Tack sharp, don't buy it for bokeh

Auf Reisen wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

Like the title says.

I like the 35mm equivalent focal lenght (though I slightly prefer 24mm over it). I've long looked for some workhorse, general prime on m43, one super bright, super sharp, with AF and if possible, weather sealed.

On Nikon, I've been using a Sigma 35mm F1.4 Art. First for many years on an old D600 and now on a Z6. My favorite lens on F/Z mount.

Lately, I've been forcing myself to stop that Sigma lens down to F2.5, to micmic the DoF control of the Olympus 17mm lens but also degrade image quality (in less than ideal light) to be closer to what I would get on a m43 (so, say I was shooting at ISO 4000 on a Nikon, I would be around ISO 1000 on m43 with the two stop advantage of f1.2).

Though I do think the Olympus would let me get a bit closer to subjects.

You are doublecounting the advantages of FF.

At the same DoF and SS, there is no shot noise advantage for FF. Your second step makes no sense.

Oh no, it does make sense. That's why I can't do this in broad daylight. At base ISO, DR and noise levels are much better on modern FF vs modern m43. I would only get a DoF simulation of m43, but not IQ.

But at less than ideal lighting conditions, stopping down on FF by (close to) two stops, at the equivalent F2.4/F2.5 of the Olympus wide open (DoF wise), this raises the ISO by two stops roughly replicating the general rule of thumb that FF has a two-stop advantage in noise levels over m43.

Not perfect, but still gives me a general idea of what to expect shooting with the 17mm F1.2 Pro.

bluevellet wrote:

Auf Reisen wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

Like the title says.

I like the 35mm equivalent focal lenght (though I slightly prefer 24mm over it). I've long looked for some workhorse, general prime on m43, one super bright, super sharp, with AF and if possible, weather sealed.

On Nikon, I've been using a Sigma 35mm F1.4 Art. First for many years on an old D600 and now on a Z6. My favorite lens on F/Z mount.

Lately, I've been forcing myself to stop that Sigma lens down to F2.5, to micmic the DoF control of the Olympus 17mm lens but also degrade image quality (in less than ideal light) to be closer to what I would get on a m43 (so, say I was shooting at ISO 4000 on a Nikon, I would be around ISO 1000 on m43 with the two stop advantage of f1.2).

Though I do think the Olympus would let me get a bit closer to subjects.

You are doublecounting the advantages of FF.

At the same DoF and SS, there is no shot noise advantage for FF. Your second step makes no sense.

Oh no, it does make sense. That's why I can't do this in broad daylight. At base ISO, DR and noise levels are much better on modern FF vs modern m43. I would only get a DoF simulation of m43, but not IQ.

But at less than ideal lighting conditions, stopping down on FF by (close to) two stops, at the equivalent F2.4/F2.5 of the Olympus wide open (DoF wise), this raises the ISO by two stops roughly replicating the general rule of thumb that FF has a two-stop advantage in noise levels over m43.

I popped in to our bedroom to take this quick snap which at F/2.5 gave this result at 1600 ISO . The only light source in the room was from the dragon egg ? lamp { 8-9ft away }

What level of lighting are you talking about to that you need ISO 4000 at F/2.5. Trying to shoot FF like m43 makes no more sense to me than trying to shoot m43 like FF. Whilst bokeh is of course a matter of opinion . From a technical aspect the smaller lighter Nikon Z 35mm at least as good

https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/nikkor-s-35-1-8-on-z7-sigma-35-1-4-art-on-a7riii/

Not perfect, but still gives me a general idea of what to expect shooting with the 17mm F1.2 Pro.

I like the Sigma myself I still have it for use on my D810 { which to be fair is not a lot these days }. If you pick up the TZE-01 there are a horde of 35mm choices in FE mount from tiny and cheap { but very decent performers } to massive F/1.2 lenses . There are some compact options if you want to shoot at F/2.4.

F/2.8

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/guide-to-best-sony-e-mount-35mm-lenses-for-a7iii-a7ii-a7riv-a7riii/

The Sigma plus adapter is a cumbersome way to shoot at F/2.5, there are much smaller lighter cheaper options to do that. Whilst of course there are no other m32 AF 17mm F/1.2 options in m43

James Stirling wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

Auf Reisen wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

Like the title says.

I like the 35mm equivalent focal lenght (though I slightly prefer 24mm over it). I've long looked for some workhorse, general prime on m43, one super bright, super sharp, with AF and if possible, weather sealed.

On Nikon, I've been using a Sigma 35mm F1.4 Art. First for many years on an old D600 and now on a Z6. My favorite lens on F/Z mount.

Lately, I've been forcing myself to stop that Sigma lens down to F2.5, to micmic the DoF control of the Olympus 17mm lens but also degrade image quality (in less than ideal light) to be closer to what I would get on a m43 (so, say I was shooting at ISO 4000 on a Nikon, I would be around ISO 1000 on m43 with the two stop advantage of f1.2).

Though I do think the Olympus would let me get a bit closer to subjects.

You are doublecounting the advantages of FF.

At the same DoF and SS, there is no shot noise advantage for FF. Your second step makes no sense.

Oh no, it does make sense. That's why I can't do this in broad daylight. At base ISO, DR and noise levels are much better on modern FF vs modern m43. I would only get a DoF simulation of m43, but not IQ.

But at less than ideal lighting conditions, stopping down on FF by (close to) two stops, at the equivalent F2.4/F2.5 of the Olympus wide open (DoF wise), this raises the ISO by two stops roughly replicating the general rule of thumb that FF has a two-stop advantage in noise levels over m43.

I popped in to our bedroom to take this quick snap which at F/2.5 gave this result at 1600 ISO . The only light source in the room was from the dragon egg ? lamp { 8-9ft away }

What level of lighting are you talking about to that you need ISO 4000 at F/2.5. Trying to shoot FF like m43 makes no more sense to me than trying to shoot m43 like FF. Whilst bokeh is of course a matter of opinion . From a technical aspect the smaller lighter Nikon Z 35mm at least as good

You have things like human subjects. They tend to move, especially the younger ones. So my Nikon is set to a minimal shutter speed of 1/125. That raises the ISO in bad light versus shooting inanimate objects like jewelry or light sources.

https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/nikkor-s-35-1-8-on-z7-sigma-35-1-4-art-on-a7riii/

Not perfect, but still gives me a general idea of what to expect shooting with the 17mm F1.2 Pro.

I like the Sigma myself I still have it for use on my D810 { which to be fair is not a lot these days }. If you pick up the TZE-01 there are a horde of 35mm choices in FE mount from tiny and cheap { but very decent performers } to massive F/1.2 lenses . There are some compact options if you want to shoot at F/2.4.

The FTZ adapter was one of the reasons I migrated to Z6: so I could use my older F mount primes and save money in the process. Work well they do, even if physically unbalanced. The Sigma did require a firmware update before I could use it.

While I would like proper weather sealing on my lenses (the Sigma has none), I do have an issue with the pricing of most of the Z primes released thus far. 50mm is ok, The rest... all overpriced. Take for example the Z 24mm, I'd rather buy the old Sigma 24mm f1.4 Art at half the price. Faster and has an actual mechanical focus ring.

I'm no hurry though so we'll see what third-party options become available on Z mount in a few years.

F/2.8

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/guide-to-best-sony-e-mount-35mm-lenses-for-a7iii-a7ii-a7riv-a7riii/

The Sigma plus adapter is a cumbersome way to shoot at F/2.5, there are much smaller lighter cheaper options to do that. Whilst of course there are no other m32 AF 17mm F/1.2 options in m43

No, I shoot at F1.4 most of the time.

Shooting at F2.5 is just quick way to see what it would be like to shoot with the Olympus. The photographic results, rather than the handling of body/lens.

And-roid wrote:

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.

Umm, f1.4 on FF vs an equivalent f2.4 from the 17/1.2 is not 2/3rds of a stop... You're talking about 1 & 1/2 stops there. Even an f1.8 FF 35mm lens will yield more DoF control than the 17/1.2 (in that case it actually is a 2/3rds of a stop difference in favor of FF), and the FF f1.8 would do so while being smaller and cheaper. I'm not knocking the 17/1.2 (I do own one after all), but I think it's pretty far from the unicorn you're making it out to be.

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 can think of plenty of alternatives TBH, then again I can think of plenty of similarly sized alternatives to most M4/3 lenses <75mm EFL (outside of the pancake zooms and the smallest superzooms). The 17/1.2 is a nice choice for someone fully invested into M4/3 that doesn't wanna deal with any of the compromises the slower alternatives have (field curvature for the 17/1.8, AF quirks for the 20/1.7, FL preference and sealing vs the PL15, etc).

I splurged on it over the Sigma 16/1.4 because a really good 35mm EFL prime was one of the last things on my wishlist and the fact that it's so optically sound sweetened the deal. It really is as sharp wide open as some of my other primes are stopped down, but I don't think that solely justifies it's price and form factor either. YMMV I actually do like the bokeh on the 17/1.2 tho, it's one of Oly's better efforts in the regard (specially compared to some of the Pro zooms).

And-roid wrote:

...

Do you own any of these lens you mention?

This reminds me about something or other pertaining to those in glass houses, how did that go again?

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

I find the bokeh to be pretty good. My only criticism is that it is a bit heavy so I prefer to use the Panaleica 25mm f1.4. OTOH, the 17mm f1.2 is my go to lens if I have serious work.

The PL25 is an underrated option IMO, specially after we got the mk II with weather sealing. That's something which I'd wished for often after borrowing the original a buncha times, so I had to put my money where my mouth was and get the mk II. The 17/1.2 is decidedly sharper wide open and stopped down, for landscapes it's a better choice...

For environmental portraits and other scenarios where biting sharpness isn't the most critical thing it's more of a debate, I think at that point FL preference and practicalities are the overruling factor. Both lenses were far more appealing for me from the start than the 25/1.2 Pro. It's a shame Pana never made an actual 17mm, I would've liked to see what they did if they aimed for a 17/1.4 with some of the same compromises as the PL25.