mh2000 wrote:
Wouldn't think even at f1.4 that you are getting great "subject isolation" from a 17mm lens... wouldn't be the driver for buying it 'cuz it won't be that great for this usage. Shallow DoF guys won't even be that happy with the 45/1.8!
Still, if the bokeh is nicer than the Pan 20 and the quality better than the 17/2.8 and it is reasonably priced I'll probably replace my 17/2.8... even though I'm still pretty happy with the little 17/2.8.
Obviously, you won't get full frame level of subject isolation, but you certainly can get decent isolation at f/1.4. This isn't f/1.4, but it's close (f/1.2), on the E-M5 with the Nokton 17.5 f/0.95...I have to say, I generally would prefer an AF lens to a manual focus lens (unlike many here), but if the 17/1.8 comes in at a price similar to the 75/1.8 and 12/2, I'd much rather have the 17.5/0.95 for the money. It was the most surprised I've been about a lens in a long time. Really wonderful.
Yeah, I considered a silver omd because it actually looks really good, but the chrome lenses.... They won't work any better with silver than on a black body.
FlyPenFly wrote:
For a 1.8, I bet $400 like the 45mm.
I only paid $340 with shipping - ebay is your friend for m4/3 lenses, much cheaper than B&H and all from reputable power sellers. Can get the panasonic 12-35 for $250 less than B&H too.
17 f/1.8 is damn appealing. Be nice if it were all metal, but if it's as good as the 45 f/1.8 I don't really care.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I only paid $340 with shipping - ebay is your friend for m4/3 lenses, much cheaper than B&H and all from reputable power sellers. Can get the panasonic 12-35 for $250 less than B&H too.
That's not all that much "isolation" for f1.2, but all reports are the Nokton is a beautiful piece of work.
My point was that if subject isolation was your object, then a 25 or 45 would be a better choice and not cost more.
As I said, *if* the performance of the 17/1.8 was really amazing I would think of trading in my 17/2.8, but I'm not seeing it would be worth it to me... and I like the little pancake 17 for what it is.
Disappointing that Oly didn't come out with a knockout 17...
Me... I'm still holding my breath for an affordable Oly 25/2.8.
>>Obviously, you won't get full frame level of subject isolation, but you certainly can get decent isolation at f/1.4. This isn't f/1.4, but it's close (f/1.2), on the E-M5 with the Nokton 17.5 f/0.95...I have to say, I generally would prefer an AF lens to a manual focus lens (unlike many here), but if the 17/1.8 comes in at a price similar to the 75/1.8 and 12/2, I'd much rather have the 17.5/0.95 for the money. It was the most surprised I've been about a lens in a long time. Really wonderful.
It's a bit disappointing considering Olympus was on such a roll with the 60mm f2.8 and 75mm f1.8. Most of the reviews I read about it are not too excited about this lens. Hopefully, their rumored 45-150mm f2.8 and 14-35mm f2.8 zooms are far better.
i think if they made this lens f1.4 they would sell a lot more. At f1.8 and price being $150 more then the 20/1.7 i just don't see this lens making it. It is not much wider then the 20, i think all its going to do is take away from the "thin" dof that m43 is already lacking.
i could be wrong and some would like to have matching wide-normal to their 12/2, 45/1.8 or 75/1.8
kahren wrote:
i think if they made this lens f1.4 they would sell a lot more. At f1.8 and price being $150 more then the 20/1.7 i just don't see this lens making it. It is not much wider then the 20, i think all its going to do is take away from the "thin" dof that m43 is already lacking.
i could be wrong and some would like to have matching wide-normal to their 12/2, 45/1.8 or 75/1.8
There's multiple reasons to prefer the 17 over the 20, starting with AF performance, but you also get a proper distance scale, more FL separation from the 25/1.4 (which is the must-have m43 prime to me) and a more natural rendering.
If you want DoF separation, get the CV 17.5/0.95, that's why it exists.
mawz wrote:
There's multiple reasons to prefer the 17 over the 20, starting with AF performance, but you also get a proper distance scale, more FL separation from the 25/1.4 (which is the must-have m43 prime to me) and a more natural rendering.
If you want DoF separation, get the CV 17.5/0.95, that's why it exists.
I understand all that, but the differences of the 2 lenses are at best marginal.
If i wanted DoF separation i would buy a different camera, with a larger sensor, as it is much easier and cheaper.
kahren wrote:
I understand all that, but the differences of the 2 lenses are at best marginal.
For your purposes, perhaps. For me, the AF is vastly superior to the 20mm. Also, I've shot probably 70% of my photos over the past 4 years with a 35mm on full frame, so the difference in focal length between 17mm and 20mm is very noticeable.
.
.