ManuelVilardeMacedo

You must not judge this lens by the quality of the photos taken by the DPR staff. They just don't showcase the lens' qualities. As someone suggested elsewhere, go to http://robinwong.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/olympus-mzuiko-75mm-f18-review-street.html#more to see some really impressive shots taken with this lens.

I agree. DPR's photos look just amateurish compared to Robin Wong's. The former fail to demonstrate the lens' abilities. And - Wong's photos are beautiful to look at.

Of course. You can't sharpen images in-camera when you shot RAW.
And these images are proof that overexposure still persists with the new gen m4/3 sensors. (They're also proof that those foolish "equivalent aperture" theories are wrong, by the way...)

Of course you can always use telephoto lenses for landscape photography, but you'll be using it to isolate a subject - a mountain, a tree or whatever. You need lenses that give you a perception of depth and a panoramic vision when you photograph a landscape, not ones that compress perspective. Saying wide-angles are for portraits and telephotos for isolating subjects is, of course, too generic, but it's a useful rule of thumb. So don't give me that "conventional thinking" thing.

I don't think its angle of view allows it to be a good landscape lens. Normally wide-angle lenses are used for that purpose, and this is a telephoto.

No trolling, but all I can say, after seeing these pictures, is that my OM 50mm/f1.4 is not jeopardised.
However, we must take into account that micro 4/3 sensors have a tendency to clip highlights, and photos taken with these cameras need some sharpening and highlight correction in post-production to look tonally balanced.
That said the pictures are sharp and bokeh is nice, also showing no signs of distortion or chromatic aberrations. Whether that justifies the high price asked for this lens is up to each one. As I said, I have a classic lens that does the same job, despite the focal length difference which will make me get a little closer to the subject.

Not so logical. We were expecting the mirrorless Canon early this year, instead we got the G1X... hence my reservations.

«Shumager». Who he?

Having used a pancake lens for a while, I can say these designs have virtues and shortcomings: they're nimble to use, practical and very fast to focus. On the down side they're usually not too fast - f2.8 seems to be the standard -, plus they tend to produce vignetting, chromatic aberration and softness at the corners. This, however, seems to have only a little - very little - vignetting. Exceptional for the price. If I had a Canon body, I'd buy this lens as soon as it hit the shelves.
While I think a pancake lens does make sense on a DSLR body, this lens could mean Canon has got something new on its way. Is it the MILC everyone is talking about?

You know, Menneisyys, after seeing the photographs at your gallery I got so bewildered I just didn't know what to say... you're such a brilliant photographer! Congrats! How could I argue with the new Ansel Adams?
...But at least you have mastered the cut and paste technique. Not bad.
R Butler: I do understand this technology has intrigued DPR, but I'm sure you won't take the 808 as your reference camera!

As I wrote before: "Gimme a break"!

That's just what was missing here: smart phone fans are good, noble, humble, open-minded and open-hearted people, and photographers are bigoted, pretentious, narrow-minded and elitist geeks who live in the past, right? Gimme a break!
Look, surely there are plenty of cell phone websites around waiting for your valuable contribution; this is a photography website. Why are you spending such a lot of time trolling every comment that has even the slightest resemblance of a criticism of this mobile phone? Your understanding of "progress" may not coincide with other people's, you know. Fortunately not everybody is obliged to like the same stuff and share the same ideas. You have to accept the fact that some people need more than a cell phone - no matter how big its sensor is - to fulfill their creative and artistic needs. It may sound funny to you, but actually some people think of photography as an art.
...And my previous two Nokias broke down after two years.

Just because you had to add your two cents... right, Menneisyys?

No, DPR is NOT a gadget freak site.

And let's not forget CCTV cameras :)

Unlike cell phones, point and shoots - even at the lower end - are dedicated photographing devices. They're more in place here than cell phones.

Here's the viewpoint of a die-hard "real camera" user on this cell phone:
Nokia did a great job. The technology employed is very clever, and it will please those seeking for the best image quality possible out of a cell phone. There's absolutely nothing wrong with people just wanting to enjoy their lives and capture a significant moment. Actually it's a lot less fussy than using an enthusiast camera, which might not be on hand all the time - contrarily to a cell phone.
There are drawbacks, though. You will be confined to one lens and have no advanced exposure modes or metering options. You can't make long exposures unless you use a rather clunky (and expensive) tripod arrangement. Which will all be OK for casual photography, but this is no substitute for a good, dedicated camera in terms of IQ. Besides, it will last you two years at best.
Yet I can see many amateurs buying it just for the convenience on offer. In this way it betters all but the best enthusiast point and shoots.

Why, Menneisyys?

Because it takes photos.
That said I find this blurb to be out of place here, too.

Right. Now do the same test using aperture priority mode, or manual exposure mode. When you concluded that it is unfeasible because the cell phone doesn't have that choice, try mounting a wide-angle lens on all cameras blind-tested (you may have to open your eyes...). No? Shame... How about mounting it on a tripod and doing long exposures? Clueless? Thought so... Not to mention that your precious, big sensor, 41 MP phone will last you two full years of your life.