PDA

View Full Version : 17mm f1.2


pdk42
22nd July 2017, 06:43 PM
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
22nd July 2017, 09:38 PM
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
22nd August 2017, 01:15 PM
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/

http://www.43rumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Olympus-PRO-17mm-12.jpg

Graham_of_Rainham
22nd August 2017, 02:37 PM
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... :cool:

pdk42
22nd August 2017, 06:04 PM
It looks perhaps a little smaller than the 25 f1.2 - at least it seems narrower anyhow.

Nawty
22nd August 2017, 08:51 PM
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... :cool:

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
22nd August 2017, 09:45 PM
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... :cool:

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
23rd August 2017, 08:39 AM
I'd like to give this a try at an Oly experience day, but I suspect I wouldn't use it enough at f1.2 to justify the size/weight/cost. The weather-proofing would be of some value, I guess.

I'd be OK with the focal length, although I have now habituated to the Pan-Leica's 15mm. I'm sure I could migrate back if the other attributes won me over.

Frankly, if I want the option of narrower depth of field over the PL 15mm f1.7, I slip the 45 f1.8 in my pocket: that, of course, both adds and restricts one's options by having a different focal length.

I have played around with ultra-shallow dof with my Rokkor 58mm f1.2 when I had my Sony A7R and then the Rii - occasionally wonderful, but it's all too easy for this style to become a cliché, beloved of nerdy photographers!

Portraits with half an eye in focus mostly look pretty weird to me, while I know Joe Public is inclined to ask "Why is my portrait out of focus?"

Ricoh
23rd August 2017, 11:39 AM
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
23rd August 2017, 05:00 PM
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
23rd August 2017, 05:20 PM
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
23rd August 2017, 08:56 PM
I like the 17mm focal length. Having a wide aperture option is nice sometimes too. I owned the CV 17.5 f0.95 but didn't really get on with manual focus and it was a tad soft/low contrast wide open. I expect this new Olympus lens to be sharp from f1.2 so I can see its appeal. Whether I can justify its likely £1000+ price tag is another thing.

Ricoh
23rd August 2017, 09:04 PM
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/2017/08/23/joel-meyerowitz-creating-unspoken-connections-street-snaps/ please do.

drmarkf
24th August 2017, 09:21 AM
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/2017/08/23/joel-meyerowitz-creating-unspoken-connections-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
24th August 2017, 10:20 AM
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.

David M
25th August 2017, 11:05 PM
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
26th August 2017, 07:43 AM
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.

:rolleyes:

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 *chr

David M
26th August 2017, 09:14 AM
:rolleyes:

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 *chr

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
26th August 2017, 10:53 AM
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
26th August 2017, 02:39 PM
Chunter, chunter... (Erindoors is currently outdoors collecting something from John Lewis :D ).

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
27th August 2017, 01:04 AM
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
6th December 2017, 11:06 PM
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
7th December 2017, 09:31 AM
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
7th December 2017, 11:42 AM
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:

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/olympus-17mm-vs-17mm-1.jpg

drmarkf
7th December 2017, 12:34 PM
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
7th December 2017, 02:41 PM
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:

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/745/30945763504_0f14e88f74_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/P9z8mC)
Dans la Forêt (https://flic.kr/p/P9z8mC) by Paul Kaye (https://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_kaye/), on Flickr

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/477/30939382204_6decfc9431_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/P91qqd)
Sunrise (https://flic.kr/p/P91qqd) by Paul Kaye (https://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_kaye/), on Flickr


https://farm1.staticflickr.com/319/30945983734_01b9d3658e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/P9AfPG)
Christmas Postbox (https://flic.kr/p/P9AfPG) by Paul Kaye (https://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_kaye/), on Flickr

drmarkf
7th December 2017, 04:36 PM
Nice.
Interesting about the CAF issue - maybe it's something to do with the DJI origin? Mine is absolutely fine on the M1ii.

drmarkf
8th February 2018, 10:15 PM
Nice article, with full images (Olympus visionary, note):
https://www.creativeislandphoto.com/blog/life-wide-open

Loup Garou
22nd October 2018, 06:27 PM
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
22nd October 2018, 09:21 PM
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.

Loup Garou
23rd October 2018, 06:13 AM
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. Agreed, but my point is that for an ordinary enthusiast like me IMO, the number of situations where a 34mm FF equivalent calls for a narrow DoF is limited. I therefore did not think that it was justified spending £1149 on the 17mm f1.2 as opposed to the current price of £304 (after £65 cashback) for the 17mm f1.8 lens (both Wex prices). In my own case this is theoretical of course, since I have owned the 17mm f1.8 for years and love it.

On the other hand, I can quite understand someone wanting to shell out the higher amount for the 45mm f1.2, a designated portrait lens.

I fully agree with you about FF being a disadvantage in several situations. In fact, portraits apart, the MFT system is better in several respects, especially if one is using the Olympus PRO and some PanLeica lenses. MFT lenses are smaller, lighter and far more portable for one thing; then their longer DoF for a given focal length would mean that in some low light situations you can get away with larger equivalent apertures even when you want a good DoF. Also, the whole ensemble being smaller and lighter, hand-heldability is much greater. *chr

drmarkf
23rd October 2018, 09:01 AM
Agreed, but my point is that for an ordinary enthusiast like me IMO, the number of situations where a 34mm FF equivalent calls for a narrow DoF is limited...

On the other hand, I can quite understand someone wanting to shell out the higher amount for the 45mm f1.2, a designated portrait lens...

I fully agree with you about FF being a disadvantage in several situations. In fact, portraits apart, the MFT system is better in several respects, especially if one is using the Olympus PRO and some PanLeica lenses....

Yes, I certainly wouldn’t cough up that much without a good reason!

Eyelash-thin dof in portraits is another of those features pursued obsessively by a certain brand of photographer which usually completely passes Joe Public by. In fact, I’ve seen people complaining that their portrait is out of focus, when in fact the third eyelash and iris of their nearest eye was perfectly sharp...

Most ultra-thin dof portraits look seriously weird to me. In contrast, the 45mm Pro at full aperture at headshot distance usually gives from eye to ear in focus, which I find ideal.

So again those massive, expensive and heavy FF f1.2 portrait lenses are usually overkill (assuming the photographer can actually focus them, that is, especially if they’re using the new mirrorless Nikon Z6 or 7 which I believe lack auto eye focus).

It’s good to have options, but ultra thin dof at close distances and modest focal lengths comes at a price that you need a proper reason to pay.

Loup Garou
23rd October 2018, 09:09 AM
Most ultra-thin dof portraits look seriously weird to me. In contrast, the 45mm Pro at full aperture at headshot distance usually gives from eye to ear in focus, which I find ideal.

So again those massive, expensive and heavy FF f1.2 portrait lenses are usually overkill . You said it. A friend owned the old Canon 85mm f1.2 lens (which would have a DoF equivalent of a Nocticron with f0.6 :eek:!). Not only was it almost as heavy as his mini ;), head-and- shoulders portraits often had ears that looked as though they were about to go into the 4th dimension.

I have heard that even the Voigtlander Nocton 42.5mm can be very difficult to manually focus at f0.95. After the age to 50 the ability of the human eye to discern sharpness fades a bit and I suspect some of us older photographers would struggle with MF at very large apertures.