The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

F0.95 really worth it?

Rawfa

Active member
Hi guys,

I´ve seen some really amazing footage from the 17,5mm f0.95 but I keep wondering if it´s really worth it over the Panasonic 25mm 1.4 or the 20mm 1.7. What do you guys think? The 17,5mm costs around us$1300, which is double the 25mm and more than double the 20mm.
 

ErikTande

New member
If you're getting a bunch of paid work where you need to shoot in the dark, then it's probably worth it.

Otherwise, I'd go for the 25mm 1.4. The 20mm 1.7 is great as well.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
The reason for comparison with 20 and 25mm FL lenses isn't clear to me.

Do you need a 17.5mm? Do you need a 0.95 lens?

If the Olympus 17/2.8 is lacking then it is worth consideration.

Also, among the C-V lenses (ie., compared to the 25/0.95), the price of this one has been falling quite steadily. Right now, the prices are ~ 1/3rd less than a month or so ago when it debuted.
 

Rawfa

Active member
Vivek, I´m looking for a fast prime for shooting video and photo and these are more or less similar FOVs (at least the 17,5mm and the 20mm). I won´t be able to boost the iso on the GH2 as much as I do on the NEX5-N, so I thought I could compensate with the extreme aperture.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Vivek, I´m looking for a fast prime for shooting video and photo and these are more or less similar FOVs (at least the 17,5mm and the 20mm). I won´t be able to boost the iso on the GH2 as much as I do on the NEX5-N, so I thought I could compensate with the extreme aperture.
I don't know, Rawfa. I find 17.5, 20 and 25 mm distinctly different FoV choices. Particularly between 17.5 and 25 mm, you're going from wide to normal.

You're getting about an additional stop over the 25mm, and about a stop and a quarter over the 20mm, with the 17.5mm f/0.95. While useful in some circumstances, it comes with the price of very narrow focus zone.

For me, I tend to prefer manual focusing. A fast wide and a fast normal (and a fast short tele) make a great kit for what I like to shoot. So the Voigtländer 17.5, 25, and 40 (the last with adapter) are a very nice trio lens kit for my needs on Micro-FourThirds. I wish I could get a 17mm lens lens like that for my E-1 that wasn't a heavy zoom lens.
 

Rawfa

Active member
In a different forum someone point out that the 17.5 is massively heavy and not very much well suited for extended hand held work...which happens to be my thing.
FOV wise there is no doubt that my favorite is 35mm. If the Olympus 17mm was at least f1.8 I would have no doubts at all.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
In a different forum someone point out that the 17.5 is massively heavy and not very much well suited for extended hand held work...which happens to be my thing.
FOV wise there is no doubt that my favorite is 35mm. If the Olympus 17mm was at least f1.8 I would have no doubts at all.
It's a bit o a lump, for sure. I thought you knew that. :)
 

etrigan63

Active member
Compared to my Nikon D700 + 24-70 f/2.8 zoom, the OM-D + Grip + CV 17.5 f/.95 would not be that big a deal to hand-hold.
 

RS

New member
i have both the 25mm f0.95 and the 25mm f1.4...the 25mm f0.95 is a brick and the 17mm f0.95 is suppose to another 25% heavier. With my e-pl1, it is so unbalanced and uncomfortable to use, and then you must use the vf-2 as the screen doesn't have enough resolution to focus and of course it is hard to actually nail focus...so handling wise the 1.4 is better. however, i find the AF to be so unreliable in situations when i need to shoot at 1.4 that it is almost pointless
iq wise, 25mm f1.4 is sharp and good but 25 mm f0.95 is SPECIAL (but there is a learning curve) especially shooting at night in available light
the 20mm f1.7 (which i used to have) is almost as good as the 25mm f1.4 but is currently overpriced (my copy was bought at $330)
it mostly comes down to your shooting style and needs :p i have the same problem as to which one to keep to fund for an om-d
 

Tesselator

New member
I love the feel of both lenses on my GH1 and GH2! Very nice handling, balance, and feel!
I liked the IQ of the 25mm f/o.95 very much indeed! The 17.5mm f/o.95, not so much.
In fact I thought the 17.5mm was quite bad. Especially from wide open to about 2.8.
Both were extremely easy to use assuming you've ever used a MF lens before. Very easy to get exact focus - even without MF assist zoom!
At about a grand a piece I could justify keeping the 25mm but not the 17.5 - which IMO is worth about $300 to maybe $500 absolute tops.

I also agree with medium cool. Manual lenses are the tits for video. AF sucks nuggets. But only if you're serious about the video and going for cinematographic level results. If you're the type who just takes 5min to 30min shots all hand-held waving it from subject to subject with little or no post then yeah, it either doesn't matter or AF is preferable. Cinematographic level shooting is usually 10s to 2min "cuts only" working from an x-sheet - all on a tripod or a nice shoulder rig. In those cases MF rocks and a half - which seems to be the overwhelming consensus as well.

Just my 2¢
 

Tesselator

New member
Both also look as though they can't focus to infinity or anywhere out past about 5 meters.

Can they?

On top of that they both look like they will not cover the entire 4/3 frame and have to be used in 2x digital zoom mode or ETC if you have a GH2.

You can pick these up in 4mm to about 25 mm in f/1.0 or f/0.9 for about $20 in junk-shops. I have a pile of them I paid $5 to $10 for including the CCTV camera. There's no need to pay very much for one of those.

And after you get it I can almost promise you will be greatly disappointed if you're expecting consistently good photographs from it. Basically it will turn your camera into a low-rez limited-focus P&S sized sensor camera. So everything your cameras does well enough now, cut in half and you'll get the idea. 1080... No sorry. 740.. yeah ok maybe. 20" prints... No sorry... 10" prints... yeah, maybe. and so on.

They are fun little toys when you can find them for nominal prices but they can't even come close to competing with something like the Voigtlander or the 20mm Lumix or even the 14-42mm cheapy Lumix /M.Zuiko ED - which both go for about $75 these days.

And one last point: If the c-mount lens in question doesn't cover the entire sensor as most WA ones do not, then the effective focal length multiplier (AKA crop factor) will be greater than two. From my experience 18mm and above is about 2.5x and below 18mm or so is closer to 3x. And that's if you hand crop the image circle. Obviously if you use the ECT or 2x zoom then the effective crop factor is just a tad over 4x.



.
 
Last edited:

ReeRay

Member
The Schneider shown did indeed focus to infinity and you may be surprised to hear it outperformed my Nokton equivalent by a large margin. It is sharp wide open whereas the Nokton needed stopping down to f1.4 at least. But you're right in not covering the full frame at 4:3 ratio although the vignetting is insignificant in low light where I use the lens the most. Conversely, at 3:2 ratio the vignetting is significantly reduced and correctable in software.

I can't speak for the Fujinon but as for the Schneider It sure ain't no toy believe me.

_1090926

Click on the image and see a 100% crop shown alongside at Flickr.
 

Tesselator

New member
Not bad! Those qualities (∞ OK, good IQ, near full coverage) are extremely rare in a C-Mount lens of 25mm and under.

Do you have to stop down much to get infinity or does it achieve infinity wide open?



________
Also to note is that many of them can be modified to work too. Not usually full coverage but infinity is sometimes achievable.
 

ReeRay

Member
Infinity is achieved from f1.2 onwards. This was shot at 4:3 and f1.2 and focused on the ukulele head. The vignetting is clear here also.

 
Top