A Look At The Olympus 17mm F/1.2 Pro Lens for Micro Four Thirds Cameras

[@EnzoMaisanoTELLTHESTORY]

“I don’t need one but I want one, that’s why I don’t like it.” Love that line. Great video. I have this lens and it’s awesome. Use it for filming with my GH5.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, one of the best Micro Four Thirds lenses. I've always been perfectly happy with my 17 f/1.8 so I was surprised that this one was even sharper.

[@Brianuyahoo]

I didn’t even wanna watch this video! David’s point is compelling! I don’t need this lens .. my GH5 wants me to have it!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@Brianuyahoo Brian, your GH5 must be obeyed. It is the master.

[@Brianuyahoo]

David Thorpe I told my GH5 that I got the Olympus M.ZUIKO 60mm f2.8 Macro DIGITAL ED Lens that you reviewed a few years back. I love that lens! .. Only, my GX5 has been HOGGING that lens for a quickie project to shoot some old photos in a photo album that my grandfather took while he was in Fairbanks, Alaska, back in the mid- to late- 1920s. Don’t tell my GH5, but I’m on page 100 out of 137 pages. (Between two and four photos per page.). That 60mm macro lens is perfect for that job! .. I certainly will keep the 17mm in mind for that perfect project!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@Brianuyahoo My 60mm gets a great deal of use and I can't fault it in any way. I use it for all the 'product' stills and videos for this channel. I use it from wide open down to f/16 and while it ought to be softening when stopped down so far, in reality it doesn't show. Reading what you said reminded me of how much I rely on it. It is, literally, the only lens I can do some jobs with because sometimes close focusing just isn't close enough.

[@JoelTurrell]

Dammit, at age 76, I need to be selling gear off, and getting ready for the grave, and you've now made me want this thing in the worst way. Thank you for another of your great reviews; when I buy mine, I will tell Olympus that you are owed a commission.

[@seangsithorng]

People are scared of death but not you. You make joke of death. If I were you, I would never be concerned about having a good grave but I'd just buy any thing that would satisfied me for now. You are such a sweet guy with sense of humor.

[@godofhope]

Be healthy! And enjoy photography :)

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I don't know, Joel - maybe you should be spending money busily to make sure you get everything you want before kicking the bucket :-) As for commission, well they say that there are no pockets in a shroud but you still have to pay for the shroud and those Armani ones don't come cheap

[@wavetrex]

My grandpa is 91 and still ticking. And a lot of people which are much more famous than him are way over 90. This day and age with all the tech available and advanced medicine 76 is nothing. Start worrying when you are near 100; Until then... more lenses ! :)

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@wavetrex Haha!

[@ChuckSeayII]

I have always loved watching David's reviews! I wish I could have known him. We would have surely been good friends! It's sad to think there will be no more reviews coming from him. He was a joy to listen to, very informative, and entertaining to learn from!

[@gordon4385]

Yaaay! Seems like years since we got a new oly lens review!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, they've been fairly quiet for a while. The 17 has been around a while but is the main one of their Pro primes that interested me.

[@jshanni2066]

I used this lens at an Olympus trial day. The sharpness mixed with very nice background blur creates lovely IQ.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, very pleasing images. I used is mainly wide open where it works exceedingly well.

[@billjobes1851]

Love your presenting style. Just perfect. I own this lens. That 1.2 is just unreal.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks, Bill. Yes, quite a lens.

[@Filmmaker809]

Miss You David Thorpe, I think we would have been good friends. RIP. :(

[@pathorne8018]

One of the most honest declarations for not liking a lens (or anything else, really) ever: "I want it, so I don't like it". Great review, and 'sadly' I share your thoughts exactly :-p

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks, pat, glad you enjoyed it.

[@robphillips1095]

David, thanks for your review. I picked up this lens a month and am very pleased with it. I was happy to find your review of it and to know that you like it as well. I really enjoy your KZbin channel. Thanks and have a great 2020.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks, Rob. You have a good one too!

[@LegendaryGauntlet]

I have been using that lens for walk abouts, events, almost everything honestly. And the output is consistently amazing. It's a main go-to lens when grabbing the camera "just in case".

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, the output is superb, as good as it gets. And it is great to have that speed in hand.

[@JennyDarukat]

Perfectly summed up my feelings towards it - don't need it, would love to have it. I do wish someone would bring out a 17 1.4 the size of the Panaleica 25 1.4, to fill the sweet spot in terms of size and speed (for me), but with the two Olympus options and the Panasonic 15 1.7, 20 1.7, I doubt that'll happen. We're already kind of spoiled for choice.. even if my absolute favourite isn't out there.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I concur with the f/1.4 thought completely, Jenny. If someone did come up with such a 17 f/1.4 lens, I'd certainly buy one. I found it hard to criticize anything on this lens other than the things which on such an optic are unavoidable, size and price. An f/1.4 the size of the Panasonic 25mm would be just perfect.

