New Olympus 17mm 1.8

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
madmaxmedia
Senior MemberPosts: 1,508
Like?
Interesting...
In reply to Jolly Oly, 4 months ago

I looked at a few full sized samples from the Pixel Peeper link you posted. What I saw was a lot of nice-looking images that weren't perfectly sharp at 100%, but would look fine in a larger print or reduced web view.

I think Lenstip is actually pretty good, they seem relatively well-reasoned in their assessment of a lens. But any review site will have their particular strict methodology of testing (so its repeatable and comparable to other lenses), and no 2 tester's methodology will be the same. Even subject distance will have an impact on sharpness results, and if you shoot subjects that are very different from a particular web site, your results may end up very different.

I will never say a lens is 'bad' or 'good' unless I have used it myself. But some people seem to get too defensive about this (not you). Just about ANY Micro 4/3 lens can take a good image, its up to each individual to decide what criteria are important to them.

For me, the original MSRP of the lens was a bit high. I would rather accept some compromises in build quality and put those savings towards better optics. So for me, Oly got it right with the 45mm and new 25mm- good build quality and great optics rather than vice versa (generalizing a bit there.) But that's just my personal preference.

The main reason I have a 20mm instead of possibly the 17mm is the focal length- 35mm is a bit too wide for me. If the focal length were the same I'm pretty sure I could be happy with either.

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