skip to Main Content

HOT! Very first full size image samples taken with the new Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens!!!

Share (translation here) just posted the very first worldwide full size image samples taken with the soon to be released Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens! Once you click on the linked website you can see all the pics (there are two pages of them). CLick on the thumbnail to open the full size images. Let us know what you think about the image quality. In my eyes this looks definitely much better than what I can get with my little old 17mm f/2.8 lens :)

A special thanks goes to the M43 admin for finally sharing us such a precious info!

  • jevfp

    The image it doesnt look impressive,.is it the lens or the photographer,.but bokeh seems nice

    • admin

      Subjects are not particularly great. But bokeh and resolution are on a high level!

      • Yes absolute very good IQ from the lens, one of reason for hight price.

      • Charles

        might be the photographer but lens is incredibly soft at F5.6 at the edges (compared to Pana) at the shot on the ground – might be 1/80s but then again, why not blur in the sharp-middle-focus area?

        even his 1/400s shot is blurry in the leafs – wth is happening with the lens?

        bokeh is nice but I’ve seen better – not as creamy as other Oly lenses – I would say average

        I was expecting more for the price, really in bad mood tonight, was going to buy this lens because of sh1ty banding problems of 20mm on my OM-D…

        • N!co


          Do you have the latest EM5 1.5 firmware ? Because with my 20mm I don’t have banding anymore at high ISOS (it’s one of the first 20mm and FW 1.1)

          Anyway, this lens is perfect between my 14 2.5 and 20 1.7 but it’s too expensive and too big (compared to the Pana lenses, I have the Oly 45 and it’s bigger of course) for my purpose right now.

        • Just wondering what Panasonic lens you’re comparing this to when you talk about the softness at the edges. I’m guessing either the 20mm or 14mm, just want to verify. Thanks!

          • Anonymous

            I don’t have 14mm as I’ve never understood this focal range… not enough wide for architecture or interiors (sold my RX100 due to not been able to get decent shots in churches in London) or landscapes, and not too close to get the proper artistic look of Panaleica 25…

            35mm is defacto standard and very useful general lens that’s why Pana 20mm is so popular (approx 37mm) and is sharp even wide open, razor on f5.6… I might be wrong but sharpness and depth of focus must be great at the shot above shooting ground, and using classic formula 1/34s should be enough to counter handshake (even less with O-MD) so someone more professional please explain this shot at 1/80s…

            posting from mobile

            • ANON2

              M43 is 2x crop. The Pan20 is a 40mm equivalent focal length. 14mm on m43 is 28mm equivalent to 135 film. Both 28mm and 40mm have a long varied history as useful focal lengths.

            • Wide angle lenses are not for “fitting things in” all the time. 28mmeq lens is as wide as you can go before perspective distortion becomes quite strong. For rectilinear lenses you will see stretching in the corners (to keep the straight lines straight). So a 28mm, whilst wide, still looks natural.

              I tend to think 28mm is a very useful focal length between 40mm and 21mm. Unusual for most but there is method to the madness.

  • Tomas

    I am really beginner in photography …but I would say those flora shots are strangely focused…pics doesnt say anything about the lens quality to me

    • bart

      Beginner or not, you hit the nail on the head.

  • Don Pope

    Those are terrible photos. I can’t tell anything from them.

  • Anonymous
    Wow! Massive distortion. I think the pana 1.7/20 is way more rectilinear.

    • frankv

      Wow, that is really, really bad! Bummer for the fanboys…

      • Mister_Roboto

        Actually that looks like it hasn’t had the distortions applied yet (pre-release lens?).

        • ckmaui

          ditto pre release no corrections yet

          take almost any of the M4/3 lens drop them into C1 or other program to reveal the real lens :)

      • ANON2

        As someone who is entirely new to m43 (just made the jump from the Canon world) I can easily say I have met FAR more oly-fanboy haters than oly fanboys. Although in the Canon world there was friendly joshing between Canon/Nikon I have never seen such childishness over a camera in my life. Grow up son.

  • Ad

    Edge and especially corner sharpness are not really great, even at f/5.6 there is a clear blurriness in the corners when looking at 100 % viewing. I think my Panny 20/1.7 will do equally well at smaller apertures, maybe a little less sharp wide-open. For an expected price of € 550 I expect a lens to be razor sharp at apertures of f/4 and smaller; sharpness and contrast in the centre wide-open are excellent however. In the out-of-focus areas distinct double lines are visible, this can be bothersome.

    • Is not good on left, but very good on right side, i think the not is lens so is reason for this ;-)

      • Duarte Bruno

        I believe it’s mostly bad choice of framing/foreground/background subjects.
        These shots don’t tell the whole truth (apart from bokeh which I think is amazing).

    • Duarte Bruno

      The ground bark shot may give the idea that corner sharpness is bad, but I believe this may be a consequence of bad choice of subject and shifted/warped focus plane.
      The architecture shot shows that it might be sharper than what we think.

  • BU

    I looked at a couple RAW versions in Photoshop just to be sure. None of them were very sharp. I really hope whoever took these messed them up somehow. I expected this lens to be close to the high quality of the 12mm, 45mm, & 75mm lenses.

  • Incessant Troll

    wake me up in circa 2050 when there is an olympus prime lens that is offered in both silver and black, for the same price, is weather sealed, and comes with a lens hood. by this time the geniuses at olympus will figure out how to merge the flash into the body without the need for a clip on, even though it saves so much space and makes the em-5 pocketable it hurts when you have to pay $50+ to replace it.

    • ;-) Sleeping is fun :-P

    • Yuppieeee! We won’t read your trolling complains until 2015!!! ;)

    • Miroslav


      Hopefully you’ll be awaken at CES 2013.

  • I like the concept and idea of m4/3, but this insane pricing of higher quality lenses get me angry with Oly and Panna. Really angry.

    • Doesn’t get me angry, just makes it so I consider those lenses irrelevant to my needs. If you tried to explain $2000 for three mFT lenses (12mm, 17mm, 60mm)to replace one of their very sharp 4/3’s zooms (12-60mm), many would think you had lost your senses.

      • Fish

        SteveO, only someone who had already lost their senses would try to make that comparison. The zoom is slower at the 12mm end and WAY slower at the 60mm end, plus cannot match the resolution of the 60mm, plus it cannot do macro. The 60mm prime is not only a macro, it might even be a better macro than the awesome 50mm f2 zuiko. Plus the prices of these primes are at newly released, latest generation levels while the old 4/3 zoom has been discounted after the unofficial “death” of the format.

        I owned and loved the 12-60mm, but it isn’t a replacement for these three primes.

    • Yes, I also think that the price of lenses should be lower. When you think that Nikon has two great lenses that cover the FF sensor like the 50mm 1.8 (around 220 eur.) and the 85mm 1.8 (around 450 eur), you wonder why a 17mm 1.8 for 4/3 can cost 550 eur. Yes, build might be better than those plastic Nikons, but even the cheaper m4/3 lenses (45mm 1.8, 20mm 1.7) are not cheaper than them.

      Also mirrorless cameras look expensive in general when you compare to entry level DLSRs. If you want a viewfinder you go to the $800+, while you can have DSLRs for almost half the price.

      I thought that mirrorless in general and m4/3 in particular should have the price advantage. But reality is quite different.

      • The Real Stig

        Photographers have been whinging about the high cost of high quality lenses since there were lenses to be bought.

        Economies of scale mean lenses for less popular formats are likely to cost more as all the production costs related to them have to be recouped from fewer units.

    • Mister_Roboto

      How dare they price HG lenses at a high price.

      I’m *sure* the SHG lenses when they come out will be priced cheaply :eye roll:

  • K.-T. v. z, G.

    The images would not do any lens any good. Still, I can tell that the bokeh does not look good at all, because out of focus bits look sharp-edged – what people would call nervous, I guess. I have a hard time telling where there are sharp parts in the shots wide open. Those pictures are exactly what people are becoming obsessed with nowadays – have as much out of focus until no meaningful image is left and then be happy about the fact that the all so tiny sensor does make a “shallow” depth of field and then call it “creamy bokeh”. This is coming to a point that I would call absurd. Generations of Photographers were able to create their aesthetic language without this term “bokeh” that now seems to dictate decisions for or against whole camera systems. Come on people! Get real!

    One other thing I can tell from the images shot at F5.6 is the fact that they do not appear as sharp as I would expect for this moderate wide angle – especially on the borders and in the edges.

    From these first images I am quite disappointed. On the other hand I can happily hold on to my 20 mm F1.7 Panasonic pancake even though it is not focussing fast enough to my taste.

    • I agree. To an old style photographer like me worrying about bokeh with a 35mm is really the last of my worries.

      Instead I have opened most of the files and they look equally sharp across the frame, which is important.
      Perhaps not bitingly sharp, but that might be caused by the heavy overcast. Resolution doesn’t seem to change from wide open to 5.6 which is a good omen – different from the 17/2.8.

      Frankly for a reportage lens I would have preferred to shoot a crowd and see how the faces showed at the different focus planes.

      Foliage is fickleand at the same time meaningless, when OOF. The bokeh of the balustrade seems fine.

      I still think that is overpriced, but to get better IQ I imagine one should get a Leica or a Zeiss for 2 times as much. OTH it’s not sharper or faster than m legacy ZJ 50/1.8 , which is worth 30 EU.

      So times have really changed :)

      Besides I suspect it is not sharper than my 17/2.8 at 5.6. So the difference you pay is for more resolution wide open. In other terms you pay for the bokeh, which is what the trendy want. And better assembly.

      But this is true of the 12/2 too. I was not overly impressed for the price. If you have the money buy them otherwise you might take good shots also with cheaper lenses.

      • ANON2

        Careful now! That kind of logical informed thinking is often looked down upon around these parts.

  • ssgreenley

    I’m not sure why everyone is so glum. The out of focus areas are beautiful. I don’t know that I’ll buy this lens, but I certainly understand the appeal.

  • Tron

    Ouch… That is not very sharp at all, the 20mm F1.7 is still the champ in this focal length and for much less $$!

  • Stravinsky

    Too little too late. Already have pana 12-35 and 25 1.4

  • LucioF

    oh man this lens SUUUCKSS! i’ve been waiting ages for a 35mm equivalent, i think im gonna buy the CV 17.5.. for this quality (even if it’s hard to tell from those img) this lens shouldn’t cost more then 300$ IMO (like 35mm f2 canon) im very disappointed saaaaddneeessss :(

    • Mymaco on Instagram

      Voigty 17.5mm is a jewel! It’s full manual of course, but shooting with it gives reall satisfaction! (Are you Italian?)

  • Anonymous

    From these pictures, I really doubt that it is possible to say much at all about neither bokeh nor sharpness/resolution. We need lab pictures to say much.

  • Yes, we need to get additional examples from other sources, say by Robin Wong :-)

    • Ulli

      agree, these samples say little to me, I prefer people shots to see how a lens renders.

    • Charles

      either I don’t get irony or you’re not aware Robin ‘works’ for Olympus…

      I’m guessing the first is right ;)

  • Robbie

    LOL Just love reading all the negative reactions

    • frankv

      :-) We need other samples! This must be pre-production! Bummer…

    • ANON2

      Jesus fuck I know eh? Reading comments on this website makes me want to jump back to the film world just so I never have to deal with digital-idiots.

      • MikeH


        Overreact much?

        If you think these comments are bad, stay around for anything that Panasonic releases and you’ll see the real venom. :)

        • ANON2

          I’ve actually given up hoping to see reason on this site. Now I just like to rile people up with loaded but relatively accurate comments.

      • Taking posts seriously on a rumour site will drive you insane.

        The only time you can read or write on a rumour site is when you’re drunk. If you’re looking for real discussion try a forum or something.

        The posts on here are not much different to the random posts you see on public news sites buy mostly uninformed and illogical people.

        Can I have a cheeseburger now?

  • michael

    I only looked at the pics for 5 minutes or so. I hoped for a very high quality 45/75 alike lens. However, what I saw, is clearly a step down from that.

    If that turns out to be the final image quality, there is no way i will shell out 550 for this lens. just look at the CAs in 136.jpg. Considering, that several of the shots were at f4 or 5.6, the corners are not particularly good, either.

  • I really hope that the photographer did something wrong or the lens was broken. If you look closer at the RAW files, they all are soft and smudgy. The 20/1.7 does better than this. But it should be the other way ’round, otherwise there’s not a single reason to get this expensive 17/1.8.

  • Mar

    Another bad overpriced lens for bad&overpriced lens system :)

    I’m happy I got rid of m43, it’s just crap full of compromises to get a slight reduction in weight.

    Funnily enough, optically the best lens is probably little Samyang 7.5mm FE.

    12mm Olympus is a disappointment, too expensive for what it is, optically so-so getting blurred background is neigh impossible, only bright side is nice looks and build.

    20mm Panasonic has horrible AF, similar to 12mm optically, only with more CA, never really sharp in the corners, it’s priced ok though.

    25mm Panasonic is very overpriced compared to say Sigma 50mm f1.4 and can’t dream of getting as nice and creamy bokeh. It also suffers a lot from CA at wide apertures. It also never becomes really sharp in the corners…

    45mm Olympus is probably the best m43 lens next to 7.5mm and 75mm (which I haven’t tried personally), but it’s still limited to tight crop to get nice bokeh and it’s significantly softer towards edges and sides compared to it’s center (albeit not as soft as 12, 20 and 25mm).

