Tack sharp, don't buy it for bokeh

Valdai21 wrote:

+

• Excellent build quality
• Fast autofocus
• Tack sharp at all apertures
• Focuses close
• Bokeh looks smooth at f/1,2

-

• Quite big for the micro 4/3 system
• Don't expect lots of bokeh due to the focal lenght

I got this lens quite recently and love it. I tried Panasonic 14, 15 and 20mm, Olympus 12 and 17mm f/1,8, plus Sigma 16mm f/1,4 before. They were overall capable for their weight and price but I didn't learn to like them and I was a bit annoyed with that since 35mm equivalent is my most used focal lenght. I found a good deal on a second hand 17mm f/1,2 and choose to give it a try.

The lens looks and feels like my 45mm f/1,2. Build quality is excellent.

Image quality is great too. The lens is tack sharp from edge to edge: even the extreme corners are almost perfect at f/1,2. Only the 45mm f/1,2 is as good. Then there is no noticeable difference shooting from f/2 to f/8: the lens is razor sharp, you don't need to stop down except for depth of field reasons. It's sharper than almost everything else in micro 4/3 and much sharper than the not so sharp 17mm f/1,8.

Bokeh looks quite smooth at f/1,2. The lense focuses close which is great for details or flowers if you like. However beware for portraiture. You can get some smooth blur in your backgrounds for headshots but don't expect huge creamyness. It's a 17mm lens which frames like a 35mm, not a 35mm lens. I mean bokeh is smooth and really nice from a 17mm lens but if you are accustomed to a 35mm lense on full frame, you can be deceived by the amount of blur the Olympus produces even wide open.

Can you explain this comment more, I am hoping to pick up this lens before Xmas, ie as it get's darker

To conclude, I would say this lens is excellent but it's still a niche product. The main reason to get it should not be bokeh. It's smooth but the amount of subject isolation is limited except if you like close focus or tend to frame tightly. I don't really think the difference with the 17mm f/1,8 is worth it.
However, sharpness is a huge improvement over this smallest f/1,8 version. The 17mm f/1,2 is hands down the sharpest wide angle standard in the system. You can spot the difference even with a good sample of the f/1,8 version and with an average one, it's night and day. The f/1,8 is probably sharp enough for everyday use but if you want tack sharp pictures at wide apertures, the f/1,2 is much better.

Very interesting comments!

Searching wrote:

Although it was sharp, it was not as sharp wide open as my 45 1.8, or 75 1.8. It seemed to be on par with 25 1.8. I never bought the 17 1.8. I think there are copy variations as with any lens. I sold mine. Too big, heavy and expensive for the optical results on my copy.

Doesn't look very big or heavy for 1.2 af lens? Maybe it was the focal length that you didn't like?

Yeah, I find at f/1.2, the blur and spatial feel are 'there', but under control with this lens.

As you say, you can't remove (blur) a background with a sharp foreground, at f/1.2 with this lens. This is what helps makes it useful in low light at a preferred all-around focal length for that type of thing.

I really love its look

Rgds,

Jan

Jan Chelminski wrote:

Yeah, I find at f/1.2, the blur and spatial feel are 'there', but under control with this lens.

As you say, you can't remove (blur) a background with a sharp foreground, at f/1.2 with this lens. This is what helps makes it useful in low light at a preferred all-around focal length for that type of thing.

I really love its look

Rgds,

Jan

Nice

James Stirling wrote:

Searching wrote:

Although it was sharp, it was not as sharp wide open as my 45 1.8, or 75 1.8. It seemed to be on par with 25 1.8. I never bought the 17 1.8. I think there are copy variations as with any lens. I sold mine. Too big, heavy and expensive for the optical results on my copy.

Well said despite attracting the usual defenders of the faith. The 17mm F/1.2 is very large for the sensor size. It is as large or larger than FF lenses that do more { { higher system resolution, better DOF control , greater total light gathering , less expensive }

Not really, unless you are prepared to go to f1.4/1.2 at these lengths there's not a lot of difference, can't really be! Also, if you switch the 35 1.8 to 4:3 ratio, probably something that might be very useful for candid portraits indoor, street, etc where the 4:3 look can really add visual impact then the 35 on 3:2 frame switched to 4:3 suddenly becomes a 40mm cropped lens and is starting to move into a more tele feel from 35mm wider angle that is there natively in the 4:3 34/35mm frame of the 17 1.2 and the height/width depending on orientation of a 31mm lens. Either way to get more than what the 17 1.2 offers you'd probably need to 2 prime lenses imo or a high resolution full frame sensor and something like the Nikon 28 1.4 that when switched to 4:3 will emulate the 17 1.2 on a 4:3 sensor a bit better, either way with a 1.4 FF lens you will gain only 2/3 stop dof over the 17 1.2. Put into that context, the 17 1.2 is an incredibly light, super fast, flexible wide angle lens with little to no alternatives I can think of on aps and only a handful of options on the FF platform that requires multiple primes of the 1.4/1.2 type to give you more, ie expensive and twice as large each!

I also think for a pro designated lens its dependence on software corrections is excessive. There are some fantastic "pro" lenses such as the 12-100mm and 300mm F/4 well worthy of the designation.

Do you own any of these lens you mention?

Here is the 17mm fixed and unfixed, pro ?

Are these your images?

Probably more a matter of taste. Nice shot BTW.

bofo777 wrote:

That is a lovely shot, subject, moment and technically... nice bokeh too!

Valdai21 wrote:

+

• Excellent build quality
• Fast autofocus
• Tack sharp at all apertures
• Focuses close
• Bokeh looks smooth at f/1,2

-

• Quite big for the micro 4/3 system
• Don't expect lots of bokeh due to the focal lenght

I got this lens quite recently and love it. I tried Panasonic 14, 15 and 20mm, Olympus 12 and 17mm f/1,8, plus Sigma 16mm f/1,4 before. They were overall capable for their weight and price but I didn't learn to like them and I was a bit annoyed with that since 35mm equivalent is my most used focal lenght. I found a good deal on a second hand 17mm f/1,2 and choose to give it a try.

The lens looks and feels like my 45mm f/1,2. Build quality is excellent.

Image quality is great too. The lens is tack sharp from edge to edge: even the extreme corners are almost perfect at f/1,2. Only the 45mm f/1,2 is as good. Then there is no noticeable difference shooting from f/2 to f/8: the lens is razor sharp, you don't need to stop down except for depth of field reasons. It's sharper than almost everything else in micro 4/3 and much sharper than the not so sharp 17mm f/1,8.

Bokeh looks quite smooth at f/1,2. The lense focuses close which is great for details or flowers if you like. However beware for portraiture. You can get some smooth blur in your backgrounds for headshots but don't expect huge creamyness. It's a 17mm lens which frames like a 35mm, not a 35mm lens. I mean bokeh is smooth and really nice from a 17mm lens but if you are accustomed to a 35mm lense on full frame, you can be deceived by the amount of blur the Olympus produces even wide open.

To conclude, I would say this lens is excellent but it's still a niche product. The main reason to get it should not be bokeh. It's smooth but the amount of subject isolation is limited except if you like close focus or tend to frame tightly. I don't really think the difference with the 17mm f/1,8 is worth it.
However, sharpness is a huge improvement over this smallest f/1,8 version. The 17mm f/1,2 is hands down the sharpest wide angle standard in the system. You can spot the difference even with a good sample of the f/1,8 version and with an average one, it's night and day. The f/1,8 is probably sharp enough for everyday use but if you want tack sharp pictures at wide apertures, the f/1,2 is much better.

I use the 17/1.2 primarily for run and gun video and documentary work but I find it quite capable of excellent stills.  It has a similar look to a 35/2 on FF but easier to focus in lower light.

I find the OOF areas to be very pleasing - good bokeh.  You seem to be looking for more subject separation which isn't easy at 35mm.  Sigma makes a 35/1.2 for both E and L mount if you want to maximize and still retain autofocus.  It is a bit of a handful though!

Some 17/1.2 samples (shot wide open if I recall).

Lovely samples.

I find at the OP well states, the lens startlingly sharp wide open and reaching maximum at a still-fast aperture, delivering on the promise of low-light flexibility. As to DoF isolation it is what it is--a fast 17mm lens which in 4/3 is wide-normal and not capable of the isolation of, say, a 45/0.95. No design tweaks alter that optical fact.

Bokeh doesn't meet bokeh fan perfection because of cateye highlights off-center and very modest onion ring. But the OOF transition is lovely and one of the lens' strengths. Combine with the very close minimum focus one can get really nice rendering.

In sum, a hugely valuable prime for many types of shooting.

Example bokeh highlights

Cheers,

Rick

ETA That Sigma is a thunderbeast! Wonder what it would look like posed next to the 150/2.0?

Lovely shots.

And thank you for continuing to be a source of valuable information and perspectives in this sea of trolls.