Pana 20mm f1.7 vs Oly 17mm f1.8 - which one better/sharper etc...

phinix

phinix

Messages
627
Edit My Images
No
I have older version of 20mm lens on my G5. I'm selling mine G5 and will get E-M10.
Now - should I keep my 20mm or get 17mm?
I love the sharpness of 20mm lens, but would like to get a wee wider ones, and faster.
Is it worth swapping 20mm to that 17mm Oly lens?
I read that they aren't sharp as 20mm Pana lens - is that true? Would I notice a difference?
 
Last edited:
Right.. I need to find m4/3 forum cause this one is apparently dead...
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't say it is worth swopping for the difference in focal length. And the 20mm probably edges the 17 mm in terms of sharpness. But the main difference for me is the focus speed - the 17mm is very quick. The 20mm is slow...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rapscallion said:
Wouldn't say it is worth swopping for the difference in focal length. And the 20mm probably edges the 17 mm in terms of sharpness. But the main difference for me is the focus speed - the 17mm is very quick. The 20mm is slow...
Click to expand...

I've never found it slow in real world shooting.

Regarding 17 v 20mm personally I wouldn't bother changing as the difference in FoV could probably be equalised by leaning back a bit and not even having to go to the bother of stepping back.

If you have a zoom lens you could try setting it at the two focal lengths and seeing what it takes, leaning back wise, to make 20mm look like 17.
 
Hi Alan. It may well be the case that the 17 mm is very fast rather than the 20 being slow. But the difference in af speed is considerable. Have to agree re the focal length. Would be silly to change on that basis IMHO unless you live and breathe these focal lengths.
 
You guys are absolutely right. 17vs20 in focal lengths are almost the same, I don't bother that. Speed and sharpness is what I'm after.
17 is fast, but it looks like 20 is sharper and I think sharpness is the most important for me. I know I can always sharp it a bit in post process but don't really spend time on that anymore. Just family purposes photos so don't think my photos will be fixed in post processing soft after being taken.
So sounds like best would be to stay with 20mm? Should it be fine on M10 body?
 
A bit late to the game maybe, but have you considered the 14mm f/2.5 as well? 20 and 17 are very close to each other, but the 14mm will give you something a bit wider and is somewhere between the 17/20 in terms of stops. My experience with the 14mm Panasonic is that it is very fast and pretty sharp, but then there are plenty of reviews kicking about. I just love the fact it's super skinny to boot!
 
+1 For the 14mm it's a cracking lens
 
Buying the 14mm would be a good idea considering you already own one of the absolute sharpest lenses in the consumer camera world ... (so do I)
Having said that, I always carry the old Olympus 17mmF2.8 because that thing just guarantees a nice photo ... inexplicable, really.
Buying the new 17mm would be wise if you are missing photos due to sluggish focus speed, the thing is quick, like the kit zooms.
 
Ulfric M Douglas said:
Buying the 14mm would be a good idea considering you already own one of the absolute sharpest lenses in the consumer camera world ... (so do I)
Having said that, I always carry the old Olympus 17mmF2.8 because that thing just guarantees a nice photo ... inexplicable, really.
Buying the new 17mm would be wise if you are missing photos due to sluggish focus speed, the thing is quick, like the kit zooms.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe I don't lose, but it is pretty frustrating especially indoors...
And that 14mm might be fine, but I love to have fast lens, so 1.7 or 1.8 is a must:)

So I'm only worried if 17mm won't be sharp enough to replace 20mm...
 
Last edited:
I like a bit of pixel peeping myself but is sharpness really that much of an issue? I'd guess that in most real world images sharpness is probably one of the least of anyone's worries... and a boost to sharpness and/or contrast in PP can do wonders.

Might be worth having a good think about how real world images look and if sharpness is really an issue. I can see a lust for AF speed but personally I don't think I'd worry too much about sharpness unless the lens is an absolute dog, and I doubt it is.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure the new 17mm is sharp enough that in 90% of pictures the 20mm will not be detectably sharper in real use...
but I'm just guessing, not owning the thing.
Too big! Costs too much! Love my old 17mm too much.
I might never own an M.Zuiko17mmF1.8 ... but nobody's ever said its not sharp.
 
Exactly...Nothing wrong with the sharpness of the 17mm f1.8...It is one of my favourite lenses...It focusses just so fast that you'll always get the shot...
 
I shot the 20mm 1.7 II along side the 17mm 1.8 for about two weeks on my GX7 - I could have kept either. I ended up keeping the panasonic - it was noticeably better wide open and quite abit smaller. The only thing I preferred about the Olympus was the manual focus clutch ring which was pretty useful for zone focusing on the streets, as well as the much faster focusing. Image quality wise though I wasn't that impressed by the olympus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top