Olympus 17 1.8 Review from Lenstip

Started Nov 20, 2012 | Discussions thread
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,654
Like?
Re: Different charts...
In reply to marike6, Nov 20, 2012

marike6 wrote:

amalric wrote:


I am not sure what types of targets Lenstip uses to determine resolution, but after seeing Robin's pictures in real life, I am beginning to wonder if above 50 LPMM the human eye can detect any difference.

Robin Wong, and indeed most people posting reduced size web samples almost always apply some PP, and sharpening. You do bring up an interesting point about what the eye can detect, but if you've ever shot with say the PL 25 1.4 vs one of the kit lens like the Olympus 12-50, it doesn't take much pixel peeping to see a clear and significant difference in crispness, bokeh, color/contrast, etc.

I am not familiar wt Panny lenses, so I leave the comparison to you even if I remember that by your standards the 25/1.4 drops a lot in resolution at the edges.

I raise the point because of this:

http://www.lenstip.com/183.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_17_mm_f_2.8_Image_resolution.html

The 17/2.8 reaches 50 LPMM as it top performance against 66 LPM of the 17/1.8.

Do you really think one can detect the difference, unless one spends the evening getting blind in front of a computer screen?

I am pretty sure that HCB's Leica never reached 50 LPMM and yet he took impressive images. Composition is not sharpness.

BTW Lenstip's decency level is only 43 LPMM!

Therefore other factors might come into play: evenness across the frame, absence of aberrations, colour signature, microcontrast, and the lens seems to have them in spades.

"Evenness across the frame" and "absence of aberrations", are you sure you read the same Lenstip review? The list of "Cons" and the second lukewarm entry on the "Pro" list makes me wonder:

Pros:

  • small, very handy and solid casing,
  • decent image quality in the frame centre,
  • slight longitudinal chromatic aberration,
  • moderate coma,
  • good work against bright light,
  • efficient and accurate autofocus.
Cons:
  • very high distortion,
  • significant vignetting,
  • huge astigmatism, visible up to f/5.6 aperture,
  • modest accessory kit.

How times change. The same Lenstip was concluding about the 17/2.8:

  • very small, but looking sturdy body,
  • excellent image quality at the center of the frame,
  • good image quality at the edge of the frame,
  • slight astigmatism,
  • quiet and accurate autofocus.

And yet according  to the numberless connoisseurs of this forum the lens was pure crap.

Truth is that Lenstip has opinions like everybody else, and the downturn bites their wallet too, otherwise why would they enthuse about a 50 LPMM lens, and scrap a 66 LPMM one? Where is the consistency?

ROTFL. Polish are known to be moody and rhapsodic, although Lenstip is one of my favourite sites.

I am not going to buy the lens, because I do very well with the 17/2.8, and don't deem myself superior to HCB. So I have no axe to grind.

Just plain sense, LOL

Am.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
:-)New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow