Do you still prefer quality primes for 4/ 3rds...?

Crocodile Gena · Feb 11, 2010

FlipinUS said:
FlipinUS said:

jim stirling wrote:

The edge performance of these lenses is absolutely irrelevant , the central objective of these lenses is to isolate the subject , and huge depth of field and edge to edge sharpness would actually be a major disadvantage for their intended use ,most of these lenses are fully usable from wide open.

Click to expand...

FlipinUS said:
FlipinUS wrote:

Jim, like i said , if that is how you want your photos to come out that is perfectly your prerogative. but i think is it disingenuous to say that the edge performance of a lens of this caliber is "absolutely irrelevant". Do you mean to say that in the process of making a painting it's ok if the painter can't paint along the edges because the paint won't stick to the canvas?

If I may presume to speak for Jim, what he meant is that edge performance means nothing when the edges of the image are outside the DOF, since, by definition , elements of the image outside the DOF are not sharp.

FlipinUS said:
I for one would want a tool that will be as neutral as possible so that the image that I want to convey is not tainted by the limitations of the tool and is the image that I, as the photographer want to convey. If the photograph requires depth of field, I can do that. If I want to isolate without vignetting and situate the sujbect off center, I can do that. If I want sharpness throughout the photograph, I can do that. The problem with the Oly line is that they don't have small f2.0 or smaller primes that are small and easier to handle than their excellent SHG zooms.

Before you even consider the sharpness of the lens, you need to consider the DOF. Once you have sufficiently stopped down to where the edges are within the DOF, then you can question how sharp the lens is at the f-ratio that provides the sufficient DOF .

So, sharp edges wide open on FF are usually all but meaningless, even for off-center composition. The only situation that I can think of at the moment where edge sharpness wide open matters is when photographing a flat surface in low light, such as a painting in a museum with low lighting.

Crocodile Gena · Feb 11, 2010

FlipinUS said:
my question is why can't other lens makers make lenses like the Oly 150/2.0? believe me I can vouch for that review, because I own and use one...

There's the Canon 135 / 2L, but it does a completely different job on FF that a 150 / 2 does on 4/3. There's also the Canon 300 / 4L IS which does the same job on FF as the 150 / 2 does on 4/3.

What do I mean by "job"? Well, if we take a pic of the same scene from the same position with a 150 / 2 at f/2 on 4/3, and a 135 / 2L at f/2 on FF, the pics will look nothing alike. But, if we took a pic of the same scene from the same position with a 150 / 2 at f/2 on 4/3, and a 300 / 4L IS at f/4 on FF (even with the ISO raised as necessary to provide a sufficient shutter speed), the pics would look very similar.

Crocodile Gena · Feb 11, 2010

FlipinUS said:
Thanks for your reply, but, what's the point of having a 1.4 aperture lens that is usable wide open and great at 4.0?

Did I read that right? Or did you mean: "what's the point of having a 1.4 aperture lens that is not usable wide open and great at 4.0?"

If you meant what you wrote, I'm not quite sure how to answer that, as it makes a great deal of sense to me to own a lens that is usable at f/1.4 and great at f/4. If, however, you meant what I thought you meant, well, I addressed that exact point here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=34489735

FlipinUS said:
and no i'm not just talking about the 50mm Canon.

with supporting images from the above combo here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=34489299

but I can provide many more examples from many other combinations.

FlipinUS said:
Have you looked at what SLRgear had to say about the 24/1.4? There is as much as 2 stops loss in the corners on a FF camera!!! So there is no extrapolation there.

Since you bring it up, have a gander of how the 24 / 1.4L performs on FF with this gallery of fullsize images:

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/24l

or here:

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/24lgallery

for a greater variety of examples, but resized for web.

As a side, the images there provide an excellent demonstration of edge sharpness bs DOF.

FlipinUS said:
What about the 85/1.2, they said that the softness at the edges is noticeable wide open. We don't even have to talk about the 50/1.4. So, if you want built in vignetting in your images, then use a Canon FF with these lenses. If you are familiar with the 16-9 website, this is their main gripe with Canon lenses. This may also be the main reason that OMZ wides esp 18/3.5,, 21/2.0 and 3.5 and 24/2.8 tend to hold thier value on ebay. Because Canon users know how well they work on their FF cameras. In this regard, Olympus optical quality has held up. No one can fault the optical quality of the SHG zooms. It is the size and weight that are at issue.

Or, just learn how sharpness (especially at the edges), vignetting, and diffraction all relate to DOF:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#dof

FlipinUS said:
I agree with you, but if you look at my statement, what I am trying to say is that Canon, at least up to this point, is really geared towards their FF cameras. My problem is that I DON"T want to afford FF and I DON'T want to carry a huge honking camera. And thus, the call for Olympus to come to their senses and produce excellent primes to match smaller cameras with their improving imaging systems.

Aside from the fact that I think Canon is going full steam with both APS-C and FF, I agree with your sentiments here.

jim stirling · Feb 11, 2010

Crocodile Gena said:
Crocodile Gena said:

Crocodile Gena said:

jim stirling wrote:

The edge performance of these lenses is absolutely irrelevant , the central objective of these lenses is to isolate the subject , and huge depth of field and edge to edge sharpness would actually be a major disadvantage for their intended use ,most of these lenses are fully usable from wide open.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Crocodile Gena said:

FlipinUS wrote:

Jim, like i said , if that is how you want your photos to come out that is perfectly your prerogative. but i think is it disingenuous to say that the edge performance of a lens of this caliber is "absolutely irrelevant". Do you mean to say that in the process of making a painting it's ok if the painter can't paint along the edges because the paint won't stick to the canvas?

Click to expand...

If I may presume to speak for Jim, what he meant is that edge performance means nothing when the edges of the image are outside the DOF, since, by definition , elements of the image outside the DOF are not sharp.

That is indeed what I was saying and I have personally sold 1000's of images using FF lenses with very many taken wide open, the majority taken with the much maligned Nikon 70-200VR and the 85L can deliver totally unique images. If corner to corner sharpness and infinite depth of field was my main objective I would be using a compact. Although it may sometimes seem so , we as professional photographers are not spendthrifts and buy equipment which best serves our purposes and there are very good reasons for the popularity of very fast primes amongst professional photographers.
jIM

Winder · Feb 11, 2010

If you are the type of photographer who does not know what, where, when, or how he will be shooting then zooms are the right tool, and for a lot of people (including photojournalist) they are the best choice.

If you are the type of photographer who know what, where, when, and how he/she will be shoot then you probably do not need more than 2 prime lenses. A large % of shooters carry a back-up body with a second prime already attached, so there is no changing lenses.

There is a poster on this board who regularly posts outstanding portraits taken with the 50mm f/2. That is the only lens I have seen used in any of the 100's of images he has posted. Yes he could use a 35-100 to take the same pictures, but why would he want to? The 35-100 costs 4x as much and weighs more than the full frame 70-200 f/2.8's from Canon and Nikon. While my 35-100 is an outstandingly sharp piece of glass it is not as sharp as the 50mm f/2.0.

When shooting indoors in available light I want fast glass. I want a lens that does not scream "LOOK AT ME" like my 35-100 does. I want something I can slip under a jacket (I can put my 5D with my 85L under my jacket and keep it out of sight). The Pentax K-7 with the DA*55mm f/1.4 (85mm equivalent) is pretty compact. I would expect an Olympus version to be a little bigger, but it would still be welcome.

One thing that people seem to overlook when they spend all day comparing resolution charts is that a lens like an 85L does not need to be sharp around the edges at F/1.2. The DoF is so narrow that it is extremely rare for the edges to even be in focus. Technically the 85L is a poor performing lens at F/1.2, but artistically it is one of the most amazing lenses in the Canon line-up.

Sam610 · Feb 11, 2010

Winder said:
If you are the type of photographer who does not know what, where, when, or how he will be shooting then zooms are the right tool, and for a lot of people (including photojournalist) they are the best choice.

Really, I don't think so.

Winder said:
If you are the type of photographer who know what, where, when, and how he/she will be shoot then you probably do not need more than 2 prime lenses. A large % of shooters carry a back-up body with a second prime already attached, so there is no changing lenses.

This type of photographer will occasionally miss the shots, the right compositions.

Winder said:
There is a poster on this board who regularly posts outstanding portraits taken with the 50mm f/2. That is the only lens I have seen used in any of the 100's of images he has posted. Yes he could use a 35-100 to take the same pictures, but why would he want to? The 35-100 costs 4x as much and weighs more than the full frame 70-200 f/2.8's from Canon and Nikon. While my 35-100 is an outstandingly sharp piece of glass it is not as sharp as the 50mm f/2.0.

While I don't have 35-100mm lens, my observation with other lenses in 35mm format. A high quality zoom is very close in sharpness compare to prime, the tiny differennces are only seen when pixel peeping.

Winder said:
When shooting indoors in available light I want fast glass. I want a lens that does not scream "LOOK AT ME" like my 35-100 does. I want something I can slip under a jacket (I can put my 5D with my 85L under my jacket and keep it out of sight). The Pentax K-7 with the DA*55mm f/1.4 (85mm equivalent) is pretty compact. I would expect an Olympus version to be a little bigger, but it would still be welcome.

My brother who uses Canon and has 85mm 1.2L lens. This lens is huge, and with the hood attached, it loudly screams " Look at me". I can notice 85mm 1.2L from a mile away. The Pentax DA lenses are fine.

Winder said:
One thing that people seem to overlook when they spend all day comparing resolution charts is that a lens like an 85L does not need to be sharp around the edges at F/1.2. The DoF is so narrow that it is extremely rare for the edges to even be in focus. Technically the 85L is a poor performing lens at F/1.2, but artistically it is one of the most amazing lenses in the Canon line-up.

Agree, I think most people don't like the look of extreme shallow DOF but if very shallow DOF is what someones are after, then 4/3 system is a wrong choice.

Sam H.

Winder · Feb 11, 2010

Sam610 said:
Winder said:

If you are the type of photographer who does not know what, where, when, or how he will be shooting then zooms are the right tool, and for a lot of people (including photojournalist) they are the best choice.

Click to expand...

Really, I don't think so.

What part are you disagreeing with?

The majority of studio and commercial photography is done with prime lenses where the photographer know what, when, how, & where they will be shooting.

It is hard for me to imagine any professional photographer who plan the what, where, when or how. Even when shooting events where I do not know a lot of the information before hand I have a pretty good idea what I am going to accomplish and how I am going to go about it. I have not had a zoom lens on my 5D in years, and I do not own any zoom lenses for my Contax 645.

Sam610 said:
Sam610 said:

If you are the type of photographer who know what, where, when, and how he/she will be shoot then you probably do not need more than 2 prime lenses. A large % of shooters carry a back-up body with a second prime already attached, so there is no changing lenses.

Click to expand...

This type of photographer will occasionally miss the shots, the right compositions.

Need to tell that to all the people who made their living shooting MF. The majority of professional photography is still done with prime lenses. Look on the sidelines of a sporting event and tell me how many long primes do you see?

Sam610 said:
Sam610 said:

There is a poster on this board who regularly posts outstanding portraits taken with the 50mm f/2. That is the only lens I have seen used in any of the 100's of images he has posted. Yes he could use a 35-100 to take the same pictures, but why would he want to? The 35-100 costs 4x as much and weighs more than the full frame 70-200 f/2.8's from Canon and Nikon. While my 35-100 is an outstandingly sharp piece of glass it is not as sharp as the 50mm f/2.0.

Click to expand...

While I don't have 35-100mm lens, my observation with other lenses in 35mm format. A high quality zoom is very close in sharpness compare to prime, the tiny differennces are only seen when pixel peeping.

Sam610 said:

When shooting indoors in available light I want fast glass. I want a lens that does not scream "LOOK AT ME" like my 35-100 does. I want something I can slip under a jacket (I can put my 5D with my 85L under my jacket and keep it out of sight). The Pentax K-7 with the DA*55mm f/1.4 (85mm equivalent) is pretty compact. I would expect an Olympus version to be a little bigger, but it would still be welcome.

Click to expand...

My brother who uses Canon and has 85mm 1.2L lens. This lens is huge, and with the hood attached, it loudly screams " Look at me". I can notice 85mm 1.2L from a mile away. The Pentax DA lenses are fine.

Sam610 said:

One thing that people seem to overlook when they spend all day comparing resolution charts is that a lens like an 85L does not need to be sharp around the edges at F/1.2. The DoF is so narrow that it is extremely rare for the edges to even be in focus. Technically the 85L is a poor performing lens at F/1.2, but artistically it is one of the most amazing lenses in the Canon line-up.

Click to expand...

Agree, I think most people don't like the look of extreme shallow DOF but if very shallow DOF is what someones are after, then 4/3 system is a wrong choice.

Sam H.

FlipinUS · Feb 11, 2010

Crocodile Gena said:
Crocodile Gena said:

Crocodile Gena said:

jim stirling wrote:

The edge performance of these lenses is absolutely irrelevant , the central objective of these lenses is to isolate the subject , and huge depth of field and edge to edge sharpness would actually be a major disadvantage for their intended use ,most of these lenses are fully usable from wide open.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Crocodile Gena said:

FlipinUS wrote:

Jim, like i said , if that is how you want your photos to come out that is perfectly your prerogative. but i think is it disingenuous to say that the edge performance of a lens of this caliber is "absolutely irrelevant". Do you mean to say that in the process of making a painting it's ok if the painter can't paint along the edges because the paint won't stick to the canvas?

Click to expand...

If I may presume to speak for Jim, what he meant is that edge performance means nothing when the edges of the image are outside the DOF, since, by definition , elements of the image outside the DOF are not sharp.

Crocodile Gena, greetings, I hope you had read the whole series before this discussion because if you did, you would see that the reason this whole topic came about was because I was trying my old prime OMZ lenses on a Canon 5D to see if it was a combinations that I would like to try for my photography. Now, I am regretting that I followed that with a comment about problems with Canon lens performance in FF citing issues that had been brought up elsewhere and mentioning sites like 16-9 where they evaluate use of non-Canon lenses on FF Canon cameras. Now, someone brought up the Canon 85/1.2 stating that this was and excellent lens and that it had the thinnest DOF available anywhere. I then mentioned that in the review of SLRgear, and I quote, "there is noticeable softness of the edges wide open". This is where Jim's statement came in. What I want to point out is that we should be able to differentiate between a personal/artistic/subjective preference from a technical characteristic of the lens. So, Jim's statement that the edge performance is "absolutely irrelevant" for a lens of this type is, at least to me, personal/artistic subjective preference. We must not negate the finding of SLRgear that there is "noticeable edge softness"

Crocodile Gena said:
Crocodile Gena said:

I for one would want a tool that will be as neutral as possible so that the image that I want to convey is not tainted by the limitations of the tool and is the image that I, as the photographer want to convey. If the photograph requires depth of field, I can do that. If I want to isolate without vignetting and situate the sujbect off center, I can do that. If I want sharpness throughout the photograph, I can do that. The problem with the Oly line is that they don't have small f2.0 or smaller primes that are small and easier to handle than their excellent SHG zooms.

Click to expand...

Before you even consider the sharpness of the lens, you need to consider the DOF. Once you have sufficiently stopped down to where the edges are within the DOF, then you can question how sharp the lens is at the f-ratio that provides the sufficient DOF .

This again, and please refer to the review of the DZ 150/2.0 here: http : http://www . slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/39/cat/14 is what I have been trying to illustrate. There are lenses out there that do have great edge sharpness wide open at f2.0. And I quote: "incredibly sharp results: from wide open at ƒ 2 to ƒ 11, it barely surpasses one blur unit....absolutely superb performance." (This absolutely word is really getting me in trouble.) so with a lens like this, one does not need to to look for that f stop where the edges are sharp.... it is sharp period. If you bother to look at the DZ 50/2.0, you will find the same type or technical performance.

Crocodile Gena said:
So, sharp edges wide open on FF are usually all but meaningless, even for off-center composition. The only situation that I can think of at the moment where edge sharpness wide open matters is when photographing a flat surface in low light, such as a painting in a museum with low lighting.

And this is where we differ. What I am trying to point out here is that there are lenses out there that are true to the image. They do not color it. No 2 stop loss vignetting in the edges, no noticeable softness in the edges and no excessive CA. I want my lenses to transmit that image to the sensor as faithfully as possible. That gives me a chance to manipulate it anyway I want to in post. If soft edges don't intrude into your photographic process, I'm glad for you. But I don't buy the part that edge sharpness is meaningless. Most especially for an off-center subject. Every part of that canvas is important. Because attention to every detail is what makes a good photograph.

Sam610 · Feb 11, 2010

Winder said:
Sam610 said:

Winder said:

If you are the type of photographer who does not know what, where, when, or how he will be shooting then zooms are the right tool, and for a lot of people (including photojournalist) they are the best choice.

