Olympus 12mm f/2 vs. 17mm f1.8

As far as I can judge my 12/2 is 'sharper' than my 17/1.8 was. And I'm not pixel peeping. But my 12/2 just has that crisper output, a clarity that is not over-sharpened. So maybe I'll call it clarity, not sharpness.

I also own the Limited Black version.

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

Tom Caldwell said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

Tom Caldwell said:

But I do have the Olympus 12-40/2.8 Pro which is indeed an excellent lens (no IS of course) but its sheer size rules it out of this equation.

Click to expand...

Actually, that may not be the case. As I replied to another comment (from @Skeeterbytes), quoting myself...

"I may be able to suffice with taking only a 12-40 f/2.8 PRO instead of my 12-45 f/4 PRO and a faster prime. I'm beginning to think that given my OM-5's great IBIS and my willingness to let ISO rise to maybe 1000, f/2.8 might be sufficient as a single lens solution."

Click to expand...

Fair enough. It is a great lens and obviously of better pedigree to the kit 12-32 which actually collapses when not in use and is arguably of similar size to the (faster) primes you were considering. It should be cheap enough as there were so many sold as kit lenses on a variety of Panasonic camera bodies.

Of course it is your decision and forum members, like myself are just trying to be helpful.

Click to expand...

And I appreciate it for sure. My original plan was to take the 12-45mm f/4 "kit" lens that came with my OM-5 and one of the two primes that started this discussion. But I do believe that I can make do (and nicely that is) with just the 12-40. Certainly it'll be nice never to have to change lenses.

Click to expand...

One of the reasons why I choose more than one GM5 camera body each semi-permanently fitted to a lens of choice for the occasion. The GM5 body is only a pack of cards larger than any lens it is attached to. Just my own personal reasoning.

Unfortunately the GM5 has been 'out of print' for many years now.

In any carry situation the size of the camera body is often not something that is worried about.

cba_melbourne said:

Tom Caldwell said:

cba_melbourne said:

Tom Caldwell said:

...........

One might wonder whether the 12/2.0 also needs to be divided into the cheap silver and later similarly priced black version which can usually be bought at reasonable price after-market. Versus the arm and a leg "Limited" version which I persuaded myself that I really needed because it was coloured "black" and somehow was worth quite a lot more than the much cheaper 'cooking silver' which was the only alternative at the time.

Click to expand...

My 12/2.0 is silver, but made in Japan just like the later "Limited Black" version only sold in a kit. So far I have not heard of any complaints (like one-sided soft edges due to de-centering) from a Japan made 12/2.0 regardless of color.


If Japan made it says so engraved on the lens barrel. If made in China or Vietnam it says so besides the electric contacts. That metal lens hood is the much cheaper JJC clone from AliExpress, I guess that is why it a different silver tone

[ATTACH alt="This is the "Limited Black" version, currently used on ebay from a Japanese seller for only US$268.90, but without the originally bundled extras. If I was looking for a 12/2 today, I would order this one before it is gone https://www.ebay.com/itm/394101383381"]3429209[/ATTACH]
This is the "Limited Black" version, currently used on ebay from a Japanese seller for only US$268.90, but without the originally bundled extras. If I was looking for a 12/2 today, I would order this one before it is gone https://www.ebay.com/itm/394101383381

cba_melbourne said:

My second oem lens M4/3 after the kit 12-32 that came with the GM1 that I bought.

Never looked back but I doubt that the Limited version has held its premium value for resale purposes. Not that I have ever looked as mine is certainly never-for-sale.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks, I don't remember how much I paid for mine. It was unobtainable in Australia and low stocks everywhere else. I managed to get it a bit cheaper buying it direct from Japan.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

At the time I was booked for a trip overseas and i did not wish to wait for one to be ordered in and then pay the RRP as well.

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

Mine has the word "Limited Black" engraved on it to the right of the mount point red dot and came with a filter and matched hood in the box.

Obviously disappointed when the Black-only "Limited Edition" was re-released at the same price as the silver-only cheap version - but the words "limited black" is not on this re-released black edition. (As far as I know!)

I keep myself amused by clinging to the fact that I had a very nice expensive filter and hood and the "Limited Black" stamp on mine.

Are you sure that this Japanese listed lens is a real "Limited" of simply the silver edition in black?

Click to expand...

Yes Tom. If you look up the ebay link there are more pics of it, and it shows the "Limited Black" engraving. Also, only the very first silver 12/2 lenses, and then again the "Limited Black" edition kit, are made in Japan. The vast majority of 12/2 are marked as made in China.

Click to expand...

The link is not working - it is just taking me to the gallery. Checked eBay and the cheapest 12/2.0 Limited is actually a new one for for sale in Australia by Digidirect. Rather surprised that there is still a new in box Limited for sale to some lucky buyer with reasonable money to burn. But there are a few used for sale and are quite (more) expensive. The one you found is indeed a seriously good bargain and is priced well below even the 'standard' black ones in second hand pricing.

Obviously I have not been looking as I am well set.

cba_melbourne said:

Usually it does not matter where a lens is made. But with a very few lenses is does. For example, the newer China made PL100-400 are a better buy than the older ones made in Japan, because they don't have the overly stiff zoom ring sample variation problem anymore. It also appears the latest 17/1.8 made in Vietnam have less de-centering issues than the earlier made in China samples. I personally think with the 12/2 it is just the other way around, the oldest made in Japan samples are least at risk of being de-centered.

cba_melbourne said:

I have no issues with my "Limited" and can only assume that the QC was. more rigorous to justify the extra price. It was quite a lot more.

Click to expand...

The price for the "Limited Black" kit at it's release in 2012 was US$200 more than the silver model released one year earlier in 2011, which had (and still has today) an RRP of US$800. Only 3,000 units of the "Limited Black" were ever made. You own a "collectors item"

Click to expand...

Yes, at the time I just did not want the silver one enough to pay the extra for the Limited Black version. Glad to see that most of the vendors seem to think that these lenses have held their value better.

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

Just noticed that mine has a higher serial number than the one that you have referenced - as the plain black version did not appear until some time after I bought mine this earlier version is almost certainly a "Limited".

Also noted that the 'expensive' lens hood is labelled "China".

Mine of course is not for sale.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Tom Caldwell

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

EarthQuake said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

I’m considering one of these two lenses for some overseas traveling where I expect to find myself in situations where I would want a relatively wide angle as well as a faster focal length for the no doubt reduced light that I’ll encounter with interiors of churches, cathedrals and other buildings.

Click to expand...

For this use case, I would say that neither lens is wide enough. I would look at the Panasonic 9/1.7, or one of the ultra-wide zooms.

Click to expand...

Like the 8-25mm f/4 perhaps? Not sure I want to take that large of a lens with me though.

Click to expand...

Yes, that would be a good choice. There's also the smaller and lighter (315g) Panasonic 8-16/2.8-4, which is a stop faster at the wide end (where you'll probably use it the most), but shorter on the long end. The 8-18mm would be my choice for an UWA, but both of these are great lenses.

Though again, the 9/1.7 is a great option if you want something small and light (130g).

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

Generally speaking, for something like cathedrals you want a wide DOF, and you can get away with pretty slow shutter speeds (especially if you have a body with IBIS), so I don't think a fast prime is necessary here. F4 is plenty fast enough in my experience.

Click to expand...

My first trip isn't until June so I think I need to go find some interiors and test out just how well I can do with my 12-45mm at f/4 with ISO's that are acceptable. Indeed, being new to the m4/3 format and Olympus (or OM Systems) specifically, I've read wonderful things about their IBIS. I just need to test it out.

Click to expand...

Yeah, since you have the 12-45, you should take it out and see:

1. If 12mm is wide enough or if you want something wider

2. What sort of shutter speeds you can get away with at F4. What I find works best when I'm dragging the shutter speed really low is to take a burst of 3. Generally, the middle shot is the best. With the IBIS in the EM5 III I can go as low as 2 or even 4 seconds handheld with wider lenses.

Of course, you can't freeze motion with IBIS, so a faster lens is better if that's your goal. Personally, I like to drag the shutter and create some motion blur with passersby in places like cathedrals, museums, etc. Here are a couple of examples with the 9/1.7 from the museum my wife works at - the Clyfford Still here in Denver.

EarthQuake said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

EarthQuake said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

I’m considering one of these two lenses for some overseas traveling where I expect to find myself in situations where I would want a relatively wide angle as well as a faster focal length for the no doubt reduced light that I’ll encounter with interiors of churches, cathedrals and other buildings.

Click to expand...

For this use case, I would say that neither lens is wide enough. I would look at the Panasonic 9/1.7, or one of the ultra-wide zooms.

Click to expand...

Like the 8-25mm f/4 perhaps? Not sure I want to take that large of a lens with me though.

Click to expand...

Yes, that would be a good choice. There's also the smaller and lighter (315g) Panasonic 8-16/2.8-4, which is a stop faster at the wide end (where you'll probably use it the most), but shorter on the long end. The 8-18mm would be my choice for an UWA, but both of these are great lenses.

Though again, the 9/1.7 is a great option if you want something small and light (130g).

EarthQuake said:

EarthQuake said:

Generally speaking, for something like cathedrals you want a wide DOF, and you can get away with pretty slow shutter speeds (especially if you have a body with IBIS), so I don't think a fast prime is necessary here. F4 is plenty fast enough in my experience.

Click to expand...

My first trip isn't until June so I think I need to go find some interiors and test out just how well I can do with my 12-45mm at f/4 with ISO's that are acceptable. Indeed, being new to the m4/3 format and Olympus (or OM Systems) specifically, I've read wonderful things about their IBIS. I just need to test it out.

Click to expand...

Yeah, since you have the 12-45, you should take it out and see:

1. If 12mm is wide enough or if you want something wider

2. What sort of shutter speeds you can get away with at F4. What I find works best when I'm dragging the shutter speed really low is to take a burst of 3. Generally, the middle shot is the best. With the IBIS in the EM5 III I can go as low as 2 or even 4 seconds handheld with wider lenses.

Click to expand...

I did some testing during the daytime in my basement with the lights off, at f/4, shutter speeds of around 1/10 to 1/5 second worked with ISO 350 or so. That's good for me.

EarthQuake said:

Of course, you can't freeze motion with IBIS, so a faster lens is better if that's your goal. Personally, I like to drag the shutter and create some motion blur with passersby in places like cathedrals, museums, etc. Here are a couple of examples with the 9/1.7 from the museum my wife works at - the Clyfford Still here in Denver.

Click to expand...

I would hope to be able to keep people out of my photos but we'll see. Oh, and I'm down in Parker.

Crazy Micro Four Thirds Dude said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

cba_melbourne said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

cba_melbourne said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

bs1946 said:

melnais said:

Member said:

And to hopefully keep this topic on track, these are the only two that I’m considering so please don’t suggest any others and also I’d really like to only hear from folks that have used both.

Click to expand...

You are wasting your time and money getting those lenses, the Panasonic 15mm will serve you better.

Click to expand...

I have owned the 12mm, 17mm, and still own a PL 15mm f1.7. It is an excellent lens and slots right between both. But on the OP's Olympus body, the aperture ring, AF/MF switch, and Dual IS will not work. One good reason not to consider it.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That is wrong and misleading. The 15mm AF/MF switch does work perfectly fine on Olympus bodies.

And none of the lenses in question (12, 15, 17) has IS. So obviously none can have dual IS either. Now, is that a good reason not to consider any of them?

Member said:

I agree, having (and paying for) features that are cr*ppled or unusable is not for me.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...

The 12mm and 17mm focus clutch is on purpose cr*ppled on Olympus and OM bodies.

Click to expand...

The clutch on the 17mm works fine on my OM-5 (I tried one today at my local store).

Click to expand...

Most pro lenses do have the clutch. When you pull the ring back, you can have magnify and peaking automatically pop-up. But not so with the 12/2 and 17/1.8 on an Oly body, you have to program an extra button for that.

Click to expand...

this is inconsequential for me as I don’t manual focus but, if I did, at least it works even if you have to program a button so it’s not a cr*ppled function. The function is there, you’re just not happy with how it gets implemented, I get that. Now having a lens with functions that can’t be used at all like the 15mm is a definition of cr*ippled.

Click to expand...

The Aperture rings doesn't work.

Member said:

I can hear my wife now pointing to the AF/MF switch and asking “What's that button for? Oh nothing Dear, it’s just for looks.”

Click to expand...

The af/mf switch does work.

Member said:

Pass

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Just a little levity here. I quite like the MF clutch system so don't get me wrong. But if the AF/MF switch on the lens body is a nuisance at least it is fairly obvious that it can be switched and takes a distinct mental decision to move it.

How many times to I find that the MF clutch has been accidentally engaged and the first thing I know the AF does not seem to be working ....

Ok, ok .... I am getting used to this and quickly now realise what the gremlins have been up to ....

Not needing to use it is often something that the gremlins that fool around with our technical features have not been told about.

Just remember this when dear wife says the AF system appears broken.

PS: nothing is likely to be perfect for everyone.

--
Tom Caldwell