    • Kyle

      Funny post!

      • From his logo he’s probably a sour 4/3 customer, poisoning wells to make people as unhappy as he is.

        These people positively hate m4/3: they feel it made their system obsolete, poor things…

        • bousozoku

          As a Four-Thirds user with great lenses, I’ve looked to slide into micro Four-Thirds several times. Unfortunately, the lens selection is less than good.

          Sure the E-M5 and the DMC-GH3 are great bodies, but without an adapter and my Four-Thirds lenses, a great body can’t do great work for me.

          I rarely use auto focus, so this isn’t a huge point for me but lens selection is, and micro Four-Thirds pushes me toward Nikon dSLRs.

        • Mar

          Actually, I’ve sold my FT gear as well.
          Tragic it is – Olympus abandoning it’s FT base just as they struck a nice deal with Sony.

          FT had great potential, with Sony sensors and new AF module it would’ve been fantastic.

          Instead we get this shitty m43 with overpriced lenses, gear depreciating in record time, over half the cameras total ergonomic disasters, gouging customers on essential accessories, build quality which is pretty bad, inconsistent gear lineup, lack of quality lenses, terrible zooms etc…

        • Chris

          Well but in principle he’s right.

          While the E-M5 is a nice sensor it’s not really better then the E-5 in anyway,.. it has just a sensor from a generation later.

          And speaking about lenses… the only “good” quality MFT lenses seem to be primes (and even those are not even close to be on par with the FT ones) and the only half-way usable zoom lenses (the two new Panas) are quality-wise also far from the SHG FTs and even slower.

          • LOL you must be one of those week end redneck shooters. I have the E-5 sensor in my E-P2, and I like my camera, but I don’t delude myself that it has the same performance of an OM-D.

            You 4/3 users are in constant denial, and must be complained like mental cases.

            You are the albatrosses hanging from us m4/3 users’ necks. We have killed you and now you try to bring us bad luck. :)

            • Mymaco

              +1000000 And I add: why those (m)43haters come on this site if they don’t like the system? LOL in Mar case, he also admitted to have sold his equipment! They sound unhappy and frustrated people.. To Mar & co : Hey, noone is trying to force you in doing anything here! You don’t like the system? Go away. Simple. I think here it’s the wrong place where to write that you don’t like this system. Go to Canikon/Fuji/Sony/Leica forums: maybe you will find your place and finally be happy. Just my friendly 2 cents.

    • Brod1er

      Funny post indeed! I really pity someone who complains about not being able to get blurred backgrounds using 12mm lens on mft!!! Hello! You can only really do this with FF 24mm f1.4 or bigger format gear- cost £4000+. He then complains about cost! He claims 43 was better, yet 43 could never achieve blurred backgrounds either. If he has sold his mft and 43 gear why is he wasting time here? Funny post indeed!

      • Mar

        I got much better bokeh and subject isolation with 14-35mm f2…

  • Mister_Roboto

    Well, I’ll be getting this lens to replace my 20mm Pana.

    1) I don’t really care if it’s black or not. I’ve never had problems with the 75mm on the street, as the camera is quite small, and most people think it’s a film camera 90% of the time anyway and aren’t bothered by it.

    2) I like the 20mm Pana, but I want wider, in fact I want the exact focal range of this 17mm lens. I did have the old 17mm… while not a terrible lens, it let a LOT to be desired.

    3) Main reason for replacing my beloved 20mm: Fast auto focus. The 20mm is the only lens I have left with the old non-indernal focusing. Leave much to be desired for my playing around with video, and need to take a quick focused shot. The size difference between the 20mm and the 17mm for me are negligible.

    I also own the Pana 14mm, and would never part with that for the 12mm Oly. Always preferred the 28mm FOV anyway ;) …that upcoming 42.5 f1.2 from pana though… I’m going to be all over that, minus one 45mm oly ;)

    • Brod1er

      +1 on the 14mm. 12mm lens is overhyped. 14mm is super small, fast focusing, sharper than the 12mm and cheap as chips. F2 vs f2.5 matters little. It’s not perfect but a brilliant compromise.

      • peevee

        You must be delusional. 12mm is sharper across the frame at f/2 than 14 mm at f/2.5, and by f/2.8 there is no contest. Lower CA, lower vignetting. And if you don’t care about 2/3 of a stop, why not go all the way to the kit with f/3.5? And 28 mm eq on 4:3 format is simply not wide enough for landscapes or interior shots, even 24 mm eq is not really enough (multiformat sensor with a little wider 3:2 and 16:9 crop would be better).

