Thread: Food trucks, walk in the park with new Oly 17/1.8 lens

4. i like reading your lists

The trench is some sort of "art" in front of the Menil Museum here in Houston. The overpriced food trucks were parked in the museum's parking lot.

Gary, I'm assuming that the "island" that you are referring to is the ledge that we put the food on? There's an empty house next to the parking lot. The ledge/island became our standing eating countertop. Or maybe you were referring to the island/trench/loop. If so, it's "art"!! Modern art escapes me most of the time. I much prefer the "old" stuff in the Louvre or Prado.

Luke, those were two dishes and a side of fries. But yeah, it sure felt like three. The Mrs does have a great smile. Although she had a small piece of food stuck on her teeth when she ate a frie first. LR fixed that!

Houston is typically a little slow when it comes to food and fashion trends. Gourmet food trucks didn't start popping left and right until about two years ago. We already had lots of taco food trucks that Mexican folks used to drive around to cater to Mexican construction workers. Those food trucks are reasonably priced. And often better than their "gourmet" Mexican food truck counterparts. Menudo anyone?

The 17/1.8 AF is fast and silent. Construction is top notch relative to other m4/3 lenses. Best one that I handled so far. I haven't handled the 12/2 and 75/1.8 yet though. I don't understand the complaint about sharpness. I think the lens is probably too sharp (at least in the middle) even for portrait use when filling the middle of the frame with one's face. Some softening is needed unless the subject has baby smooth skin. I'm very happy with the lens. As a disclaimer, 35 is my favorite focal length. So I might be a little biased!

Armando, did you ever use the 17/2.8 pancake? Other than the stop-and-a-half advantage of the 1.8, is it really THAT much sharper than the older lens? After reading the initial reviews of the 1.8, I concluded for outdoor use I couldn't justify investing in the new lens.

Originally Posted by Crsnydertx

Armando, did you ever use the 17/2.8 pancake? Other than the stop-and-a-half advantage of the 1.8, is it really THAT much sharper than the older lens? After reading the initial reviews of the 1.8, I concluded for outdoor use I couldn't justify investing in the new lens.

I never had a problem with the old lens Chuck, but I'm not much of a pixel peeper anyway. For me there are three primary advantages of the nw one. First, the faster aperture makes this my go-to "standard" low light lens. Second, the faster AF is a LOT faster, which is useful in any conditions. And third is the clutch ring for manual focus, which will matter to some and not others - matters a lot to me. Any improvements in sharpness and resolving ability and other IQ measures are mostly lost on me (except with the 75, where I can actually see and feel the sharpness and often have to soften the images in PP), so I just look at them as icing on the cake. So, to the extent those things matter to you or don't......

-Ray

Ray, thanks - I better understand now the appeal of the Oly 1.8. Pretty nice feature set!

Personally, I find Oly lenses and cameras to be generally over-priced vs. what I perceive as their value to me. If the 17 was $399 and the 75 was $699, I'd give both serious consideration...!

it's the build quality that costs you, panasonic doesn't have any metal lenses for example

the 20mm isn't much less then 399 too

Originally Posted by Crsnydertx

Ray, thanks - I better understand now the appeal of the Oly 1.8. Pretty nice feature set!

Personally, I find Oly lenses and cameras to be generally over-priced vs. what I perceive as their value to me. If the 17 was $399 and the 75 was $699, I'd give both serious consideration...!

I hear you. I paid full freight for the 75, figured I might not end up keeping it, but it took about 10 shots with it, once I uploaded them and had a look to realize that lens would be invaluable to me. The 17 I don't know if I would have paid the full price for, at least not yet. But I got it for $370 during that crazy accidental Oly sale that happened for part of one night. And for that price, down with the 20 and not much more than the 14 or the original 17, it was an absolute no brainer. Now that I have it, and knowing what I know now, I think I'd be happy to pay full price for it, but I didn't think that before fortune smiled in my general direction. If I'd only waited until that sale and nabbed a 75 for that price - I think it was down well below $700 IIRC - would have almost paid for the 17...

-Ray

Yep , nice vivid images. I can see the trench being a health & safety issue in GB though. It would require a fence some signs and perhaps a dozen or so cones
and dayglow bunting. I kid you not !

Originally Posted by Ripleysbaby

Yep , nice vivid images. I can see the trench being a health & safety issue in GB though. It would require a fence some signs and perhaps a dozen or so cones
and dayglow bunting. I kid you not !

That was my first thoughts "... OMG a tripping hazard, better tape it off."

Originally Posted by Crsnydertx

Ray, thanks - I better understand now the appeal of the Oly 1.8. Pretty nice feature set!

Personally, I find Oly lenses and cameras to be generally over-priced vs. what I perceive as their value to me. If the 17 was $399 and the 75 was $699, I'd give both serious consideration...!

Chuck, I agree with everything Ray said. I bought a second hand 17/2.8 from Rev Bob at MU43. But I didn't use it very much primarily because of the loud and somewhat sluggish AF.

Another advantage of the new 17 is the shallower DOF for the "look" that I like in some photos. Not quite as nice as a full frame 35/1.4, but still nicer than the f2.8.

As for the pricing, if and when Sigma and other third parties start making more m4/3 lenses, pricing may come down. Unfortunately, there hasn't been any third party AF large apertures lenses yet.