[@dreammachine86]

I'm considering fully investing in an m43 system to replace the DSLR gear (about £3000 worth) that I had to sell last year after some financial issues now I'm in the position to shop for a new system. Panasonic's G9 looks excellent, great value for the features and performance it offers. But I really cannot understand why Panasonic has not capitalised on a range of mid-range lenses like the 25mm f/1.4. Would be absolutely ideal for the ethos of m43, small and light but still with decent performance. I think they would really attract more people to the system if there were 17.5mm, 25mm, 35mm and 42.5mm f/1.4 with aperture rings - the fact that version II of the 25mm didn't get an aperture ring seems a bit crazy. The f/1.2s look lovely but are quite expensive, especially considering that there are many full-frame mirrorless options at the same price or cheaper that provide at least as good or better low light and shallow depth of field performance. So I think Panasonic should really focus on where m43 can play to its strengths (by all means do f/1.2 or faster as well but please, have a strong mid-range line up!) but unfortunately whils itt can produce great results from the samples I've seen, their lens range is a bit all over place, they don't seem to be that great at having a consistent range of lenses in a specific market segment. A higher end GX model would also go great with such a range of f/1.4s (GX80 was my first mirrorless camera that I had alongside my DSLR and convinced me that it was the way forward).

[@webdaddy]

I watch David's videos even though I'm not going to buy these items. I love his reviews and delivery.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

That's a great compliment, webdaddy, thank you.

[@kevinpower9534]

Cool, the king is back!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

:-)

[@jeffdrew625]

I appreciate this clip! The Pro 12-40mm is a joy to use, but the f/1.2 siren song of the 17mm calls to me! Thanks a lot, David! 😂

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

You're welcome, Jeff.

[@gerardg1950]

It was a pleasure watching, as always :)

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks!

[@PublicKaraokeChannel-jg3bv]

Is the portrait quality as good as the m.zuiko 45mm f1.2 pro?

[@michaelhawkins1173]

As always David everthing I need to know, with interesting images to look at again. Thank you.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks, Michael, glad you liked it.

[@malcolmlawrence3169]

Thanks David - excellent review as always. I think I will stick with my lovely little Oly f1.8. All the very best

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

That's what I'm doing too, Malcolm - and thanks for the kind words

[@scotthullinger4684]

Wow! An EXTREMELY appealing lens, both for the focal length, and for that maximum F/1.2 aperture. An usual combination, to be sure -

[@soholingo]

Finally! Been waiting to see you do this lens! Thank you for all your reviews. I watch your reviews many times over because you are always giving out little bits that help my photography.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks Jay - and I'm glad you find my stuff helpful.

[@JonPYbanez]

very interesting synopsis. i appreciate your candor when approaching a review for a lens in a rather crowded segment. keep up the great work.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks, Jon. It's not a lens for everyone but it's brilliant piece of glass in its own right.

[@AliZaidi]

“I don’t need one but I want one, that’s why I don’t like it.” Says it all! I for one am in the same boat. Lovely commentary/review David :)

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks, Ali.

[@dr34mlucid]

I do enjoy your videos, keeps me up to date on what is coming out and always teaches me a little.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks for that - I'm a bit late getting equipment sometimes but I try to make up for it by added information. Good to know it works!

[@justininfrance]

One of my favourite photography channels, even though I have no interest in M43!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

That's very flattering to hear, Saurat - thank you!

[@Sergiosvm]

pros on picking this up over the sigma 18-35 besides autofocus?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Everything just works and blends seamlessly with Micro Four Thirds body, a stop extra speed and a top quality feel.

[@mozinoz_digital]

The sigma 18/35 is an awesome manual focus low light bokeh beast on my GH5 with viltrox speedbooster, but very heavy!

[@legend240891]

nailed it again David! You are my compass when it comes to M43! Are you thinking about making a video of your favourite lenses and bodies of M43 up until today? For both street/casual as one category and for professional as another one of course. You mentioned that 17mm f1.8, 45mm f1.8 and 12-35 f2.8 were your favourites in the 17mm f1.8 review video. Are they still your favourite? Stay healthy so you can make more videos for us!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks! I've changed the Panasonic 12-35 for the Olympus 12-40 but I chop and change more than most because I have to buy and sell for the reviews. The 17 and 45 are still there, though, and I don't see that changing now.

[@thb5505]

Thank you for your videos David. I always enjoy watching them, not only for the information they provide but for the taste in your judgement. I only wishes there were more often produced. Also, I also wish I didn't have to worry about the future of m4/3 now that Panasonic has gone away with a full frame system and little Olympus will be left behind by herself... Should I just sell?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks Tomas! I have no inside information on anything but I see no reason to think that Panasonic will give up on Micro Four Thirds. They are still investing in lens development and their cameras are widely used in pro and semi pro video circles. Plus, with the S1 being mirrorless, R&D put into that or the G9/GH series will cross fertilize. There was a great logic to Panasonic making a FF mirrorless - they already made a small one, the same technology fed into the big one widens their product range with minimal extra cost. Forgive me if I sound like I know what i'm talking about here because I'm just talking. But, I reallt don't see Panasonic deserting Micro Four Thirds/

[@oldskool80sfan12]

Damn!! the quality of the pictures of this lens looks sublime.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Itain't bad, I ,must admit 😬

[@clintjohnson2460]

Wonderful to see a new post from you----You have me hating this less and wanting this lens as bad as you. I will have to console myself by taking out my 15 mm Lumix/Leica and just dusting it off and tucking it in a little closer for a bit.. I will remind myself that my whole purpose of having a M4/3 system was portability and cost saving.............Damn,,still wanting and hating...

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Hi Clint - it's a constant dilemma. I suppose everyone has it. If you use FF, do you buy a huge 35mm f/1.4 or a compact f/2.8? Wanting and Hating..sounds like a title for a song to me 🙂

[@gamingwithstand6886]

David is up in heaven chilling with God.

[@garydubberly6608]

Thank you for your always interesting reviews. Is there any downside to using this or other non stabilized Olympus lenses with a Lumix G9?

[@JennyDarukat]

Olympus lenses won't use Panasonic's DFD autofocus but only basic contrast detect, so it might be a little less decisive in focusing - that said, I have no actual complaints about the handling of my Olympus 45 1.8 on my G80, so I doubt you'll notice much. It's about even with my Panasonic-Leica 25 1.4 in terms of decisiveness, maybe a little faster in speed due to the design being likely simpler.

[@garydubberly6608]

Jenny Darukat Thanks Jenny. I have a Pana/Leica travel kit but I would not mind being able to utilize some of the Olympus lenses.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@garydubberly6608 Jenny has given the same answer I would. I mix and match bodies and lenses without a thought.

[@bastian.michel]

This guy was one of a kind...

[@SKHP2425]

The 17Pro is the finest 35mm equivalent lens I have used. In addition to your points, it has wonderful sunstars, low coma, and good close focus. Absolutely brilliant lens!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I can't disagree with any of that.

[@mciancia]

I have this lens and love it. Its super sharp and tough. No regrets.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

A happy man - great to hear!

[@jwickerszh]

It's a big improvement in sharpness from the 1.8 in some situation .. but most of the time it doesn't actually matter. Even on my big computer screens all my backgrounds are from the 1.8 and they are brilliant, even wide open. I would rather by the equivalent of my Mitakon 25/0.96 at 17mm. I can always use faster, more than I need sharper... That 25mm is also sharp enough even at 0.95, as long as you get focus right.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

My f/1.8 does me just fine, much as I enjoyed the f/1.2. I must say that getting focus where you want it with a manual f/0.95 is somewhat impractical except with a static subject. If I was using an 85mm for portraits with my Nikons, I'd always stop it down to f/2.8 or f/4 for headshots, otherwise sharp ocus is a matter of luck.

[@jwickerszh]

@@DavidThorpeMFT Yes, it's a matter of having a cooperating subject or having a bit a practice, luck and focus bracketing using sequential shooting while adjusting focus around the "sweet spot". Focal length is a factor as well, I find the focus relatively easy on the 25, and with MFT you have magnification which helps a lot.

[@kentmemories]

So, David, finally did you get this lens? I am deciding one do it all lens for travel, between this lens, 17 1.2 or Leica 12-60/2.8-4.0.. Which one is better for travel in your opinion.. Thank you.. (the dream option would be 10-25/1.7, but it's way too big for me)

[@ryanfarmer4882]

Is it so bad to take both?

[@garydubberly6608]

Kent Ekasak I use the Pana/Leica 12-60, 8-18 & 50-200, all 2.8-4 lenses along with a Sigma16mm f/1.4 when traveling and I find I use the 12-60mm for 85-90% of my photos. I am happy I have all them but the 12-60 is just very useful in many situations. All but the 50-200 are very light weight and that is important to many m4/3 photographers including me.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

If it has to be one lens you take, then no question the 12-60 zoom. The 17mm's 54° angle of view is widely regarded as the most versatile single focal length (including by me) but for the give and take of travel, from portrait to landscape, no prime will match that 12-60. It's great to have that big f/1.2 aperture but it is not often actually _necessary_

[@kentmemories]

Thank you David and Gary.. I back and forth between 17/1.2 and 12-60/2.8-4.0 for a while now, debating between sharpness+low-light of 17 versus flexibility+Leica colour of 12-60, so today I will go and pick up my 12-60 as your advises... Now, since I already have 15/1.7, I just realize that 17/1.2 falls into the category of "I want it, but I don't need it".. So, David summed up very well in this video clip..

[@kingkevinhector]

I have this lens .. it's super sharp. F1.2 is fantastic for astrophotography. It's also weather-sealed, and I don't need to use step-up rings to use the filters for my other Olympus Pro lens.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, to would be good for astrophotography, I guess. I was quite taken aback by its usability wide open. It's what you hope for but don't always get.

[@quiver99]

Dear David, good morning. May I ask you for a little advise? I shoot MFT, Panasonic GX9, which I believe is an amazing little camera. As I travel a lot, I was think to add a 2nd body and thinking of a G90 or OMD E-M1 Mark II. At parity of price, which one do you think would be better performance wise? I have both Panasonic and Olympus lenses and I mostly do travel and street photography with some video once in a while. Many thanks

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I'd personally be inclined to the Olympus. It's a toss up, really but the Olympus does have the PDAF which is just that bit better for moving subjects. In terms of IQ, there's nothing in it really. Most people prefer the JPG output of Olympus but that's just taste. In favour of the Panasonic is that it would have a similar menu system to the GX9. But, overall, I'd plump for the Olympus. There's no bad choice between those two, though!

[@raybohn7]

I received the impression from your description that there is a significant difference in sharpness between the the 17mm 1.2 and the 17mm 1.8. Do you feel that some of this difference was intentional on the part of Olympus? It seems to me that if the 1.8 was equal in sharpness, significantly less people would opt for the 1.2.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

The f/1.2 is really exceptionally sharp, bitingly so. The f/1.8 is very sharp, it's only in side by side comparison than anyone would think to fault it. The fact is that the f/1.2 is built to be the best - and it costs! I think the real choice between the two lenses is made on the size. Certainly for me, the smaller lens is the more useful of the two and plenty sharp enough. Could the f/1.8 be made as sharp as the f/1.2? It would have to be bigger for more elements to fit in and it would have to cost more. Already the attractions of the smaller lens are watered down :-)

[@ricardorgomez]

I think someone had a drink or two before making this video! Fun! I love the no-compromises attitude that Olympus has with their Pro lens line. They are big, heavy and have wide apertures. Built like tanks. This is no exception. It's a beautiful looking lens. The focal length is awesome. I love that Olympus made the programmable button work with Panasonic cameras. That's super smart. I'm a Panasonic Leica lens fan. Love the picture and color rendering. But like you, "I don't like this Olympus lens either". ;-)

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Lots of fun, Ricardo. There are some lenses that are just a pleasure to use and this is one of them. The Olympus 4-0-150 Pro, 8-18mm and 35-100 f/2.8 Panasonics are others I feel the same way about.

[@ricardorgomez]

@@DavidThorpeMFT Totally. There are just lenses and cameras that just sing to you for some reason. I used but never owned the Zeiss Planar 85mm f/1.4. That thing was just so awesome. The Leica Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 makes me feel like a pro. I only got to play with the Leica 10-25 and 50-200. But I want them so bad! That 10-25 is just so amazing. Lastly, my new Panasonic G9. It's pretty damn close to perfect.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@ricardorgomez You sound a happy man, Ricardo - that's what it is all about!

[@stehlealexander]

What about sharpening the 17/1.8 pictures in Camera/ post Processing. Not nearly the same result?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

No, the f/1.2 is clearly better whatever you do. But, my results don;t show the f/1.8 as poor, they show the f/1.2 as spectacular.

[@keithspillett]

I don't 'need' one either, but I CERTAINLY 'want' one after seeing this!

[@jackblackwhole]

As always, great video! Wondering with olympus and it's recent statements in regards to the camera division. What are your thoughts David?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks! I don't have any insider knowledge of Olympus but having just taken delivery of their E-M5 III, it doesn't show any signs of a company on the way down or out. I did think that a bit with the E-M10 III. All camera makers seem to be on a downward sales curve at the moment. It seems to me that that is probably because cameras have now, like mobile phones, matured and do everything their owners require. Why buy a #8 when #7 does everything or more than you need? Without constant upgrading, sales must go down. Olympus moot the idea of selling the camera division but I'd have thought that there would be quite a lot of cross-fertilisation with their medical and other imaging products so it wouldn't necessarily be such a good financial move. But, in the end, I know nothing!

[@jackblackwhole]

@@DavidThorpeMFT Agree. I do wish all these company to be around as long as possible. On a totally unrelated note, as a musician, I can totally understand your guitar buying. Unfortunately I can only put so many pianos in my house...

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@jackblackwhole Pianos - yes that is a problem. My son had a Fender Rhodes - the size and weight of that was daunting.

[@jackblackwhole]

@@DavidThorpeMFT Looked up Fender Rhodes. It is a beautiful beast. And that 70's sound, so crisp. I want one.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@jackblackwhole I don't even play piano and I want one! Steely Dan's track "Your Gold Teeth" on the Countdown To Ecstasy album was the first I knew of the Fender Rhodes. I'd obviously heard one before but not known it beyond being an electric piano. I was going out drinking in London with some mates and I was late because this track came on the radio and I was mesmerised by it, never heard anything like it, neither jazz nor rock nor fusion but its own genre. A perfect track with a perfect player and sound.

[@KarlRobertson]

love your reviews, they make me giggle.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Great to hear that, Karl. Photography can get a it serious at times so I like to lighten things up.

[@godofhope]

And there we are. Chasing full frame depth of field equipment creates the same huge and heavy lenses. Equivalent.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

That's right, the ;laws of physics will not be denied. What is good is to have the choice.

[@vhc7764]

Such a nice review...thank you for sharing. Olympus Pro and the current Fuji "Pro" lenses are works of art--nothing compares with the quality and workmanship. Just my humble opinion.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I don't know the Fuji lenses but I hear good things about them. High build quality is always expensive and its nice that maker's recognise that there are enough photographers who value it and are willing to pay the price, Long may it continue.

[@yonroth7382]

I've been using the 12-40 F2.8 lens for urban and street photography, I find it very useful becouse I have the range of two classic lenses for this style - the 35 and 50mm, with no need to swap or carry a bag. I love the f1.2 , would be a big help over the f2.8 when it comes to blurring backgrounds, and getting a 3D look to photos. However thats the rub, its a compromise. Lenses always are. The fact its as big as the 12-40, and has less versatility, which may result in less photos shot, or not exactly how you wanted to be, and requiring post cropping. Has anyone had similar thoughts about buying, or justifing their purchase of this beut ?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I'm sure they have, Yon. You sacrifice and awful lot in size, weight and money for that f/1.2 aperture. It's nice to have but given choice of one or the other, it'd have to be the zoom. Sharpness, you'd be pushed to see the difference without pixel peeing (why?) or make unusually large prints.