Click to expand...

Really, I don't think so.

Click to expand...

What part are you disagreeing with?

The majority of studio and commercial photography is done with prime lenses where the photographer know what, when, how, & where they will be shooting.

It is hard for me to imagine any professional photographer who plan the what, where, when or how. Even when shooting events where I do not know a lot of the information before hand I have a pretty good idea what I am going to accomplish and how I am going to go about it. I have not had a zoom lens on my 5D in years, and I do not own any zoom lenses for my Contax 645.

I did not disagree with what you said about a photographer who plans ahead for what primes that he needs. What I meant is with the zooms he can accomplish the tasks as well. Choosing to use the primes is only a matter of preference. What I also disagree is about zoom is for those who do not know what prime should he take. I am sure many people know very well about the lens angle coverage and aperture control but still prefer to use zoom for it's versatility. The MD or large format you mention is irrelevant. These format simply don't have zoom, or zoom is impractical to make.

Winder said:
Winder said:

Winder said:

If you are the type of photographer who know what, where, when, and how he/she will be shoot then you probably do not need more than 2 prime lenses. A large % of shooters carry a back-up body with a second prime already attached, so there is no changing lenses.

Click to expand...

This type of photographer will occasionally miss the shots, the right compositions.

Click to expand...

Need to tell that to all the people who made their living shooting MF. The majority of professional photography is still done with prime lenses. Look on the sidelines of a sporting event and tell me how many long primes do you see?

That is right, prime is more preferrable in some circumstances, and I did mention it alreay above this thread.

Winder said:
Winder said:

Sam H.

Click to expand...

Crocodile Gena · Feb 11, 2010

FlipinUS said:
FlipinUS said:

Crocodile Gena wrote:

So, sharp edges wide open on FF are usually all but meaningless, even for off-center composition. The only situation that I can think of at the moment where edge sharpness wide open matters is when photographing a flat surface in low light, such as a painting in a museum with low lighting.

Click to expand...

FlipinUS said:
FlipinUS wrote:

And this is where we differ. What I am trying to point out here is that there are lenses out there that are true to the image. They do not color it. No 2 stop loss vignetting in the edges, no noticeable softness in the edges and no excessive CA. I want my lenses to transmit that image to the sensor as faithfully as possible. That gives me a chance to manipulate it anyway I want to in post. If soft edges don't intrude into your photographic process, I'm glad for you. But I don't buy the part that edge sharpness is meaningless. Most especially for an off-center subject. Every part of that canvas is important. Because attention to every detail is what makes a good photograph.

First things first: you understand, of course, that if elements of the image are outside the DOF, then, by definition , those elements will not be rendered sharply, right?

Given that you agree with this fundamental point, I would like to ask you a question: what subject would you shoot wide open with an 85 / 1.2L on FF that would have the edges within the DOF?

Next question: given that you have a subject where the edge sharpness matters, what is preventing you to stop down the 85 / 1.2L to achieve the necessary DOF to get the edges within the DOF to be rendered sharply? Because, as I'm sure you're aware, the 85 / 1.2L is wicked sharp all the way to the edges when stopped down, and the stopping down is necessary if only to get a DOF deep enough to include the focal point and the edges.

wjlonien · Feb 11, 2010

Soren47 said:
I am very happy with Olympus's intermediate line of weather-sealed lenses.

I'm even happy with my SG kit lenses so far, but...

Soren47 said:
I'm a photo enthusiast but really can't justify paying $2000+ for a lens. Have a hard enough time convincing my wife on the $1000 for the other lenses.

I can wholeheartedly second that (even the f2/50mm macro is a bit out of range ATM, so I ordered an OM 1.8/50 and an adapter for a total of some 70€ lately).

But:

I'm also buying new glasses tomorrow, and read a bit about that. Did you know for instance that Schott over here in Mainz (they're also in the US, and in Malaysia for instance) produces 150+ different optical glasses for makers like Zeiss, Canon and the like? There are some pointers about that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrective_lens where they write that a glass for a recent Canon lens costs 16 times the price of the "next best" one, so in some cases it seems that high lens prices may fully be justified - even if you and me could never afford those (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrective_lens#Lens_materials ).

Back to the original question:

From my choice of even an old, manual, and most probably not so sharp lens but with a max aperture of 1.8, I can say: yes, I definitely want fast and quality primes! And while the 50mm macro is surely great and will be purchased by me as soon as I can, I'm also missing some primes with apertures of 1.4 and 25mm, and 2.8/12mm and/or 2.0/14mm. 40 or 42 mm with 1.8 or better would be really cool, hell everything in the range (most important for me: 12 to 67.5mm). And to have a choice between SG, HG, and UHG would be even better.

Wish they had something like the m43 PL 1.7/20mm as a walkaround... really thinking about that one, together with an E-PL1 for Mitchie (my wife).

cheers,
Wolfgang

Rriley · Feb 11, 2010

Crocodile Gena said:
Crocodile Gena said:

Crocodile Gena said:

Crocodile Gena wrote:

So, sharp edges wide open on FF are usually all but meaningless, even for off-center composition. The only situation that I can think of at the moment where edge sharpness wide open matters is when photographing a flat surface in low light, such as a painting in a museum with low lighting.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Crocodile Gena said:

FlipinUS wrote:

And this is where we differ. What I am trying to point out here is that there are lenses out there that are true to the image. They do not color it. No 2 stop loss vignetting in the edges, no noticeable softness in the edges and no excessive CA. I want my lenses to transmit that image to the sensor as faithfully as possible. That gives me a chance to manipulate it anyway I want to in post. If soft edges don't intrude into your photographic process, I'm glad for you. But I don't buy the part that edge sharpness is meaningless. Most especially for an off-center subject. Every part of that canvas is important. Because attention to every detail is what makes a good photograph.

Click to expand...

First things first: you understand, of course, that if elements of the image are outside the DOF, then, by definition , those elements will not be rendered sharply, right?

yup

i can recall reading about one portrait photographer who preferred a particular WA lens, i cant remember which but Im sure it was a canon, perhaps the 16-35/2.8. Anyway this lens had the attribute of a curved focus field, and the photographer would setup the models pose so that the arms etc would embrace/follow this curved field. I always thought that was pretty dam clever...

Crocodile Gena said:
Given that you agree with this fundamental point, I would like to ask you a question: what subject would you shoot wide open with an 85 / 1.2L on FF that would have the edges within the DOF?

we have all seen models posed at the edge of the frame sometimes covering two entire sides, sitting with the torso on one side of the frame and legs stretched across the bottom of the frame. Or standing legs on the side of the frame with the torso bent over at the top. Im pretty sure ive seen studio shot portraits like that for album covers, cant remember which...

OTOH maybe this isnt common anymore b/se of these lens attributes

Crocodile Gena said:
Next question: given that you have a subject where the edge sharpness matters, what is preventing you to stop down the 85 / 1.2L to achieve the necessary DOF to get the edges within the DOF to be rendered sharply? Because, as I'm sure you're aware, the 85 / 1.2L is wicked sharp all the way to the edges when stopped down, and the stopping down is necessary if only to get a DOF deep enough to include the focal point and the edges.

well how about the 85/1.4 is less costly than the 1.2

and if this were about WA/UWA, it would be a very different matter...

--
ʎǝlıɹ

plɹoʍ ǝɥʇ ɟo doʇ uo ǝɹɐ ǝʍ 'ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ uı

Sergey_Green · Feb 11, 2010

Rriley said:
..

we have all seen models posed at the edge of the frame sometimes covering two entire sides, sitting with the torso on one side of the frame and legs stretched across the bottom of the frame. Or standing legs on the side of the frame with the torso bent over at the top. Im pretty sure ive seen studio shot portraits like that for album covers, cant remember which...

OTOH maybe this isnt common anymore b/se of these lens attributes

What alternatives there should be. Ok, you came across a shot that you can not remember, and there most likely exist some other alternatives to shoot what you have described with. But stopping down a bit would do the job just as fine. The vast majority of the usage is not about the corners anyway (since you can not even remember where you saw it).

--
http://www.pbase.com/sngreen

DragosJianu · Feb 11, 2010

It's amazing that every time a lens argument get's stirred up people always withdraw to the "perfect wide open corner to corner" 50mm f/2 trench. As if only Zuiko could make a perfectly sharp macro lens. If you want to compare macro lenses, the 50mm f/2 isn't even one of the best. The 100mm f/2.8 and 100mm f/2.8 IS L are optical twins. Feel free to compare

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_100_2p8_is_usm_c16/page4.asp with
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_50_2_o20/page3.asp

The poor Oly doesn't even manage to outresolve L10's sensor wide open, hardly reaching 1125 MTF whereas the canon macro outresolves the 21MP resor even wide open peaking at 2100 MTF. Hell, even on APSC it's still performs better.

Does that mean that a macro lens is the benchmark of all lenses ? Far from it. There is no perfect lens out there. All lenses have their flaws, and in the case of macro lenses their fatal flaw is speed. Comparing a f/2.8-f/4 macro lens to a speed demon f/1.2 lens is like comparing a small city car to a premium sports car and nagging about the sport car's peak in gallons per mile at top speed.

Nagging about the extreme corners at f/1.2, even though they're 99% way out of the plane of focus even when shooting at MFD ( see http://www.flickr.com/photos/pompob/4161010529/in/set-72157619360528809/ ) is simply ridiculous. You first have to consider the huge engineering achievement of making an 85mm that sucks in 6 times the amount of light that an f/2.8 lens in the first place, while being tack sharp across 80% of the frame without any spherical aberrations (read hazy, low contrast look) wide open, then consider how many brands managed such an achievement in history, then consider the implications of that shallow DoF in practical terms. You would realize that the nagging is about as ridiculous as complaining that a dragster doesn't have leather seats. Unless of course you shoot only test charts for a living. Even so, at f/2, the 85 f/1.2 + 5D(2) beats the resolving power of the 50mm f/2 + L10 just by about a mile, so no matter how you put it, any complain, given the overall stellar performance for an f/1.2 lens, any complain is splitting hair.

Rriley · Feb 11, 2010

DragosJianu said:
It's amazing that every time a lens argument get's stirred up people always withdraw to the "perfect wide open corner to corner" 50mm f/2 trench. As if only Zuiko could make a perfectly sharp macro lens. If you want to compare macro lenses, the 50mm f/2 isn't even one of the best. The 100mm f/2.8 and 100mm f/2.8 IS L are optical twins. Feel free to compare

not an uncommon discussion on the Canon FF forum either

there are good reasons to be concerned about corner/edge performance, thats why all quality lens reviews include the MTF and some discussion on that. People know this to be a weakness of Canon FF, thats why its used in response here.

what is also not uncommon, is that for some reason the serial trolls here always retreat to 4/3rds cant beat 'this or that' aspect of FF, avoiding comparison with APSC its real competition

so please examine the 100/2.8 macro on 50D at equivalent DoF and tell me which lens performance you feel you can write home about... b/se there aint much between them.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=67,32&fullscreen=true&av=3,2.667&fl=100,50&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F2

--
ʎǝlıɹ

plɹoʍ ǝɥʇ ɟo doʇ uo ǝɹɐ ǝʍ 'ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ uı

John King · Feb 11, 2010

Gidday fellow Olympus and other 4/3rds users; and trolls ...

Every single time any discussion of lenses comes up on this forum the same group of trolls etc show up here to "correct, inform and educate" us all as to the error of our ways in choosing Olympus and/or 4/3rds, and how this lens or that lens costing whatever will do exactly the same thing, only better; specially if one conveniently ignores any and all shortcomings of that lens/system ...

Why don't you all just go and enjoy taking photos that suit you, with gear that suits you, and allow us to do the same thing, IN PEACE?

Personally, I really couldn't give a rat's behind about the performance of the Canon f1.2/85 L Mk VI, used on a body I wouldn't be able to carry even if I chose to afford it ... Quite possibly, some people on the Canon forum may be ...

Looking at a list of threads that have been locked by the moderators here, it is interesting to note that the same set of posters are involved in them all, even when the thread is on (say) the News Discussion forum ...

Every thread on lenses, or bodies, here on this forum seems to attract the same posters (under one pseudonym or another ... ) who always turn the thread into a fight about "equivalence", and/or how Olympus fails to measure up because it cannot do non-existent DoF ...

This makes it almost impossible to have any sort of rational discussion on this forum about our gear of choice.

What a load of complete and utter b/s!

I suggest that these people :

Grow up.
Get a life.
Realise that most people prefer the equipment that they have chosen for their reasons, whatever that gear is, and whatever those reasons may be. Get over it .

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php

Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

DragosJianu · Feb 12, 2010

Rriley said:
so please examine the 100/2.8 macro on 50D at equivalent DoF and tell me which lens performance you feel you can write home about... b/se there aint much between them.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=67,32&fullscreen=true&av=3,2.667&fl=100,50&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F2

What I don't understand is, why did you choose to close the 50mm f/2 by almost one stop to f/2.5? I though true lenses were all about wide open perfection corner to corner, right ?

Was it because it's all green wide open, without even a tint of blue, or are you trying to imply that crazy equivalence theory ? I though we were talking about lens performance wide open, because otherwise, if we take the equivalence route, even the sharpness flagship 50 f/2 becomes only mediocre when taking into account the megapixel difference between the two sensors too

As to why people choose to talk FF rather then APSC, even if FF has that "dreadful corners" issue, is because people that are really interested in quality can buy a mint 5D for less then the price of a new 50D, or a 5D2 for not much more then 7D. FF has become an affordable option to cramped mp/cm2 marketing gimmicks

rovingtim · Feb 12, 2010

Harold66 said:
Most photographers have TOO MANY lenses. Having so many lenses prevents photographers to develop a vision

You and I have had our disagreements but this is a wisdom that is frequently lost in our choice ridden consumer society.

Constraints force creativity whereas a lack of constraints tends to generate chaos.

Probably not your thing but think of the original Star Wars where Lucas had almost no money with the one he made when he was so rich he didn't have to listen to anyone.

Here's a video making the general point (nothng to do with Star Wars):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM&feature=player_embedded

Rriley · Feb 12, 2010

DragosJianu said:
Rriley said:

so please examine the 100/2.8 macro on 50D at equivalent DoF and tell me which lens performance you feel you can write home about... b/se there aint much between them.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=67,32&fullscreen=true&av=3,2.667&fl=100,50&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F2

Click to expand...

What I don't understand is, why did you choose to close the 50mm f/2 by almost one stop to f/2.5? I though true lenses were all about wide open perfection corner to corner, right ?

as it happens, this has been one of those days when i saw all that from the start, and Joe might have had cause to comment that these lenses would be exhibiting different DoF, and i confess would have some sympathy for that.

DragosJianu said:
Was it because it's all green wide open, without even a tint of blue, or are you trying to imply that crazy equivalence theory ?

see, i just knew we would get here

DragosJianu said:
I though we were talking about lens performance wide open, because otherwise, if we take the equivalence route, even the sharpness flagship 50 f/2 becomes only mediocre when taking into account the megapixel difference between the two sensors too

i took it that, even the most talentless bimbo could figure that out, and adjust the F stop to facilitate that view. But then, you did require that the 100/2.8 was a better lens, and THAT is the case i took to hold

you set it up with
"The 100mm f/2.8 and 100mm f/2.8 IS L are optical twins. Feel free to compare"

so i guess felt free to compare, and then you said

"The poor Oly doesn't even manage to outresolve L10's sensor wide open, hardly reaching 1125 MTF whereas the canon macro outresolves the 21MP resor even wide open peaking at 2100 MTF. Hell, even on APSC it's still performs better . "

so now weve chewed the chaff and got the dance goin,
and i might add, an entirely predictable repertoire

and here we all are standin on street corner waiting to see how this lens still performs better than t'other

so you tell me bub,....... is it ?

so lets wait for Joe to arrive and discuss how these different FL lenses cant really be compared when the 100 is mounted to an APSC, no matter how much you slide those little things around. That will keep him in rent..

your an easy sucker really..

and theres your smiley..

next

--
ʎǝlıɹ

plɹoʍ ǝɥʇ ɟo doʇ uo ǝɹɐ ǝʍ 'ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ uı

DragosJianu · Feb 12, 2010

Wow, let's start name calling and insulting each other, that's a far better option...

As to the wide open difference between the 50mm f/2 and 100 f/2.8, hopefully that will help you understand the point of speed - why you can't judge a much faster lens wide open to a much slower lens wide open and say "that f/1.2-f/1.4 lens sucks! look! it's not as "perfect" wide open as my f/2 lens!". It's just as perfectly expectable that the f/2 macro isn't as sharp wide open as the f/2.8 macro wide open because it's twice as fast. it's all about compromises

Do you still prefer quality primes for 4/ 3rds...?

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Active member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts