Olympus 17 mm f 1.2 Pro, 45 mm f 1.2 Pro, Voigtlander 17.5 mm f 0.95

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
OP Sbarnaveli Junior Member • Posts: 25
Re: Olympus 17 mm f 1.2 Pro, 45 mm f 1.2 Pro, Voigtlander 17.5 mm f 0.95

Jan Chelminski wrote:

Sbarnaveli wrote:

Thanks!

I agree with the points about excessive bokeh, but as I outlined in my original post, I'm not trying to get it. I want to have a reasonable amount of bokeh just as in the examples from the movie that I posted (and I think a movie of that scale is as professional as it can get).

I also completely agree that 1.8 primes are real gems and a lot can be done with them and I haven't even got close to getting the most out of them.

I was actually not planning to buy any more lenses and be happy with my 1.8s, but it is simply the fact that I could get a new Em1 mkii with 5 years of warranty for the same price (or a bit cheaper) as used ones and a new 1.2 lens for cheaper than the used prices. So that's why I started thinking that I could make use of this 1.2 aperture blur for cases like in the movie screenshots and went for the deal.

And your comment about sharpness is also a good one - 1.8s (especially the ones that I have in 40-50mm range) are not that even across the frame, so there 17 1.2 might also be beneficial for me.

Hi,

Just reread your original post, I think I should recomment.

The 17mm is excellent, but the 25mm may be the best. While the 17mm is trying (and succeeding, very well) to be a fast, sharp and technically balanced optic, the 25mm actually seems closer to me, in character with what you seem to be after, which I think is: A classy, refined character and rendering 'habit'. If so, thats your lens, IMO.

It's the real star of the bunch, if you are after an extremely refined rendering.

Another lens I think has 'cinema like' rendering, is the 10-25mm f/1.7.

All 3 MZD 1.2's are great, I would study pictures and consider perspective, I think 45mm might often be a bit too little, in that dept, so 17/25mm may be best.

heres a couple

17mm @ 1.2. Sculpture is about 2.5 to 3 feet tall.

Also f/1.2

Rgds,

Jan

Thanks Jan,

Yes, after reading this comment, I realized that it agreed a lot with what I was considering and wishing and started looking at the examples from both lenses again. And I agree, that with 25 I would get significantly more bokeh and the "feathered" nature of it would also be much more apparent. I almost decided to reconsider my choice in favor of 25mm. But based on some examples including your examples as well, I can see that 17mm can also give that smooth and classy bokeh if used correctly. Besides, as I mentioned above, I played with different focal lengths this morning and I think the perspective of 35mm is actually more interesting in some cases and it's also more suited to rooms which might be tight. At the same time, it is still not wide enough like 24mm, for example, to give crazy distortions when you take close up pictures of people when their face is places towards the edge of the frame.

And after all, if it appears that I really can not make use of 17mm, I can always sell it and buy the 25mm Pro. Even with loosing some money on this, it is at least going to give me a solid understanding that 17mm is not "my focal length" (or that I somehow wasn't able to make use of it in my portraiture no matter what I tried).

Though, I highly doubt this scenario and I think I'll get used to 17mm and will make it a useful lens for me.

And in the end, life is not ending here, so if I feel at some point that I really really can't live without 25mm 1.2 (as I already have 25 1.7 (with ugly bokeh sometimes, but still)), I can start saving up and buy it in the end. (If mft is still going to be alive by that time ).

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow