John Wales255927
Leading Member
Bill-
Have you thought about the Sigma 30/1.4? I use it with my E510 and am quite pleased with it although it it is heavy.
Regards - John
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
DIWA Labs compare 4/3 25mm primes
- Thread starter eaa
- Start date
Have you thought about the Sigma 30/1.4? I use it with my E510 and am quite pleased with it although it it is heavy.
Regards - John
You can't really compare lp/mm, due to the influence of the body it's tested on. As we know, due to the E-3's quite strong AA filter, it really limits the lp/mm figures.
The blur charts are what I was referring to in my title, and I've never seen blur PPed out reliably. Plus, once again the resolution limitations are due to the body tested.
I agree the CA is bad on the Leica, and I've seen this in samples from this lens. Quite unnacceptable for the price I think
I would say it does a LOT better at wide apertures, but still nowhere near as good as I would expect for the price (and Leica's reputation).
I don't have the technical knowledge to argue with you on this one.
For the price, I'd have to agree.
JonathanJK
Forum Enthusiast
Dragos Jianu
Forum Enthusiast
I really have to ask: let's say the extreme corners and borders make up 15-25% of the image surface. Would you rate a lens that performs better over 15-25% of the frame a winner over a lens that bests it over the other 75-85% of the frame? Let's not even take cost, size and weight into consideration.
So, which would you pick for use wide open? The one that performs better over the subject-relevant 75-85% of the frame or the one one that performs better over the extreme edges and corners that make up 15-25% of the frame surface?
Lets not even mention that while the curve might be steeper for corner sharpness wide open on the Canon, it still manages to pull off more resolving power even there.
--
Dragos Jianu - http://www.dragosjianu.com
I would always choose the lens with the most consistent corner to corner sharpness. If the image is a little soft overall, it's easy to sharpen up. But if it's inconsistent across the frame, it's very difficult and time consuming to fix. And the inconsistency would always make me conscious of the problem, whereas I wouldn't notice minor softness across the frame (and once again, it's much easier to fix if I did).
Jonas B
Forum Pro
Hi,
I wouldn't worry too much about the Panny capabilities.
In my post above titled "So I did, so I did" I admitted that I'm not used to check the data DIWA-labs produces. To really evaluate a lens there is a lot (for me) to learn and/or check carefully.
From experience
(Leica Summilux-R 50/1.4, Leica Summilux-R 50/1.4 E60, several Pentax 50 f/1.2-f/1.4 inkarnations incl Takumars, Canon FD50/1.4, Canon EF50/1.4, Sigma 50/1.4 EX, Zuiko OM 50 and 55 f/1.2 and 50/1.4, some more to that and then for 4/3 system Panasonic 25/1.4, Sigma 30/1.4)
I know I was very impressed by the Panny and also the Sigma 30/1.4 when compared to the "old" traditional lens designs.
The 25 and 30mm lenses both produced images with high resolution and good contrast wide open. There was clearly a difference to the "old" gang where only the Summilux E60 could compete. My comparisons are based on 4/3 and FF cameras respectively. I'm not interested in the betweeners.
I'm still trying to digest the info and the graphs at DIWA-labs but I wouldn't be surprised at all if one, in the end, can see the Panny25 outperform the Canon EF50/1.4 in some areas. Lol - you should find something thinking of the price weight and construction differences...
What I do know is that I used both the Panny and the Sigma with confidence wide open. There is a clear difference to the Canon lens which I never really trust not to be a little misfocused (up and close the DOF is too shallow for some applications - just as the minimum DOF is too wide on the Panny in other situations). The images were pretty sharp where it counted.
Now I see the next generation Sigma materializing in form of the 50/1.4 EX. It again beats everything else I have used and this time they even got the bokeh right (or better, at least).
There may be reasons to come back on this, and then I'l try to hold my temper (even if somebody shouts "blows away..." ...). One thing to keep in mind is why these lenses are made, what theyare supposed to be used for. They are not the ideal solution for anyone into architecture or documenting.
A simple 30/1.4 snap (posted earlier as a typical sample, sorry to annoy you by repeating it):
OK, the image above is an f/2.8 but it illustrates my point.
And a Panny 24mm:
OK, this one could have been bigger, I just take what I have on-line...
...and the point is: who cares about corner sharpness with the intended use?
I'm sure I have a lot more to say about the state of anything.
regards,
--
Jonas
I wouldn't worry too much about the Panny capabilities.
In my post above titled "So I did, so I did" I admitted that I'm not used to check the data DIWA-labs produces. To really evaluate a lens there is a lot (for me) to learn and/or check carefully.
From experience
(Leica Summilux-R 50/1.4, Leica Summilux-R 50/1.4 E60, several Pentax 50 f/1.2-f/1.4 inkarnations incl Takumars, Canon FD50/1.4, Canon EF50/1.4, Sigma 50/1.4 EX, Zuiko OM 50 and 55 f/1.2 and 50/1.4, some more to that and then for 4/3 system Panasonic 25/1.4, Sigma 30/1.4)
I know I was very impressed by the Panny and also the Sigma 30/1.4 when compared to the "old" traditional lens designs.
The 25 and 30mm lenses both produced images with high resolution and good contrast wide open. There was clearly a difference to the "old" gang where only the Summilux E60 could compete. My comparisons are based on 4/3 and FF cameras respectively. I'm not interested in the betweeners.
I'm still trying to digest the info and the graphs at DIWA-labs but I wouldn't be surprised at all if one, in the end, can see the Panny25 outperform the Canon EF50/1.4 in some areas. Lol - you should find something thinking of the price weight and construction differences...
What I do know is that I used both the Panny and the Sigma with confidence wide open. There is a clear difference to the Canon lens which I never really trust not to be a little misfocused (up and close the DOF is too shallow for some applications - just as the minimum DOF is too wide on the Panny in other situations). The images were pretty sharp where it counted.
Now I see the next generation Sigma materializing in form of the 50/1.4 EX. It again beats everything else I have used and this time they even got the bokeh right (or better, at least).
There may be reasons to come back on this, and then I'l try to hold my temper (even if somebody shouts "blows away..." ...). One thing to keep in mind is why these lenses are made, what theyare supposed to be used for. They are not the ideal solution for anyone into architecture or documenting.
A simple 30/1.4 snap (posted earlier as a typical sample, sorry to annoy you by repeating it):
OK, the image above is an f/2.8 but it illustrates my point.
And a Panny 24mm:
OK, this one could have been bigger, I just take what I have on-line...
...and the point is: who cares about corner sharpness with the intended use?
I'm sure I have a lot more to say about the state of anything.
regards,
--
Jonas
Jonas B
Forum Pro
But then you have the special needs that demands just this: corner to corner "sharpness". It would be a nice touch to mention that when accusing other system for being "rubbish".
For you there simply is no 25mm prime in the 4/3 system as both the existing constructions fail in the corner to corner sharpness peeping test. There are instead these medium level zooms with their ugly bokeh, and the very well performing top pro grade zooms. All lenses are there for a reason and we have to pick the system and lens we need for the task.
regards,
--
Jonas
What sort of photography are you doing ljmac? Coming to think about it I have never seen you post a single image, just words.
The lp/mm at 50% MTF will not rise significantly due to a revised AA filter or weakening of an AA filter -- the difference will be the some 5% difference between the E3 and L10. And of course, higher frequencies of MTF response will rise with coincident increases in moire artifacts when those frequencies overlap with spatial detail in the photograph.
I am not sure you even understand what they mean by blur, here, so I don't take that "can't be reliably pp'ed" as anything other than a flagging defense of the 4/3 optic.
Here is a hint . . . DxO invented the "BLUR" chart so it could sell copies of software to eliminate "Blur." All it needs is a contrast adjustment and some medium radius sharpening (the kind less likely to create halos) and voila.
Or you could fork money over to DxO to get rid of the dreaded "blur."
The blur pattern on this particular lens seems to coincide with vignetting, so I would reckon it is mostly loss of contrast due to light falloff. A quick vignetting fix would likely solve the issue.
So to repeat . . . . BLUR is a meaningless abstract measurement. Use MTF 50% always when available.
In lp/mm at 50% MTF.
F/1.4 = 27 center 19.49 corners
f/2 = 27 center x 21 corners
f/2.8 = 35.19 x 25.18 corners
Panny
f/1.4 = 23.29 center 14.91 corner
f/2 = 26.48 center 15.72 corner
f/2.8 = 34.5 center x 16.12 corner
It essentially resolves less at any aperture, at the corner or in the center and the real thrashing doesn't even begin until f/4 and greater when the Panny is essentially worse than some coke bottle kit lenses I have used at f/5.6 and f/8.
SO that essentially leaves us with a ~$1000 lens that does everything except WO vignetting (note the canon actually vignettes less as it stops down) worse to much, much worse and weighs twice as much.
Like I said, it got slaughtered as I would expect any fast normal for 4/3 to do. The system and its super high density sensors cannot compete here, and the task gets much more difficult when you need to make chunky retrofocus lenses as your normals.
--
--
Comments are always welcome.
Zach Bellino
'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)
Hmm, is it just me, or is someone else also having a hard time seeing much realworld difference in the pictures posted in JonathanJK's review? I am, however, still more or less an amateur, and those DIWA results do not in practice tell me anything. After reading some of your comments it seems to me as if some of you are exaggerating the "lack" of corner to corner sharpness of the Leica, which I by the way can't even notice in the sample pictures (which to me is the deciding factor) when I compare it to the ZD 12-60. On the other hand, the Leica is pretty pricey, so perhaps one (that being me) really should expect better, even if I can't notice it?
Thank you for the efforts with the review, JonathanJK!
--
kimpa
Thank you for the efforts with the review, JonathanJK!
--
kimpa
I suggest you re-read Andy's comments on this when he was testing 4/3rds lenses - according to him, it makes a HUGE difference, and frankly, I'll trust his opinion over your's any day in matters of testing lenses.
What's your problem Jonas? I said I thought the Canon was the better lens from F2.8 up, but that it's corner softness is unacceptable below that, something confirmed by Andy's review here and SLRGear as well. This is a fair and accurate assessment.
As for why I stay anonymous here, I know what has happened to a lot of the people who publicise their identity here, and I'd really prefer not to have to deal with that.
As for why I stay anonymous here, I know what has happened to a lot of the people who publicise their identity here, and I'd really prefer not to have to deal with that.
JonathanJK
Forum Enthusiast
Hi there, thanks. I think there is a big difference in image quality. Take another look at the sample images and they are full res for people to download and inspect themselves. Download the pile of wood, one is shot a f1.4 and the other at f2. Get the magnifying glass out from LR or Aperture and zoom in on the same two spots. The sharpness is noticeably different.
There are some images of a clothes line, shot at varying apertures, and if you look closely at the line, you'll see fringing at higher apertures, they disappear once you hit f8. I think there are obvious differences in the sample images I provided. Then again, the review was an amateur* effort on my part. I did it for the people here at dpreview since everyone likes to talk about it.
When I say amateur I mean I did it for 'the love of it', using its original meaning.
--
http://jonathanjk.wordpress.com/
There are some images of a clothes line, shot at varying apertures, and if you look closely at the line, you'll see fringing at higher apertures, they disappear once you hit f8. I think there are obvious differences in the sample images I provided. Then again, the review was an amateur* effort on my part. I did it for the people here at dpreview since everyone likes to talk about it.
When I say amateur I mean I did it for 'the love of it', using its original meaning.
--
http://jonathanjk.wordpress.com/
After taking another, this time closer, look in LR (for about 30 minutes
) I clearly notice what you mean. The different clothes line examples seems to demonstrate everything pretty well. I'm still not certain whether I should get the Leica or not.Yes, reviews are always welcome. Thats the main reason I first started to visit this site. And after that I discovered the forums, which had even more interesting reviews in them.
I had a chance to try out the PL 25mm and sigma 30mm in the shop last night.
In the end I decided to go with the PL 25mm, despite it being about double the cost.
The sigma seemed ok, but the AF felt clunky, and the FOV of the 25mm felt more natural and versatile for me.
And after looking at a lot of images that people have posted, I just liked the look of the PL 25 ones better in general. Although there were also some very nice sigma ones.
So anyway, I am now the proud owner of a new PL 25mm
Now, I have to figure out how to use it properly to get the most from it...
--
http://www.23hq.com/kiri
http://www.flickr.com/photos/memoki/
In the end I decided to go with the PL 25mm, despite it being about double the cost.
The sigma seemed ok, but the AF felt clunky, and the FOV of the 25mm felt more natural and versatile for me.
And after looking at a lot of images that people have posted, I just liked the look of the PL 25 ones better in general. Although there were also some very nice sigma ones.
So anyway, I am now the proud owner of a new PL 25mm
Now, I have to figure out how to use it properly to get the most from it...
--
http://www.23hq.com/kiri
http://www.flickr.com/photos/memoki/
. . .where Andy says "HUGE."
I know you won't be able to because he didn't, they merely stated that they use the L10 because it is a sharper camera. In reality it is very small, almost unnoticeable.
The difference is about 100 lw/2/17.3 which equals about 2.8 lp/mm-- in every test I have seen between the two cameras on stopped down 50mm primes. Any lens that fails to meet that thresh hold won't see as much net gain.
That is simply not huge, and certainly not enough to get it over the massive hump DIWA's tests indicate.
Moreover, that simply won't be realized in full at the widest apertures because it is clear it isn't even resolving the spec of the sensor there.
As in removing the AA will only help once you lens is at Nyquist.
I was waiting for a test of the Panny so I could see the reaction of the forum fanboys when it gets beat by the "30 year old" Canon lens. I am not shocked that denial is the first stage.
--
--
Comments are always welcome.
Zach Bellino
'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)
I know you won't be able to because he didn't, they merely stated that they use the L10 because it is a sharper camera. In reality it is very small, almost unnoticeable.
The difference is about 100 lw/2/17.3 which equals about 2.8 lp/mm-- in every test I have seen between the two cameras on stopped down 50mm primes. Any lens that fails to meet that thresh hold won't see as much net gain.
That is simply not huge, and certainly not enough to get it over the massive hump DIWA's tests indicate.
Moreover, that simply won't be realized in full at the widest apertures because it is clear it isn't even resolving the spec of the sensor there.
As in removing the AA will only help once you lens is at Nyquist.
I was waiting for a test of the Panny so I could see the reaction of the forum fanboys when it gets beat by the "30 year old" Canon lens. I am not shocked that denial is the first stage.
--
--
Comments are always welcome.
Zach Bellino
'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)
Jonas B
Forum Pro
Are you saying you don't agree with the headline
"The Leica blows the Canon away"
I'm not sure about the EF50/1.4 being 30 years old. I have seen 18y mentioned recently. EF Lens Work III doesn't mention when the design was made. At the Canon Museum there is no block diagram showing the old FD50/1.4 (1971) but they are very similar checking the specifications. Maybe it is 37y old now?
regards,
--
Jonas
Jonas B
Forum Pro
ljmac posted in a thread maxed out at 150:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29377016
...so I reply here instead:
-------------------------------------------
Apology accepted. I still don't know where you got the idea that I should spam people... Strange. Statistics for you:
Mail(s) from John King to me: 1
Mail(s) from me to John King: 0
In short I appreciate seeing images taken by folks I meet here. A gallery or images posted in the forum threads, and an e-mail addy for possible private stuff gives the poster so much more credibility.
You know, anyone can sign up and claim whatever - when figuring out if their posts are worth to read, to think a lot about or not even the bandwidth these things help.
regards,
--
Jonas
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29377016
...so I reply here instead:
-------------------------------------------
Apology accepted. I still don't know where you got the idea that I should spam people... Strange. Statistics for you:
Mail(s) from John King to me: 1
Mail(s) from me to John King: 0
In short I appreciate seeing images taken by folks I meet here. A gallery or images posted in the forum threads, and an e-mail addy for possible private stuff gives the poster so much more credibility.
You know, anyone can sign up and claim whatever - when figuring out if their posts are worth to read, to think a lot about or not even the bandwidth these things help.
regards,
--
Jonas
Fair enough. I still wonder though, what difference does publishing an email address make? I can understand why for the reasons you state you might want to see a gallery, but I can't understand what difference publicising an email address makes.
For the record, I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs that I have to be so relucatant to make my personal information public here, but from what I've seen, it would seem to be a wise precaution.
For the record, I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs that I have to be so relucatant to make my personal information public here, but from what I've seen, it would seem to be a wise precaution.
mfbernstein
Veteran Member
I hope you're right. I have a general sense of Panasonic as a company with clever engineers, but erratic (and often downright poor) market-sense when it comes to cameras. From what I've seen, all of their 4/3 offerings were clever/interesting, drastically overpriced, and each carried at least one major flaw (beyond price).
While it's very early to tell, their interview on 43photo doesn't really inspire confidence...
Cheers,
--
MFBernstein
'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum