Oly 12mm f2 stepped manual focus?

It's a fair question and something I haven't noticed, but since 12mm is so wide focus precision is not often an issue unless the subject is really close. I don't recall having any such issues taking this, although I probably racked it all the way out then fine-adjusted before taking, all while trying not to scare her away.

Boo! 12mm isn't a typical bug lens but this isn't a typical bug.

I find focus peaking a nice match to all the snap-MF lenses since they added it to the E-M1. I can't recall not being able to get satisfactory focus from a fixed position, but would have to revisit the lens to verify whether the focus action is jumpy.

Cheers,

Rick

Over 15,000 shots with the lens in 6 years.  I didn't realise that MF was stepped in this way.  So, no, in the 'real world', this user has not found it a problem getting focus with it.

I do find the depth of field scale very useful to set the hyperfocal distance using manual focus.

Can't answer your question directly, but like to comment I bought the Rokinon 12mm f/2 MF because when I shoot this wide I use MF anyway, usually focused on infinity. Very good lens, built like a tank, very sharp and smooth, 1/3 of the cost, The other 2/3 of the cost would have been for no benefit. If you like shooting this focal length in MF, you might try this lens instead.

Sure I can. I can compare mice to elephants.

It's less expensive because its an MF lens. That's what I need when I shoot 24mm because it's always focused on infinity. It makes no sense for me to spend the extra cash on an autofocus system I almost never use. On rare occasions when I check or adjust focus, I use manual focus assist or focus peaking. That works great.

It's very sharp, built like a tank, but its also big and heavy, not so much so that I find it problematic. It renders beautifully, and that's what matters to me.

My 12 f/2 focuses on infinity at 8.5 feet. I measured it using the 14X manual focus assist on an EM-5. Anything further away will be in focus, anything closer will need focusing. Infinity is not exactly where its marked on the focus ring, but it doesn't matter if you find it through the EVF or LCD and leave it there. The focus ring is very smooth, but tight enough so it won't move on you. The aperture ring has a solid click to it when you change it. Same with the 7.5.

The 12 Is big and heavy for M43 if you're used to smaller, lighter M43 lenses, but it feels and looks "right" on the EM-5 with the OLY grip, so it should be good on the Panny G85 as well.

The 8mm fisheye has a mount for a removable hood. It's a 139 degree FOV. It weights 16oz. The 7.5 has a tulip hood built into the barrel, weighs 7oz, is 180 degree FOV, significantly smaller, more like what you would expect in an all metal, compact M43 lens. I have the 7.5. B&H is selling it right now, new for $219. They sell the 8mm for $259.

I like to line up the horizon through the middle of the frame of the 7.5 fisheye, crop to make landscapes look wide instead of fisheye when I don't want a fisheye image. I've de-fished it with Angelfish, a $20 program that works pretty well.

Both are sharp, contrasty, and produce good color. I like them a lot. The OLY evangelist/visionaries used the Rokinon 7.5 fisheye before OLY made a native M43 available.

I never wish for AF in these lenses. Even when I have to adjust focus, manual focus assist and focus peaking nail the focus quickly - not as quickly as AF would. I don't use them in situations where AF would be needed.

Both lenses are less than 1/2 the cost of one OLY 12mm AF lens. For the way I use them, definitely worth it to me. I never bought the OLY 12 or fisheye. Don't feel the need for them.

B&H has 46 customer reviews on the M43 version of the 12, and 96 on the fisheye. A decent number sold with this many reviews. The reviews are good.

For street photography, if a subject is closer than 8.5 feet and going to move or moving, you are going to have to move fast, get used to MF. For anything further - no problem. Some street photos look pretty cool with motion blur, somebody walking, driving, peddling, riding through the composition.

Hope that helps.

Nice counterpunch to the argument M43 can't produce shallow enough DOF. What next for ASP-C fans? M43 gives you indigestion?

MShot wrote:

Can't answer your question directly, but like to comment I bought the Rokinon 12mm f/2 MF because when I shoot this wide I use MF anyway, usually focused on infinity. Very good lens, built like a tank, very sharp and smooth, 1/3 of the cost, The other 2/3 of the cost would have been for no benefit. If you like shooting this focal length in MF, you might try this lens instead.

