Actually I want/need it to be very sharp in the corners. Most of my shots the focus point is more to the corners than to the center. Photography 101.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
20mm 1.7 sharpness wide open
- Thread starter agc1976
- Start date
mpgxsvcd
Veteran Member
Yes outdoors I always use the 14-140mm with the GH2. However, the 14-140mm is hopelessly useless indoors. I use the 20mm most of the time but its autofocus is just too slow for my tastes.
I should get the 25mm F1.4 and 45mm F1.8 in the next couple of weeks. I will use those indoors instead of the 20mm. However, I will still keep the 20mm for those times when I want the camera to be super small.
I love the concept of the X lens. However, those aperture ranges are useless for my needs. I shoot indoors with very dim lighting way too often to use those lenses. I had the 14-45mm and used it once outdoors before selling it to someone on this board.
The 14-45mm was useless indoors and its range was not enough for outdoors. I wouldn’t have bought the 14-140mm if I wasn’t forced to in order to get the GH2. I am glad I have it for outdoor work with the GH2. However, I would much rather have the 12-35mm and 35-100mm fast lenses. Those will ultimately find their way into my home. Even if it means selling all of my other lenses.
GH2, GF1, & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums
I should get the 25mm F1.4 and 45mm F1.8 in the next couple of weeks. I will use those indoors instead of the 20mm. However, I will still keep the 20mm for those times when I want the camera to be super small.
I love the concept of the X lens. However, those aperture ranges are useless for my needs. I shoot indoors with very dim lighting way too often to use those lenses. I had the 14-45mm and used it once outdoors before selling it to someone on this board.
The 14-45mm was useless indoors and its range was not enough for outdoors. I wouldn’t have bought the 14-140mm if I wasn’t forced to in order to get the GH2. I am glad I have it for outdoor work with the GH2. However, I would much rather have the 12-35mm and 35-100mm fast lenses. Those will ultimately find their way into my home. Even if it means selling all of my other lenses.
--
GH2, GF1, & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums
mpgxsvcd
Veteran Member
In the corners or in the "3rds". There is a difference.
GH2, GF1, & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums
--
GH2, GF1, & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums
ZoranC
Veteran Member
Not my fault that you don't see what number of people have felt from day one EPL1 came out.
ZoranC
Veteran Member
I'd say that anyone who offers shot taken with sensor that is much sharper from a get go as something to base guess how sharp some lens would be on sensor with heavier AA filter is a clueless hack and thus not qualified to speak with authority who is an idiot as he wouldn't be able to recognize one even when he sees him every day in the mirror.
ZoranC
Veteran Member
Now I am positive your lens is on a soft side. I have number of shots from similar distance of objects similar in structure and they are sharper than that.Here's a sharp shot I was able to get of a subject similar to papillon_65. I think it's close in sharpness. Good enough for me (after sharpening).
Maybe the lens is slightly softer at a distance?
ZoranC
Veteran Member
Very few lens are very sharp in the corners wide open.
Oh, you lured me back with that bit of silliness. Let's see what DPR has to say about the sharpness of the E-PL1 vs. the E-P2:
"The E-PL1's advantage over the E-P2 are still visible in RAW. Again the differences are subtle but the PL1 gets a tiny bit more detail [emphasis mine] out of what is, in essence, the same sensor."
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusEPL1/page14.asp
Say all you want, but the test photos speak for themselves, and if that's not good enough, I'll take DPR's opinion over yours any day.
To the OP, worry about what ZoranC has to say on this matter if you like, but I wouldn't. Look at the test photos on that page and tell me if you think there's a "big skew" worth of difference or not. I don't think so, and DPR didn't think so, either.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/
Please stop the nonsense and name calling. The E-PL1 does not have a "much sharper" sensor than the E-P2, or any of the PENs, for that matter. Pretending otherwise to prop up your position does nothing to help the OP, and it doesn't make you look so good, either.
"The E-PL1's advantage over the E-P2 are still visible in RAW. Again the differences are subtle but the PL1 gets a tiny bit more detail out of what is, in essence, the same sensor."
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusEPL1/page14.asp
Froth away, Z.
You're still wrong.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/
Great! Let's see those proof positive photos, or are you too busy insulting others to post them?Now I am positive your lens is on a soft side. I have number of shots from similar distance of objects similar in structure and they are sharper than that.Here's a sharp shot I was able to get of a subject similar to papillon_65. I think it's close in sharpness. Good enough for me (after sharpening).
Maybe the lens is slightly softer at a distance?
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/
papillon_65
Forum Pro
As far as I'm aware, and I'm sure EP-3 owners will confirm this, the EPL-1 is not "much" sharper than the EP-3, it is a little sharper. A lens that is sharp does not change its characteristics on a different sensor (Of the same format/size and same MP count). It will still be a sharp lens and you will still see that it is a sharp lens. I've owned cameras with heavy AA filters and light AA filters so, unlike yourself it would seem, I can speak with confidence on this subject. If your opinion was correct then there woud be separate lens designs to account for the effects of a heavier AA filter wouldn't there? As far as I'm aware, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, there isn't.
The OP is obviously not that experienced in understanding what is a sharp lens and what isn't, and how distance to subject or dof and focusing affects the appearance of sharpness. He has an excuse, we all have to start somewhere. You don't really have an excuse, you're just an argumentative fool.
I think the most appropriate advice I can give you is this most relevant quote:
"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
That's pretty much all I have left to say to you.
--
It's a known fact that where there's tea there's hope.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
papillon_65
Forum Pro
That looks to be what I would expect in terms of sharpness, at that distance, from the 20mm F1.7 wide open. I don't think you are accounting for the effects of dof. The bag also looks very sharp because it is somewhat isolated by the shallow dof gained from shooting at that distance. It enhances the appearance of sharpness. Your original shot was clearly taken from a greater distance and the dof is therefore greater, resulting in less subject isolation and reducing the "appearance" of sharpness of the central subject. The 20mm F1.7 is not long enough to give you the sharpness "pop" that I think you are looking for.
You need a longer focal length and lens with excellent microcontrast, as well as a fast aperture. The best lens I have for this is the ZD 50mm F2. Here is a shot below demonstrating what I am trying to say. This was taken a good 12 feet+ from the subject, it was also manually focused on the EPL-1. It has nothing to do with the camera and everything to do with the lens. Any Pen would render this shot the same with this lens. It's worth noting that this was also shot at f2 and not F1.7 (F2 is the max aperture of this lens).
I think the new M.zuiko 45mm F1.8 may also be capable of similar results.
--
It's a known fact that where there's tea there's hope.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
papillon_65
Forum Pro
Further to my last post, it is not that the 20mm F1.7 is not sharp wide open in any way, even at distance. It is more to do with the focal length of the lens, the distance to subject (dof) and the impact of this on the appearance of sharpness. A longer focal length, excellent microcontrast and a fast aperture will enhance the appearance of sharpness and give your original subject more "pop" than the 20mm F1.7 will. The characteristics of the 20mm F1.7 are it's ability to isolate a subject shooting close up (and retaining a reasonably wide fov), shooting in low light and sharpness across the frame when stopped down. You expecting more from this lens than it is capable of for your original shot. If that is the type of shot you like to take then the 45mm F1.8 will be a far better lens for you.
--
It's a known fact that where there's tea there's hope.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
--
It's a known fact that where there's tea there's hope.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
the lust for... are perhaps the most sure signs of photographic illiteracy.
Sharpness because it is only subjective - perhaps they mean resolution? Which is an entirely different matter...
Sensitivity, because you need LIGHT to sculpt shapes - bad light will never do, the proverbial black cat in a coal cave was never recorded as a masterpiece, I gather.
And speaking of photography and of your ill breeding (despite your allegedly being an outstanding photographer - these things can concur), I just bought a smalll album of HCD where most subjects are actually slightly OOF, and some blatantly so.
I guess that HCB used OOF for expressionistic purposes, or didn't overly care. Insight will never be replaced by pedantic sharpness - you cannot buy it.
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
Sharpness because it is only subjective - perhaps they mean resolution? Which is an entirely different matter...
Sensitivity, because you need LIGHT to sculpt shapes - bad light will never do, the proverbial black cat in a coal cave was never recorded as a masterpiece, I gather.
And speaking of photography and of your ill breeding (despite your allegedly being an outstanding photographer - these things can concur), I just bought a smalll album of HCD where most subjects are actually slightly OOF, and some blatantly so.
I guess that HCB used OOF for expressionistic purposes, or didn't overly care. Insight will never be replaced by pedantic sharpness - you cannot buy it.
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
ZoranC
Veteran Member
453C wrote tons of stuff plus :
To OP: FWIW to you, second shot definitely makes me feel your results are on soft side when compared to my results.
We could have this game of quoting others back and forth whole day long, I don't care, I know what I see in front of me and I don't care about wasting my weekend time on proving some anonymous on Internet wrong, you can have last word
To OP: FWIW to you, second shot definitely makes me feel your results are on soft side when compared to my results.
ZoranC
Veteran Member
OP has a concern whether his lens is performing as well as good copy of this lens on same body should perform. That is not lust for sharpness, that is simply making sure that what you purchased is not a dud. Two hugely different things and "art" has nothing to do with later one.
Where do you see softness on the second shot? Is it on the strap? The texture of the stras looks like that. The bag itself looks pretty sharp IMHO.
FlashInThePan
Senior Member
The PL25 will not be necessarily sharper wide open, but you can definitely expect better bokeh.
--
Jonathan
--
Jonathan
I can clearly see the texture of the bag trim, stitching, lint, and the threads of the bag fabric. The closer end of the bag is in focus, and the resolution is what I expect from the 20mm.
I don't know what ZoranC continues to go on about, and I suspect he doesn't, either. He continues to argue for argument's sake, just as he has in many other threads. I wouldn't care, but I believe he's causing you to have undo concern about your lens.
Note that he can't be bothered to post any of his many photos that illustrate how soft your lens is in comparison, or post any reviews that support his erroneous contention that the resolution of the E-PL1 is dramatically superior to other PENs. In his opinion, his word is The Final Word, and all other opinions emanate from idiots. I think he's been shown to be wrong, but assign whatever value you want to his observations.
Putting ZoranC's specious comments aside, I really think the simple newsprint test I described would demonstrate your lens' performance better than anything being said here. If you do that and still question the performance of the lens, post the test shots and we'll go from there. Posting single handheld shots leaves too many variables in play for the analysis you seem to desire.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/
Thanks, I think I won't put too much energy on this and will continue shooting. Re-evaluate after I have more photos under different shooting scenarios. I'm not a fan of lab tests.
Maybe 1/500 wasn't fast enough to freeze the action on my first shot, who knows...
Maybe 1/500 wasn't fast enough to freeze the action on my first shot, who knows...
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum