Oly 17mm 1.8 tagged along in Vegas (many pics).

eyeshutter

Active member
Messages
86
Reaction score
14
I replaced my Panny 20 & 25 for the Oly 17mm f/1.8. It's not without compromise, of course. Sure it's a faster-focus lens than the Panny 20, but it's a bit larger, as well.

There's no advantage for the Oly against my Old Panny 25, other than the silver color that matches my EM-5.

Reason for replacing both Panasonic lenses are sheer monetary constraints, and convenience (of not having to swap too many prime lenses).

In no way am I suggesting that Panny's picture output is inferior against the Oly 17mm 1.8.

My reason for posting the series of photos, is to show Oly's quality DOF, low lite capabilities, and close-quarter convenience.

Advance Apologies:

- I love to take pictures, but I'm not a good photographer (compared to folks in this forum).

- No formal education on processing RAW files in Photoshop. So it's very much trial-n-error for me.

- I just started playing with Photoshop's RAW controls after the New Year.

- All sample pics were from RAW files, downsampled to acceptable sizes (which may still be to large for some folks).

- Aperture Mode on all shots. Auto ISO. And auto WB. Worse of all: My computer screen is not calibrated for Photoshop editing; Pictures may look perfectly fine on my screen, but may look yellowish on others.

Of course, comments & critiques are welcome. How else am I gonna 'see' my blunders...



Similar to other overpriced fancy-shmancy restaurants, very dim lighting. I placed the E-M5 on top of a drinking glass to take the shot. Unfriendly ambience for lowlite photog (no flash).





Focus box on the cherries. DOF is very nice, but that's just me.





Holding the fork with my left hand, while shooting with my right. A comfortable setup since I didn't have to extend my arm for the shot. Again, DOF is very decent.





Focus box on the salmon. I don't know what the green sauce that decorated the fish. It tasted great with the salmon so I didn't care. Food seems to taste MUCH BETTER when you have enuff FREE gift certificate to pay for the meal at this overpriced establishment. LOL!





Given the awful light source inside the location, I didn't know how bad the jpg would turn out for this shot. Let's just say it was an easy decision to process it in RAW. Focus box pointed at the triangular pastry in the center.






The main reason I bought the lens: Very nice DOF with faster focus than my old Panny 20mm, while not having to extend my arm for the money shot (when using my old Panny 25mm) on edible items. Then again, the Panny 25 is faster with (most likely) better DOF.





There's a colorful candy store at the Venetian Shops that I wanted to snap the boy's face. Again, nice colorful DOF. I was standing about a foot in front of the boy. Very convenient.





I couldn't resist taking a pic of my snack while at the checkout line.





Handheld shot from the 2nd floor.





Just another DOF test.





Face detection turned off & focus box on the noodles. Another impressive DOF output (in my opinion). I'm sitting across the boy, separated by a small square table at the food court. Apologies for the boy's nails. He's eleven... Whattaya gonna do?





Face Detection active. I think this was close to the front entrance at Harrah's.





The boy's mom ruined this shot while taking the escalator, back to Venetian.





The boy was all smiles when I told him we were doing indoor go-kart racing at Pole Position. All electric. No noise. No gas fumes. Then reality hit: Minimum age is 15. I didn't bother taking his portrait, after I gave him the bad news.





After a brief time at the Outlet store, we decided to have dinner AWAY from the hotel/casino establishment. Our savior was the all-u-can-eat Korean BBQ just east of the strip. So, so good. Apologies for those that may be offended by raw meat, shot at a close range.





Another nice DOF output. A shot of the famous Korean spicy vegetable dish.





Head shot of a sad boy as we walked to our car, located at the 3rd underground level parking lot of Palazzio. Again, bad lighting, but the lens prevailed (in my opinion).

 

Attachments

  • 2382140.jpg
    2382140.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 0
  • 2382171.jpg
    2382171.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 0
  • 2382170.jpg
    2382170.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 0
  • 2382169.jpg
    2382169.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 0
  • 2382168.jpg
    2382168.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 0
  • 2382167.jpg
    2382167.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 0
  • 2382166.jpg
    2382166.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 0
  • 2382165.jpg
    2382165.jpg
    726.8 KB · Views: 0
  • 2382164.jpg
    2382164.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 0
  • 2382163.jpg
    2382163.jpg
    2.4 MB · Views: 0
  • 2382162.jpg
    2382162.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 0
  • 2382161.jpg
    2382161.jpg
    969.7 KB · Views: 0
  • 2382160.jpg
    2382160.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 0
  • 2382159.jpg
    2382159.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 0
  • 2382158.jpg
    2382158.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 0
  • 2382157.jpg
    2382157.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 0
  • 2382155.jpg
    2382155.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Your photos are well focused, well exposed, and well composed. The colors are good, the subjects are interesting and expressive. You and your equipment did a fine job.
 
.... colors, compositions.. very good shots!
 
[No message]
 
In my opinion these photos are not good, nor has good colors or nice bokeh at all. I also think that they are misunderstanding and inappropriate use of 35mm FOV except this one:


IMHO again, 35mm FOV is not for taking close portraits with blurred backgrounds. The bokeh is not nice, rather disturbing for my eyes, and it is a consequence of the wide FOV. And are these pictures really well composed? Well... Are they composed at all? They seems to me like snapshots.

People think if they take pictures with blurred background they take good pictures but they don't. I suggest you to take more pictures like the one I referred above, this is where the 35mm shines.




Peter
 
I respectfully ask you to get off your high horse. Art is opinion....yours is merely one persons. The photos had no pretention to be great photography...obviously testing out a new lens on family on a trip. That's it. Think the lens works well for the use intended. The moments were captured. That's the bottom line. Whether there should be more or less DOF in not the point. These low light images look fine.
 
sproket1 wrote:

I respectfully ask you to get off your high horse. Art is opinion....yours is merely one persons. The photos had no pretention to be great photography...obviously testing out a new lens on family on a trip. That's it. Think the lens works well for the use intended. The moments were captured. That's the bottom line. Whether there should be more or less DOF in not the point. These low light images look fine.
I have the right to express my opinion even if it differs yours. I'm not on the "high horse". I'm just honest: I don't like these photos, and really can't stand opinions, like "well composed" and "interesting subject". But I don't call them a liar just because I have different opinion: I post mine, and that's all.
 
You have a right to your opinion but there is no reason to express it in such a mean way. It is people like you who cause others not to show their pictures on this forum. Your post was mean. If you cannot write something constructive in a decent way that shows respect for the poster, then do not write, just ignore the poster.

Hal
 
Dr Hal wrote:

You have a right to your opinion but there is no reason to express it in such a mean way.
I don't consider it mean. But there is a reason. For pictures like these a lot of forum members post opinions like "well composed", or "interesting subjects", however, these are just average family photos. There's nothing wrong with family photos, quite the contrary. They are very important for the person who shot them. If he shares, there must be a good reason. The new lens was it? Okay, let it be. But when I read replies like the first couple, I just feel I can't agree in any way. Positive but honest replies could be: "Good snapshots! Enjoy your new lens!" or "There are some pictures with really nice colors! Your new lens works great!". But composition or subjects? C'mon.
It is people like you who cause others not to show their pictures on this forum. Your post was mean. If you cannot write something constructive in a decent way
I did. That's what your buddy called "high horse" :)





Should I say it is people like you who cause others to take pictures with narrow DOF and stuck on that level? :) I won't. I get your point, the next time I will reply to the reply I don't like, like you did, not to the original photos. But do you also get my point?
 
Usually I try not to comment on such a mundane posts but not this time. I'm second person to agree with Loga.

This is not a lens test, these snaps are just snaps made with a new lens. Yes, lens is working, lens is not DOA, so what does it prove?

As a test, these snaps do not show anything that might be interesting for those who want to learn something about lens. For me these snaps are hurtful for the lens reputation

I'd call such snaps 'Vanity Fair'
 
Ugh. Did you really eat those crickets'n;cheez ? Hope you were kidding.

Our monitors obviously differ, but the WB and levels on most of your shots bug me more than the crickets. I like things a litle brighter.


I also would have lost the spoon, changed the angle, and gotten the whole dish in focus, but you obviously had time constraints with hungry family clamoring to eat.


eyeshutter's photo.
eyeshutter's photo.
 
While you was busy taking photos of the things you eat, I took some photos to memorize what I saw (see sample)
















--
Looking for equilibrium...
 
I really don't know whether the 17mm lens is 'proper' for these type of pictures. Yes, I would also consider them snapshots rather than portraits. I took the pictures for the idea comfort in claustrophobic moments, while still keeping some DOF.

Truly a matter of taste though.
 
s_grins wrote:

Usually I try not to comment on such a mundane posts but not this time. I'm second person to agree with Loga.

This is not a lens test, these snaps are just snaps made with a new lens. Yes, lens is working, lens is not DOA, so what does it prove?

As a test, these snaps do not show anything that might be interesting for those who want to learn something about lens. For me these snaps are hurtful for the lens reputation

I'd call such snaps 'Vanity Fair'
 
Agree. More of a 'personal' memento than public viewing I guess.




Need more practice, I suppose.
 
Yes, I did eat those gift snacks at the candy shop. Nothing exciting really. Really deep fried stuff flavored in BBQ stuff.

Yes, the WB were awful on the shots. I'll try to shoot a blank white (or gray) card before composing a shot, on specific indoor locations next time.

Thank you for pointing it out.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top