New Olympus 17mm 1.8

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 19,024Gear list
Like?
Re: We all can read what we find on the internet ..
In reply to Sergey_Green, 9 months ago

Sergey_Green wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

..

Not only you need to use the lens, but you also need to use it effectively, and with good results to show. In other words, learn the tool first, then talk about it.

Why do you need to do that? Things like sharpness, CA, coma, vignetting, bokeh, and distortion are objective properties of the lens no matter who uses it. You shouldn't confuse those properties with the photographic talents of the user.

I am not confusing objective properties with anything,

Yes you did.

except those objective properties do not often tell the full story about the lens in question.

I didn't say they do. In theory, everything is measureable but only some things are measured. I was talking about things that are measured, specifically sharpness in the post of mine to which you first replied. Furthermore, you can look at samples from the lenses at issue, which of course I did.

Lately I compared Sigma 35/1.4 (the same lens I saw you quoted several times) against Zeiss 35/1.4 on a full frame camera. Zeiss clearly showed strong colour fringing, even where the contrast seemed easy for most lenses to deal with, and weaker corners from wide open. Sigma, on the other hand, shows almost no colour fringing at all, it has more even sharpness distribution, and is blazing fast in focusing. Yet it is Zeiss that renders very pleasing colours (how can you measure it), and very nice bokeh. Two of my colleagues bought this lens in a heartbeat.

Sharpness and CA are typically measured. Color (aside from the impact of coatings which is a WB issue) is part of MTF (microcontrast, i.e., part of sharpness). The best review sites provide bokeh samples. AF performance is often reported verbally, sometimes measured. And again, you can look at samples from the lenses at issue, which of course I did.

Another example is Sigma 150/2.8 macro (equivalent to would be 75/1.4 on mFT), say vs. Nikon 135/2 DC. Sigma is very sharp lens, very well controlled, blazing fast, and an excellent macro lens in addition. Nikon on the other hand will often show visible colour fringing (you can see it in the images in the link below), probably not as tack sharp as the best macro lens for anything closer, and is slower to focus.

http://www.nikonjin.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1043

Yet, there is no lens that can render the bokeh and colours as this lens does. And so I'd much rather have this lens on my camera in downtown, then anything that fetches higher test results by comparison.

So the verdict, use the lens first, appreciate its true qualities, and only then pass the judgement on it to the others. As you said, you do not have 17/1.8 to compare, you have no idea about its convenience for framing, and you can not post anything convincing enough why you would chose another lens instead.

See above.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
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