  • quiquelbola

    :-) ;-) :-)
    With all this negatives comentaries im almost sure this will be a nice lenses


    • Robbie

      Exactly, I just love the way people jump to conclusions this quick. I remember the same things were said to the previous lenses and…the rest is history

    • we’re doomed! all doomed! it’s over, time to switch to fuji instax

  • Paul Alexander

    Yum ! I see delicious color fringing like on my 8 year old Nikon Coolpix! LOL

  • avds

    I don’t know… these images look underwhelming to say the least.

  • Anonymous

    I only shoot women these days so I can’t use 17mm any more ;=) only 45mm and 75mm which are great.

  • Dogbytes

    Don’t like the bokeh. Can’t tell much else from these pics. I’m sure it’ll be a useful street lens but then so is my 17/2.8…

  • Hubertus Bigend

    Let’s hope the final lens will be better than that. Those samples don’t show the image quality I’d expect from a 35mm equivalent lens with such a substantial price tag. Neither wide open nor stopped down.

    Which is a pity because it is quite an important focal length. Sony’s Zeiss branded 24mm f/1.8 for the NEX maybe is not what some people would expect for the price, either, but if the samples we see here are all there is, the Zeiss is MUCH better than the M.Zuiko.

  • Frye

    I don’t get it. Pana makes a good fast 20mm for a reasonable price. Oly makes a good fast 45 for a reasonable price. Why are Oly’s fast wides so freaking expensive? Just doesn’t seem like you’re getting what you pay for.

    • WSG123

      Because they’re the metal body / manual focus ring line, where the 20mm and 45mm are plastic.

    • Mister_Roboto

      Because Oly has 3 categories of lenses: Normal Grade NG, High Grade HG, and Super High grade SHG.

      The 75mm, 12mm, and this 17mm are in the “HG” category. Everything else is (for µ4/3) is in the “NG.” Oly will only make “SHG” when they have a truly pro µ4/3 system, meaning a dedicated pro servicing dept, which in my mind is pretty much the only that really truly constitutes “pro” equipment.

  • Pollete

    The photos are meaningless to my eyes. To be honest I think in term of sharpness and chromatic aberration is on par with that seen in the 17mm pancake if not worse. I hope there is something wrong with those photos.

  • Yun

    I think I’ll skip on this lens .
    Banking on the next Leica 42.5 F1.2 is more promising .

  • WSG123

    While these pictures aren’t as sharp as I would hope, I think I’ll wait to see some more samples and some reviews from testing sites before I write it off. People are getting ahead of themselves based on a few sample pics.

  • Chris

    Seems pretty bad… as with most µFT lenses… they suck compared to the good FT ones.

  • Anna

    Those photos are useless as referrence. They are too generic and cannot show lens performance at all. Perhaps this lens may be mediocre.

  • Cyrus

    Not terribly impressed but that just may be the photographer. I’ll wait for a real production sample reviewed by Steve Huff.

  • adaptor-or-die

    more disappointed w/photos than the len’s potential? (still appreciate the pre-release look all the same) ~135>34mm I wouldn’t expect scads of bokeh and what I can glean in these shots; I just want to wait and see. hum.

  • kl

    I would think if he wishes to test lens, JPEG NR should be set to off. I’m not sure as most photos seems could’ve be easily done by any other equivalent lenses.

  • jim

    all primes should be £300…. any more and its a bit of a piss take.

    • bart

      I have an even better idea… all primes should be free!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      My god, are you really that stupid? Don’t buy it if you can’t afford it or think its too expensive, its really really simple.

      And sorry for calling you stupid, but it really is stupid to demand that companies only make what YOU can afford, and not give any choice to people who’d like something better.

      Go buy the 17/2.8, you can have it for less then 300 quid.

  • Anonymous

    I wonder who took those pictures. A two year old maybe?

    • No, but it was his first assignment as a reporter. He says so in the text. LensTip is usually a very fine place, but clearly this was a freelance job.

  • ginsbu

    That lens had better be broken. Wide open the images look slightly “soapy” (as often seen on old fast 50s). Highlights have a distinct glow to them, even near the focus plane. Focus transition zones have lots of outlining, double edges and just look plain bad. Can’t tell about sharpness across the frame from these shots.

    If this is representative of the lens, I won’t buy.

  • fantastic issues altogether, you just received a new reader.
    What may you recommend in regards to your post that you simply
    made some days in the past? Any certain?

Back To Top

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website,, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps:
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: Addthis cookies:
Disqus cookies:
Vimeo cookies:
Youtube cookies:

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.