GH3 Olympus 17mm f/1.8 vs Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm f/.95 (for video)

I

intrinsic pictures

Member
I picked up the GH3 a few days ago for filmmaking and I'm looking for my first wide angle MFT lens. Other than my Voigtlander 40mm f/2 that I adapted from the Pentax system to MFT, I'm building my lens collection from the ground up. I like my lenses fixed and fast, so it's down to these two for me. (unless someone suggests another lens that can compete with these?)

The biggest issue I have is price. $500 for the Olympus and $1,100+ for the Voigtlander. That extra $600 I would pocket by going with the Olympus would really help getting other equipment I need (like other lenses, LCD monitor, lights, mic) The only real advantage of the Voigtlander (besides build quality) in my mind is the low light performance and while it's nice, I think it's realistic to expect that I will be stopping down to at least 1.4-2.0 anyway to get a quality image.

But, having owned a Voigtlander lens that became my go-to lens for the last three years, I do know how quality they are and I absolutely love them. I just feel that this particular lens is a little overpriced and I can get 95% of the performance with the Olympus.

Thoughts?
 
intrinsic pictures said:
I just feel that this particular lens is a little overpriced and I can get 95% of the performance with the Olympus.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it overpriced but unless you really need to go down there (low light) the Olympus should be fine.

Personally I like f/0.95 but it's always something you can get at a later date if you so desire.
 
Thanks stoneinapond.

I wouldn't say I really need the low light but it's one of those things where if you've got it you'll find a way to use it. So it's always nice to have :undecided

I do think at this point in the game the Olympus will be good enough. When I can come up with a really good excuse to get the Nokton I'll re-evaluate.
 
Does anyone have a link or any samples of those two lenses head to head? I'd be interested to see how the Olympus performs wide open with autofocus. Cheers, Pete
 
Thanks intrinsic

Still looking for some proper head to head tests between the Olympus's vs. Nokton's. As the Olympus cams don't do much for video, there is very little out there and of course no dealers who carry any of these lenses locally :)

Cheers,
Pete
 
intrinsic pictures said:
Thanks stoneinapond.

I wouldn't say I really need the low light but it's one of those things where if you've got it you'll find a way to use it. So it's always nice to have :undecided

I do think at this point in the game the Olympus will be good enough. When I can come up with a really good excuse to get the Nokton I'll re-evaluate.
Click to expand...

Another choice to consider might be the Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm f1.4, in the same price range as the Olympus 17mm f1.8. I've seen it for $495 some places (amazon wharehouse deals has it "used - good" for $509 {I've had good luck from there}), Adorama has it new for $569 - what I paid for mine last year. This is a superb performing lens that is sharp even wide open and has excellent contrast and tonal rendition, well worthy of having Leica in it's name.

17mm for m4/3 is not true wide angle. It performs as 35mm equivalent, photojournalists liked 35mm focal length as a "wide normal" that let them get closer to people and groups, had fair depth of field so focus didn't get as critical, but didn't get into significant wide angle distortion. 28mm was considered a "workhorse" wide angle with 24mm about as wide as one could go without getting into too much distortion (14 and 12mm being the m4/3 equivalents).

25mm is "normal" perspective for m4/3 and is a very useful lens, sees in about the same perspective as the human eye. The f1.4 maximum aperture is great for low light and for shallow depth of field without backgrounds going too soft f2.8 and f4 work very well.

Many who feel the price of the Pan/Leica 25mm to be out of budget range may choose the Lumix 20mm f1.7 as almost as useful. Still a bit of a "wide normal" (40mm equiv), It works very well for anything the Olympus 17mm f1.8 would do but may be sharper overall.

I have both the 20 and the 25 and am very happy with their performance. I reach for the 25mm first but if for any reason I don't want to be as "conspicuous" I put the 20mm on either a GH3 or GX1.

I hope some of this helps.
 
Last edited:
Bruce, thanks, your advice has helped me to decide that I need 17mm or wider. I may have to bite the bullet and try the Vario 12-35mm even though it's priced about the same as the Nokton and I don't usually like zoom lenses.

