Oly 12mm f2 - Not for me

[Canyongazer]

a 17 year old with a proclivity for entartete kunst, ja?

 

[tedolf]

Thanks for the psychoanalysis Peter but you really didn't answer the question did you?

Can you give me an example or not?

Of why f2 is important in a wide angle ? I think this article has plenty of examples why a fast lens, with the corresponding narrow dof, is important, even for wide angles:

http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2011/06/olympus-e-p3-review-pudu-wet-market.html

Note that he doesn't only use the trick of focusing on a nearby object, throwing the distance behind it out of focus. The front is out of focus in his first shot, for example.

Peter.

--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
blog at http://lightchangesstuff.wordpress.com/

The only true close up shots at f/2.0 in that article are the food shots (the shot of the smiling woman at f/2.0 is clearly not a close up-e.g. at closest focus). All of those couild easily be duplicated with the 14-42 kit lens at f/3.5-the lighting is very good-no need for f 2.0. They wouldn't look much different shot at f 3.5. I will give you a hint. The example you should be giviing me (it can just be a scene description-doesn't have to be an actual photograph) is in a low light setting. That is the only place where f/2.0 on a lens like this makes any sense.

Tedolph

 

[chadmarek]

You kind of customers are never happy.

A 2.8/24mm from Canon or Nikon costs around 450 to 500 € = 630 to 700 $. The Olympus lens is one stop faster and much better build. So 800 $ is the price to be expected.

Never said it was expensive for what it is, did I?

The lens size isn't even big for what is does (f 2.0).

I have no clue, how you can come to the conclusion that this lens is flashy. If during shooting, you draw attention depends much more on your behaviour than your equipment (large format rigs excluded).

Additionally you have a misconception abut m4/3: it is not only about size. It will never be the smallest camera system. It is also not about inconspiciousness. You have the option to get a small m4/3 system buying the smallest bodies and the pancake lenses, but not every m4/3 body and accessory is made for you.

Um, yeah. That's what I put in the title of the post, right? "Oly 12mm f2 - Not for me "

Spend your money and make your purchases the way you see fit.

chad

 

[tedolf]

a 17 year old with a proclivity for entartete kunst, ja?

Yo solamente hablo Espanol y Ingles, y un poco de Italiano y Latino.

Capice?

Tedolpho

P.E. Y yo no se como usar una tilde.

 

[Nat Whilk]

A 2.8/24mm from Canon or Nikon costs around 450 to 500 € = 630 to 700 $.

It looks to me like they're $360 at BH Photo.

 

[tedolf]

You kind of customers are never happy.

A 2.8/24mm from Canon or Nikon costs around 450 to 500 € = 630 to 700 $. The Olympus lens is one stop faster and much better build. So 800 $ is the price to be expected.

Never said it was expensive for what it is, did I?

The lens size isn't even big for what is does (f 2.0).

I have no clue, how you can come to the conclusion that this lens is flashy. If during shooting, you draw attention depends much more on your behaviour than your equipment (large format rigs excluded).

Additionally you have a misconception abut m4/3: it is not only about size. It will never be the smallest camera system. It is also not about inconspiciousness. You have the option to get a small m4/3 system buying the smallest bodies and the pancake lenses, but not every m4/3 body and accessory is made for you.

Um, yeah. That's what I put in the title of the post, right? "Oly 12mm f2 - Not for me "

Spend your money and make your purchases the way you see fit.

chad

You tell'em chad!

Tedolph

 

[tgutgu]

You kind of customers are never happy.

A 2.8/24mm from Canon or Nikon costs around 450 to 500 € = 630 to 700 $. The Olympus lens is one stop faster and much better build. So 800 $ is the price to be expected.

Never said it was expensive for what it is, did I?

The lens size isn't even big for what is does (f 2.0).

I have no clue, how you can come to the conclusion that this lens is flashy. If during shooting, you draw attention depends much more on your behaviour than your equipment (large format rigs excluded).

Additionally you have a misconception abut m4/3: it is not only about size. It will never be the smallest camera system. It is also not about inconspiciousness. You have the option to get a small m4/3 system buying the smallest bodies and the pancake lenses, but not every m4/3 body and accessory is made for you.

Um, yeah. That's what I put in the title of the post, right? "Oly 12mm f2 - Not for me "

Spend your money and make your purchases the way you see fit.

Why do you spread your voice about your private stuuf at all? Posts like yours always want to give a message: and that was the Oly lens is too expensive. And it is normal to disagree.

chad

--
Thomas

 

[chadmarek]

You kind of customers are never happy.

A 2.8/24mm from Canon or Nikon costs around 450 to 500 € = 630 to 700 $. The Olympus lens is one stop faster and much better build. So 800 $ is the price to be expected.

Never said it was expensive for what it is, did I?

The lens size isn't even big for what is does (f 2.0).

I have no clue, how you can come to the conclusion that this lens is flashy. If during shooting, you draw attention depends much more on your behaviour than your equipment (large format rigs excluded).

Additionally you have a misconception abut m4/3: it is not only about size. It will never be the smallest camera system. It is also not about inconspiciousness. You have the option to get a small m4/3 system buying the smallest bodies and the pancake lenses, but not every m4/3 body and accessory is made for you.

Um, yeah. That's what I put in the title of the post, right? "Oly 12mm f2 - Not for me "

Spend your money and make your purchases the way you see fit.

Why do you spread your voice about your private stuuf at all? Posts like yours always want to give a message: and that was the Oly lens is too expensive. And it is normal to disagree.

Perhaps you could have read #2 and #3 before hitting the reply button. There are three reasons.

But, we all read what we want to read. And if in your view the only reason I see is the price, then I guess there is really nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

chad

 

[Dennis]

Nope, because DOF doesn't matter on a WA lens so the maximum F stop in this case only relates to light gathernering capability.

I imagine you know about sensor size WRT light gathering (I don't hang around m43 forum too much since I opted for a NEX over GF1 last year, but I know the topic comes up a lot) ... whether f/2.8 would have been fine or not is up to anyone to decide, but I was just replying to the suggestion that Sony did it right with f/2.8 ... if you buy into that, then it suggest f/2 on the 12 whether for light gathering or DOF. Personally I'm with you ... I want speed in a normal (like the 20/1.7) and a portrait prime (like the 45/1.8). (For that matter, I have little desire to own an ultrawide prime at all; I only own the Sony 16 because it's the only compact lens there is).

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[gianstam]

umbalito wrote:

...... but can you describe a real world situation like that? Most people don't move very fast in the dark.

Tedollph

 

[ArunasS]

You are right you do not shoot @f2 for street photography.
I was not clear in my original post

What I meant was that the EP3 with a 12 mm would make a great street photography camera, and a great competitor fro the M9.
Of course, I did not mean necessarily using it at f2 for street work.

Exactly. You don't use the biggest aperture all the time, but you can have it when you need it. You can need it very soon, when it becomes darker during street shooting for a whole day long ;-)

Seriously the 2 newly announced Oly lenses and the 25mm PanaLeica make a great set of primes. With this move they establish the m43 system as one more to be considered seriously. Until this they had only few consumer zooms, one good prime (20 1.7), one not so good prime (17 2.8) and one seriously expensive prime with limited use (45 2.8 macro). I am somewhat surprised Olympus didn't remake any serious primes from its PEN era while it promotes its cameras as digital PENs. There were optically very good lenses as 25 2.8 (well, somewhat dark as prime, but very sharp), 40 1.4, 42 1.2, 70 2.0. These lenses still shine on m43. The optical formula could be the same, just the new coating and bayonet. Is anyone from the company reading these forums? AFAIK, the 12 2.0 is a totally new design, but we will be happy about any good new lens.

 

[amalric]

I think Robin shows very well what that lens is capable of at fulll aperture in terms of subject isolation - everybody should have a look at those market images .

AF speed is also a factor, because ultrafast touch focus, means that you can instantly choose a subject instead of another, and isolate him/her from the rest.

It's a dream combination with the E-P3, but I read the kit is 1700 $, clearly not for me

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

 

[JohnMyron]

I have pre ordered at Amazon. It looks like a must have for me because I want it.

Also pre ordered the new 45mm. With the new Pens I may sell my Panasonic stuff and go all olympus but I,m not sure because I hate to give up the GH2.

Hi, I kind of like your theory! I hate buying tires. Take care.

--
john
my equipment is in my plan
if you live near me you can test any of it
just e-mail

 

[JohnMyron]

I agree most people don't need this lens including myself. The lens will be sold to people with a want not a need. I want...so I pre ordered at Amazon.

I'm a little mystified by this lens. Quality seems very high, but what's the intended market? Most people don't need high speed for WA, or lightning fast AF, or extra-special MF. Is this the kind of lens that photojournalists would be interested in?

Having said that, it may prove to be an excellent video lens....

--
john
my equipment is in my plan
if you live near me you can test any of it
just e-mail

 

[PeterLeyssens]

Tedolf,

The example you should be giviing me (it can just be a scene description-doesn't have to be an actual photograph) is in a low light setting. That is the only place where f/2.0 on a lens like this makes any sense.

Well, if you limit your definition of usefulness before the discussion, then happily ignore everything that falls outside of that definition, then there's no use discussing.

Peter.

--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
blog at http://lightchangesstuff.wordpress.com/

 

[cheongi]

I agree with the blog poster on lenses. Having started many moons ago with OM4, my favourite Zuiko lenses have been:

24mmf2.8 wide - essential for interiors; the f2 variant was a whole lot more expensive

40mmf2 pancake - good for general use but ended up avoiding the ordinary perspective

90mmf2 macro - the only lens I'd take if wanting to travel light and the one thing I'd yearn for on micro4/3

Olympus has missed the mark a little for me.

Presumably they went for the 12mmf2 because Panasonic does a 14mmf2.8. I'd prefer a lighter 12mmf2.8 because the speed doesn't add a lot for me except extra weight and if shooting landscapes seriously, I'd be on a tripod. ( Landscape photographers probably would like it.)

With the 17mmf2.8 vs 20mmf1.7 Lumix, I'd go for the extra speed of the Lumix.

With the 45mmf1.8 vs 45mmf2.8macro Panasonic/Leica, I'd prefer a 45mmf1.8 macro - please Olympus.

For now, I'm really enjoying using my OM lenses on E-PL1 - lighter than OM4 but longer with adapter.

 

[cheddargav]

I'll be honest, I was fast losing interest in m4/3 until I saw this lens announced.

Having come from street shooting with a Pentax + DA21mm (another lovely small, wide prime), I think this lens is a potential winner.

Now I have a few decisions to make. I was thinking I'd just get this for my GF1 but that was before I watched this video and saw how small the Pen Mini is (consider that this would just be a treat, I shoot Canon FF by day...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib_B--IBwRM

Well done Oly...

I find this lens to be perfect for me. In fact, I find this lens to be the perfect embodiment of what m43rds should be.

Price isn't really obscene. Of course it would be better if it were cheaper, but I don't find it to be extremely expensive either, for what it is.

Size is probably the best thing about it. I cannot think of a 24mm equivalent lens that comes even close to the size of this thing? Well, actually I can - only one lens, but from what I can see the Oly 12mm is significantly smaller - the Pentax DA 15mm Limited, a superb little lens in it's own right. But other than that, I can't think of a single 24mm equivalent AF prime that comes at this size. Certainly nothing from the CaNikon tribe.

Speed is a big plus. To have the light gathering characteristics of an f/2 lens on a 24mm equivalent, yet the deeper DOF of a 43rds sensor? Ah, that is just sweet. Perfect for street photography.

Street photography is where this lens will really shine, and I think it is who it was really designed for, which is why a distance scale also makes an appearance. Leave it on MF, and set it to hyperfocal distance, and just shoot.

--
Anything the kids can do, I can . . . . copy
http://gavinphotography.blog.co.uk/
http://www.gavinphotography.co.uk
http://www.twitter.com/gavphotography

 

[thx1138]

A 12/f2.8 pancake at $300 would have been a no-brainer for a huge chunk of the m43 market, in fact might have attracted quite a few Sony users, since the NEX 16/f2.8 isn't exactly pocketable...

+1

-1

We need fast primes and on m4/3 f/2 is still not that fast, but it's a decent compromise. f/2.8 would have been a huge mistake. Plenty of slow zooms to fulfil that market.

 

[GregGory]

-1

We need fast primes and on m4/3 f/2 is still not that fast, but it's a decent compromise. f/2.8 would have been a huge mistake. Plenty of slow zooms to fulfil that market.

So, you are advocating m43 can rely on the segment for high end primes, like 12/f2, 25/f1.4, 45/f1.8 + EP3 coming in at around $2.5-3K? I'm not saying there isn't a segment like this, but do you really think this segment has volume enough to carry m43?

--
--

'If you can imagine sharing a waterbed with a baboon that's just been doused in itching powder.' J.C. reg. the suspension of the Lincoln Town Car '82

 

[dsoneil]

Most of my photography is drink related (bars/restaurants) which by their nature are dark and narrow (try taking a picture of the bar while sitting at it), hence my need for wide and fast. Also, flash photography in a bar/restaurant is very much frowned upon.