My two favourite lenses are on the surface very similar, but scratch the surface and they are actuall very different.
The Olympus 17mm f1.8 was the lens that had to be. My most used “standard” lens in 35mm photography was something in the 35-40mm range, with many tools applied to address that need.
The Canon 35 f2, 35 f1.4L, several 24mm’s on APS-C, a Voightlander 40mm f2, Fuji 23 and 27mm, Sony 20mm etc. When it came to M43, the Panasonic 20mm mk1 was an early favourite, but suffered from slow AF on an Olympus (early issues) and equally poor manual focus. The Olympus 17 f2.8 was considered generally poor so I dodged it, but turns out it had excellent 3 dimensionality. The Panasonic 14mm was nice, but a little wide and fly by wire MF. I had two of these as they were free with most early Panasonic cameras, but let them go for far too little and the Sigma 19mm never impressed, especially at only f2.8 (but I got the three Sigmas for a steal in a set so another regretted sell off).
At the time the only realistic contender was the Olympus 17mm f1.8, a lens that had mixed reviews early on, but was otherwise mechanically stable and decently priced.
Nothing to complain about here.
Early reluctance aside, it won me over the old fashioned way by taking very nice images, to become one of my “desert island” lenses. It is not perfect, no lens is, but it is predictable and good at what it was designed for. More importantly it has character.
After it was bought and used on several trips away, the Leica 15mm came out. A little wider, a bit dearer and second cab off the rank, it was tried (the benefit of working in a shop), but failed to be substantially better than the 17mm. Plenty of reviews put it a little ahead, but for $700 odd (at the time the price of the 12-40 f2.8 zoom), there was always something better to spend my money on and it really felt like duplication of a favourite, especially a lens that constantly came through for me.
One of the features of this lens is its ability to tame strong light, something I am often drawn to with my street shooting. It glows, but does not blow out.
It has a brilliance and warmth that reminds me of film. Early images with the EM5 mk1’s were something special, but as I upgraded cameras, even adding Panasonics into the mix, it has never failed to impress.
A surprise was its strength with landscapes. This thing is razor sharp and has long transition Bokeh, which means pushing depth of field a little is very easy.
The lens has both high sharpness and a gentle smoothness that helps reduce the super sharp digital look. It is “organic” looking.
Hand held landscapes at less than optimal apertures (f1.8-4) still give good results with coherent backgrounds.
It never occurs to me to worry too much about focus with any aperture f2.8 or smaller at anything but very close focussing distances.
Even wide open, background inclusion is smooth and natural.
The Oly wide open is often a surprise. The metadata says f1.8, but the look of the image defies that. The point of focus is assumed to be the man in the middle, but look at the girl in the red skirt left side background. Girl I said, because I can be pretty sure even with a massive depth of field drop off. The Olympus is ideal for smoothing the transition of in and out of focus areas helping form story telling images.
So, why get the Leica anyway?
I bought the Leica when I startted earning again to scratch an itch, deepen my options in an important space for me and allow me to assign one lens to my work kit and keep the other for myself. The 15/30mm equivalent focal length is odd, but as logical as anything else I guess and definitely does not feel closer to a 14 (28mm) in use.
The catch was which one for which job?
The Leica originally went into the day bag with the G9, but the touchy aperture ring, something you cannot disable on a Pana camera, was annoying as was the all too easily detached hood. I was already adjusting to a different driving, phone, processing and dual brand camera dynamic and this was just an easily fixed frustration, quickly dealt with.
It took some lovely images, but things settled when I switched to the Olympus.
The 15L was then matched to my Pen F for something very special. Both share a crisp, delicate, cool palette, something akin to Kodachrome 64.
That snappy sharp to soft transition, so characteristic of the Leica and so very different to the Oly. The Leica is not sharper than the Oly, but uses its “draw” to give you that impression by creating more sharpness contrast.
Recently I have put the Leica back in my EM1.2 based work bag to make a better spread with the 9 Leica and 25 Oly (which is actually closer to a 23mm). The Oly cameras ignore the aperture ring which is ideal. The hood is fixed with a tiny bit of duct tape. The extra coverage balanced by the very well controlled 3D pop of the lens and its ability to handle iffy light appeals at the moment. We will see. I also like the Olympus sensor and Panasonic lens tones combined.
The Oly 17 is now again on the Pen F, its natural home.
For now.
The Leica shines at clean separation, making it effectively a wide portrait lens (the 9mm is the same).
The Leica has a cooler colour palette than the Oly 17 with gentle greens and blues**, and has more attainable 3D “pop”. It is also better at adding some life to dull light situations and seems to mesh very well with the EM10 mk2’s in artificial light. The 17mm, if it has one flaw, is a little lack lustre when the light is muddy and murky, in contrast to its excellent handling of strong light.
It also struggles to offer modern fast drop-off Bokeh, the Leica is a very contemporary exponent here. The 17mm is the ideal street lens allowing you to miss focus a little without any obvious signs, the Leica is better at heroing the subject at the expense of the background, just don’t miss.
The Leica acting as a wide-portrait lens. Lovely skin tones, sweet Bokeh and gentle, natural colours.
Clear separation of foreground and back. The Olympus would make this transition less obvious, more inclusive and more organic. Both good options, just different.
The Oly lens showing it’s more forgiving nature. I usually set it at f2 to 4 and about 5 feet on the manual focussing ring.
The other thing the Leica adds is a delicacy, sometimes even a thinness. The Oly lens makes an image look organic and natural, heavy with inherent colour. The Leica adds a brilliant crispness, without being heavy handed.
The Oly lens is so forgiving, shots like this are instinctively grabbed, with no real fear of an unworkable miss. The reason I have so many favourite images taken with this lens is because it gets them for me, simple as that. I can theorise that the Leica would have rendered a sharp curtain, then less clear background elements.
The Leica tends to tame lift poor light. In strong light it is fine, but in mixed, soft or flat light, it shines.
They are to my eye identical in central sharpness, but different in rendering. I use either wide open, but with different expectations.
I am going by feel here as much as science. I have tried to prove my feelings by comparing Bokeh etc, but find it harder to make fact than hypothesis. Regardless, the Oly is my ideal street lens, made to purpose with its long draw Bokeh, true manual focus, safe colour and strong light handling with added organic depth, the Leica is a solid exponent of a modern wide-portrait and poor light fixer.
*Four zooms, two primes.
**This is the Panasonic look and adds options with a mix of Panasonic and Olympus sensors. The 17mm is warmer and richer in colour.