1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

17mm F1.0 or 17.5mm F0.95

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by tedlegrand, Dec 15, 2015.

  1. nokton 17.5mm F0.95 @800$

    20.8%
  2. Rokinon 24mm F1.4 = 17mm F1.0 @500$ (focal reducer included)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Olympus 17mm F1.8 @340$

    79.2%
  1. tedlegrand

    tedlegrand Mu-43 Rookie

    20
    Mar 13, 2014
    montreal, qc
    eric
    I'm torn between making a big expense and a bigger expense.

    Candidate#1: Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm F0.95 @800$ (1,095$CAD)
    Candidate#2: Rokinon 24mm F1.4 @500$US (680$CAD) (+speedbooster (chineese focal reducer) = 17mm F1.0)

    It has been discussed a little bit lately, but I want opinions on my specific situation.


    I'm already good with autofocus lenses to capture action. I was looking to add a lens with low light ability and has character, broken at a wider field of view. I'm fine with manual focus and I don't mind bigger lens for that purpose.

    The voigtlander looks like a very nice lens. I never tried it, might rent it for a couple of days. If it has a similar feal than my canon fl55mm f1.2, it should be a nice lens to use.

    I'm afraid that the rokinon 24mm lens might be much bigger and not as fun to use if it's something close to their 85mm F1.4 which I do not like using. But since I already have a focal reducer in FD version and I have a nikon to fd adapter, so I do not have to put more than just the cost of the lens. But on the other hand, If I go full frame some day, I would have a full frame lens to use as well.

    I usually don't spend much on lenses. The most expensive lenses I own are the P20mm F1.7 and O45 f1.8 which I had purchased new for about 350$CAD =255USD each.

    I do photography mostly to get photo souvenir from my kids growing up. On rare occasions I get creative shots not involving my kids. I never go out for shooting sessions where taking pictures is the sole purpose. I do like to work a little with lightroom on occasional photos that I took which I find interesting. Here are some of my latest pictures: automne 2015

    My favorite lens has always been my 20mm, I'ts just super sharp, and I never had issues with focusing speed. The only downside to me is occasional banding on higher iso. I had purchased the O17 little after getting the P20 thinking it might been better than my 20, but returned the 17 after a couple of days mainly because P20 was a little smaller and sharper and I had to chose only one lens. I did like the wider field of view of the oly17 which certainly is a different enough focal length than the 20mm to be able to consider having those two lenses for different perspectives. I would even say 25mm has also a different perspective to consider. All different focal lengths that serves different purposes.

    My most used lenses are:
    P20
    canon FL55mm F1.2 + speedbooster = 39mm F0.85 (fast and sharp enough wide open F0.85, super sharp at F1.2)
    O45
    C-mount 25mm F1.4 (nice little lens witha very curved focal plane which gives nice special brokeh)
    P14mm+Wcon = 11mm F2.5 (wide field of view, low distortion, very sharp)
    rokinon 7.5mm fisheye (very fun to use)
    O40-150mm (lightweight and very usefull telephoto)

    My body is E-pm2, so I like small and lightweight. The only big lens I have is the FL55mm. I also have a canon FDn 50mm F1.4 which is much smaller and lighter. I always put back the 55mmFL on the speedbooster because I like the feal of the 55 much better, the rendering is nicer and 39mm wins over 35mm for that purpose. The pictures from the 50mm also have a bluish tint which is mostly fixable, but sometime annoying when sun/light is at the wrong place. I think it has something to do with the lens coating.

    Here's a bunch of lenses that don't get much use that I might consider selling, although I'm not sure I would get much.

    m43 lenses:
    15mm F8 lens cap 30$used?

    4/3 lenses:
    sigma 30mm F1.4, sharp, nice focal length, but huge. 250$ used?
    40-150mm: nice lens, but already have m4/3 version 50$used?

    C-mount lenses:
    35mm F1.6 apsc : super sharp, nice contrast, size is great, cheap at about 50$: I use it when I'm afraid of brigning more expensive lenses
    35mm F1.7 20$, cheap, poor image quality
    16mm F1.4: 25$, does'nt cover 4/3 sensor, but sharp and contrasty, very small

    full frame lenses:
    rokinon 85mm F1.4 150$used? (it's a nice lens, but not a very useful focal length to me, I can add my speedbooster to get 60mm F1.0 but still not much useful to me because it's very big, and stiff focus)
    canon fd 50mm F1.4 100$used?
    canon fd 100mm F2.8 100$used?
    135mm F2.8 30$used?
    caonn fd 70-210mm F4 30$used?
    10-300mm F5 30$used?
    cheap 500mm F5.6 50$used?

    total 915$?

    is it worth selling all my gear to get one of the two lens mentioned?
    I might consider getting a sony A7 series eventually, so some full frame lens might get some use eventually.