It's been difficult to decide on my first m4/3 lens purchase. I think the versatility of the 12-35 will allow me to then focus on finding a nice fast more-telephoto lens such as the Zuiko 75mm 1.8 and then, along with my converted Voigtlander 40mm I will have most of my basic needs covered.
 
Bruce Foreman said:
25mm is "normal" perspective for m4/3 and is a very useful lens, sees in about the same perspective as the human eye.
Click to expand...

"normal" is very relative, as I've always preferred a 35mm lens as my normal on a Full Frame 35mm Still Photo camera. ( dating back to my first Olympus OM-1 in 1978 )

I owned the Voightlander 25mm f/0.95 for one year and then sold it because I almost never used this lens. I personally find the m4/3 25mm perspective boring, and would have probably kept the Voightlander if I had bought the 17.5mm f/0.95 lens instead. ( it wasn't out at the time )

If I had to chose one prime lens as my "normal" for the GH3 it would be the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 or the Voightlander 17.5mm f/0.95 lens. It's my favorite FOV when shooting.
 
TheDingo said:
"normal" is very relative, as I've always preferred a 35mm lens as my normal on a Full Frame 35mm Still Photo camera. ( dating back to my first Olympus OM-1 in 1978 )

If I had to chose one prime lens as my "normal" for the GH3 it would be the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 or the Voightlander 17.5mm f/0.95 lens. It's my favorite FOV when shooting.
Click to expand...

That's why the 35mm focal length was a "favorite" of many photojournalists in the 1960's and 1970's (before zooms became universally popular). I experienced this first hand as about 40% of my assignments in that time period were photojournalist in nature. I was supplied with a Nikon F2 kit that included the Nikkor 50mm f1.4, Nikkor 35mm f3.5, and the Nikkor 135mm f3.5.

The 35mm was often first choice unless low light dictated the 50mm or the need for telephoto perspective called for the 135mm. So I know where you're coming from.

But I also did a lot of "teeth cutting" with the 50mm and it's perspective (pretty much identical to the 25mm on m4/3) as that was most often what came with a camera and there was a lot of times when I couldn't afford additional lenses for my personal camera.
 
intrinsic pictures said:
Bruce, thanks, your advice has helped me to decide that I need 17mm or wider. I may have to bite the bullet and try the Vario 12-35mm even though it's priced about the same as the Nokton and I don't usually like zoom lenses.
Click to expand...

This may be your best bet, when you need wide you often need WIDE and the 12mm end is about as wide as you go without getting into significant distortion. And giving you a 24mm to 70mm equivalent range will allow you quite a bit of flexibility, the f2.8 constant aperture is another "positive".

intrinsic pictures said:
It's been difficult to decide on my first m4/3 lens purchase. I think the versatility of the 12-35 will allow me to then focus on finding a nice fast more-telephoto lens such as the Zuiko 75mm 1.8 and then, along with my converted Voigtlander 40mm I will have most of my basic needs covered.
Click to expand...

This makes sense, good luck.
 
Well...in the end I couldn't bring myself to get a zoom, and I couldn't deal with anything slower than f/2 so I've decided on the Oly 12mm f/2. They way you switch in and out of AF/MF on the focus ring is brilliant. Takes all the guesswork out of mode switching on the fly. It's also got one damn sexy lens hood.
 
intrinsic pictures said:
...I've decided on the Oly 12mm f/2. They way you switch in and out of AF/MF on the focus ring is brilliant.
Click to expand...

Racking focus on the Olympus 12mm in "Snap Focus" mode is not smooth, rather it happens in distinct steps, so few filmakers use this option.

Supposedly the 17mm f/1.8's "Snap Focus" is smoother, due to having more steps than the 12mm f/2, but I've never handled that lens.
 
Last edited:
Good to know Bern. There's always a catch!

I will just use the manual focus setting in-camera then when doing video as the ring doesn't have these steps at the AF position. At least for photography (which I also do) it will still be a nice feature. Of course if I'm shooting something where there is no change of focus (which I am, more commonly than not) I can still use the snap focus.

c3hammer said:
Be sure to upload some video from that thing. Id really like to see how it looks.

Cheers,

Pete
Click to expand...

Sure. I have an incredibly busy 2-3 weeks ahead of me so there might be a little delay before I get something posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top