Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F1.2 pro glass

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MikeOxon
    replied
    Re: F1.2 pro glass

    Since drmarkf mentioned an iOS App, I might also point out that the Focos App, which works far twin-lens iPhones, can produce the effect of a wide-aperture lens automatically.

    Leave a comment:


  • drmarkf
    replied
    Re: F1.2 pro glass

    Originally posted by MikeOxon View Post
    I was surprised to read of such a large difference, so I checked with the Cambridge in Colour DoF calculator. Of course, DoF is not a 'hard and fast' calculation and depends a lot on how you define 'sharpness' but, using their rather strict criteria of viewing a 20" print from 25 cm (less than a foot away), the results I got were:


    17mm at f/1.2, subject at 12': DoF= 2.95'

    17mm at f/1.8, subject at 12': DoF= 4.5'



    Significant, yes, but not as 'major' as you suggested. Also, if you were photographing a 'group' of people, might not the greater depth of field be considered more useful?

    Leave a comment:


  • MikeOxon
    replied
    Re: F1.2 pro glass


    I was surprised to read of such a large difference, so I checked with the Cambridge in Colour DoF calculator. Of course, DoF is not a 'hard and fast' calculation and depends a lot on how you define 'sharpness' but, using their rather strict criteria of viewing a 20" print from 25 cm (less than a foot away), the results I got were:


    17mm at f/1.2, subject at 12': DoF= 2.95'

    17mm at f/1.8, subject at 12': DoF= 4.5'



    Significant, yes, but not as 'major' as you suggested. Also, if you were photographing a 'group' of people, might not the greater depth of field be considered more useful?

    Leave a comment:


  • drmarkf
    replied
    Re: F1.2 pro glass

    Interesting.
    There are several things going on here.
    First, I’m 100% in agreement that the current mindless obsession with ultra-shallow dof is exactly that: mostly I think portraits where only half an eyelash is in focus look seriously weird and non-photographers are inclined to ask “Why is my portrait blurred?”.
    No, as I’ve said above, I’m talking about a much greater subject distance and what I’m after is a natural-looking depth of focus on my subject(s) and to my eye the 17 1.2 does that beautifully. I adjust the aperture to give the dof I want - for example, if I’m after deep dof for an Alex Webb/Meyerowitz field shot of a whole scene I use f5.6. If I’m after 18” like a Diane Arbus candid picking out a single person in a crowd I have that immediately available under my right thumb. The 1.2 allows much greater flexibility.
    Finally, I can usually tell if someone has added fake blur to the background, and for me this is where the ‘feathery bokeh’ really works and looks beautifully “natural”. It also takes zero time locked away in a darkened room doing PP.
    That’s what works for me, anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • RobEW
    replied
    Re: F1.2 pro glass

    I'm a little bit mystified why this fashion for using low depth of field to create subject isolation has become so widespread and unchallenged. It arose from a limitation of lenses. 70 years ago photographic manuals used to say that the remedy for poor light and moving subjects was to use a wide aperture lens, but the downside was poor depth of field, so unless you were careful parts of your photo might be out of focus. Later photographers started to use this limitation in a creative way, choosing viewpoints so that the subject was at a unique distance fro the lens and using low DoF to cast the foreground and background out of focus. And this has become so fashionable that it's regarded by many as essential.

    It seems to me that for people who like post processing, it would be far easier to isolate the subject by using some kind of pp technique to blur out the parts you want to de-emphasise, or to make the colour washed out in those areas, or to make them fuzzy or dim. There seem to be hundreds of effects to choose from. Much cheaper than f/1.2 (or V f/0.95) lenses, so long as you have enough light. And also if you apply subject isolation in post, you don't have to organise your composition to make sure nothing apart from the subject is the same distance from the lens; you can blur out any part of the image.

    Leave a comment:


  • drmarkf
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Greytop
    replied
    Re: F1.2 pro glass

    I have all three and they are outstanding optics.
    My favourites are the 17 and 45, but funnily enough I have used the 25 the most so far. I previously had the f/1.8 variants but wanted faster glass for indoor events. As it turns out I have been using the faster trio more than my f/1.8 lenses outdoors because to my eye there is a step up in rendering and sharpness with all three (I guess there should be at the price). If you're comfortable with the size and cost then what's not to like.
    And on the size, I was initially reticent but they're all slightly smaller than the 12-40 f/2.8 (which I consider a relatively compact zoom) and fit well with my E-M1 MkII or my G9 in a ThinkTank Retrospective 5 so I'm a happy camper

    Leave a comment:


  • Internaut
    replied
    Re: F1.2 pro glass

    For me it’s a case of “If money were no object”. As it stands, if I need shallower DoF or better low light performance then I also have a more modest full frame setup. Also, the 25mm f1.8 and 45mm f1.8 rarely leave me wanting. The 25mm in particular has that rare quality of being great, wide open, for such a fairly inexpensive lens. It is simply bloody good. To me, the f1.2 lenses are amazing but play against the strengths of the format.

    Leave a comment:


  • Beagletorque
    replied
    Re: F1.2 pro glass

    https://www.43rumors.com/the-olympus...gned-by-sigma/

    Leave a comment:


  • Bassman51
    replied
    Re: F1.2 pro glass

    I shot a model with the 45/1.2 and the 45/1.8 last week at a photo gear show in NYC. Even though the 1.8 (my lens) was on my E-M1 and the 1.2 (show lens) was on their E-M1.2, I was hard pressed to see much difference in the images back on my 27" iMac. Obviously, the shutter speed changed, and there was an ever-so-slight difference in DoF. Also, the resolution difference between the bodies. But I wouldn't prefer one image to the other - they were just subtly different.

    If the ~1 stop light difference is important, then go for it. I’ll pass.

    Leave a comment:


  • Loup Garou
    replied
    Re: F1.2 pro glass

    Originally posted by WPJ View Post
    I have seen a few used 25mm examples up for sale, so wondering why?

    .

    Leave a comment:


  • katran
    replied
    Re: F1.2 pro glass

    Originally posted by RobEW View Post
    Never heard of that. It needs to be exceptional if it wants market share while the superlative 50mm f/2 macro is around so cheaply on the used market.



    Here is the announcement of Sigma 56mm F/1.4.



    https://www.dpreview.com/news/145753...ro-four-thirds


    Not sure when we can order it.




    The old Olympus 50mm is just an F/2.0 lens and focuses slow. Unless you need macro, Olympus 45mm F/1.8 is a better choice.

    -

    Leave a comment:


  • RobEW
    replied
    Re: F1.2 pro glass

    Originally posted by katran View Post
    And soon Sigma 56mm F/1.4 will become available too.
    Never heard of that. It needs to be exceptional if it wants market share while the superlative 50mm f/2 macro is around so cheaply on the used market.

    Leave a comment:


  • katran
    replied
    Re: F1.2 pro glass

    And soon Sigma 56mm F/1.4 will become available too.

    Leave a comment:


  • drmarkf
    replied
    Re: F1.2 pro glass

    Originally posted by RobEW View Post
    The Sigma f/1.4 primes (30mm, 16mm) are a fraction of the price of the Oly 1.2 pros and get excellent reviews ...
    Yes, the 30mm is also a good competitor to the Pan-Leica 25mm f1.4, being also a lot cheaper (although it is certainly a lot bigger as well).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X