduction of fine detail structures – i.e. better ”
Just the silliest collection of words that tells me utterly…nothing.
From what I can see ..this lens is average at best…nothing amazing…but competent.

The slight differences in IQ between the 17 and 20 don’t interest me, “micro-contrast” and all. But being able to capture the shot in focus do matter to me. The AF on the 20mm goes from dog slow during the day to completely unusable in moderate low-light (somewhat defeating the purpose f/1.7). The 20′s implementation of manual focus is equally worthless and has no scales to hyperfocal or zone focus.

The 17, however, looks to have brilliant AF speeds even at night and has a real DoF scale for manual focusing.

The 20, to me, is functionally worthless unless I am taking still shots in bright light. Since I like to capture people in motion, doing things, in a variety of lighting conditions indoors and outdoors (isn’t this the whole point of the classic 35 to 50mm focal length lenses with f2 and wider apertures?)

If the $150 price difference is the difference in getting the shot or not, so be it. The rest of you can go back to your pixel peeping and your daylight shots of grass and door knobs, or whatever it is you do.