17mm f1.2

[David M]

Re: 17mm f1.2

I'm surprised no one has posted about the rumoured 12mm f/1.2. I've just spent a very amusing 10 minutes laughing at all the Internet 'experts' spouting about a lens that is only a rumour.

[drmarkf]

Re: 17mm f1.2

I'm surprised no one has posted about the rumoured 12mm f/1.2. I've just spent a very amusing 10 minutes laughing at all the Internet 'experts' spouting about a lens that is only a rumour.

The ones that make me laugh most are the armchair international corporate business executives who pontificate for pages and pages with great authority on what Olympus/Canon/Nikon etc will, should or won't do.

Life's too short to waste time on most of this gear-obsessive rubbish, and this site is pleasantly free of it

[David M]

Re: 17mm f1.2

The ones that make me laugh most are the armchair international corporate business executives who pontificate for pages and pages with great authority on what Olympus/Canon/Nikon etc will, should or won't do.

Life's too short to waste time on most of this gear-obsessive rubbish, and this site is pleasantly free of it

But it is an entertaining read while you're having your supper/dinner/tea/evening meal and SWMBO is over at a neighbours. Especially as most of them only ever seem to photograph lens test charts so they spout endlessly about corner sharpness at every aperture at five different focusing distances in comparison with other lenses they've tested.

I suppose some of them could be responsible for the 500 photos of their cat uploaded to Flickr. Although you can't photograph Fluffy until you've extensively tested.

[pdk42]

Re: 17mm f1.2

I'm surprised no one has posted about the rumoured 12mm f/1.2. I've just spent a very amusing 10 minutes laughing at all the Internet 'experts' spouting about a lens that is only a rumour.

I'm surprised that Olympus have built another 12. Not only is the current f2 a fine lens, but of course there is the Panasonic 12mm f1.4 and I doubt that lens is a particularly high seller. How many do Oly think they'll sell of this new lens a year I wonder. Is there really much of a market for such a lens?

I have no issues with its existence of course, and I certainly don't want to become an armchair consumer electronics business executive, but I have to confess I can't really see the logic aside from having a "Pro" complete set of f1.2 lenses in effective focal lengths of 24, 35, 50 and 90 (yes, there's a new 45 f1/2 coming too).

Anyhow, all interesting chunter for the bank holiday weekend.

[drmarkf]

Re: 17mm f1.2

Chunter, chunter... (Erindoors is currently outdoors collecting something from John Lewis ).

Actually I think a 12mm f1.2 might be particularly useful for astrophotography as long as it's got high enough image quality at or close to full aperture. Something of even wider FL would probably find an even better market for that, although I guess we are talking about low-volume applications.

Yes, overall I would rather they filled a couple of genuine gaps in the range rather than just pursuing bigger apertures for existing lenses. I guess those please the measurebators who frequent the rumours sites we were discussing a moment ago.

So, I'd like a Pro-quality version of the Laowa 7.5 f2 that's good enough wide open for astrophotography, and a native m4/3 tilt-shift lens of around 10 - 12mm (max. aperture irrelevant, and f4 would be fine). These would of course be expensive, but they would give genuine additional strings to the m4/3 bow (which Fuji also can't currently match).

[David M]

Re: 17mm f1.2

I'm surprised that Olympus have built another 12. Not only is the current f2 a fine lens, but of course there is the Panasonic 12mm f1.4 and I doubt that lens is a particularly high seller. How many do Oly think they'll sell of this new lens a year I wonder. Is there really much of a market for such a lens?

I have no issues with its existence of course, and I certainly don't want to become an armchair consumer electronics business executive, but I have to confess I can't really see the logic aside from having a "Pro" complete set of f1.2 lenses in effective focal lengths of 24, 35, 50 and 90 (yes, there's a new 45 f1/2 coming too).

Anyhow, all interesting chunter for the bank holiday weekend.

Actually seeing it like that it reminds me of the OM system with slow and fast versions of many of the more popular focal lengths. In the early days of the OM system there were plans (and prototypes) for a larger range of fast and slow versions from 21mm all the way up to 400mm.

[drmarkf]

Re: 17mm f1.2

Just got home after an Olympus demonstration evening for our camera club, run by the excellent David Smith, and among a wide collection of great gear he’d brought what was rumoured to be the first production 17mm f1.2 in the country.

I had a play on my M1ii and, especially bearing in mind the basic level of lighting, I have to say it pulled focus like a trouper and was fully capable of holding CAF on people walking briskly by.

I’ll have a closer look at the images tomorrow, but to get a proper assessment I’ll need to borrow one for a few hours round town. It’s a chunky beast, but no more visually intrusive or really weighty in the hand than the 12-40.

[pdk42]

Re: 17mm f1.2

The 17/1.2 definitely looks an interesting lens. The various reports on the 45/1.2 seem to be absolutely glowing - with many saying it's the best portrait lens they've ever used on any system.

[pdk42]

Re: 17mm f1.2

This is a comparison of the two 17s (1.8 and 1.2):

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/micro-four-thirds-lenses/olympus-17mm-1-2-pro-vs-17mm-1-8/

Not as big an optical difference as I was expecting, but the new is better for sure. It's quite a bit bigger and heavier though:

[drmarkf]

Re: 17mm f1.2

And pricier!

Thanks for the link; for once the comments are interesting and fair.

The issue of comparison with the PL 15 f1.7 is especially pertinent for me since mine is detectably sharper than the 17 f1.8 I had (they make the point about possible copy variation), although that's only really visible at 100% and my 15 does vignette a little at full aperture (it's gone by one click down). Distortion is also certainly visible at the edges of the frame and does need some fiddling about to correct in more 'architectural' shots (but that's not rare at this focal length).

David said the 1.2 isn't likely to be available here until the end of January so no decisions are necessary yet, and I would certainly like to give it a try in real life. The main remaining question for me is how good the subject-isolating effects are compared to the 15mm when I'm after that sort of effect. last night effectively answered the question of whether it would achieve and hold CAF in that sort of environment - it will, and in surprisingly dim light.

[pdk42]

Re: 17mm f1.2

I tried the Panasonic 15/1.7 recently (well, actually it was the DJI variant). It's certainly better in the resolution department than the 17/1.8 and it does have more micro-contrast. However, the difference isn't huge and is only visible on close pixel peeking.

I really prefer the 17mm FOV though so even though the 15mm was slightly better optically I decided not to stick with it. I also found that it didn't work with CAF on the E-M1ii. That wouldn't have been a deal-breaker but I found it a little odd.

The new 17/1.2 definitely interests me though. I had the CV 17.5mm f0.95 for a little while and really liked the subject isolation capabilities and the optical performance but I'm getting lazy I suppose and really didn't like the manual focus and lack of EXIF data. OTOH, it absolutely had a certain "look" to images from it and it generates gorgeous starbursts:


by Paul Kaye, on Flickr


Sunrise by Paul Kaye, on Flickr



Christmas Postbox by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

[drmarkf]

Re: 17mm f1.2

Nice.
Interesting about the CAF issue - maybe it's something to do with the DJI origin? Mine is absolutely fine on the M1ii.

[drmarkf]

Re: 17mm f1.2

Nice article, with full images (Olympus visionary, note):

https://www.creativeislandphoto.com/blog/life-wide-open

[Loup Garou]

Re: 17mm f1.2

I like the 17mm focal length. Having a wide aperture option is nice sometimes too.

In what way? IMO, using a 17mm MFT lens for street photography, weddings, parties etc, one would want a long DoF and so the MFT format offers a distinct advantage in that respect. You are not going to take portraits with a wide-angle lens and so bokeh is not an issue. An aperture f1.2 wide in a 17mm MFT lens might increase hand-heldability options in low light street photography but I cannot think of any other advantage in the need to fork out that much money when you can get the superb Olympus 17mm f1.8 for less than half the cost.

[drmarkf]

Re: 17mm f1.2

In what way? IMO, using a 17mm MFT lens for street photography, weddings, parties etc, one would want a long DoF and so the MFT format offers a distinct advantage in that respect.

It gives you more control over dof: there are plenty of situations in street photography when you want sufficient dof to keep one person in focus, but isolate them as far as possible from the background and other people around them.

I find f1.2 at 17mm pretty much ideal for that (i.e. around 18" dof at full aperture at the average single-person-filling-the-frame distance - that's around the depth of a person's body).

For that sore of usage there's not much point in using a wider aperture than around f2.5 on full frame or you'll miss a lot of shots through insufficient dof, so FF is actually at a disadvantage.