Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f1.8 Sample Images

By dpreview staff on Jul 1, 2012 at 05:32 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $799.00

Just posted: Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f1.8 prime lens sample images. We've been using the Olympus prime lens for the last few days and have prepared a quick sample gallery using the Olympus OM-D E-M5 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 and GX1. These samples have been shot at a variety of apertures in a range of lighting conditions, intended to highlight the lens' portraiture capabilities.

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f1.8 sample images

There are 15 images in this preview samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it. Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

Please note - an earlier version of this gallery contained some images, uploaded in error, which did not meet our usual editorial standards. They have been replaced, and new images added. We will be adding more samples in the coming days. 

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f1.8 preview samples gallery - Posted June 30th 2012
354
I own it
161
I want it
11
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 262
12
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Jul 22, 2012)

Most of these photos seem overexposed ...

0 upvotes
derfla1949
By derfla1949 (Jul 16, 2012)

Quote: "We will be adding more samples in the coming days. "
That was on July 1st.

3 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (Jul 8, 2012)

I was considering a Canon 85mm 1.2L lens with an adapter (or a second hand body) for night work, so I followed the SLRgear lens test links below.

While some say it is the "ideal portrait" lens, that 85 1.2 cannot match the Zuiko 75 1.8 at ANY aperture that both are capable of. Softer at twice the price (even on a MUCH lower resolution body - the 20D). The 1.8 version is worse.

Now I am aware that some cherish that extra stop, and if you want it, you want it.

For me, that speed comes at a bulk, weight and softness price I will not accept.

So, I checked the Nikkor lenses. Slightly better (at 1.4, 1.8), but no point getting any of them if you are not already locked into Canon or Nikon.

Interesting, too to see the effects of diffraction, not as "limiting" as the "full" frame fan boys would have you believe.

If want detail and wide-open sharpness, very low vignetting, lightness and compactness, the Zuiko seems not to have any equal right now. Pity they skimp on the hood :(

0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (Jul 8, 2012)

Looks great for face shots (at 2m) or closer for detail shots.
For street photography, it would be excellent and for landscape details too.

2 metres is easy enough to do inside.
If you wanted more subject the 45mm will serve very well, it weighs less than many phones, too.

The manufacturers would do better to CATCH up than to populate these forums with their negative fan drivel.

I remember the CaNikon anti OM-size cameras jibes in the 1970s and their TTL OTF arguments in the 1980's only TOO well
- until they all caught up.

I was in the business of selling cameras at the time, financing my gear with portraits and weddings. I used an RB 67 to good effect, too.

We DO need a few more images (something with controlled lighting, so that the LENS becomes the limiting factor).

The results so far have put this lens on my short list.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
derfla1949
By derfla1949 (Jul 7, 2012)

More sample images please, as promised.
Or ask Robin Wong for some.

This thread presently isn't up to dpreview standards.

1 upvote
ayt
By ayt (Jul 7, 2012)

will there be more samples added as promised? seems like not much has changed since the initial major overhaul.

1 upvote
GirinoFumetto
By GirinoFumetto (Jul 5, 2012)

If, taking a portrait, I like better to focus on a shoulder, a good camera must let me do it. In any of my photos, if the shoulder is in focus and the eyes are not, I think "my fault' or "too difficult with that short DOF" and discard the photo. The same if in a bouquet the only flower in focus is in the left low corner.
It's difficult for me believe that OM-D or any lens (not broken) could make this kind of errors.

0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (Jul 8, 2012)

How obscure - focus manually...

0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (Jul 9, 2012)

Tap the screen where the shoulder is - it works ...

0 upvotes
GirinoFumetto
By GirinoFumetto (Jul 9, 2012)

Now I understand how hard is for me to express myself in english.
Sorry, I am not a OM-D owner, I'll be. I badly used a paradox to say that for me these photos are simply wrongly taken.

1 upvote
photohounds
By photohounds (Jul 19, 2012)

Yes I agree. Someone who has the time to do compose more carefully and who holds a camera just a little steady will get fantastic results out of this lens.

0 upvotes
Amateurbob
By Amateurbob (Jul 3, 2012)

Investigating an original size Dpreview sample image is no different than looking at the image as if it was taken by the person doing the investigating. That said, the samples presented do not encourage one to go out and buy the lens. It is not clear if it is the lens or the camera that is taking away from the quality of the pictures. One hint may be that the samples taken with the Lumix DMC-GH2 look better than those taken with the Olympus OM-D. The images do not say much for the OM-D, which appears to not have the dynamic range Dpreview claimed it had in its review. Dpreview, I think rightly, does not enhance sample images. They show what comes out of the camera. There are few digital images as they come out of the camera that cannot be enhanced. To properly judge a camera or lens one has to download the sample in original size and play with it.

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (Jul 4, 2012)

I honestly think it is mostly the photographer.

Focus is off, composition is not that great, maybe this FL is much harder to use than it looks. I have seen great photos from OMD and GH2 ( i own neither) with respectable DR so I don't agree it is camera and highly doubt it is the lens, as other review sites have praised the lens.

1 upvote
photohounds
By photohounds (Jul 8, 2012)

Not the photographer. The OMD EM-5 has very good DR. I am constantly surprised by the quality

1 upvote
Ropo16
By Ropo16 (Jul 3, 2012)

Robin Wong review part two:

http://robinwong.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/olympus-mzuiko-75mm-f18-review-night.html

9 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (Jul 8, 2012)

Excellent results Robin, Now 24/2 or 75/1,8 next? THAT is the question :)

0 upvotes
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (Jul 3, 2012)

The fact is, looking at this kind of "sample" on a computer doesn't tell anyone anything. It's always really funny to read comments from people who like to pretend otherwise and who try so, so hard to sound like they know what they are talking about. They don't.

0 upvotes
GirinoFumetto
By GirinoFumetto (Jul 3, 2012)

They... who?. Maybe somebody somewhere is able to understand something.
But, if you are right, we might warn DPReview about their useless efforts!

3 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Jul 3, 2012)

never assume you are one of that "someone" or "the" please. you think too highly of yourself : ) people do read comments + analyzing sample pictures and this is photography, if you don't analyze sample pictures what do you look at? lol....

0 upvotes
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (Jul 3, 2012)

Audjam, I have no idea what you are saying. ...

0 upvotes
clear glass
By clear glass (Jul 2, 2012)

For a rough guide to sharpness, I look at eyelashes in a portrait where the head occupies a quarter of the field or less, but the eyelashes of the women in..04 (two women, left one in focus) are enlarged by mascara which obscures lens performance.

0 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Jul 2, 2012)

You have got to be kidding...who (what man) would be brave enough to ask a woman not to apply makeup for a photograph!

Cheers

3 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Jul 3, 2012)

Because doing a portrait shoot with a model wearing makeup is such as unrealistic scenario?

4 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (Jul 8, 2012)

Don't think C G was suggesting no make-up, just his observation (which an actual portrait shooter would know well) that MASCARA bunches eyelashes together.

That means it is harder to judge sharpness because there's simply less detail.

No point knocking the lens if you are not interested in one. Or worse if you feel a need to knock users of another system.

I will find this lens excellent for many uses face and detail shots some landscape detail shots, street pics.

It looks very well suited to actual picture taking without pointing a BAZOOKA at the subject ...

I spend NO time knocking others on the CaNikSon forums - because it would be immature and irrelevant as I do not use that gear much..

Comment edited 15 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Ariston
By Ariston (Jul 2, 2012)

more photos please. not quite there yet.

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Jul 2, 2012)

Working on it :)

7 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (Jul 4, 2012)

Work FASTER DAMNIT! =)

0 upvotes
wkay
By wkay (Jul 2, 2012)

True. contrast and color stink but is it the lens or the camera? No way to tell. Note highlights tend to be blown out too. No way to make any sort of subjective decision from these images.

2 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (Jul 8, 2012)

Spoken like someone who wants to find fault rather than the quality of a picture. These STREET SNAPS look just fine. Who knows what lights there were around?

The results look 'human;, sharp where in focus with delightful OOF Bokeh.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Jul 2, 2012)

I am not impressed with these samples. Most of them look washed-out, slightly. The colors are weird, and the shadows tend to have the digital, ugly noise. I recognize, many things have improved, and are of high quality; but without a sensor, that can do better than the current "best", I see little point. I am all for a better carry package, but not, with these cons. A slightly bigger camera, which can be older, and costs far less, can overall beat this. A trailing quality, 4/3rd sized sensor will never make it. It simply has to lead, in new sensor IQ quality, due to the smaller (for carry, and telephoto) size disadvantages. Now, if these were bargain basement priced, *and* you were then OK, with the "quality" (which I still would not be), then I could understand better, the compromise. A good camera, is not about compromises. It is about balances (lenses first), and needs to get out of your way. This is also not to say, I am for, or against mirror-less.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
blohum
By blohum (Jul 2, 2012)

Mirrorless isn't for everyone, just in the same way as FF cameras aren't for everyone and compacts aren't for everyone...

Everybody has their own ideas on what "acceptable" image quality is, and if ultimate image quality is your requirement then you'll need to look elsewhere but what you can't deny is that image quality is getting better across the board so it's possible to achieve your "acceptable" level of IQ while carrying less weight... only you can decide if that is worth paying for.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jul 2, 2012)

@Neodp- camera systems with 4/3rd sized sensors will *definitely* make it. Not everyone wants to carry larger sized DSLR gear, or they don't ALWAYS want to carry larger sized DSLR gear so they will get 4/3rd sized systems as a secondary system.

I shoot with Canon APS and FF bodies, but I also have an Oly E-PM1 with a couple lenses. Each format has its pros and cons, but I'm glad I have the option of having all of them. For work, I still use my Canon bodies, but for casual shooting or when I'm just running around town, the camera I always grab is my m4/3 body. It's unobtrusive, light, compact, and still produces great pictures, with the option to switch lenses.

To say that "a good camera is not about compromise" is silly and overly idealistic. EVERY camera has some compromise. A Leica M9 is a great camera, but it has compromises (no TTL viewfinder, no AF, etc.). A Nikon D4 is a great camera but it has compromises (very large size and heavy).

10 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jul 2, 2012)

@Neodp - "but without a sensor, that can do better than the current 'best', I see little point."...why does everyone need "better than the current best"? Today's cameras already produce an amazing level of quality, far exceeding what we used to get from cameras of decades past. And yet, we still get people crying that such high levels of quality just aren't high enough. Are you shooting for commercial work? How large are you printing? Who is viewing these images? Are they viewing all of your images at 100% magnification? Unfortunately, for many people, photography has become about pursuing sensors that are "better than the best" just for the sake of it!

7 upvotes
blohum
By blohum (Jul 2, 2012)

@T3 "Today's cameras already produce an amazing level of quality, far exceeding what we used to get from cameras of decades past." Exactly, I still enjoy shooting with my E1 with the whole of 5mp, and while like everyone I lust over new gear in reality it still produces great images.

3 upvotes
StephanSchmidt
By StephanSchmidt (Jul 3, 2012)

If m43 is not acceptable in IQ, and trails behind APSC (which I doubt) 2 years, then it seems you started to use digital cameras in 2010, as before IQ levels were unacceptable to you.

0 upvotes
Dan4321
By Dan4321 (Jul 3, 2012)

I think it's because of their post, the nicest way to say it is.. I don't think dpreview's photographers do a lot of portraiture, or this type of photography in general.

0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (Jul 8, 2012)

"and" you actually spent a few days with one yourself, adjusting it yo YOUR taste ...

0 upvotes
Everdog
By Everdog (Jul 2, 2012)

bradleyg5, you owe eveyone an apology. Even the very old GH1 rates higher than the T2i for Dynamic Range on DxO and the T2i is not rated by "over 10 points compared" to that Micro Four Thirds camera (contrary to your statement).

I am sure this new lens will drive even more people from APS-C DSLRs to Micro Four Thirds.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Jul 3, 2012)

Techradar tested the E-M5 with DxO software: http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/olympus-om-d-1075717/review/page:5#articleContent

So, the E-M5 seems to do better than the NEX-7 and X-Pro 1 in terms of DR and SNR when using RAW. Unfortunately, Techradar didn't have a Canon in the test but does the T2i-T4i have better IQ than the X-Pro 1 and NEX-7?

Even looking at Dpreview's studio scene comparison, it is easy to see the high IQ that the E-M5 possesses.

3 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (Jul 15, 2012)

This lens and the OM-D certainly makes m4/3 look a lot more attractive to me than it ever did earlier.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
MP Burke
By MP Burke (Jul 2, 2012)

The tester seems to have been confused as to the purpose of this lens. The 150mm equivalent angle of view is most useful for circumstances where your subject is too far away to be photographed with standard lenses or kit zooms.
The 75mm lens looks like it gives high performance at f1.8 and should find uses for photographing concerts and events in mediocre light, as well as outdoor candids and certain types of sports where you are not too far from the subject.
At the same distance to the subject the 75mm focal length gives less depth of field than shorter lenses but this apparent benefit is counteracted, for subjects such as posed portraits, by the fact that you have to step further back from the subject to render it the same size as with a shorter focal length lens.
The Olympus 45mm f1.8 gives close to the classical angle of view for portraiture and if taking portraits is your sole objective, there is little advantage in getting the 75mm lens.

1 upvote
Everdog
By Everdog (Jul 2, 2012)

The test shots are one of many uses for this lens.
As Robin Wong pointed out, " both Scott Kelby and Joe McNally have constantly, repeatedly stressed the importance of choosing a longer focal length for serious portrait works...they would not hesitate to go all the way to 200mm."

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 2, 2012)

Scott Kelby? Isn't he a Photoshop trainer?

But anyway, something like a 70-200 at 200mm is getting a bit long for portraiture. The reason is telephoto lenses compress distances while wides expand, which is why 85-135mm is considered the classical portrait length. Too long a telephoto for portraits and facial features become flattened. Too short, 28mm for example, features become elongated, i.e., big noses, foreheads, etc. I suspect Olympus didn't choose 135mm as 68.5mm would have been too close to the 45 1.8.

2 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Jul 2, 2012)

Tastes in focal lengths for portraits change by the decade.....
Back in the 1980s, a 300mm 2.8 was THE lens for portrait photography. Nikon makes the 135 f/2 DC specifically for portraits. Cartier Bresson used much shorter lenses. Right now people seem to lean toward the 85s. All you can really say is that a certain length is popular at a certain time.

1 upvote
Neodp
By Neodp (Jul 2, 2012)

This depends, mainly, on whether you prefer head, or face shots; head and shoulders, pairs, or groups. Not, that you can't simply move closer, or farther away, with some limits. As was said, it is the flattening look, depending on whether a subject needs to look fatter, or thiner(but one could correct; in post). Could it be, the increasing obesity of folks, is pushing the super telephoto craze? I like my 135mm, f/2 AI, and I run it at 1.5 crop DX. Yet, if you can not back up, such as stationed; in a front row, (10ft) event. You will need to switch lenses. Yet, lesser focal, in F-mount lenses, are inexpensive, and primes are high quality. Really inexpensive, for manual focus, without sacrificing IQ.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 2, 2012)

@Neodp
Too long telephotos don't "fatten" (as in wider and rounder) facial features they "flatten" (as in pushed in flat like a pug dog).

I've never heard of a 300 2.8 telephoto ever being "THE lens for portraits". Maybe of football players, but never portraiture. Any examples?

1 upvote
CFynn
By CFynn (Jul 15, 2012)

I don't know about 300mm but Nikon's 180mm f/2.8 was once very popular for some kinds of portraits. (search on Flikr and you will find plenty of examples) This lens is between that an a 135mm, another once popular focal length for portraits on 35mm film.

I'm now using a Nikon 180mm f/2.8 on an APS-C camera - which turns it into a 270mm equivalent which can still work for head shots.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1114514316/photos/1922046/dasho_01

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Everdog
By Everdog (Jul 2, 2012)

bradleyg5, nice try.
The E-M5 runs circles around the old T2i. I can say this since I have used both. Also, the Olympus 75mm clearly performs better than the Canon 85mm lens (one of my favorite Canon lenses). The Canon also suffers from some pretty bad CA wide open, but still a good lens for the price...just not as good as the Olympus it seems.

3 upvotes
bradleyg5
By bradleyg5 (Jul 2, 2012)

Please message me to apologize when DXOmark gets around to testing the E-M5 and shows conclusively that it does not match the Rebel T2i. Ignorance is bliss as it were, but your bliss is finite.

1 upvote
Winston Loo
By Winston Loo (Jul 2, 2012)

T2i is generations old. Even my GF3 and GH2 can shoot rings around it. if you havent tried the latest Gen 3 & Gen 4 M4/3, dont troll

1 upvote
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (Jul 2, 2012)

By bradleyg5 (2 hours ago) Please message me to apologize when DXOmark gets...

What is this DXOmark you speak off? Do you wear it around the neck or does it attach to the camera for ultimate photography experience?

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 2, 2012)

The Canon t2i (550D) is the same 18 mp sensor of the T3i and T4i. The EM-5 doesn't even equal the IQ from this camera let alone "run circles around it". As far as the GH2 or GF3, I have both cameras and sorry but they also don't come close (at least not for stills). The Canon T3i is not on the level of a D7000 for IQ, but it's still offers significantly better AF and IQ performance than any m43 camera especially at base ISO where images are as clean as can be.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Timbukto
By Timbukto (Jul 2, 2012)

Yes I've had t3i and I have a gf3, the gf3 produces dirty RAWs at base ISO...it cleans up well enough and coupled with the 14mm makes for a good 28mm focal shot in a P&S carry. Dynamic range is a bit weak as is its noise and high ISO performance, but also keep in mind that Panasonic is one of the few manufacturers where their ISO *is* spot on to actual ISO value, so with that in consideration its not that bad. But I have no idea how it could run circles around Canon's 18mp APS-C.

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Jul 2, 2012)

The "significantly better IQ performance" is simply not true. Check the high ISO samples by yourself. EM-5 has better DR and cleaner dark noise than 5D mk II, I doubt t2i is better than 5D II.

For camera features including faster X-sync, FPS, EVF, weather sealing, articulating touch screen, level of customization etc. the EM-5 simply kills these entry level APS-C cameras. Period.

1 upvote
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (Jul 2, 2012)

Yeah because in real life you know the one where you take photos and show 99% of them scaled down to 1000px on a computer monitor it really makes a difference.

Most of you talk out of your ass and probably shoot your camera one a month.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 2, 2012)

@DarkShift
None of the Canon's you mention are well known for their DR, but overall IQ is better than E-M5. There is no comparison between a 5D II and an E-M5, however, as the 5D II is simply better in pretty much every way. Only an true Olympus fan would dare to make this comparison.

As for the entry level APS-C, put it up against a D3200 or A55 and the Olympus will not come out ahead. Look at where the D3200 is on DxOMark, and you'll understand. It's nothing against the E-M5, but the new entry level Nikon IQ is simply better.

1 upvote
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Jul 2, 2012)

Don't wait for DOXmark to pull their finger out and give a "sensor score" which is dubious anyway. Imageing Resource and others have done DR tests for the E-M5 and give it praise in being competitive with most APS-C sensors and up there within a whisker of the Sony NEX sensors.

As far as DXO mark's scoring system goes -
(from their web site)
Sensor Overall Score shows a camera’s:
Sensor quality in terms of noise.
Ability to render high contrast.
Formation of colored noise.
Ability to shoot in low light.

What it doesn't say is how each of these parameters are weighted against each other.
Give me objectivity in hard numbers rather than a score any day otherwise just show me the pictures it takes for which the E-M5 is a winner anyway.

Cheers

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Jul 3, 2012)

@marike6

BS. I'm myself a long time Canon user, but don't posses need for stupid brand loyalty. 5D2 gives somewhat more detail, and of course finer noise at ISO 100, but its DR is not very good and is plagued by gridded noise which limits its pushability when doing PP.

5D2 is also much slower (under 4 fps), doesn't have IBIS, and its weather sealing is not very good. AF is worse on low light than CDAF on EM-5, it's got slower X-sync speed, no built in AF assist, FullHD output is very soft.

1 upvote
StephanSchmidt
By StephanSchmidt (Jul 3, 2012)

LOL, for years it was high ISO, then it was DR for some time when it was the only thing that matters for IQ, now that the M5 is equal or better than some APSC, it's only base ISO that determines IQ.

2 upvotes
StephanSchmidt
By StephanSchmidt (Jul 3, 2012)

@DarkShift: You're not discussing things with Marike6 the homepage comment troll, are you?

1 upvote
bradleyg5
By bradleyg5 (Jul 2, 2012)

I could get a Rebel T2i and a 85mm F1.8 combined for 939 dollars(to this at 900$)... plus the rebel would give a slightly more usable effective 136mm focal length. Doesn't make sense to me, all 85mm F/1.8 lens are great, especially in the centre 1/4 of the image circle. Olympus puts a metal casing on it and expects more than double the going rate...

4 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Jul 2, 2012)

Rebel T2i ? That is funny.

4 upvotes
Julian_K
By Julian_K (Jul 2, 2012)

I'd say the performance is main driver behind the price:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1521/cat/14
compared to:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/154/cat/10

One of the sharpest lenses they've ever tested.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
HDF2
By HDF2 (Jul 2, 2012)

I could get a Toyota Camry, and put mag wheels on it, for $25,000 (to this Porsche at $50,000)...plus the Camry gives me slightly better gas mileage. Doesn't make sense to me, all cars with mag wheels are great, especially the ones with fat tires. Porsche puts a glossy paint job on it and expects more than double the going rate...

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
12 upvotes
bradleyg5
By bradleyg5 (Jul 2, 2012)

Firstly it's worth noting that according to the DXOmark sensor rating, the Rebel T2i has a superior sensor to any ever made for micro four thirds.(by a over 10 points) So I believe Canon would be the porsche and micro four thirds the Camry.

Secondly comparing lens @Julian_K Two things, first you can only compare the very centre of the canon graph because the "soft corners" would be cropped off entirely when mounted on a Micro four thirds camera.

2nd point @Julian_K they did those measurements on a Canon 20d which has a 8MP sensor on a 1.6x crop. They did the 75mm measurements on a Olympus EP-1 which has 12 megapixels crammed into a smaller sensor. Put both lens on the EP-1 and then get back to me, I would wager they are virtually identical on the same camera.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Jul 2, 2012)

Oh dear... I think EM-5 runs circles around EOS 550D for features and has better sensor performance.

I bet the Zuiko 75/1.8 will beat EF 85/1.8 @f1.8 in about every aspect. And yes I own the latter lens.

These manufacturer trolls are always so funny...

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
bradleyg5
By bradleyg5 (Jul 2, 2012)

Just backing up my 2nd point about the lens, here is proof that pretty conclusively shows my point.

From a more reputable lens reviewer Photozone.

The 85mm F/1.8 scores a little less than 1850 line widths per picture height (LW/PH) when mounted on a 8MP canon 350d http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/164-canon-ef-85mm-f18-usm-test-report--review?start=1

The 85mm F/1.8 scores a little less than 2280 LW/PH when mounted on a 15MP eos 50D http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/421-canon_85_18_50d?start=1

This completely backs up my statement that that resolution measurements tend to increase drastically as the pixel density of the camera sensor itself increases. Showing that the Micro four lens are a lot less impressive than those graphs on slrgear would have you believe.

2 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (Jul 2, 2012)

The Panasonic GH1 is rated at 64, the Rebel T2i as 66, so not 10 points. Will be interesting to see how the OM-D fares.

2 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Jul 2, 2012)

why a Rebel T2i is funny?
it is great class - better than the EM-5 and the GH2 at photo

2 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Jul 2, 2012)

Well.... for your sheer photo pleasure maybe you should stick to reading DXOmark tests.

3 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Jul 3, 2012)

not sure about that. Canon 85mm 1.8 is excellent. I haven't seen any evidence Oly 75mm is better

1 upvote
Cheapskate
By Cheapskate (Jul 3, 2012)

The president of Olympus has admitted the sensor in the E-M5 is made by Sony.

What was that you said about DXO?....LoL

2 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (Jul 15, 2012)

@By bradleyg5
The DXOmark sensor rating for the Rebel T2i may be better than for any previous m4/3 sensor - but hey the OM-D apparently uses an entirely new sensor made by Sony, not Panasonic, so let's wait for DXOmark to publish their results.

1 upvote
laquila65
By laquila65 (Jul 2, 2012)

Looks nice. 75mm is kind of stupid though. I'd first consider a 50mm, and if I needed to go higher, I'd go for 85mm or 100mm. 75mm doesn't make a lot of sense to me (neither fish, nor flesh...).

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Jul 2, 2012)

Right, 75mm is stupid but 85mm is not. I am amazed how many people in group homes have internet access.

11 upvotes
OniMirage
By OniMirage (Jul 2, 2012)

It's 150mm eq. to 35mm ... how is this stupid? It would actually be considered ideal since the ideal portrait range is largely considered 85mm-150mm.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Jul 3, 2012)

For portraits, it's a little bit on the long end, since a 150mm effective FL forces you to stand back farther than you might want to, or have room for. For example, it probably would not be great for indoor portraits unless you have plenty of room, especially if you want to do anything other than a headshot. So when choosing a portrait lens, you really do have to consider the practical issue of where you're going to be shooting these portraits, and how much working distance you're comfortable with having, as well as how much working distance you have available.

Any FL above 80mm (effective) is great for portraits (I know some portrait shooters who shoot at around 200mm effective), but a shorter FL gives you more flexibility with room space. You don't have to stand all the way across the room, or even outside the room, to get the shot! With a shorter effective focal length, you have more flexibility to shoot a portrait (even a three-quarter body portrait) just about anywhere.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Jul 2, 2012)

Bla, bla bla...Oly doesn't care. They have a great concept and will reep the rewards. More and more poeple are looking for smaller and more capable. And I say this as an old fashioned 'heavy equipment almost always carrying a tripod shooter' (which, BTW is still the way to go for the top results but hey, I can understand it's not for everybody).

Have fun and shoot with passion!

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 2, 2012)

The problem is that in photography, smaller almost always means less capable. The compromises of smaller formats (IQ, AF abilities, less lenses and dedicated flashes, etc) are not a big deal as second, complimentary cameras. As main camera systems, DSLRs still rule.

For wildlife or sports shooters the lack of super telephoto primes and zooms with proper tripod collars in m43 is problematic. For landscape photographers, the 2x crop factor is an issue as it limits choices in UWA lenses. m43 seems to hit the sweet spot for the generalist or street photographer looking for small, lightweight, non-threatening gear with good IQ.

1 upvote
rusticus
By rusticus (Jul 2, 2012)

No - bla, bla, bla . . .!
4/3 (mFT) is not optimal for photo - the EM-5 changes here nothing

For film and then with the hack for GH2 from Vitaliy Kiselev and patches from Nick Driftwood - yes!

1 upvote
jeff_006
By jeff_006 (Jul 2, 2012)

@marikes6: "For landscape photographers, the 2x crop factor is an issue as it limits choices in UWA lenses"
There are the m43 oly 9-18 mm, the pany 7-14, the 4-3 oly 9-18, the 43 oly 11-22 and the 43 oly 7-14 . The pany 7-14 is tack sharp but expensive, I have the m43 oly 9-18 and I'm very happy with it, corners are a bit soft but it is so small and lightweight !
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-f_leguen/7109198021/

1 upvote
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (Jul 2, 2012)

@marikes6: For landscape photographers, the 2x crop factor is an issue as it limits choices in UWA lenses.

These work just dandy 11-22mm, 12-60mm, 7-14mm. I've never used the 7-14mm but have used the 11-22 and the 12-60mm most of the time.

1 upvote
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (Jul 2, 2012)

If I hadn't seen what other people were getting out of this lens, I'd not buy it.

I stand by my original point(s) - one of the standard MFT complaints is that the DoF is not shallow enough, yet here we have 75 f1.8, 150 f3.6 equivalent as people are quick to point out, causing endless trouble because of 'he difficulty of using it.

And I still don't understand why a lens test sample gallery has high ISO shots in - that's like a camera test sample gallery with a soft focus filter on.

12 upvotes
Julian_K
By Julian_K (Jul 2, 2012)

Yup, not sure why they're unnecessarily using ISO 1600 on the GH2 when they're shooting in broad daylight with high shutter speeds... it's not really showing what the lens is capable of with the noise form the sensor. DPReview user error?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 45 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Promit
By Promit (Jul 2, 2012)

But I'm sure everyone takes portraits at ISO 1600 and 1/4000s!

2 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Jul 2, 2012)

Bokeh on this lens looks horrible... :-/ not creamy at all.

3 upvotes
blohum
By blohum (Jul 2, 2012)

are you looking at the same images as the rest of us!

13 upvotes
Alexander Vienna
By Alexander Vienna (Jul 2, 2012)

I must say, I am very disappointed of the quality...... I stay with my 75mm 2.0 Summicron Leica lens on the OM-D.......... with is fantastic!!!

0 upvotes
loadbang
By loadbang (Jul 2, 2012)

Or try a Contax G series 90mm f2.8 . Slightly slower, larger focal length but is a lot cheaper.

1 upvote
mark25
By mark25 (Jul 2, 2012)

i am glad DPreview.com listened and updated the gallery, promising to add more photos. fair enough :)

looking forward to seeing some great samples here on dpreview.com soon :)

muhammad muhsin

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
wlachan
By wlachan (Jul 2, 2012)

4/3 was supposed to be smaller, lighter & less expensive, but looks like Olympus has been sidetracked by their greed again, just what happened to the E system. History is repeating itself again.

4 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (Jul 2, 2012)

Calm down, it's one lens in a whole system.

4 upvotes
Jean Ulrich Brer
By Jean Ulrich Brer (Jul 2, 2012)

another one who thinks that a bigger lens makes the m43 concept pointless...its about flexibility....at least in m43 you can choose for real compact setup or bigger, thats what it makes interesting compared with dlsr's

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 2, 2012)

Bigger? It has a 58mm front filter thread, same as my Nikon 50 1.8G. This is not large for a telephoto with a fast max aperture. If all you want is miniaturization, all you'll get are slow lenses.

5 upvotes
loadbang
By loadbang (Jul 2, 2012)

It's an ideal portrait lens for the m4/3rd system. If you were shooting with a 135 sized DSLR, you'd either be wanting the use a 85mm f1.4, 135mm or 70-200mm. This is "smaller, lighter & less expensive" compared to those lenses.

1 upvote
StephanSchmidt
By StephanSchmidt (Jul 2, 2012)

"... less expensive ..."

Do you have any quote for this? Who said that?

3 upvotes
mark25
By mark25 (Jul 2, 2012)

i think 'loadbang' was quoting himself. and i agree with him that this lens is less expensive than those lenses he mentioned.

the argument that this is an equivalent of a 150 f/3.6 lens is pointless because comparing a full frame 105mm f/2.0 (like nikkor)Mamiya Sekor 210mm f/4.5 or a 135 f/2.0 (canon, nikon) to Mamiya Sekor 250mm f/4.5 would tell us that the medium format lenses are just plain slow as compared to the 35mm ones.

However, despite their slow apertures, Mamiya users have long used those lenses (with their advantages and disadvantages) and have seldom complained about why the 210mm f/4.5 and 250mm f/4.5 are not f/2.0 or f/1.8...

Olympus, as a camera manufacturer, has filled the void that existed in the 100 to 150mm area for their customers by introducing and producing this 75mm f/1.8. in all simplicity, someone who uses micro four thirds (myself included) looking for a fast telephoto lens in that category now has a lens that's portrait oriented...

bravo olympus!

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Ropo16
By Ropo16 (Jul 2, 2012)

For those that missed it:

http://robinwong.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/olympus-mzuiko-75mm-f18-review-street.html

14 upvotes
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (Jul 2, 2012)

I disagree with the previous poster.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (Jul 2, 2012)

And I disagree with you, it would have helped had you replied to whoever's comment you're commenting on. And you're basically proving his point with the disagreeable mess of front page posts.

1 upvote
Len_Gee
By Len_Gee (Jul 2, 2012)

I disagree

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (Jul 2, 2012)

I dont agree with any of the above posts or the original post that the original poster of this post was disagreeing with

4 upvotes
jkrumm
By jkrumm (Jul 2, 2012)

Personally I liked it better when there were no comments on the front page, only in the forums. The front always turns into a disagreeable mess.

6 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (Jul 2, 2012)

Ineed!

0 upvotes
hc44
By hc44 (Jul 2, 2012)

What do you need?

4 upvotes
MattBrisVegas
By MattBrisVegas (Jul 1, 2012)

One more reason to think of switching to a m4/3 system EXCEPT why are m4/3 lenses so expensive? I can't help but compare this 75mm f/1.8 for $900 to the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 for $430 (both today's prices at B&H). The m4/3 lens is built to cover a smaller image circle, so it uses much less optical glass. So why is it about twice the price?

5 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Jul 1, 2012)

They do not price lenses by the pound. Nikon has their agenda, Oly have theirs.
If it is a hobby then you can argue with your spouse. If you are a pro then it should make money for you.
You are lucky you can afford a toy over $100 anyway.

4 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jul 1, 2012)

A lot of it comes down to production volume. This is going to be a relatively low volume lens. First of all, there aren't really all that many m4/3 users (compared to Canon and Nikon DSLR users). Secondly, even though it's a 75mm lens, its effective FL is 150mm, which isn't exactly a must-have, do-all focal length that many people will want. As a result, it's going to be a relatively low volume, low production lens, which drives up the price. Oly knows this, so they've priced the lens to squeeze as much revenue out of the limited volume of lenses they'll sell. Meanwhile, Canon and Nikon can price their lenses lower because they know that they can easily make up for the lower price with much higher sales volume.

It'll be interesting to see what the prices of Canon's mirrorless lenses will be. Hopefully, the $200 price tag of Canon's excellent new 40/2.8 pancake will be a preview of what we can expect.

5 upvotes
Marvin Clapp
By Marvin Clapp (Jul 2, 2012)

One large reason for Olympus' high lens costs is that Olympus lenses, unlike those of other brands are telecentric. (No, a telecentric lens is not the same as a telephoto lens. Check it out on Wikipedia.) This is in accordance with 4/3 philosophy which minimizes light fall-off in the corners and gives a correct size ratio for objects in the image regardless of distance from the camera. This was part of the reason for creating the 4/3 system in the beginning.

It costs a LOT more to make a telecentric lens than it does to make a normal digital camera lens. I do not own a 4/3 camera but I came very close to buying one when I entered the semi-pro camera circle. The telecentric lens concept almost had me convinced. I finally went to Nikon because I decided that sensor size trumps telecentric. That's an individual decision but if you are using or planning to get a 4/3 camera you are going to have to live with the expensive lenses.

8 upvotes
citizenlouie
By citizenlouie (Jul 2, 2012)

@MattBrisVegas

Several reasons. One is what Marvin Clapp said, telecentric design. Second is low volume, like T3 said. I'll add more.

Size: It's not easy to create smaller lenses with the same amount of performance.

Aperture: 7-blade circular aperture design is common in m4/3 lenses. That design is usually found only in high-end Canon and Nikon. 9-blade circular is standard on all 4/3 high grade and up lenses (there are exceptions). That's why Olympus lenses have far superior bokeh.

Design: 4/3 and m4/3 lenses are created ground up for the sensor size they're for. R&D cost is higher. Most cheap Nikon and Canon lenses are designed for 35mm FF format, so their R&D cost is already amortized.

Resolution: Don't know about m4/3, but 4/3 lenses have almost the twice the resolution of FF lenses, because it has smaller sensor, so it needs that much resolution to compensate for sharpness. That means the glass have to be higher quality. Lots of ED glasses are used.

4 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Jul 2, 2012)

" The m4/3 lens is built to cover a smaller image circle, so it uses much less optical glass. So why is it about twice the price?"

Does it really? The Olympus has 1 more element (for a total of 9) than the Nikon, while 5/9 of those elements are fairly exotic: 3x Extra-low dispersion and 2x High Refractive. Also, even if it produces a much smaller image circle, the 75/1.8 lets in roughly the same amount of light as the 85/1.8 through an aperture that is only about 4mm smaller in diameter.

Not only that, the barrel is all metal, while the Nikon is plastic. The metal Voigtlander 75/1.8 and Leica 75/2 are $715 and $3795, respectively. Neither of which have AF obviously. So, the price isn't bad in comparison to those lenses.

The 75/1.8 is indeed pricey, but so far it seems like it is worth it.

5 upvotes
MattBrisVegas
By MattBrisVegas (Jul 2, 2012)

Mystery explained. Now it makes a lot of sense why the high end m4/3 lenses are so expensive.

And since I've got so many thoughtful and knowledgeable posters responding, could anyone explain the converse mystery: why is the 12mm f/2 NOT more expensive than what I'd expect based on 35mm full frame optics? Do super-wides not require a telecentric design?

Just one correction: the barrel of Nikon's 85 f1.8D is definitely metal, based on the ding I put in mine.

2 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Jul 2, 2012)

"could anyone explain the converse mystery: why is the 12mm f/2 NOT more expensive than what I'd expect based on 35mm full frame optics"

Has to do with the shorter flange distance of mirrorless cameras, which allows lenses with shorter focal lengths to be simpler/smaller (e.g. non-retro-focus wide angle lenses).

I was thinking of the newer Nikon 85/1.8G, which is mostly plastic except for the mount. The older D has more metal (filter, hood mount) but the barrel is still plastic.

Correction to previous post: the 75/1.8 has 10 elements in 9 groups.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
revio
By revio (Jul 2, 2012)

The smaller sensor makes it necessary for the lens to be at least(!) double as sharp as a lane for 24x36mm sensor size. If not, images would be softer than FF. Now, the Oly 75 seems to be superbly built.
Presicion in mechanics is costly, especially if smaller dimensions are at hand like with m4/3 & 4/3 format lenses vs lenses for larger formats. Simple as that.

1 upvote
Tomas_X
By Tomas_X (Jul 2, 2012)

Oly 75/1.8 is not telecentric lens, see the perspective here:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2067763/p6270021?inalbum=olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-75mm-1-1-8-review-samples
Telecentric lenses are for machine measurement, no for pictures. You would not like pictures of telecentric lenses. They are totally disnatured. Totally. :-)

0 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Jul 2, 2012)

Marketing. Read the marketing stuff posted above and you’d think there are something special about Olympus all the Nikon and Canon users are idiots.

APS-C and FF lenses are cheaper because their sales volumes are greater and they have to compete with older version of the same lens and 3rd party offerings which caps how expensive they can be.

m4/3 price will come down in a decade or two but Olympus would have moved to another format by then.

1 upvote
OniMirage
By OniMirage (Jul 2, 2012)

Take a look at the reviews on optical quality. The price is not only justified compared to the competition, it's almost as if they are giving it away.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jul 2, 2012)

@Peiasdf - with regards to marketing, yep, Oly pulled the same stunt when they were marketing their original 4/3 system. They got people to believe that there was something special about Oly's 4/3 lenses that Nikon and Canon were missing out on. Ultimately, not everyone bought into the 4/3 marketing ploy, and now 4/3 has faded to a sideline footnote. But apparently, some people are still citing the Oly marketing mantra.

1 upvote
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (Jul 2, 2012)

>By MattBrisVegas (17 hours ago) One more reason to think of switching to a m4/3 system EXCEPT why are m4/3 lenses so expensive?

Well most local camera shops have lay away plans. That how I got my 11-22mm. Yah it took three months but what a lens that was.

0 upvotes
MattBrisVegas
By MattBrisVegas (Jul 2, 2012)

Thanks a lot everyone for the informative posts. This type of information is very useful for a hobbyist on a budget trying to figure out what sort of a system to invest in.

To summarise, it seems that m4/3 is a relatively economical system for wide angle to normal lenses, but prices will continue to be steep for longer telephotos due to design constraints. Given that the format seems naturally suited to the wide to short telephoto range (ie traditional street photography) anyway, that might not be a problem.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 1, 2012)

DPR should always use the model in P6210004. This image is pleasing for obvious reasons, but it is also excellent, well taken photograph. Good job.

Side note, the E-M5 like many digital cameras seems to have trouble with the red channel, i.e. blown out red channel in her dress.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
loadbang
By loadbang (Jul 2, 2012)

Do reds still blow out if you use a hot mirror?

1 upvote
SETI
By SETI (Jul 1, 2012)

OMG! So bad photos for so good lens

7 upvotes
dobbs-rb
By dobbs-rb (Jul 1, 2012)

Could be using a five old camera (E-3) may have some impact.

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Jul 1, 2012)

If you are a working pro then you can feel smug. If you are a hobbyist then you are unpleasant.

0 upvotes
derfla1949
By derfla1949 (Jul 1, 2012)

BTW, what makes P6270021 so "perfect" that it made the cut?
The fact that it is sharp nowhere?

4 upvotes
ArmanV
By ArmanV (Jul 2, 2012)

missfocus .. its f 1.8 so a little miss focus will result a completely blurry photo ..:P . its my first comment in this website.. I hope to learn more and more about photography from all of you guys ..

0 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Jul 1, 2012)

Portrait photographers dpr is not....

4 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Jul 1, 2012)

The photos they post are typical of what the average DPR reader will make (judging from what I see here) and many exceed what the average whiner is capable of.
You can still download the full res files to see if content is sharp. Then YOU go make the art.

0 upvotes
Poweruser
By Poweruser (Jul 1, 2012)

Deleting comments says everything about what DPR thinks of its "community": Useful idiots to generate traffic.

7 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (Jul 1, 2012)

They state clearly that their previous posting was not up to standards. They listened to their community. Their whiny-whiny community.

7 upvotes
Michele Kappa
By Michele Kappa (Jul 2, 2012)

...and still whining, all of the whiny whiny community returns to post how much they hate all of this and generate even more traffic. Weird how the interwebz works, huh?!?
Oh, wait, that's the human factor in the equation. Right.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (Jul 1, 2012)

Never considered 135mm the portrait lens. In the film days, kits came with 50mm, next 135mm, next maybe 28mm or 35mm. Part of that, I believe, is that 50mm (certainly, an exceptional focal length) and 135mm were could be to excellent quality at reasonable cost. But many of us would want around 40mm as a one-only focal length (Canonet GIII anyone) and then 85mm, maybe 105mm. For MFT, I'd like 12mm, 20mm and 40-45mm as basic lenses.

0 upvotes
andrewD2
By andrewD2 (Jul 1, 2012)

The photo of the dog with poor camera settings (+1EV compensation) still makes the cut? I'd post a longer comment but the last one was deleted.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
derfla1949
By derfla1949 (Jul 1, 2012)

Still ISO 1000 and ISO 1600 pics in the gallery.
What for?
Come on,. dpreview, you can do it much better.

6 upvotes
Dragonfire
By Dragonfire (Jul 1, 2012)

great lens, i think will worth the price for many,
btw picture nr P6270021 (6/15) is missfocused.

2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Jul 1, 2012)

The news story was reposted with substantially different content. Hence why the comment thread was wiped. The green text in the story makes it clear that we messed up earlier.

1 upvote
Tim in upstate NY
By Tim in upstate NY (Jul 1, 2012)

The thumbnails just above this comment section still have that ISO 8000 bowl of ice cream.

3 upvotes
assaft
By assaft (Jul 1, 2012)

I'm not sure why you used the GH2 for a gallery with so many portraits. Such images could benefit from better skin tones even though this is not something directly related to the lens performance (e.g. P1030531). In addition, picture P1030586-ACR suffers from ISO 1600 and its hard to separate detail from noise, especially below the right eye.

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't notice that some images were taken with the GX1 and EM5.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
photo perzon
By photo perzon (Jul 1, 2012)

I think m4/3 has become a money pit with $1000 lenses. Watch out Sony rx100 does a lot for $650, if they put a clip on evf on it and a flash connector it will do all except 200-400mm.

2 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (Jul 1, 2012)

Yeah, cars are too expensive too, because you can buy a Ferrari for £200,000.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
hhcs
By hhcs (Jul 1, 2012)

and 400-600mm photos, portraits, ultra wide, fisheye, legacy glass, etc...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jul 1, 2012)

m4/3 needs some competition.

2 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Jul 1, 2012)

Why did DPR get all "socialist" and deleted all the comments ? I reckon we deserve the right to an oppinion, seen that we made this website what it is today..

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (Jul 1, 2012)

I don't think you you know what socialism is.

10 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (Jul 1, 2012)

Thank you for all your hard work, I enjoy your website.

3 upvotes
REJ
By REJ (Jul 1, 2012)

"Socialist"? Get back on track.

2 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Jul 2, 2012)

@mister_roboto: i lived in a comunist country for 6 years, I think I know about socialism a thing or two.

3 upvotes
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (Jul 2, 2012)

Private company manages its comments section however it wants. If you don't like it then take your traffic somewhere else. That is capitalism, comrade.

6 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Jul 2, 2012)

Well, this private company doesnt sale anything compadre. Various very popular websites became obsolete and worthless as they lost the attention and trafic of their visitors. Besides, you're not the DPR speachperson, are you ?

0 upvotes
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (Jul 2, 2012)

This company sells eyeballs to advertisers. Yours, for example.

Now that you clearly understand how the free market relates to private websites, we can move on from this silly business about socialism. In fact I work for government grant money at the moment, rather than for this website, which could not afford me. That is not a burn, just true. As someone who currently benefits from something distantly related to socialism, and who to be honest would like to see quite a bit more of it in this great country, it annoys me in the extreme when people use it as a pejorative and then get the meaning wrong. Socialism: not bad (unlike, say, communism) and definitely not descriptive of this website.

0 upvotes
Anfy
By Anfy (Jul 1, 2012)

Now, that is what I call great tactics!

0 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Jul 1, 2012)

why the posts are gone?

It is not much better - the EM-5 and the GH2 is not good for Foto

The GH2 is an excellent Filmcam, OK

0 upvotes
Anfy
By Anfy (Jul 1, 2012)

Start again!
Come on
It's a nice day for a white wedding
It's a nice day to start again.
It's a nice day to start again.
It's a nice day to start again

(B. Idol, White Wedding)

2 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jul 1, 2012)

No comments...

1 upvote
rusticus
By rusticus (Jul 1, 2012)

GH2 is a great film camera
For photo works not with the EM-5 or the GH2

0 upvotes
Uncle Bob III
By Uncle Bob III (Jul 1, 2012)

Am considering OM-5 to replace my Canon XSI AND 6 large lenses. I do not understand REDFOX88 that the Oly 1.8 is really a 3.5 equiv. can someone explain. I have not seen this in my research

0 upvotes
blohum
By blohum (Jul 1, 2012)

It's the equivalence argument... this lens will let in the same amount of light as an f1.8 lens if 35mm terms, but because the m43 sensor is smaller it will have the same DOF characteristics of an f3.5 lens in 35mm so the bokeh will not be as blurred.

1 upvote
SteB
By SteB (Jul 1, 2012)

I don't normally criticise the Dpreview samples because as I see it they are representative of what an average photographer might achieve. However, you nevertheless still expect them to be in focus, or sharp. Take P6270021 as an example. Despite there being a number of people in frame none of them lie on the plane of focus. You can trace the plane of focus by looking at the pillars that are sharp.

What is the purpose of such a shot? For people to try and evaluate the lens on the basis of the odd cigarette butt in focus, or a sliver of pillar in focus in the background.

I think at the very least Dpreview need to commission a competent photographer to take sample images. Surely samples like this do not do the reputation of Dpreview any favours.

1 upvote
mark25
By mark25 (Jul 1, 2012)

you actually re-phrased my complain in a much better manner :) better choice of words and to-the-point :) well done :)

0 upvotes
ulfie
By ulfie (Jul 1, 2012)

US $899. Ouch!

0 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Jul 1, 2012)

Sharp lens, but not interesting. The PICTURE of lens is rather mediocre.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jul 1, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
Timbukto
By Timbukto (Jul 1, 2012)

So much conflicting information. First it appears the GH2 applies practically no sharpening while the EM-5 sharpens significantly. But they both don't seem to in critical focus regardless....(or its soft). Slrgear believes it to be tack sharp on a 12mp MFT sensor...not sure if its tack sharp on 16mp looking at these. But for so many people criticizing the photographer...what exactly happened? I thought CDAF gets your accuracy down pretty much pat? The photographer would have to be utterly clueless to not have figured out how to use CDAF auto-focus...so really what happened here?

Robin Wong's 100% crops look good and in-focus but again with some strong default sharpening of the Oly.

Actually P6280011 looks like one photo that was shot right...most of the GH2 shots the settings are a bit off.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Total comments: 262
12