So you thought the Nokton 35mm f1.2 RF lens was a lump!

[Keith]

I just got my Nokton 17.5mm f0.95 in the mail and was quite stunned at the weight when I unpacked it. Physically it's actually slightly larger than the 35mm f1.2 and it's also heavier at 573 grams ... the RF lens is 500 grams! Speed certainly comes at a price! 😱

I'm going to take the combo of OM-D and 17.5 into the gallery at QUT tomorrow and see how it it all comes together. Focusing at f0.95 is certainly challenging but not impossible and definitely becomes much easier at f1.4. The viewfinder of the OM-D is so good and the action of the lens so smooth that I think it's a feasible alternative to my D700 and 35mm f2 Zeiss. Time will tell of course! 😀

 

[gavinlg]

I actually can't wait for pics 'of' and 'from' this combo!

 

[ChrisN]

Pictures, Keith! We need pics!

 

[OlliL]

Pictures of the combo please.
Should be a great short-tele, longer normal set-up.

 

[zvos1]

Pictures of the combo please.
Should be a great short-tele, longer normal set-up.

Yes, pictures of the combo!

 

[OlliL]

Ah me stupid, thought you paired the 35mm with the OM-D.
Interested in the 17,5mm, too. 😉


P.S. and the Nokton F1.2 on the OM-D

 

[Keith]

Ah me stupid, thought you paired the 35mm with the OM-D.
Interested in the 17,5mm, too. 😉


P.S. and the Nokton F1.2 on the OM-D

I'd have to use Blu Tack for that .... I don't have an adapter! 😛

 

[Keith]

Pictures, Keith! We need pics!

I'll photograph it tomorrow at the gallery ... maybe in the hands of the attractive attendant. 😀 There's currently an exhibition on there that is all video instalation and it will be a good chance to see how the Oly copes with the screens. I was hoping to test it last Thursday night at the opening but didn't get the lens in time.

 

[OlliL]

I'd have to use Blu Tack for that .... I don't have an adapter! 😛

That's fine I guess....I did this:


Sony Big-Mini 3 von oliverleschke auf Flickr


😀

 

[ChrisN]

I'll photograph it tomorrow at the gallery ... maybe in the hands of the attractive attendant. 😀 There's currently an exhibition on there that is all video instalation and it will be a good chance to see how the Oly copes with the screens. I was hoping to test it last Thursday night at the opening but didn't get the lens in time.

Alright - you've had almost 24 hours! And you've raised my expectations too! 😀

 

[Speedfreak]

There are hardly any pictures of the 17mm online, probably because the lens is ridiculously expensive for MFT.

The same load of money (EM-D + 17mm) would get you a Nikon D700 with 35/2 AF-D. Autofocus and great resale value - opposed to the Voigtlander - come in free. Plus a full range of 50 years of compatible Nikkor lenses in all flavors.

 

[ChrisN]

Keith already has a D700 and some good lenses. If it's only about money, there's always a cheaper option. Sometimes it's nice to have fun and play at the exteme edge - life's too short.

 

[Keith]

There are hardly any pictures of the 17mm online, probably because the lens is ridiculously expensive for MFT.

The same load of money (EM-D + 17mm) would get you a Nikon D700 with 35/2 AF-D. Autofocus and great resale value - opposed to the Voigtlander - come in free. Plus a full range of 50 years of compatible Nikkor lenses in all flavors.

I have to say that after half a day of testing this rig in the gallery it's capable of quite a few things that the Nikon isn't ... and I know this personally because that (the D700) is what Ive been using for the past two years. Also the Nikon and the 35mm Zeiss MF prime I use (auto focus is useless in this gallery) come in at well over $3000.00

 

[gavinlg]

There are hardly any pictures of the 17mm online, probably because the lens is ridiculously expensive for MFT.

The same load of money (EM-D + 17mm) would get you a Nikon D700 with 35/2 AF-D. Autofocus and great resale value - opposed to the Voigtlander - come in free. Plus a full range of 50 years of compatible Nikkor lenses in all flavors.

Yes but all the money and lens range in the world can't buy a 35mm f.095 equivalent native to nikon mount, or any other camera mount for that matter. To get close you need a 35mm 1.4G at literally twice the price. Add that the OM-d has extremely effective in body IS, and you have quite a unique low light setup.

 

[Keith]

Alright - you've had almost 24 hours! And you've raised my expectations too! 😀

I'll get there ... I had a big day and sadly no cute attendant in the gallery.

I still have to run the test images through post and I'll take a shot of the Oly and Nokton combo in the decent light tomorrow hopefully.

The abilty of the OM-D's finder to allow manual focusing of that Nokton at f0.95 in that gloom was impressive. Way ahead of what the Nikon is capable of ... incredible, and I had the D700 with me to compare!

 

[Speedfreak]

I have to say that after half a day of testing this rig in the gallery it's capable of quite a few things that the Nikon isn't ... and I know this personally because that (the D700) is what Ive been using for the past two years. Also the Nikon and the 35mm Zeiss MF prime I use (auto focus is useless in this gallery) come in at well over $3000.00

Not directed to you personally, but few people own several camera systems. So when it comes to a decision OM-D + 17mm or anything else for that amount of money, it will probably be "anything else".

 

[Speedfreak]

Yes but all the money and lens range in the world can't buy a 35mm f.095 equivalent native to nikon mount, or any other camera mount for that matter. To get close you need a 35mm 1.4G at literally twice the price. Add that the OM-d has extremely effective in body IS, and you have quite a unique low light setup.

The equivalent in terms of angle of view and depth of field would be more like a 35mm 2.8 for Nikon FX.

You cant pick cherries when you start playing the "equivalent" game. 35mm f0.95 on FX it is not.

Anyway, looking forward to what the 17mm is capable of.

 

[ChrisN]

... but few people own several camera systems...

After several years reading this forum, I can confidently say that quite a few people do own several camera systems.

But certainly when I was young and starting out, one camera and one lens sufficed, and was all I could afford.

 

[jonasv]

I see your point, but Gavin was referring to it as a unique low-light set-up.

You'd have a 35mm angle of view, 2.8'ish depth-of-field, but still an f/0,95 maximum aperture. So it really depends on what cherries you are looking for.

I wouldn't like this for my teles (where I always seem to want the option of less DOF), but I'd love this for my wide-angles (where I always seem to want the option of more DOF in low-light).

The equivalent in terms of angle of view and depth of field would be more like a 35mm 2.8 for Nikon FX.

You cant pick cherries when you start playing the "equivalent" game. 35mm f0.95 on FX it is not.

Anyway, looking forward to what the 17mm is capable of.

 

[Keith]

The equivalent in terms of angle of view and depth of field would be more like a 35mm 2.8 for Nikon FX.

You cant pick cherries when you start playing the "equivalent" game. 35mm f0.95 on FX it is not.

Anyway, looking forward to what the 17mm is capable of.

True ... but f2.8 would be no use to me unless I have a camera that's comfortable at ISO 25600.

My needs are not about field off view or depth of field ... they are about being able to shoot effectively in near impossible light situations with a field of view that 's appropriate for this environment.

I'm not recomending this lens to anyone ... what I am saying is that it offers unique capabilities if you're prepared to pay the fare!