[@joeltunnah]

@Yon, yes that’s exactly my thinking too. I can’t justify $1300 to gain an extra 1.25 stops of light over the 17/1.8 for a digital camera. If it was for film, ok, you have limited choice with pushing ISO. And I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve shot below f/2.8 on the street or at an event over the years. I’ve even come to appreciate the slow 12-45mm f/4 for these reasons. I guess some people are happy being a one focal length forever photographer… but I just can’t do it. I love 24, 28, 35, and 50mm almost equally.

[@excalibur9768]

Is a mount needed for this lens to fit in the Lumix G9?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

As Studd Muffin says, no. Micro Four Thirds is a standard so any lens or camera so designated will work as expected with any Micro Four Thirds equipment. You only need an adaptor (cheap, £20 or so) for non Micro Four Thirds lenses from Nikon, Canon etc.

[@excalibur9768]

Thanks, gents!

[@burgulize]

Although I'm using at least 30mm for over a year now, you made me want to test run the 17 :) A great review as always. Thank you!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thank you, Serj!

[@kirk0831]

I like your narrative.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Nice to hear that, thanks Kirk.

[@dylangarcia3696]

Hi just asking are you reviewing OMD 5 MK3 ?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, I have one on order, Dylan. Looking forward to seeing it.

[@sylvainhimmo]

I just wish the Olympus 17mm f1.8 could be weather proof... size and weight are excellent. Panasonic is having a second edition of their primes offering splash and dust proof. Hope Olympus could make second edition of their f1.8 primes to be weather sealed. Thank you so much for sharing your though of this lens. 'to big, to heavy, to pricey' 📸 but... Want it 😇

[@Шоуодногожурналиста]

I own both an i would happily pay above original price to get 17 1.8 weathersealed. I use it in rain and snow, but i would've loved some peace of a mind

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I think weather sealing should really be applied to any lens other than the very cheapest. By its very nature, photographic gear will be used in the rain sometimes.

[@protestagain]

I also don't like the Olympus 17mm F/1.2, because I already have the Pana/Leica 15 / 1.7 and have a dream of the new Pana/Leica 10-25/1.7. But deep down I know how good Oly 17/1.2 is, so it will always be in my dreams.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

The 10-25mm seems to be attracting a lot of interest. I'm hoping to review one .

[@protestagain]

@@DavidThorpeMFT It seems like a dream lens, except the price, the size and the weight, exakt as the Oly 17/1.2, but also with zoom from 10 to 25 mm.

[@KiinaSu]

Wait how do I Programm the fn button on Panasonic bodies?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

There's an item for it in the Custom section on Panasonic's later cameras.

[@jlambuth]

This is my go to filming lens. It rivals some of my cine lenses that I have with less weight. My videos are sharp to the point that it looks not natural.

[@raygeary1698]

F1.8 plenty for me SNR so good now not worried about full frame for me anyway👍

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I'm happy with my f/1.8 too, Ray.

[@timeflight]

Thanks David. Informative as always.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thank you!

[@jamespeirce2582]

Haha. You have the best reviews. Loved the closing line and tie-in.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks, James. I like a laugh now and again.😀

[@jamespeirce2582]

David Thorpe Well I do too, and I had a fine one with thanks to you. Cheers. :)

[@Brianuyahoo]

Thanks David! Nicely put! I would hate loving that lens! 😂

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

🙂

[@RobShootPhotos]

I was thinking of selling my 17mm f/1.8 but then I started using it and love it. Never will buy the pro version. Only one I will buy that is a pro prime is the 45mm, if I get more involved in portrait photography.

[@Шоуодногожурналиста]

I recommend 25 1.2. 45 is an overkill and i would've recommended sigma 55 1.4 instead

[@RobShootPhotos]

@@Шоуодногожурналиста I thought about that lens also. Your right and that Sigma less than half of the Olympus 45mm f/1.2

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Personally, I'd get the 56mm Sigma over a 45mm of whatever flavour because I prefer the extra length to give a bit more space to the subject and the f/1.4 aperture is plenty. In that respect, I'm actually ignoring any price difference as a factor. But these things are very personal and for everyone who wants shorter, someone else wants longer.

[@moisescugat3948]

I totally feel you!!! I have it and I HATE IT becasue it is making me want the 45 1.2 expecting the same quality. I bought it by the fast aperture and I love it because of its sharpness

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

My assumption would be that the 45mm would be just as good. I couldn't really be better. No question, the Olympus Pro lenses are some of the best ever made.

[@moisescugat3948]

David Thorpe absolutely!!! People sometimes talks a lot about the size of the sensor, and I think that M43 has been thought as a system. Really the smaller size of the sensor allows to to incredible lenses. I have a lot of Zuiko lenses and all they are awesome. Thanks for your videos!!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@moisescugat3948 I'm glad you like them, Moises!

[@Miracle_chiedoze]

Nice video, please can you tell lens manufacturers especially Fuji, to give us an 18mm f1.2 lens I will be very grateful...

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Neother Olympus or Panasonic reply to y emails so I doubt Fuji would!

[@brianb6603]

Excellent as usual!!!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks, Brian!

[@rjkral]

Yeah I don’t like it either! Stellar and well worded review as always, nice to spend a little time with you again.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

That's nice, thanks Robert.

[@ArthurLevonyanEarthman]

Absolutely agree, I don’t need one but I want one

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

:-)

[@marcusnz232]

It is a very good lens. It's my 'hail mary' lens if the light falls too low for the f2,8 zooms.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, and amazing 2½ stops faster than the f/2.8.

[@datapro007]

Another great review. Now, about my GoFundMe page. Oh, I thought you said the Sigma f1.4 16mm was a better value.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks! That's a difficult one. The Sigma 16mm is better value in terms of bang for the buck but the Olympus is made to a standard and the best always costs more. The question is, leaving aside the extra half a stop speed, would many of us notice any difference in performance? The answer is no, unless you went actively looking for it.

[@SteadyRolling]

Since Olympus does not have a lens factory in Japan, and the Pro lenses are made in Japan, is it fair to infer that they are actually a Sigma product, which follows further from the fact that they are huge and have so many elements -- to the point of causing other distortions?

[@blackxxxwrx]

the 17mm f1.2 is made in vietnam. The 25mm f1.2 and the 45mm f1.2 are made in japan

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Olympus lenses follow a common design theme wherever they are made so I'd imagine Olympus designs and specs the lenses whoever makes them. I don't see much in common between the Sigma lenses that I have tried and the Olympus ones, actually.

[@hankroest6836]

Well I do happen to need one, or at least something that does what it does, and I wanted one. But I need the 10-25/1.7 more and it does more but it weighs more and it costs more... :-(

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

It's difficult to work out the relative values - the Panasonic is 50% dearer but is much more versatile . It's slower and bigger. Come on, Hank, you know what to do - buy them both. It's only money and it grows on trees - just ask any politician 😆

[@blarkdexture8899]

35mm f/2.4 on FF?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, but 8.5mm f/0.6 on a Fuji X20 sensor. Sadly, it doesn't fit that or FF either so it's all rather academic. It's a full frame lens for the Micro Four Thirds sensor for which it is designed so that's all that matters really.

[@SpaghettiPaparazzi]

I am pretty sure that is a fuse from old WW2 maybe WW1 unexploded ordnance you are focusing on! Looks like British 2'' time and percussion fuse.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, it has a big gouge out of it, presumably where it hit something at high velocity but there are no burn marks or heat damage to indicate the shell went off. I' not sure WW1 or WW2. Very interesting these old relics, almost like a metal sculpture.

[@soundknight]

Your review had a complex flavor. Should bottle it and keep it for 10 years.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

A vintage review - to be watched in ten years time with a glass of aged port and some mature blue cheese. Nice thought, Brian :-)

[@Seanonyoutube]

For me the extra bulk and heft is not worth the slight increase in sharpness/aperture.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

That's my personal view too and I'll stick with my f/1.8 17mm. Beautiful lens, though and will be just perfect for lots of photographers.

[@maxwellwellmax878]

Im not an Oly shooter, but i do want all 3 f1/2 Pro lenses lol, Ill sort the body to put them on later.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

They work just as well on Panasonic bodies so there's plenty of choice.

[@michaelshoup2703]

I hear ya brother.. I'm going on what you call holiday, and I have both the 1.8 & 1.2.. Sounds great, right? Not so.. I have the 1.8 for travel, and the 1.2 for 'serious' at home work.. And if ya haven't guessed, I can never convince myself to take the 1.8!! I spend DAYS arguing back and forth with myself about it! Size, vs weight, vs quality of glass, vsad nauseam!! I want to travel light.. I don't want a weight hassle at the airline ticket counter.. But I OWN THE LENS!! Don't even ask me how many times I've thrown then BOTH in the bag.. LOL... Let's not even talk about the dueling 25's and 45's.. OMG, no... So yeah, thks Olympus, for making my far & few between vacations a total and complete pre trip meltdown... Oh yeah, once I'm on the plane I couldn't care less.. What ever I have is what I work with.. And it always seems to work out just fine.. Go figure... Right?

[@bjnslc]

I'm not a fan of current Olympus lens styling. It's busy and fussy looking. On this lens the needless groves sectioning the focusing ring into thirds offend the most. But I can't fault the optics. Despite the fast aperture, I'd like OIS to fully reap the handheld low light rewards.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I hadn't noticed the grooves until you mentioned it, BJ. Shows you what an aesthete I am! I think stabilization is always worth having even if not necessary. Given that Panasonic's tiny 12-32 is stabilized, it would obviously be possible in any lens.

[@heikki4919]

Might want to add a bit more gain on the audio.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I seem to get varying reports on that. It plays back at normal levels on my machine at home. Sound is the mos=t difficult bit of video making, I find.

[@garybrown9719]

Me to

[@Seanonyoutube]

“I don’t need one but I want one-and that is why I don’t like it.” How profound.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I wish it wan''t true, Sean!

[@stephenedmunds207]

Is it unfair to say this is a 35mm f2.4 equivalent lens?

[@Simoneister]

Purely in terms of field-of-view and blurred background, it's equivalent

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

It's not unfair but it is irrelevant. It's irrelevant in the same way that saying that the 35mm f/2.4 is is equivalent to a 70mm f/4.8 on Medium format. So what?, as Miles Davis would say if told that his trumpet was equivalent to half a valve trombone :-)

[@stephenedmunds207]

@@DavidThorpeMFT The problem i have is that the pro lenses are big,quite slow in reality and cost the same as leica m slow lenses[summarit]. I have an ep-5 and 3 lenses but dislike the direction the company has followed.

[@Simoneister]

@@stephenedmunds207 The existence of new, more expensive lenses doesn't suddenly make the older, cheaper ones disappear

[@joeltunnah]

@@stephenedmunds207 you’re confusing depth of field with aperture. These really are f/1.2 lenses, it’s just a ratio not an absolute figure. But on m4/3 they produce a depth of field equivalent to f/2.4 on a 35mm format camera.

[@photozen8398]

😂…Lovely review…thanks , you made my rough day.

[@weebadwolf4893]

A tempter for the gassers ... I'll stick with my 17mm f1.8. Mind you.. lol

[@Шоуодногожурналиста]

I honestly dont think that one excludes the other

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@Шоуодногожурналиста You could use them for different purposes, though I just know I'd have the wrong one on every time I used it :-)

[@snowwalker9999]

“I don’t need one, I want one. And that’s why I don’t like it. “

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

🙂

[@RagingBubuli]

17mm F/1.2 MFT = 34mm F/2.4 Full Frame. You will need an F/0.6 on a MFT to match an F/1.2 from a Full Frame, which is no lens producer will produce.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

It's a lens in its own right for the Micro Four Thirds system and is judged as such. Would you say a 35mm f/1.4 FF lens is really an f/2.8 because that is what it would be on a Hasselblad?

[@saintsi6997]

Solid.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

A kind word indeed coming from a Saint :-)

Bravo! 👍😀

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks you, Piotr!

[@kentxx12]

I now the G.A.S.but will it take better pictures,or is it a just a trophy to have in your line up of lenses?

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

It'll take sharper pictures than most, so if sharper means better, yes. I don't subscribe to that. What In would say is that if you habitually shoot street pix at night, say, opening up to f/1.2 does give you more scope to handhold moving subjects and you might well get better, ie more interesting pictures. That is to say, it has definite advantages in certain conditions. Just like a 150mm f/2.8. If you buy it to show off to friends, well that seems pointless to me, though I'd sooner spend money on that than a fancy SUV and then drive it around London. My position is that I'm not going to buy one of these but if someone gave me one I'd find plenty of use for it :-)

[@hagentrondheim3675]

For that price one could easily switch to fullframe twice. F2.4 is nothing to rave about anyway. That said, love your review. Thumbs up for your video!

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Thanks, Hagen. Your comment is correct but I suppose I would stress that there is no lack of choice of lenses around this focal length in Micro Four Thirds.

[@sbom12920]

Here we go again. The whole point of this lens is to make maximum use of the dynamic range of the Olympus 20mp sensor. Also, f1.2 is f1.2 in terms of light and the only reason for comparing it to f2.4 on 35mm “FF” is in terms of depth of field. Those people who use four thirds or a combination of both types of systems understand this and use the additional depth of field at equivalent Aperture settings to their advantage. I’d be very interested to hear and see what David has to say about the Olympus 45 f1.2 and also the pros and cons of using a set of their pro primes compared to using, as I do their 12-40 / 40-150 (with tele converter when required) and depending on the type of photography a 300 or their 75 or 50 f1.8 and f2 the latter two of which make excellent portrait lenses. To conclude; really good to see another sensible post from this exceptional channel. Best wishes Steven

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@sbom12920 Hi Steven - I tend to compartmentalise my lens use. There's no question that the 12-40 + 40-150 f/2.8 combination are versatile in a way that no primes could ever be and that zooms are the basis of my gear. A hangover from my newspaper days where you could get a call at 6am to go anywhere, immediately, is to leave a camera outfit in a bag ready to just pick up and go. That bag always contains wide to medium and short to long tele f/2.8 zooms.They are more than sharp enough and usually fast enough. The primes put me in a different frame of mind, which is why I like them. I don't need the size or expense of the Pro primes but if I were regularly making indoor portraits as part of what I do, a 45mm f/1.2 would be top of my list to do so. In other words, I use zooms for their sheer practicality and versatility, primes for their much narrower application. For a 17mm prime, I do prefer the Olympus f/1.8, it is compact and unobtrusive and plenty sharp enough. Similar thinking with the 45mm f/1.8 Olympus. Looking back over all my reviewing, the only lens I wouldn't be happy with is the Olympus 14-42 pancake zoom. The 12-50 motor zoom is cheap but I had no problem with its performance and the same with cheap 40-150mm Olympus and the less expensive Panasonics. Not all the lenses in the Micro Four Thirds range are stellar super sharp but all are at a minimum good enough, which is what matters.

[@sbom12920]

David Thorpe Hello David, thank you for a very speedy and thoughtful reply. Obviously, I have nothing like your experience or expertise so it’s pleasing to see my thought process seems closely aligned to your own. In the Olympus line I really do see the 12-40 and 40 -150 combination as being a very practical solution to practically any challenge an amateur like myself is going to come across. ( In the Panasonic line I guess it’s the 12-60 plus the 50-200 combo, which replicated the older Olympus four thirds offering which I originally used and which drew me to the system many years ago . Two great fast zooms) My wife is now taking an interest in the hobby and constantly “borrowing” the 12-40. The debate I have at the moment is whether to acquire a second 12-40 for her, or go for a the 12-100 f4 with the 45 f1.2 or F1.8 to complete her set up. She hates changing lenses, likes to do a bit of everything photographically but with the arrival of our first grandchild is obviously going to want to take lots of portrait type pictures - often indoors. I think I have just resolved my own issue don’t you? Kindest Regards, Steven

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@sbom12920 The 12-100mm and 45mm sounds ideal for your wife. The f/1.2 might be a bit overkill and the f/1.8 more suitable but that a matter of finance mainly. The Sigma 56mm f/1.5 is worth considering too. So, yes, you have just resolved your own issue!

[@ju2705s]

I have the 16mm Sigma 1.4 on MFT and it's 95% (optically) of this lens at 1/3 of the price. Best regards Jog

[@garydubberly6608]

I also have the Sigma 16mm f/1.4. I have enjoyed using it for night shots in low light conditions and it produced what I considered good results.

[@ryanfarmer4882]

@@garydubberly6608 I too own all the Sigma 1.4 lenses, and the Pro 1.2s, no contest in end results, imho.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

You'd expect the Olympus to be the better lens given the price differential. Whether that makes any practical difference to any given photographer is another question that only they can answer.

[@iSirTaki]

3:42 man, is the 1.8 that bad !!!

[@ryanfarmer4882]

@@vicibox rubbish, imo.

[@jwickerszh]

LOL in that particular case yes, in real world usage though it's good. This review has a lot of sample images, I did not see any that looked as bad .. : www.photographyblog.com/reviews/olympus_m_zuiko_digital_17mm_f_18_review/sample_images

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

The shots are from a G9 Hi resolution 80Mp image so are on the edge of what any lens can do. The f/1.2 simply holds up better in these conditions as it ought to given the price differential. I use my f/1.8 all the time and have never found any lack of IQ. It's not so much that the f/1.8 is bad, it's that the f/1.2 is phenomenally good.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

@@jwickerszh As I reply above, Jeremy, the shots are a pull up from an 80Mp G9 Hi-Res image which is on the limits of most lenses resolution. The shot does not illustrate how bad the smaller lens is, only how phenomenally good the f/1.2 is. Put in print terms, you are looking at a section of a print around 4 feet across. That gives a bit more perspective.

[@jwickerszh]

@@DavidThorpeMFT That makes a lot more sense, I kinda suspected something special was used ... might have mentioned it more clearly on the video.

[@andersistbesser]

Olympus pro lenses are much better than most panasonic lenses expect somr leica lenses. I own the 15 mm 1.7 leica lense Which is great BUt this 17mm is 1.2. i will buy all the 1.2 lenses in addition to my 12-40 2-8 pro zoom and i want the 12mm leica 1.4 you dont know how much pleasure the best lenses give until you have them

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

It's always a nice feeling to have the best, I think.

[@EugeneMaynard]

🙏🏾

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

👆

[@turboplopp]

Brilliant! I don't want to want one...

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

You have just stymied my job application for an Olympus lens salesman! 😆

[@paulplus3830]

GAS. ;)

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, it's awful but I like it :-)

[@Seanonyoutube]

At 76 you might still have 10 or 20 years before you die, so I’d say it’s still a good investment haha

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yeah, but if I die tomorrow? I'd take it with me but glass melts where I'm going😮

[@chrisklugh]

Save a buck and go with the Sigma 16mm f1.4

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Yes, a viable option. My little 17 f/1.8 suits me. A 1.2 or 1.4 the same size would be nice!

[@chrisklugh]

Another observation, when I compare color/contrast to my Leica 12-60, I can't tell the difference. Lens are a taste thing, and I like the Oly Pro Lens, but I find I like the colors coming out of Leica better. So to have a Sig that matches it bang on for the price, I'm quite pleased. I think it brings out better greens and blues.

[@SteveSacramento]

I don't like it either. :-)

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

Look, I've told someone else I'm looking for a job as an Olympus salesman. You're not helping, Steve! 🙂

[@SteveSacramento]

@@DavidThorpeMFT But you are an Olympus salesman, just not one who is employed or paid by Olympus! 😉 Love your videos David!

[@stehlealexander]

😬 don‘t like it too but..... 😉

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

I know, I know.....

[@leovanlierop4580]

English are mind boggling, it's like saying, I don't like brexit but I want one. Good heavens.

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

It's not really like that, Leo. It is a way of expressing the fact that I want one in spite of myself.

[@beadierps14]

I wish you made videos everyday :/

[@DavidThorpeMFT]

What a lovely thing to say! I'm blushing :-)

[@beadierps14]

@@DavidThorpeMFT I mean it, really, in a good way ;)