PDA

View Full Version : Pen F and f1.2 prime rumours


pdk42
3rd January 2016, 11:45 AM
Ross in another place posted a link to a 43Rumours thread about the new 300 f4 (yawn) and embedded in it was a comment from someone who seems to have some insight into the new Pen F and the new primes:

The f1.0 is around 620g. Dort folget with two very quick & silent autofocus Engine. But we will see no f 1.0. it is the same Story like FT E-7 vs. MFT EM-1. and here it is a question of invest in more glas, what means more expensive + more wight. The diameter was 68mm. so to big and to haevy for mft . The autofocus of the New f1.2 is outstanding und works perfect together with the pEN F. 30 % quicker as EM-1 with the Same les. End of January PEN-F will be officially announced. But PEN-F is the components "tester" for EM-1 II. You will See 3 very New Featues in Pen F.

I hope all that is right! 2016 should be an exciting year!

Graham_of_Rainham
3rd January 2016, 12:02 PM
Shallow DoF from an f/1.0 lens and focus stacking to increase DoF...

Certainly going to be an interesting year, if only for the speculative roumours :D

drmarkf
3rd January 2016, 07:37 PM
Interesting.

For the sort of photography I do I'm not at all sure that there would be good value for the cost, size and weight of these lenses compared with the f1.8 series, although if they are weather sealed it might help.

I've got a f1.2 58mm Rokkor which I love (especially the direct manual focusing), but it's not that easy to use at full aperture except for subject isolation in the middle distance. That's on a m4/3 sensor. There's not much point in having a lens of that aperture, of course, and using it at any other aperture, so they are going to be highly specialist

pdk42
3rd January 2016, 08:14 PM
Interesting.

For the sort of photography I do I'm not at all sure that there would be good value for the cost, size and weight of these lenses compared with the f1.8 series, although if they are weather sealed it might help.

I've got a f1.2 58mm Rokkor which I love (especially the direct manual focusing), but it's not that easy to use at full aperture except for subject isolation in the middle distance. That's on a m4/3 sensor. There's not much point in having a lens of that aperture, of course, and using it at any other aperture, so they are going to be highly specialist

I've been looking at examples from the CV 17.5mm f0.95 and it's capable of delivering some pretty unique images. Take a look here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/westergaard/albums/72157652150765326
(https://www.flickr.com/photos/westergaard/albums/72157652150765326)

sdb123
3rd January 2016, 09:59 PM
I, for one, am interested to see what the Pen F has to offer...and at what price. *susp

Ricoh
4th January 2016, 12:17 AM
...There's not much point in having a lens of that aperture, of course, and using it at any other aperture, so they are going to be highly specialist
Extra light gathering - keep the ISO down.

Ross the fiddler
4th January 2016, 02:04 AM
Ross in another place posted a link to a 43Rumours thread about the new 300 f4 (yawn) and embedded in it was a comment from someone who seems to have some insight into the new Pen F and the new primes:



I hope all that is right! 2016 should be an exciting year!

I think we should give the link for where Simon has made these comments (http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-olympus-300mm-pro-lens-will-be-announced-on-january-6-at-6am-london-time/#disqus_thread). He is someone either within Olympus or privvy to inside information & has spilt enough beans to keep us interested but not all. I think we can take his comments as fact too. Another commenter that appears there sometimes is 'O' with some hints at times but is more restrained on giving away detail.

drmarkf
4th January 2016, 09:58 AM
Extra light gathering - keep the ISO down.

Yes, for sure, but at the expense of a very narrow depth of field.

I didn't fully explain myself (after a couple of malts...). My point is that certainly for Focal lengths of 50mm and above, even on a m4/3 sensor I find fairly limited use for a lens like this beyond the 1.8 aperture series and they are genuinely quite hard to use. I've already got a 58mm f1.2 that I like, hence the extra size and weight don't appeal in general to me.

I found I didn't use the 12mm f2 any wider than around f3.5, which was one reason I sold it. I suppose I might use an f1.2 true wide angle (21mm FF equivalent or wider) and might give one a try, but I haven't missed one to date and it's unlikely to be a cheap experience. I'm going to be buying a high quality printer some time in the next year, and resisting the 300/100-400, so I think those are higher saving priorities.

drmarkf
4th January 2016, 10:10 AM
I've been looking at examples from the CV 17.5mm f0.95 and it's capable of delivering some pretty unique images. Take a look here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/westergaard/albums/72157652150765326
(https://www.flickr.com/photos/westergaard/albums/72157652150765326)

Yes, and I already enjoy that sort of effect at times. I already have a couple of lenses that I like that can be used to give an extremely narrow DoF (58mm f1.2 and 75mm f1.8) and when I want to try "very narrow depth of field" work I just take one of those.

I agree there is potentially something unique about the perspective of a true wide angle with very shallow depth of field, but I believe I'd need something a lot wider than 17.5mm.

pdk42
4th January 2016, 10:15 AM
Yes, and I already enjoy that sort of effect at times. I already have a couple of lenses that I like that can be used to give an extremely narrow DoF (58mm f1.2 and 75mm f1.8) and when I want to try "very narrow depth of field" work I just take one of those.

I agree there is potentially something unique about the perspective of a true wide angle with very shallow depth of field, but I believe I'd need something a lot wider than 17.5mm.

A wide-aperture 35mm equiv (so 17.5mm for us) is a sweet spot of FOV and DOF I think. You can do anything from environmental full-body portraits through to semi close-up work. I agree that a shorter FL lens with an ultra-wide aperture makes little sense. I also agree that anything wider than f1.8 on the longer focal length lenses is not really necessary (e.g. I'm perfectly happy with the 45mm and 75mm f1.8 lenses). In fact, I tried the Nocticron 42.5 f1.2 and didn't really think it gave me much more than the f1.8 (but it cost 4-5 x the price).

Jim Ford
4th January 2016, 10:40 AM
Yes, for sure, but at the expense of a very narrow depth of field.

Don't forget the often lack of sharpness, even from the in-focus part, and low contrast.

I'm rarely impressed with the image quality of wide open large aperture lenses. It always seems to be 'Wow - never mind the image quality, look at the shallow DOF!'

I'm puzzled by the interest in these lenses. Maybe large aperture lenses are the new megapixels!

Jim

pdk42
4th January 2016, 11:24 AM
Don't forget the often lack of sharpness, even from the in-focus part, and low contrast.

I'm rarely impressed with the image quality of wide open large aperture lenses. It always seems to be 'Wow - never mind the image quality, look at the shallow DOF!'

I'm puzzled by the interest in these lenses. Maybe large aperture lenses are the new megapixels!

Jim

Take a look at the link I posted earlier Jim. The CV17.5mm seems still pretty sharp even at f0.95. It's not as good as when it's stopped down and the contrast drops off too, but the images wide open do have a certain "feel" to them which the 17/f1.8 can't really emulate.

Jim Ford
4th January 2016, 11:58 AM
Take a look at the link I posted earlier Jim. The CV17.5mm seems still pretty sharp even at f0.95. It's not as good as when it's stopped down and the contrast drops off too, but the images wide open do have a certain "feel" to them which the 17/f1.8 can't really emulate.

I did look at them. The "certain feel" for me used to be called softness and low contrast, but nowadays is called 'creamy'. ! I'd be very disappointed with that performance at that price, if it was mine.

Jim

drmarkf
4th January 2016, 12:54 PM
I did look at them. The "certain feel" for me used to be called softness and low contrast, but nowadays is called 'creamy'. ! I'd be very disappointed with that performance at that price, if it was mine.

Jim

Yes, my 58 f1.2 Rokkor is pretty low contrast (although pretty sharp) at f1.2 - 2, but it is possible to correct it well in LR/CapOne. It behaves pretty much like a modern lens by f2.8.

What's really nice is the feel of the direct manual focussing, which is better to my fingers than Oly's pull-back direct focus rings (although in turn they are miles better than the usual fly-by-wire electronic lenses we're mostly stuck with these days).

It helps that mine is a really nice copy of the 'middle' version of the lens with a chunky metal focus ring.

It would be fun to try the widest f1.2 prime at an Oly open day, and I'd be persuadable as long as they handled nicely

Jim Ford
4th January 2016, 01:14 PM
I did look at them. The "certain feel" for me used to be called softness and low contrast, but nowadays is called 'creamy'. ! I'd be very disappointed with that performance at that price, if it was mine.

Jim

Sorry, I meant to say 'dreamy, creamy' which I understand is the fashionable term now used for unsharp, low contrast images taken with expensive large aperture lenses!

Jim

Ricoh
4th January 2016, 01:36 PM
Jim,
I'd be interested to get your opinion on the Summilux 50/f1.4 and the Noctilux 50/f0.95 as to whether you consider them to 'dreamy creamy', or 'sharp as a pin'. Flickr will have several pics to look at, I'm sure. It wouldn't be fair to consider the output from anything other than a modern Leica digital sensor, eg M240.

drmarkf
4th January 2016, 03:28 PM
We seem to have drifted away from the main thread. No-one's suggesting these new lenses are going to be deliberately low in contrast or unsharp!

The rumours suggest the widest one to be released soon will be 12mm and for me that's not likely to be wide enough to offer a dramatically different perspective with a super-narrow depth of field, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by a personal test.

It will be interesting to see how good autofocus is with these - my personal experience suggests it can be a real issue with ultra-fast longer lenses in dimmer light and that's one reason I often manually focus them with peaking assistance.