Should I wait for Oly 12mm f/1.2 or fork money for 17mm f/1.2?

Newbie12345 said:

So many informative/interesting responses.

T-stops is something that I was not considering (assumed it would be similar for most Pana/Oly primes). It is true that more elements there are, generally higher the T-stop. I don't even know if T-stop data is readily available for all lenses.

It appears that, I should actually be looking at T-stops for low-light capability instead of just the f number.

What I do not know if the camera decides (Oly EM1 mark I in my case) the aperture based on f-number or does it actually base it on observed T-stop? I would wager that even if the camera decides the shutter based on f-number, images would be better for a lens with a smaller T-stop (higher light intensity on sensor pixels).

I am checking out Pana 12mm f/1.4 also to see if it would be a good fit.

Click to expand...

Newbie12345 said:

I am also expecting 12mm to be similarly priced/sized/weighted to 17mm.

Confused. Any thoughts/suggestions?

Click to expand...

jwilliams said:

Tommi K1 said:

jwilliams said:

is kind of specialized FL. For group shot indoors it generally is wider than needed and not a flattering FL for people.

Click to expand...

There is nothing "non-flattering" in that focal length (as in any). It is always the distance that is the flattering or not.

So simply use the Mpix in the sensor for something, shoot with 12mm from same distance as 17mm, 20mm, 30mm or 45mm or as wanted and just crop.

Cropping just makes limitation how large you can in the end print. So 2x focal length difference is fairly easy still to do as it is just 1/4 of the Mpix area. So 16Mpix becomes 4Mpix and that is still a plenty for many cases.

Click to expand...

if you like the distorted look go ahead and use one. That's your right. Don't think you'll find anyone else who would prefer that to a 35mm equiv for people pics though.

Click to expand...

SkiHound said:

I agree. A 12mm m43 lens is pretty wide and if taking pictures of people, a wide angle lens can easily distort facial features if you're not careful.

Click to expand...

Tommi K1 said:

The perspective is always same when nodal point is same.

Click to expand...

jwilliams said:

Tommi K1 said:

The perspective is always same when nodal point is same.

Click to expand...

that is correct. However if you take a picture of someone 20 feet away with a 24mm lens and then take a picture from the same point with a 200mm lens the person is going to fill a lot more of the frame. Move in with the 24mm so the person fills the same amount of the frame and you are very close and distorting the persons face.

So while your argument technically is right, it doesn't hold water in regards to actually taking pictures of people with very wide angle lenses.

Click to expand...

jwilliams said:

jwilliams said:

There is nothing "non-flattering" in that focal length (as in any). It is always the distance that is the flattering or not. [B]So simply use the Mpix in the sensor for something[/B] said:

jwilliams said:

jwilliams said:

It is always the distance that is the flattering or not.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It is the photographer task to understand the composition, meaning perspective, camera angle, angle of view and field of view, as addition to motion, timing, hard/soft light, and timing as well the subjects and objects in the frame by their nature of colors, shapes, size and philosophical, cultural etc meanings (ie black vs white, big vs small, old vs new etc). And that eventually requires the photographer to have very good situational awareness what to include and what not, where the camera is positioned and what the camera settings are used.

And one of the most easiest mistake people do, is to fill the frame with the subject regardless what focal length they are using.

Then they hear the common claims "85mm is the portrait focal length" like "rule of thumb" and mistake it "35mm will distort the person face!" and they easily conclude that 85mm is better than 35mm because 35mm does distortion. And they don't think that at all why it happens as we have two eyes instead a one and we focus our attention to totally different ways to person face in front of us, than to photograph of them.

So just learning to keep a optimal distance regardless of the focal length, will help a lot to get far more flattering image. And that requires as well to people not to be afraid to crop.

With a film, cropping was almost required one, just to get sharp edges or when framing the photo you added some crop there with passepartout or frames.

With digital so many is terrorized from cropping that they try to fill the frame every time. Be it how lens sharpness is bad or Mpix count is too low or sensor is too small etc.

Why 12mm is better than 17mm as it gives more cropping power, more possibilities than 17mm as you still can get as close as 17mm but require only crop later more accurately and better.

Why as OP, I would get either 17mm f/1.8 if that is really wanted focal length, but I would likely look even a 12mm f/2, even when it is T/2.2 vs T/2 that you get with f/1.8 lenses.

I would instead spending money for PRO, spend it to some denoise application as you get couple stops denoise effect and be easily using ISO 6400 almost all the places.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

mentos77 said:

Vloggers who use the PL12mm have bigger noses due to some kind of distortion (perspective?), it just looks wrong and is an unsuitable focal length for being that close imho. The same bloggers face looks fine with longer lenses like the 17mm . But they will be holding the camera farther away I assume, so maybe it is just distances rather than the width of the lens.

Click to expand...