The only things I don't like about the Rokinon 12mm is that it's twice the weight of the Oly 12mm, and it has quite a bit more CA (but easily corrected). Otherwise, in my experience (summarized below), the Rokinon is the better lens for my needs, regardless of cost.

I bought the Rokinon 12mm first because I couldn't afford the Oly. Was happy with the IQ of the Rokinon, but about a year later found a good deal on a used Oly 12mm for not much more than a new Rokinon. I bought the Oly not because I was unhappy with the Rokinon IQ but because it was half the weight. This matters to me because I do most of my photography while backpacking. The AF on the Oly was nice to have, but not essential for my needs. I did notice the stepped manual focus when pulling back the MF ring, but I might not have if I hadn't read about it first. It wasn't a relevant issue for me. The relative sharpness of the Oly 12mm was.

I should have tested the Oly 12mm against the Rokinon 12mm before I sold the latter. I used the Oly 12mm for a year before I started noticing that my landscape shots with it focused at or near infinity were not very sharp. When I tested it against my Oly 9-18mm set at 12mm, the Oly UWA zoom was sharper than the Oly prime over most of the frame (all but the extreme corners) at all apertures the two lenses had in common. I looked back at some old photos taken with the Rokinon 12mm, and they seemed sharper than similar shots taken with my Oly 9-18mm. The Oly 12mm wasn't terrible, just not as sharp at long distances (it seemed better, but not spectacular, at shorter distances). I thought maybe I had a slightly defective Oly 12mm, so I tried out two other copies of it. One was about the same as mine. The other was a good deal worse and seemed to be decentered. At that point I gave up and bought a Rokinon 12mm again. Tested it against my Oly 12mm, and it was noticeably sharper, so I sold the Oly. The extra weight of the Rokinon was worth it to me for the better IQ.

Others say the Oly 12mm is super sharp. Maybe I was just unlucky, but the 3 copies I tried were not.

Space the final frontier wrote:

You may want to consider Rokinon 12mm f/2. It is totally MF only. I have no problem focusing on a GX85. It is a little bigger than the Oly 12, but it is optically excellent.

Quite a bit bigger and twice the weight, but having owned both, I prefer the Rokinon. I kept it and sold my Oly 12mm.

Searching wrote:

You cant compare the Rokinon with the Olympus, there's a reason it is cheaper.

Why not? I've owned both, but sold the Oly and kept the Rokinon, which I found to be sharper than the 3 copies of the Oly I have used. Maybe I was just unlucky with the Oly 12mm (3 times), but I'm glad I compared it to the Rokinon.

Appreciate your weight comment. For hiking 5 miles, saving a half pound is significant. For picking it up and shooting it for a while, not so much. I find the weight and size of the 12mm well balanced for the EM-5 with the OLY grip and it looks "right". Not so much on a PEN PL where the grip is minimal, a 62mm filter ring lens looks too big, and it feels decidedly front heavy.

The Rokinon 7.5mm fisheye is much smaller and lighter, not as bright, but useful. A 180 degree fisheye has even less need for AF.

MShot wrote:

Appreciate your weight comment. For hiking 5 miles, saving a half pound is significant. For picking it up and shooting it for a while, not so much. I find the weight and size of the 12mm well balanced for the EM-5 with the OLY grip and it looks "right". Not so much on a PEN PL where the grip is minimal, a 62mm filter ring lens looks too big, and it feels decidedly front heavy.

The Rokinon 7.5mm fisheye is much smaller and lighter, not as bright, but useful. A 180 degree fisheye has even less need for AF.

It's actually a 67mm filter ring on the Rokinon 12mm. Apparently the large front element is necessary becausethe the lens is also sold in Sony and Fuji mounts and needs to cover an APS-C sensor. I don't find the size and weight a problem for handling on my E-M10, only for packing on multi-day hikes.

I also have the Rokinon 7.5mm fisheye. It's even sharper than the 12mm and a really fun lens. I often wish the 12mm were the same size, but f/2 and rectilínear projection impose certain limitations, I suppose.

That's a honkin' big lens. 67mm happens to be the 4/3 50-200 filter and the 12-40 is only 62mm.

Doesn't mean it's not a good lens, but big for the format.

Rick

Sorry for the memory error