Ianscreations
Well-known member
Good point. Curious to hear feedback on this. FYI: I actually shoot manual focus, but I rely on a half shutter press for the camera to help me get close.
GH3 Olympus Wide Primes on Sale! Please Help Me Decide
- Thread starter Ianscreations
- Start date
Good point. Curious to hear feedback on this. FYI: I actually shoot manual focus, but I rely on a half shutter press for the camera to help me get close.
Ianscreations
Well-known member
Nice info, thanks. You know the math...,what ISo would I need to make the 12mm be the same exposure as the 17mm? What I'm really getting at is: is there a big difference (visually) between 2.0 and 1.8???? 2.8 doesn't work for me in low light receptions.
Bern Caughey
Veteran
f/1.8 is 1/3 of a stop faster then f/2, therefore the ISO could be reduced by 1/3 & still retain the same exposure.
As I mentioned in my first response, "The 12/2 is one stop slower so require ISO 5000 to achieve the same level of illumination, while the 17/1.8 will require ISO 4000".
I don't film weddings, but do a fair amount of documentary, & wonder if you could ask the venue(s) to raise the level of illumination a stop, or so. That is assuming they are dimming the
lights. In my experience many venues dim the lights more than necessary & most people will not notice if it's a bit brighter.
As I mentioned in my first response, "The 12/2 is one stop slower so require ISO 5000 to achieve the same level of illumination, while the 17/1.8 will require ISO 4000".
I don't film weddings, but do a fair amount of documentary, & wonder if you could ask the venue(s) to raise the level of illumination a stop, or so. That is assuming they are dimming the
lights. In my experience many venues dim the lights more than necessary & most people will not notice if it's a bit brighter.
Last edited:
Here are 7 reviews to refresh your memory. All of these reviews recommend buying the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens, and several consider it to be on par with the Olympus 12mm f/2.0 lens.
The only issue that comes up is chromatic aberration, which is a problem if you don't shoot with a Panasonic camera. ( Olympus cameras don't fix CA in camera, Panasonic cameras do )
Robin Wong : Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm F1.8 Review
Ming Thein : Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm F1.8 Review
Mike Pouliot : Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm F1.8 Review
Steve Huff : Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm F1.8 Review
Light Hunter : Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm F1.8 Review
SLR Gear : Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm F1.8 Review
PC Magazine : Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm F1.8 Review
...This is one of the main reasons to buy the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens, which is pretty much silent and wickedly fast when it comes to AF.
M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
But at video as well? I know it isn't the same thing.
Ianscreations, if you are just half pressing before a shoot, the still lenses will work fine. But if you want it to track objects or adjust focus during a shoot, I'm afraid nothing works as well as Lumix lenses in my experience with AF.
d1rockwild
Well-known member
Just wanted to add that the autofocus of 4/3 lenses on m4/3 bodies would be useless, nearly 100% of time for event video. For photography, the AF is way too slow for event work as well.
Olympus designates their lenses made for video with the MSC logo, which stands for "Movie & Still Compatible". Essentially it means fast AF and quiet AF motor.
The 17mm f/1.8 is a MSC lens, so it's designed for video work.
Olympus MSC Lens Technology
Thomas Smet
Veteran
The Olympus 17mm f1.8 may lose a bit to the 20mm f1.7 in terms of detail but it is my understanding it would beat the pants off of the 20mm for auto and manual focus. Keep in mind the 20mm also doesn't have stabilization built in so it doesn't really have an advantage there either.
I loved my 20mm to death but finally had to sell it because the focusing was driving me nuts. Seriously considering the 17mm f1.8.
Also keep in mind if you insist on shooting at a reception with no lights then any lens you use regardless of how sharp it is in optimal situations is going to look softer at a higher ISO. I think any detail advantage a lens could have is pretty much tossed out the window.
If you want wider then the 25mm f1.4 with autofocus then you basically have four options. 20mm f1.7, 17mm f1.8, 14mm f2.5, 12mm f2.0. I would pretty much rule out the 20mm and 14mm for their horrible autofocus and the 14mm not being much brighter than your 12-35. That really leaves two options both from Olympus. Both very nice lenses. Oh I also forgot the Sigma 19mm but at f2.8 there is no advantage for you to use it.
I loved my 20mm to death but finally had to sell it because the focusing was driving me nuts. Seriously considering the 17mm f1.8.
Also keep in mind if you insist on shooting at a reception with no lights then any lens you use regardless of how sharp it is in optimal situations is going to look softer at a higher ISO. I think any detail advantage a lens could have is pretty much tossed out the window.
If you want wider then the 25mm f1.4 with autofocus then you basically have four options. 20mm f1.7, 17mm f1.8, 14mm f2.5, 12mm f2.0. I would pretty much rule out the 20mm and 14mm for their horrible autofocus and the 14mm not being much brighter than your 12-35. That really leaves two options both from Olympus. Both very nice lenses. Oh I also forgot the Sigma 19mm but at f2.8 there is no advantage for you to use it.
This is the Lens to buy...... AutoFocus or Not, When mastered you will create images not possible with almost any other lens unless you spend a lot more money. This is Green lanterns Ring, Thor's Hammer, Iron Man's suit..... (Don;t mind my analogy I been watching a lot of movies lately)
Thomas Smet
Veteran
This is the Lens to buy...... AutoFocus or Not, When mastered you will create images not possible with almost any other lens unless you spend a lot more money. This is Green lanterns Ring, Thor's Hammer, Iron Man's suit..... (Don;t mind my analogy I been watching a lot of movies lately)
Except manual focus in a wedding environment on a camera with no focus peaking can be very hit or miss. A lens can be awesome but if half the shots are out of focus it means nothing in the end. A client can accept a little bit of grain but they will not accept focus going all over the place.
The ultra-fast Voightlander lenses are pretty unique. I owned the 25mm f/0.95 for a year, and sold it to help pay for my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8. They have very smooth focusing, and the aperture of the 17.5mm can be put in "click-less" cine mode.
...That said, I am slowly becoming a convert of GH3 focus-tracking, where the high-speed AF of your lens can track your subject, or you can perform forced focus-pulls using the LCD touch-screen. This can be a very handy thing, especially when you are working with minimal crew. ( it's not great in dim light, but in reasonable light it's pretty good )
M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
I would guess that's why he wrote "when mastered". Hitting critical focus is an art, people have been shooting weddings with 5Ds and other Canon DSLRs that don't support autofocus for years now. I'm not a fan of live event work like that, but these guys have nailing focus with large apertures down to a science.
You're right, lack of peaking makes it harder, but you can get a monitor that does that for less than $300 these days. Dressing up your rig to differentiate yourself from the photographer doesn't hurt either.
