Olympus UK E-System User Group

Olympus UK E-System User Group (http://e-group.uk.net/forum/index.php)
-   Standard zoom and mid range (http://e-group.uk.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Robin Wong review of 17mm f1.2 (http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46899)

pdk42 1st January 2018 10:08 AM

Robin Wong review of 17mm f1.2
 
https://blog.mingthein.com/2018/01/0...comment-560649

Looks a stellar lens... I want one :)

Greytop 1st January 2018 11:35 AM

Re: Robin Wong review of 17mm f1.2
 
The file quality does look rather nice.
Practically it would have to sit on an E-M1 MkII rather than a Pen F IMHO.
17mm is a handy do all prime walk around FL, tempting but the size still bothers me a little.

Ricoh 1st January 2018 12:29 PM

Re: Robin Wong review of 17mm f1.2
 
What's the purpose of a fast moderate wide angle? Such a lens is normally used to show the subject in context with its surroundings. Context being key.

drmarkf 1st January 2018 01:14 PM

Re: Robin Wong review of 17mm f1.2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricoh (Post 436303)
What's the purpose of a fast moderate wide angle? Such a lens is normally used to show the subject in context with its surroundings. Context being key.

Depends what style you're after.

In street photography, people like Joel Meyerowitz and Alex Webb developed the 'field' style of image, with lots going on in layers, and m4/3 is useful for that with the extra depth of field and use of zone focusing. This is currently trendy, but extremely difficult to do well (and the interwebs are full of chaotic, jumbled rubbish as a result).

However, think of street images from people like Diane Arbus and Robert Frank and you'll see often very shallow depth of field with much more subject isolation. The only way to get that sort of effect with 4/3 is to have a lens with this aperture.

It's good to have choices.

blu-by-u 1st January 2018 01:16 PM

Re: Robin Wong review of 17mm f1.2
 
Not a lens for me..it's huge :eek:

drmarkf 1st January 2018 02:20 PM

Re: Robin Wong review of 17mm f1.2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by blu-by-u (Post 436314)
Not a lens for me..it's huge :eek:

Depends what you're comparing it against!

It is 68.2 x 87mm and 390g.

Panasonic 15mm f1.7 57.5 x 36mm, 115g = yes, it's huge (as when compared with the Oly 17mm f1.8).

Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 69.9 x 84mm, 382g = everyday wear for most OMD shooters, surely?

Versus a couple of other ways m4/3 shooters can get shallow depth of field, there are:

Olympus 75mm f1.8 63.5 x 69.5, 304g

Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95 63.4 x 80, 540g

...and it sits in the middle of those two, for weight at least.

Yes, it is large, but for me only a try-out will enable me to decide whether the size/weight/cost is worth it. I've already found it will CA focus very well indeed at full aperture on the M1ii in the sort of way I envisage using it, so it's a matter of what the resulting images look like.

iso 2nd January 2018 07:58 PM

Re: Robin Wong review of 17mm f1.2
 
Paul thanks forthe Link, it was particularly interesting given his early comment ----
‘A genuine concern, however, is the diminishing benefitof Micro Four Thirds systems having smaller, more portable lenses. These newF1.2 PRO lenses are no smaller or lighter than their DSLR counterparts. I can’tdeny that the size advantage is questionable now’------
This rather echoesmy comments in the Thread about the ‘Pro’ bias in the recent OlympusQuestionaire.

Otto 3rd January 2018 09:59 AM

Re: Robin Wong review of 17mm f1.2
 
That's fair comment but the beauty of the system is that we have a choice. The laws of physics say the brighter the lens the bigger and heavier it will be, but if you prefer small and light at least Olympus offers both.

benvendetta 4th January 2018 04:03 PM

Re: Robin Wong review of 17mm f1.2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto (Post 436504)
That's fair comment but the beauty of the system is that we have a choice. The laws of physics say the brighter the lens the bigger and heavier it will be, but if you prefer small and light at least Olympus offers both.

Very true................and I will stick with the f1.8 versions which are still excellent optics and the perfect size for my Pen F. My zooms are reserved for my EM1.1.

AMc 5th January 2018 12:35 PM

Re: Robin Wong review of 17mm f1.2
 
The images look lovely - unfortunately it's listed at £1299 at Wex so I doubt I'll ever see it on my camera.
Thankfully the 17mm f1.8 is in my bag so I'll just stick with that!

MikeOxon 5th January 2018 01:59 PM

Re: Robin Wong review of 17mm f1.2
 
I'm a bit puzzled by the statement in this review that "Neither myself nor MT are associated with Olympus in any way...." On his own blog (assuming it is the same Robin Wong) he states "I am an Olympus Malaysia employee" That was in 2016, so he may have moved on, but he clearly has had close connections with Olympus in the past

There is a direct comparison between the f/1.8 and f/1.2 on the Mirrorless Comparisons website, where you can compare images by the two lenses side-by-side.

I have no doubt that the f/1.2 is technically superior and weather-sealed but, for most practical purposes, there seems to be little to separate them and the f/1.8 is much smaller.

Bikie John 5th January 2018 04:02 PM

Re: Robin Wong review of 17mm f1.2
 
I think he parted company with Oly a few months ago. He was always quite upfront about his connections, from what I remember.

John

pdk42 5th January 2018 04:15 PM

Re: Robin Wong review of 17mm f1.2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AMc (Post 436701)
The images look lovely - unfortunately it's listed at £1299 at Wex so I doubt I'll ever see it on my camera.
Thankfully the 17mm f1.8 is in my bag so I'll just stick with that!

The US list price is $1199 - so just over £900 at current exchange rates. Even if we add VAT it's still a lot cheaper. Leaves a bad taste about Oly stuffing us in the UK.

RobEW 5th January 2018 05:37 PM

Re: Robin Wong review of 17mm f1.2
 
Yes, Wong did part company with Olympus a while back. I was surrised and I think I posted.

He really doesn't like the 17mm FL does he, and disliked the Oly 1.8 especially, whereas others give that lens a good review.

I'm absolutely not in the $1200 prime price bracket, but if this causes a glut of used 17/1.8s on the market I might be temptable. Though it does seem as though Wong likes an alternative I'm considering - the Pan 20/1.7. Probably don't need either realistically.

Internaut 6th January 2018 10:30 AM

Re: Robin Wong review of 17mm f1.2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by drmarkf (Post 436313)
Depends what style you're after.

In street photography, people like Joel Meyerowitz and Alex Webb developed the 'field' style of image, with lots going on in layers, and m4/3 is useful for that with the extra depth of field and use of zone focusing. This is currently trendy, but extremely difficult to do well (and the interwebs are full of chaotic, jumbled rubbish as a result).

However, think of street images from people like Diane Arbus and Robert Frank and you'll see often very shallow depth of field with much more subject isolation. The only way to get that sort of effect with 4/3 is to have a lens with this aperture.

It's good to have choices.

I would certainly edge towards DoF, for subject isolation, given my style and limitation (I simply donít see or compose quickly enough).


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:53 AM.


© The Write Technology Ltd, 2007-2018, All rights reservedAd Management plugin by RedTyger