Olympus 17/1.8 review

Started Nov 17, 2012 | Discussions
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 10,956
Like?
Re: @Anders
In reply to Amin Sabet, Nov 19, 2012

Amin Sabet wrote:

The 17/1.8 has more red/cyan lateral CA. The 20/1.7 has more purple/green fringing, which I think is a combination of longitudinal CA and spherochromatism (definitely not sensor blooming - everywhere you see the purple fringing, you also see green fringing. Clearly some sort of optical aberration).

Amin,

do you mean with that if there is purple 'fringing' but no green fringing it might not be lens related but sensor blooming?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Amin Sabet
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,712Gear list
Like?
Re: @Anders
In reply to noirdesir, Nov 19, 2012

noirdesir wrote:

Amin Sabet wrote:

The 17/1.8 has more red/cyan lateral CA. The 20/1.7 has more purple/green fringing, which I think is a combination of longitudinal CA and spherochromatism (definitely not sensor blooming - everywhere you see the purple fringing, you also see green fringing. Clearly some sort of optical aberration).

Amin,

do you mean with that if there is purple 'fringing' but no green fringing it might not be lens related but sensor blooming?

No, I don't think any purple fringing is due to sensor blooming.  I think PF is always lens related.  Perhaps occasionally microlens related.  Basically what this guy says: http://toothwalker.org/optics/chromatic.html

However, I know a lot of people think it can be sensor bloom, so I'm pointing out the corresponding green fringing to nip any such theory in the bud as relates to these crop samples.

-- hide signature --
 Amin Sabet's gear list:Amin Sabet's gear list
Fujifilm XF1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Leica M Typ 240 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 10,956
Like?
Re: @Anders
In reply to Amin Sabet, Nov 19, 2012

Amin Sabet wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

Amin Sabet wrote:

The 17/1.8 has more red/cyan lateral CA. The 20/1.7 has more purple/green fringing, which I think is a combination of longitudinal CA and spherochromatism (definitely not sensor blooming - everywhere you see the purple fringing, you also see green fringing. Clearly some sort of optical aberration).

Amin,

do you mean with that if there is purple 'fringing' but no green fringing it might not be lens related but sensor blooming?

No, I don't think any purple fringing is due to sensor blooming. I think PF is always lens related. Perhaps occasionally microlens related.

And if some of it is microlens related, it could show up in a pinhole camera and likely would depend the angle of incidence (which can be varied by varying the distance between pinhole and sensor). And Anders has a microlens-related theory for some purple ghosting which he is not yet ready to share with us but also depends on the angle of incidence.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bimmerman
Senior MemberPosts: 2,373
Like?
Why do you not like 35mm?
In reply to Ming Thein, Nov 19, 2012

Hi Ming Thein,

Thank you for your excellent review on the new Olympus 17mm . I like your work very much and I think you have a great eye for detail and composition. Not everyone can frame a scene like you do and I certainly wish I had that gift but I don't.

But what I find really curious about your review is that you said you don't connect with the 35mm field of view and you did not elaborate. Why is that so? Henry Cartier Bression shoots with a similar style as you do but he user mainly a 35mm and 50mm. And your fellow countryman Robin Wong shares your disconnection with the 35mm as well. What are your favourite lenses?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DaveWo
Contributing MemberPosts: 777
Like?
Re: Why do you not like 35mm?
In reply to bimmerman, Nov 19, 2012

bimmerman wrote:


But what I find really curious about your review is that you said you don't connect with the 35mm field of view and you did not elaborate. Why is that so? Henry Cartier Bression shoots with a similar style as you do but he user mainly a 35mm and 50mm. And your fellow countryman Robin Wong shares your disconnection with the 35mm as well.

If I may jump in...:-)

I just read Robin's review. I think the reason he doesn't like much the 35mm focal length is because he shoots a lot of portrait shots and he doesn't like any distortion a wide angle lens can bring. Personally, I often shoot street with a 24mm. I'm not shooting beautiful portraits and so I don't consider distortion an issue. Joe McNally, a portrait photographer, shoot a lot with wide angle lenses.

Jay Maisel is also not a big fan of 35. Some people would find a 35 or even a 50 a jack-of-all-trade but good for nothing.

As for why in the old days many shot with a 35, well, may be they didn't have other choices 

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jorginho
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,148Gear list
Like?
Re: Another 17 mm f/1.8 review: faster AF than 20 mm f/1.7
In reply to noirdesir, Nov 19, 2012

The argument is not my conduct. The argument is not that other people make the same mistakes (in my book). The argument is MIngs review, his remark on the speed of the 20 mm 1.7 (which he makes without any restrictions) and why I think this is an overgeneralisaton. I have also shown with video's why I feel that is. I was open for debate, Ming blokked that off with his remark that I should read the review. Reading the review did not solve or answer the problem at all. You are also diverting from the discussion by making this ad hominem. When people start to diverge from the argument in this way it often means they have no valid points to add. With no arguments on topic that show I am wrong about the difference from yoru side, this seems to be a rare case of disagreeing to agree.

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
faith_ps
Senior MemberPosts: 1,101Gear list
Like?
Re: Olympus 17/1.8 review
In reply to Ming Thein, Nov 19, 2012

Hi Ming,

Thxs for the deep review. I very much like it. I own the 17 f2.8. A fantastic walkaround lens also fantastic landscape low light lens. Yes, indeed the f1.8 is tempting.

Jakop

-- hide signature --

The saxophone is a very interesting machine, but I'm more interested in music.
Steve Lacy quotes

 faith_ps's gear list:faith_ps's gear list
Ricoh GR Digital Sigma DP3 Merrill Leica X Vario Olympus Stylus 1 Canon EOS 5D Mark II +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bimmerman
Senior MemberPosts: 2,373
Like?
Re: Why do you not like 35mm?
In reply to DaveWo, Nov 19, 2012

DaveWo wrote:

bimmerman wrote:


But what I find really curious about your review is that you said you don't connect with the 35mm field of view and you did not elaborate. Why is that so? Henry Cartier Bression shoots with a similar style as you do but he user mainly a 35mm and 50mm. And your fellow countryman Robin Wong shares your disconnection with the 35mm as well.

If I may jump in...:-)

I just read Robin's review. I think the reason he doesn't like much the 35mm focal length is because he shoots a lot of portrait shots and he doesn't like any distortion a wide angle lens can bring. Personally, I often shoot street with a 24mm. I'm not shooting beautiful portraits and so I don't consider distortion an issue. Joe McNally, a portrait photographer, shoot a lot with wide angle lenses.

Jay Maisel is also not a big fan of 35. Some people would find a 35 or even a 50 a jack-of-all-trade but good for nothing.

As for why in the old days many shot with a 35, well, may be they didn't have other choices

Hey Dave,

Interesting take! I myself shoot with a 28, 50 and 90 (14,25 and 45) and I'm keen on the new 17mm 1.8 to complete the range. I'm a fan of Cartier Bresson and I try my best to emulate. Well, mostly because I don't have the photographer's eye. But I do try.

You said the 35 and 50 are jacks of all trades, well ironically for me I have all the jacks of the trade but I myself have no trade. Whatever that means

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,886Gear list
Like?
Re: @Anders
In reply to Amin Sabet, Nov 19, 2012

Amin Sabet wrote:

Anders W wrote:

MTF: I find the 20 distinctly superior to both 17s in the center and the corners alike. Not only is global contrast better. I'd say the same goes for what I'd refer to as micro-contrast.

I see the same thing. The 20 is resolving more detail, especially in the corners, but also slightly more in the center. It isn't just the impression due to global contrast.

Glad to hear that Amin. I was beginning to think I was the only one that saw it this way.

Lateral CA: Yes, the 20 has more of that than the 17/1.8...

Longitudinal CA in the in-focus area: Yes the 20 has more of that...

The 17/1.8 has more red/cyan lateral CA. The 20/1.7 has more purple/green fringing, which I think is a combination of longitudinal CA and spherochromatism (definitely not sensor blooming - everywhere you see the purple fringing, you also see green fringing. Clearly some sort of optical aberration).

Well, the dual-colored fringes are lateral CA in both cases, although, as you point out, the color signature is slightly different. Brownish red/cyan on the Olys and purple/green on the Pany. This difference when it comes to the color of the fringes is true not only for these particular lenses but for Olys versus Panys more generally. I guess it must have something to do with different strategies when it comes to CA correction. The difference appears too pronounced to be a matter merely of different coatings or something like that.

Another Oly-versus-Pany difference on top of that is that the Panys tend to have some purple fringing left even after the purple/green lateral CA has been corrected. You find a very good illustration by ginsbu here (using the 14/2.5 as an example):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50176940

This manifestation of purple fringing is a bit peculiar in that it a) is more prominent towards the edges of the frame than in the center (which is otherwise a  characteristic of LaCA rather than LoCA), b) appears on one side only (the inner, more central side, of dark contours), and c) doesn't disappear as rapidly when stopping down as LoCA often does.

Like you, I am sure it isn't sensor bloom (spillover of electronic charges). Several circumstances rule that out, for example the fact that it appears on one side only and the fact that it appears even if there is no highlight clipping. I am inclined to think that it is due to the lens alone, and provisionally refer to it as a kind of LoCA, although I haven't completely ruled out the possibility that it is caused by some kind of lens-sensor interaction (e.g., optical spillover as a result of angles of incidence towards the edges of the frame that are beyond what the sensor can handle).

 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
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 10,956
Like?
Re: Another 17 mm f/1.8 review: faster AF than 20 mm f/1.7
In reply to Jorginho, Nov 19, 2012

Jorginho wrote:

The argument is not my conduct. The argument is not that other people make the same mistakes (in my book). The argument is MIngs review, his remark on the speed of the 20 mm 1.7 (which he makes without any restrictions) and why I think this is an overgeneralisaton. I have also shown with video's why I feel that is. I was open for debate, Ming blokked that off with his remark that I should read the review. Reading the review did not solve or answer the problem at all. You are also diverting from the discussion by making this ad hominem. When people start to diverge from the argument in this way it often means they have no valid points to add. With no arguments on topic that show I am wrong about the difference from yoru side, this seems to be a rare case of disagreeing to agree.

Well, I posted that link to show that there other people who think it completely normal and appropriate to report their own findings with their own camera.

Your whole battle here was not about whether the 20 mm is noticeable faster on your Panasonic bodies, it is solely about whether it is wrong to write that the 17 mm is faster. You are not arguing a point either, you are arguing about the behaviour of Ming Thein (and Robin Wong). You made this an argument about personal behaviour.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jorginho
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,148Gear list
Like?
Re: Another 17 mm f/1.8 review: faster AF than 20 mm f/1.7
In reply to noirdesir, Nov 19, 2012

No, my resposne was directed to the review in which I admitted I did not read everything. His addendum did not make my initial statement any different or wrong, it confirmed my assumption. So I responded to this. There was nothing else to respond to as he did not get in depth or to the point at all, but my conduct.

You do not just show that others do the same. You take Wong as an exampel and than add that I was obliged to react to Wong to etc.

This isgetting s waste of our time as we are not getting any further and we don't need to. Sometimes people disagree and it is better to leave it that way I think.

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads