bbccameraman: I was worried about investing in this lens for two reasons, firstly its a one trick pony which is fine because I only want to use it for portraits but secondly, why the hell is Nikon charging over £900 for its brother the 85mm f/1.4 I'm certain that this lens is just as good, in fact I tested both on my D600 and could not really see why Nikon are marketing both lenses at such amazing price differences.I'm really pleased with this prime, its everything you could ever want in a mid range lens; very fast, pin sharp, superb bokeh and at a reasonable price, I certainly would not spend nearly a grand more just to get 0.4 of a stop of light!!
The bokeh is smoother on the f1.4.
alcaher: No human has ever been on the moon...we were just fooled as that person who just bought that camera for 1 million doll. was.
No one else has been there, but Elvis was definitely seen there.
BBking83: So... 10 years ago when the first 4/3 camera came out, no one complained about the lack of bokeh. The Olympus E-1.
I can guarantee that all the "no bokeh, no buy" spokes people never knew this and will refuse to recognise or accept that it's the SAME SIZE (regarding sensor) as this.
And every other m4/3 camera.
Michael_13, you're making not much sense here. Whatever the inadequacies (in your opinion) of the lenses, f2.8 equiv normal bokeh is not enough to please the bokeh crowd. That's the issue.
itsastickup: It's a beautiful camera.
Show me the bokeh, show me the bokeh, show me the bokeh!!!
And not at $900, FFS. These clowns won't crack mirroless until they realise that the common man wants everything but his kid's face out of focus. And he gets it from APS-C for less than $200
"The cheap Olympus 45/1.8 provides the same amount of background blur as a Canikon 50/1.8 but the bokeh is far, far better."
Sure, but it's not a normal. m4/3 needs a normal with equivalent bokeh at the right price. The £800 42.5/1.2 is not it.
"Bokeh refers to the quality of the OOF image. That is a characteristic of the lens."
..to a purist, but these days it's used interchangeably with OOF. And everyone knows what you are talking about.
itsastickup: No bokeh no buy.
You have to pay a bomb to get anywhere near the bokeh of an APS-C 35/1.8.
m4/3 is fine for many purposes, but without affordable bokeh it's off many of our radars.
That 25/1.2 should be a maximum $200.
Who are they kidding. Grow up, Olympus. Get some cojones and do what you know you have to do.
"25mm f1.2 for $200? Are you insane? Nikon's 32mm f/1.2 for the 1 system is $899."
It may be insane, but the point is that it's necessary to make this camera equivalent to aPS-C and give enough bokeh as a starting point. There's just not enough in the cheaper lenses mentioned.
"are you really going to get caught up by it being a portrait lense? who in the world uses a normal focal length to take bokeh shots. only rank amateurs expect that."
"If you are referring to the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G, that lens has the worst bokeh of all the lenses I've ever used."
It may be the 'worst' but it's actually quite good and very usable.
"Just buy a 45 / 1.8, "
That's a portrait lens. Where's the normal?
"My Leica 25/1.4, Olympus 45/1.8, Olympus 75/1.8 and Olympus 40-150mm all provide plenty of bokeh."
The only normal lens among those has very little bokeh, more like a 50/2.8, and it costs a bomb.
Until prices become reasonable these m4/3 cameras aren't a practical proposition to the non-pro bokeh photographer. That's a large market missing.
The Jacal: For any body who feels like whining about bokeh, or in case others may be taken in by the shills here, look at this:
Admittedly, a cople of high end lenses, but the same difference is the same at all levels between the two formats.
This is ridiculous. You can get a decent amount of bokeh from a $160 lens on APS-C. With m4/3 you have to pay an absurd amount of money for a f1.2 to get anywhere near.
That lens should be $200 max.
Sergey Borachev: This is just confirming what we all knew or expected, i.e.
The E-M10 is the camera for you, if you want to spend the least amount of money and get the most camera in the smallest but fully functional body and be in the best mirrorless system in terms of lenses, quality, portability, and future growth.
..and get no bokeh unless you spend more than twice as much again.
It's a beautiful camera.
No bokeh no buy.
If they take a good photo of their glorious and illustrious leader without his permission, then that's just fine.
Just don't be taking photos of your family and children without their express permission or it's thirty years hard labour for you.
Very reasonable, all things considered in a politically correct country. Soon coming to the UK and US who have both given up on liberal democracy also (where the State does not interfere in the private domain, nor oppress the minority).
Because of their infernally complicated language, this is a simple misunderstanding.
In fact the new law is that any member of the Hungarian parliament taking a picture of a journalist will be given a fair trial and then shot.
..or something like that.
Quite likely common-sense features afflicted by the curse of patents.
webrunner5: Crap skin tones and crap video and it gets a 80 score??? Wow, someone at DPR REALLY likes Fuji's.
You appear to be living in a bubble. Presumably the whole world should be filled with people just like you. What beautiful harmonies that would make for.
I refer you to my previous comments.
Of course they do. What do you think event photography is?
In any case, for my purposes (semi-formal portraits) the Fuji OOC jpegs were more than good enough for my clients. I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time processing RAW; they won't give a darn.
"Honestly I believe anyone who shoots only JPEG is not too concerned with image quality. Any discerning enthusiast who puts a high value on IQ and shoots RAW should be pretty happy with Fuji."
RAW snobs. Not everyone is shooting fine art.
But seriously, the OOC fuji jpegs were arguably as good as any RAW processing, using almost all the available DR with the right settings. Unlike other systems, the only significant advantages in shooting RAW was in changing your mind about exposure and WB or fussing over noise. The OOC jpegs were a great way to avoid a lot of admin.
That's no longer true.
In the meantime, RAW shooters do have a tendency to be shooting low ISO pics, whereas the Fujis were fantastic for high ISO people pics where ultimate image quality isn't such an issue.
In any case, this is about differing needs not ultimate image quality.