    What's your opinion?

    Edit: added O17 in poll option, clarified why returning O17
    Edit2: added clarification why looking into these lenses
    Edit3: added link to some of my pictures
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2015
  2. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    I'm confused. You state you returned the Olympus 17 because you did not like the wider field of view. Yet you ask if you should sell gear to buy an expensive lens that is the same field of view that you stated you did not like and returned. My advice, pick up a used Olympus 17/2.8 for cheap and spend a few months with it. If you find you really like that focal length, sell it for what you paid and get one of the others.
     
  3. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    Not clear why you returned the 17 - I am assuming its the 1.8 ?

    I have enjoyed mine enormously as you can see from this Flickr album

    Olympus 17/1.8

    K
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. tedlegrand

    tedlegrand Mu-43 Rookie

    20
    Mar 13, 2014
    montreal, qc
    eric
    Let me clarifiy this.
    I returned the olympus 17 not because of the field of view but because of the fact that it's not as sharp as the 20mm and I did not find a huge advantage of the faster focusing speed. At that time, size was really important and the 17 was a little bigger. I had the choice of returning either the 20mm or the 17mm, I pick to keep the 20mm. The 20mm was also better choice of field of view at the time because it was more versatile, and was not planning on getting any other lenses soon. That was maybe 2 years ago. Now that I have got different lenses, I know I want a bright lens with a wider field of view. 17 or 17.5mm would suit me well. I have less interest in f2.8 because I'm in mostly low-light situations, and need fast shutter speeds.
    Maybe getting the 17mm f1.8 would also be an option! a little slower than the other two options but much smaller and has autofocus (I added this option in the poll)
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2015
  5. MoonMind

    MoonMind Mu-43 Top Veteran

    628
    Oct 25, 2014
    Switzerland
    Matt
    The question is, how much size and weight are you going to accept in exchange for maximum aperture. In my book, the Voigtländer is just this side of big to still be feasible (it's about as big as the 12-40mm); optically, it's an interesting lens, but in order for it to be as sharp as even the 17mm f/1.8 (which, as you stated, isn't the sharpest itself), it obviously needs stopping down considerably. I don't know about the Rokinon, but it definitely adds even more weight, and it's not sure to be the better lens.

    All that put together makes me think that you'd be best off with the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 - it's a solid offering for a good price. And if you refrain from pixel-peeping all the time, it delivers very nice images, plenty sharp enough for medium sized prints.

    M.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  6. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Another option you might like is the SLR Magic 17mm T1.6, meaning it is likely an f1.4 lens, and weighs only 324g, so a lot less than a Speedboosted Rokinon or Voigtlander 17/0.95.

    Lightly used ones frequently sell out of Hong Kong on eBay for $150-200 USD.
     
  7. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    The Rok on a PM2 would be quite an unbalanced combo. I think the same apples to the Nokton. Unless you need very narrow DOF, the Oly will do the job just fine.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. MoonMind

    MoonMind Mu-43 Top Veteran

    628
    Oct 25, 2014
    Switzerland
    Matt
    I didn't even see that bit about the E-PM2 - sorry for that. In that case, I'd really not consider one of the big lenses - the E-PL7 is (by far) the best of the small PENs in terms of handling, but it doesn't really work well with the 12-40mm; the Voigtländer is already heavier than that lens ...

    M.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. tedlegrand

    tedlegrand Mu-43 Rookie

    20
    Mar 13, 2014
    montreal, qc
    eric
    interesting point of views.The SLR magic could be an option, although reviews say it's not a very sharp lens for stills, but good for videos and the price is 500$ new. I'm not sure I want to go used, and it's sometimes hard to find good deals used.

    As for lens size, I'm ok with the size and weight of my canon FL 55mm F1.2 sith speedbooster, I would guess the nokton is similar size and weight?

    how is E-PL7 much better in terms of handling? Compact Camera Meter
     
  10. MoonMind

    MoonMind Mu-43 Top Veteran

    628
    Oct 25, 2014
    Switzerland
    Matt
    I don't really know how they did it, but the grip is fantastic, even better than the E-M10 without the additional grip. And the position of the control dial means that you don't have to shift your grip in order to use it - which further enhances its usabililty. Apart from the Ricoh GR, the E-PL7 is the most comfortable compact body I've ever handled, even better than the E-P5 which I actually loved immediately (but didn't buy because it lacked an EVF - a no-go at the price they were asking).

    That said, I was and in many ways still am a fan of the E-PM1 - very small, eminently more pocketable, very competent. But certainly less secure in the hand than the E-PL7.

    M.
     
  11. Rudy

    Rudy Mu-43 Veteran

    449
    Jan 24, 2013
    Oakland, CA
    You haven't made it really clear (at least to me) why you are interested in a 17 f/1 lens.
    You mentioned that you are looking for a "sharp" lens or at least it seems that the 17 f/1.8 was not "sharp" enough for you and you got rid of it.
    The purpose of high aperture lenses is not primarily to be "sharp", but to gather a lot of light. As a side effect you will get thinner depth of field.
    The Voigtlander is a big hunk of glass and metal and of course manual focus which will be a pain on the E-PM2. Wide open you will miss focus most of the time.
    You need to be very deliberate in using it and it certainly would not be a lens I would go for to "to get photo souvenir from my kids growing up".
    Rudy
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  12. tedlegrand

    tedlegrand Mu-43 Rookie

    20
    Mar 13, 2014
    montreal, qc
    eric
    I'm already good with autofocus lenses to capture action. I was looking to add a lens with low light ability and has character, broken at a wider field of view. I'm fine with manual focus and I don't mind bigger lens for that purpose.
     
  13. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    I have no idea of your photography, your experience or what your expectations are, which always makes it difficult to effectively answer your questions. Sharing pictures or a link to a Flickr, blog or other online album makes conversations like this much easier.. its always useful to understand where you are coming from.

    In my experience, successful low light photography can be achieved without buying the fastest lens, by intelligent use of the metering and by recognising that sometimes light is just bad light and no matter how fast your lens is it will be a crappy picture.

    Especially with wide lenses like the 17 or the 20, and given a source of acceptable light, achieving a balance of an acceptably high enough shutter speed for the situation and an acceptable ISO should be within the reach of any competent photographer with a current camera.

    1/80, f/2.2, ISO 6400

    18049191705_be23dbd81a_b. P5230182 by kevinparis, on Flickr

    Look back at low light photos from the 60's, 70's, 80's and even the 90's... they were probably in the majority of cases shot at 400,800 or 1600 ISO with f/2 or maybe f/1.4 lenses

    On the other hand if you are wanting a fast lens for a shallower depth of field... which is a different thing from bokeh, a nebulous description of the 'look' of the out of focus areas of an image... then the wider you go the harder it gets to get that desired separation of subject and background. Add into the mix that because of the smaller sensor the DOF for any f stop will be larger than the equivalent FOV on say a FF camera. In other words a 17/1.0 only matches a rather pedestrian 35/2 in terms of shallow DOF

    Images with a shallow DOF is often a result of intelligent photography that places subject and background in the right relationship. Longer lenses make this easier, but with wider lenses it is still possible

    17/1.8

    21482313982_baf4f018b0_b. P9130071 by kevinparis, on Flickr

    11076001295_a4f9f6da69_b. PB250019 by kevinparis, on Flickr

    As I said before.. I dont know what you are trying to achieve or what your experience is... I just think you are chasing after a rainbow in the wrong direction

    K
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. mmw

    mmw Mu-43 Rookie

    15
    Jun 9, 2014
    I'm also considering buying a fast-ish 17mm but am holding off in till the new Olympus primes are announced.
     
  15. tedlegrand

    tedlegrand Mu-43 Rookie

    20
    Mar 13, 2014
    montreal, qc
    eric
    It's been a very long time since I went on flickr. I just uploaded a few recent pics to give an idea of what I shoot. automne 2015
    maybe I'm just lurking lenses I don't really need. Like when I got the rokinon 85mm f1.4, then never really got any use for it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2015
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  16. walter_j

    walter_j Mu-43 Veteran

    364
    Sep 10, 2013
    Hagwilget, B.C., Canada
    Walter
    I have the CV 17.5 and would rebuy in a heartbeat if something happened to it. I dropped it on ashphalt and cracked the lens cap, but otherwise no problem. It's solid. It is big and heavy though, but I love it. F1.8 won't do for me. The only issue I have with it is the bowtie it gives stars for astrophotos. I might consider the PL 15mm though. Sharp, small, quick
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Nathanael

    Nathanael Mu-43 Veteran

    389
    Oct 12, 2015
    Sounds like you want the Voitglander because you like collecting and trying new lenses. Any perceived photographic needs are just justification. So get the lens you want, don't settle for something else
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Gary5

    Gary5 Mu-43 Veteran

    310
    Jan 15, 2014
  19. tedlegrand

    tedlegrand Mu-43 Rookie

    20
    Mar 13, 2014
    montreal, qc
    eric