Panny 25mm 1.4 vs Olympus 25mm 1.8 Reviewed

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
mh2000
Senior MemberPosts: 2,662
Like?
Re: "Less than precisely rigorous," maybe
In reply to amtberg, 8 months ago

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

Typically, when people traditionally compared a 50/1.8 vs a 50/1.4, it was usually based on lens quality differences, not nit picking the differences between f1.8 and f1.4. Looks like only the build quality of the P/L 25 is noticeably better in this case.

Disagree. Lens manufacturers don't go to such extremes of design and cost to produce fast f/1-1.4 lenses just so they'll look better at f/1.8 and above. Photographers have always been willing to pay top dollar for fast glass because it provides more flexibility in exposure and composition.

In the present case it's not a huge difference but it's noticeable and it's just silly to pretend that it doesn't exist.

Look at the differences between the Canon "nifty 50" and compare to the EF 50/1.4 (or Nikon alternatives). There is a lot more differentiating the lenses than just the faster aperture.

The speed difference between f1.4 and f1.8 is just not that much.

Granted, if you were a Leica shooter, this doesn't apply, the only real difference between a Summicron f2 and Summilux f1.4 is the aperture, they are both quality Leica lenses.

-- hide signature --

It's not a chicken and egg problem, though. Canon, Nikon, etc., put more effort and higher quality components into their faster lenses because they know that their most demanding customers want the fastest lenses they can get.

Yes, exactly! It has nothing to do with the minor difference in apperture, it has to do with all the other properties they put into their lenses besides the larger aperture!

Also, what about Leica? The quality of their 50/2.8, 50/2.5, 50/2 and 50/1.4 are all supperb. My guess is that almost every Leica shooter considers themself "demanding" and they sold many Elmars and Summicrons!

Seriously ... people ... it has to do with BOTH. All else being equal, faster is better. Here all else is essentially equal but the PL is a little faster. QED....

Everything else being equal, cheaper, smaller and lighter are also "better," but all things are not precisely even.

Well sure, I was just talking about IQ.  In terms of weight, the PL is 2.3 ounces heavier which isn't much in the scheme of things.  I suppose I might consider it significant if I was using a GM1.

As far as I'm concerned, both are nice lenses. The P/L pricing and size/weight is a little too much for me, but that's a subjective meassure. The aperture difference in this case is not very important to me at all.

Really, I think the reviews are pointing to them both being good lenses. If you prefer the rendering from the P/L 25, that would be the best reason to get the P/L IMO.

I agree!  I think they are both very good lenses.

faster is only better if you are shooting at the fastest aperture, it isn't a matter of providing better IQ, in fact, it looks like on meassurables that the Oly might have the edge unless you bring in the touchy feely stuff to counter better sharpness across the frame. Personally, looking at these samples, it seems more like a mixed bag -- some of the Oly images look better to me and some of the P/L images look better. Having handled both the P/L 25 and the Oly 45, I would prefer having the smaller Oly to walk around with all day... just me.

As unexited as I was when I saw the Oly release, I'm getting more excited about the Oly 25...

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