Charming, yet painful (the video).
DStudio: "That was remedied with the borderline ridiculous $1,600 lens made from what has to be glass from the fires of Mordor; the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2 Nocticron. That much bread for a Micro Four Thirds lens goes against everything (we think) the system stands for, which is why the Olympus 45mm F1.8 still stands as our studio lens."
Isn't this hypocritical? Top 85/1.4 and 1.2 lenses go for between ~$1000 and $2000 (and tends toward the higher end of this range, if you only count prices for new lenses). But this 85mm (equivalent) f/1.2 lens is outrageous at $1600?
But wait - this is the *same* article where you praise the $4500 OTUS?!
*** double-standard alert ***
I haven't used the lens (and don't shoot m4/3), but it's as if this was thrown in there just for the purpose of being hypocritical. BTW, it's $1400 and is only one star short of a perfect user rating (94 of 95, with a lone 4-star review) from NY's biggest camera retailer.
I'm not sure what you're comparing the Zeiss Batis to (price-wise), but it looks pretty good from the sample photos I saw.
It really depends on what you want, doesn't it?
For example, I'll shoot action on an 85/1.4 at around f/3.5.
But it's far from a "waste" to have an f/1.4 lens here, because this lens has the focusing speed and image characteristics I want. If I open it up too wide I don't get the results I like - plus the focusing accuracy becomes too critical.
Furthermore, at other times I shoot it between f/1.4 and f/1.8 because of low lighting.
In either of these cases, the Panasonic 42.5/1.2 could be fine. From what I read (and what little I've seen) it's a nice lens. It would have to be pretty bad for me not to prefer it over the Canon 85/1.8. The images from that lens just aren't special - at a focal length where many special lenses exist. I think there's a good reason they've priced it so low.
DStudio: The Nikon 85/1.8G looks more 3D than the others. But the OTUS does hold an advantage on hair and bristles. And this Canon sensor gets the most out of it when it comes to detail.
The Canon 85/1.8 is a classic example of how they drive you to L glass - by producing under-performing entry and mid-range lenses (although thankfully, they're slowly improving that situation).
I think the 85/1.8G is the easy choice for most uses. Plus, it has auto focus!
They kept the scene relatively planar to minimize DOF issues, but it's still very 3D in its elements. But perhaps you haven't noticed, because ... Uh ... this is so hard to resist ... you're not used to seeing it in photos? ;)
Sorry, don't own Nikon. Only a fan when they do something well.
jorepuusa: Wonderful pictures of war planes, but where are the pictures of US military planes bombing children and other civilians to pieces? Cannot see any. Romanticizeing killing machines feels absurd.
photominion - Truthfully, I'm not sure what to say to someone who's so content to live with evil in the first place ...
Canon seems to be the only camera company which inspires such blind devotion.
It's like clockwork - you make an objective observation, and you're smugly shot down.
In general, owners of other camera brands have few pretenses. They understand the brand's strengths and weaknesses. What's the problem with Canon owners? Is it being "inside the system" that ruins their objectivity, or does Canon draw that type of person in the first place?
It looks like some people are having a lot of fun here. And I hope you are.
Because in real life this is vile behavior, denigrating a person (or a people) for everything they've ever done wrong - as well as many things they haven't done wrong. It serves many evil purposes - all of them self-centered, I believe.
If any of you have the misfortune of living with a person who speaks to you this way every day, RUN - as fast as you can! THAT is about freedom!
No, go ahead. I like hyperbole. And having a little fun while writing is a necessity.
I was just a little surprised to hear the general idea that this rental price-point ($64 for the Nikon 85/1.4G) was considered expensive in the first place. But yes, $146 for the OTUS is significant. I just don't think the Panasonic and Nikon lenses are out of the "prosumer" mainstream.
It's camera bodies (because of their high depreciation, I'm told) that shock me with their rental prices sometimes.
In any case, I appreciate the hard work DPR does on these reviews. And I realize re-testing could be arduous. But I'm afraid it may be time to upgrade the lenses.
abortabort: Medium format will become affordable in the not very distant future, in fact it has already started and SOON medium format will be compact, affordable and take the same glass we already own.
abortabort, it may behoove you to further research it.
But the bottom line is the bigger surface area on MF glass gives it optical and resolution advantages over smaller lenses.
Samuel, I'm usually not this critical of DPR.
But I think this is wrong, in this case. The affordability of a system is marked by its lens costs - not the cost of the bodies. This lens actually *establishes* the fact that it's not just an "inexpensive" system.
I haven't followed your exact test lens models for each brand (do you have an easy chart somewhere? That would be useful, simple, and fair). In the current state of the industry, it's no longer fair to penalize the latest camera bodies with lesser lenses. Sticking with the Olympus 45/1.8 is unreasonable, just as testing with the Canon 85/1.8 would now be (do you?).
And while I understand hyperbole, I fail to understand how $64 for 5 days (or even $146 for the OTUS) equates to "a kidney and a lung just to rent for an afternoon."
In other words, the rental cost *isn't* out of reach.
OK, reading more carefully, it appears you simply "used" it to prove how reasonable and down-to-earth you are. You know "the BMW is outrageously priced, so we use the Corolla as our standard. Now on to our Bentley review (which I'm gaga over)!"
I'm just not sure it's fair to make this apparently fine Panasonic lens a casualty here.
And frankly, it sounds like *exactly* the lens you should use in your comparisons. I'm disappointed you would handicap the m4/3 cameras like this.
"That was remedied with the borderline ridiculous $1,600 lens made from what has to be glass from the fires of Mordor; the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2 Nocticron. That much bread for a Micro Four Thirds lens goes against everything (we think) the system stands for, which is why the Olympus 45mm F1.8 still stands as our studio lens."
The Nikon 85/1.8G looks more 3D than the others. But the OTUS does hold an advantage on hair and bristles. And this Canon sensor gets the most out of it when it comes to detail.
I think we'd be in a precarious situation if a scenario like the WWII era rose again.
If I believe the rhetoric I read around here, much of Europe is too wimpy or brainwashed to defend itself anymore. And based on the current administration's behavior, I'm not sure the US would care enough to defend them, either.
It's amazing how whacky people's beliefs can become when they lose track of their Creator.
If only the just were perfect. But they do much better than those who don't try to uphold justice.
It must be tough trying to rationalize the world without an understanding of how it started.
Sean65: Some nice shots spoilt by an awful edit. 10,11,12,13???? don't belong in this edit.
Surprisingly, some photographers are multi-dimensional!
But yes, it was a bit awkward to see these thrown in the middle.
Actually, the only one I didn't like was #15. I understand the look he was going for, but it's so overdone, and it trivializes an otherwise good shot.
You're so right. Tyrants and terrorists should be left alone, so they can do the killing of citizens and children. They're so much better at it too, since they specifically target them.
It's so irresponsible of us to protect them, when they should be left alone to die. : . . (
Uh, sure, abortabort. Maybe you need to do a little more research on this particular topic.
Of course you're joking, abortabort. The image circle is too small.
Even if you implement some tricky design to make the image circle big enough, you still loose the advantage of MF. Because one of the benefits of MF *is* the larger lenses they employ, which leads to better image quality.
Who is "we," and what glass do we already own?
Because this imminent, nebulous, affordable MF camera certainly won't use 35mm-format lenses.