What a disappointing situation with the 17mm lens! Why?

Started Sep 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
texinwien
Senior MemberPosts: 2,650Gear list
Like?
Re: False Dichotomy
In reply to slimandy, Sep 2, 2013

slimandy wrote:

texinwien wrote:

slimandy wrote:

texinwien wrote:

slimandy wrote:

texinwien wrote:

slimandy wrote:

Paul De Bra wrote:

Lenstip gives sharpness figures of 65 / 53 for the 17mm versus 75 / 68 for the 25mm lens (just as an example). Photozone gives figures of 2832 / 2134 for the 17mm versus 3075 / 2213 for the 25mm lens. That is a much smaller difference. (We cannot compare with other lenses such as the 20mm on photozone as their tests of these lenses were done on a different camera. We need tests on the same camera.)

This example shows just how dangerous it is to rely on a review site instead of actual experience from actual users. Lenstip makes the 17mm look bad compared to the other lenses (I also looked at figures of other lenses than the 25) but on Photozone the 17mm looks close to what the very well regarded 25mm lens does.

If the 17mm lens was much worse than the 20mm or 25mm people wouldn't be jumping up and down about how good the 17mm f/1.8 is. Don't just believe numbers. Try to get some real experience, with a good copy of the lens.

Careful. I got slated for that kind of logic. We want science in this forum, not common sense. We want MTF, not art.

Science is important where the rubber of artistic vision meets the road of the physical world.

If my artistic vision is to record a panoramic photograph of a mountain range with a certain degree of sharpness and detail, I can either ignore the measurements and buy lenses randomly, hoping I (eventually) stumble upon the one that will allow me to turn my vision into a physical reality, or I can study the professionally-collected measurements and choose the lens that performs best for my artistic purposes.

But when I own the lens and use it and see it is a capable lens why do people who have not used it think they should tell me I'm wrong based on MTF figures;

Please cite an example.

Why? You not going to believe me otherwise? Don't be so childish!

Search my previous threads if you could be bothered. Or just take my word for it and save time.

It's your job to offer proof for your contentions. Your refusal to do so is tantamount to ceding the argument.

That's not my job at all. I offer my opinion based on experience in order to help others. I stick by what I said. You're being childish again.

It is every man's job to offer evidence for the claims of fact he makes. I'm not suprised, however, that you weren't aware of that fact.

worse still why do they expect me to change my mind when I know better?

Please cite an example.

See above. The most recent thread ran to 150 replies. Stick a pin in. Enjoy.

You're free to use a plastic holga lens if it makes you happy, just don't try to convince me that your plastic holga lens is as sharp as my 20mm f/1.7.

Heaven forbid I should criticise your 20mm f1.7, though I have actually used one and prefer my 17, but I don't shoot landscape with it.

You need to work on your reading comprehension, which is one reason I'm asking you to cite examples for your accusations above. I've said nothing about anyone criticizing my 20mm f/1.7.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Wow, your reading comprehension and reasoning facilities are broken.

"just don't try to convince me that your plastic holga lens is as sharp as my 20mm f/1.7."

Well, is your plastic holga as sharp as my 20mm f/1.7? If not, you're trying to convince me of something that is factually wrong, in which case you're not criticizing my lens, you're simply being wrong.

If your plastic holga is as sharp as my 20mm, again, you're not criticizing my lens. If you can prove your contention, more power to you.

Work on your reading comprehension skills. This is remedial stuff. Until you figure it out, I won't waste any of my time on you.

You need to practice distinguishing between statements of subjective opinion and statements of objective fact.

I look at photos. If I like what I see I like what I see. You can use maths to prove me wrong, I still like what I like. My shots do well in competitions and get many compliments. That is what I hope to achieve, and I do.

Get back to me when you have something to say that is actually relevant to any of the statements I've made, because this certainly isn't. As I have said, repeatedly, you're free to like whatever you like, for whatever reason you choose to like it. That's subjective opinion. What you're not free to do is make factually incorrect statements and expect not to be 'slated' for it.

If I can see that a lens produces decent IQ it does produce decent IQ. That is both my opinion and a fact.

And I'll get slated again......

(told you)

You are suggesting a false dichotomy. The presence of science and measurement does not inevitably obviate existence or creation of art. Some of us have exact requirements for the art we wish to create, and we carefully evaluate the tools available to us, in pursuit of those tools that are most likely to help us record our artistic visions.

See above.

See above

It is unclear to me why you or anyone else would have a problem with that fact. Mind your own business art, why don't you, and you'll probably get 'slated' a lot less often.

Ditto

No, not ditto. I'm minding my own art. It's you who's not.

why do you have a problem with someone using the lens and liking it?

I have no problem with someone using the lens and liking it. I even sometimes use and like the 15mm f/8.0 body cap lens from Olympus, but I don't try to claim it's sharper than, well, just about any other native m43 lens you can buy.

Again, learn to distinguish between statements of objective fact and subjective opinion. I know it can be difficult for some.

Why do have have to resort to rudeness too??

I prefer to characterize my style as 'direct.' I can, however, be rude when I get the impression that the person on the other end of the discussion isn't interested in an honest and adult discussion.

Are these supposed to be better than you could do with the 17mm f1.8?

These are examples of the kinds of photos I like to take that benefit from maximum lens sharpness and low field curvature. The kinds of photos I generally use my 20mm f/1.7 for (since it is, empirically and in my rather extensive experience, the sharpest lens in my bag). In other words, they are examples of the kinds of photos for which the 17mm f/1.8 is not the best choice for my subjective requirements. Factually, empirically, the 20mm is sharper than the 17mm. For my subjective requirements, this factual and empirical difference is significant.

You, of course, are free to use (and enjoy using) whatever lenses you want, based on whatever subjective criteria you choose, as long as you don't go about conflating your subjective preferences with empirical fact.

Art is subjective. Photography is art.

If you want facts here is one. My 17 gives me sharp images whether or not you tell me otherwise.

I've never told you otherwise now, have I? It seems you're typing to me but talking with someone else. Perhaps a phantom of your imagination who's telling you your 17mm isn't sharp? I don't know, but I'd appreciate it if you actually talk about things I've said when you address me.

I'm sure your 20 does too despite the examples you posted. In fact I know it does because I have used one.

Juvenile

Good signature, very apt.

Well, you're wrong about practically everything, but at least you've got your half-witted pith and your 17mm lens to keep you happy.

If ignorance is bliss, you must be positively bursting with exuberant happiness

 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Canon EOS 300D Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow