17mm f1.2

[pdk42]

It seems the long anticipated 17mm f1.2 should be coming this Autumn. Anyone want to place bets on its price and size? I'm thinking the same or slightly more than the 25/1.2 in price and probably a little bit larger and heavier.

http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-next-olympus-pro-lens-is-the-17mm-f1-2/

[Ricoh]

Re: 17mm f1.2

According to Gunther Osterloh, optical aberrations are more difficult to control for wide angle, especially for faster glass. So I'd expect the price to reflect this compared to the 25mm.

[pdk42]

Re: 17mm f1.2

Some more info here, incl pics:

http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-leaked-first-image-new-olympus-17mm-f1-2-pro-lens/

http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-images-new-olympus-17mm-f1-2-lens/

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Re: 17mm f1.2

I've always found the FoV of this focal length to be something that I use very rarely. I borrowed the 17mm f/1.8 from Ian when it first came out, just to see if I was missing out by not having one. It produced excellent results and I expect this new one will push that level still further.

It will certainly be interesting to see what Damian McGillicuddy, and the others get up to with it...

[pdk42]

Re: 17mm f1.2

It looks perhaps a little smaller than the 25 f1.2 - at least it seems narrower anyhow.

[Nawty]

Re: 17mm f1.2

I've always found the FoV of this focal length to be something that I use very rarely. I borrowed the 17mm f/1.8 from Ian when it first came out, just to see if I was missing out by not having one. It produced excellent results and I expect this new one will push that level still further.

It will certainly be interesting to see what Damian McGillicuddy, and the others get up to with it...

It's funny, I just don't get 35mm (FFE) focal length - just find it difficult to see a shot - much prefer 50mm or 28mm.

Strangely though, I always like the shots I end up taking at that focal length.

[David M]

Re: 17mm f1.2

I've always found the FoV of this focal length to be something that I use very rarely. I borrowed the 17mm f/1.8 from Ian when it first came out, just to see if I was missing out by not having one. It produced excellent results and I expect this new one will push that level still further.

It will certainly be interesting to see what Damian McGillicuddy, and the others get up to with it...

Same here, the 35mm was my least used prime in my OM system decades.

But I actually like 35mm as a long standard on 4/3. My 17mm Tamron SP isn't bad on 4/3 but it's still not an field of view I use much. I don't think I've used the Tamron since I tested it on a 4/3 body.

[drmarkf]

[Ricoh]

Re: 17mm f1.2

17 = 34, and 35 is one of the most used FL's in street photography. I have no idea why anyone would want to pay the excess for 1 and a bit extra stops of light; and with moderate WA lenses, no one normally craves shallow DoF.

[drmarkf]

Re: 17mm f1.2

17 = 34, and 35 is one of the most used FL's in street photography. I have no idea why anyone would want to pay the excess for 1 and a bit extra stops of light; and with moderate WA lenses, no one normally craves shallow DoF.

Yeah, my DoF app set at 17mm on a m4/3 sensor focused at 6' (I do quite a bit of street shooting around that distance) at f1.8 has a DoF of 2.04' (5.15' - 7.19' acceptably in focus), and at f1.2 it's 1.34' (5.4' - 7.74').

I agree that doesn't sound very impressive, although also important is how the out of focus areas look (both the bokeh, and the way the transition to oof renders).

Ultra-wide aperture lenses normally these days have a lot of attention given to bokeh, although this is a highly subjective area and another obsession of nerdy photographers that is invisible to 99.9% of the normal population!

Shallow DoF is really useful for subject isolation in street photography and it is harder to achieve with m4/3 (while zone focussing is easier, of course). I'm certainly enjoying the option with the M1ii of using the Pan-Leica 15 at around f2 for shooting interesting individuals walking briskly towards me, with CAF reliably holding focus once it has locked on. The same shots were only reliably achieved zone-focussed with the M1i, and the subjects then got lost against the background (at f4 or f5.6, often).

[Nawty]

Re: 17mm f1.2

Yeah, my DoF app set at 17mm on a m4/3 sensor focused at 6' (I do quite a bit of street shooting around that distance) at f1.8 has a DoF of 2.04' (5.15' - 7.19' acceptably in focus), and at f1.2 it's 1.34' (5.4' - 7.74').

I agree that doesn't sound very impressive, although also important is how the out of focus areas look (both the bokeh, and the way the transition to oof renders).

Ultra-wide aperture lenses normally these days have a lot of attention given to bokeh, although this is a highly subjective area and another obsession of nerdy photographers that is invisible to 99.9% of the normal population!

Shallow DoF is really useful for subject isolation in street photography and it is harder to achieve with m4/3 (while zone focussing is easier, of course). I'm certainly enjoying the option with the M1ii of using the Pan-Leica 15 at around f2 for shooting interesting individuals walking briskly towards me, with CAF reliably holding focus once it has locked on. The same shots were only reliably achieved zone-focussed with the M1i, and the subjects then got lost against the background (at f4 or f5.6, often).

Enjoying the EM1ii trial then?

[pdk42]

[Ricoh]

Re: 17mm f1.2

Yeah, my DoF app set at 17mm on a m4/3 sensor focused at 6' (I do quite a bit of street shooting around that distance) at f1.8 has a DoF of 2.04' (5.15' - 7.19' acceptably in focus), and at f1.2 it's 1.34' (5.4' - 7.74').

I agree that doesn't sound very impressive, although also important is how the out of focus areas look (both the bokeh, and the way the transition to oof renders).

Ultra-wide aperture lenses normally these days have a lot of attention given to bokeh, although this is a highly subjective area and another obsession of nerdy photographers that is invisible to 99.9% of the normal population!

Shallow DoF is really useful for subject isolation in street photography and it is harder to achieve with m4/3 (while zone focussing is easier, of course). I'm certainly enjoying the option with the M1ii of using the Pan-Leica 15 at around f2 for shooting interesting individuals walking briskly towards me, with CAF reliably holding focus once it has locked on. The same shots were only reliably achieved zone-focussed with the M1i, and the subjects then got lost against the background (at f4 or f5.6, often).

The defence for greater DoF is of course the context of the individual and the environment, and no doubt Joel Meyerowitz would go further and encourage capturing the relationships of individuals within the spacial frame - your frame - even though the individuals are potentially unaware of each other. So I suggest f8 and be there with both eyes open.

Edit: if you haven't watched this http://www.thephoblographer.com/2017...-street-snaps/ please do.

[drmarkf]

Re: 17mm f1.2

The defence for greater DoF is of course the context of the individual and the environment, and no doubt Joel Meyerowitz would go further and encourage capturing the relationships of individuals within the spacial frame - your frame - even though the individuals are potentially unaware of each other. So I suggest f8 and be there with both eyes open.

Edit: if you haven't watched this http://www.thephoblographer.com/2017...-street-snaps/ please do.

Yes, I entirely agree, Steve, and I like to try shots with 'layering' as well, with Myerowitz being one of my most respected photographers.

However, it is enormously easier to get good, close-in shots of individuals or small groups with the excellent CAF of the M1ii, and it lets you concentrate on composition rather than fiddling/guessing with MF. I suppose this is more of a Bruce Gilden or Dougie Wallace style, although there's no way I want to be as intrusive as they are.

It adds strings to the bow.

[Ricoh]

Re: 17mm f1.2

It is my opinion that AF cameras are designed to be used as such and suffer in MF as you expressed above. For MF it is best to have a camera and lens specifically designed for this purpose, MF then becomes a breeze, the fastest meanest street machine available. No fiddling, no guessing, just estimating and with the camera around your neck you can appraise and adjust the settings by a quick glance and appropriate adjustment. If you watch Matt Stewart in action, he adjusts focus by feel and estimates exposure using the time honoured sunny 16 guide (probably more like sunny f11 or f8 in the uk).. I do the same with focus, and I try to guess and set exposure prior to making a measurement, this being the only way to learn about light.