Nikon/PEN side by side comparison

Started Sep 22, 2011 | Discussions thread
fermy Veteran Member • Posts: 3,168
Re: Nice bit of cherry picking

Anders W wrote:

What is it you don't like about its rendering? And are you talking about the 50/2 or the 45/1.8. Just curious to hear if you have seen something I have missed.

I was talking about 45/1.8. No, I don't see any flaws with it, it's a good lens in all respects. Just saying that I was not blown away by the images from it, the way some Leica images grab me.

As for the indirect comparisons, in particular with Zuiko 50mm, it was tested on E-510 (lenstip), which has stronger AA filter and less pixels to boot compared to E-PL1. It's hard to quantify the impact of that, especially the impact of AA filter.

What I find particularly impressive about lenses like the 20/1.7 and the 45/1.8 is that, unlike what I've found to be the case with every other reasonably fast lens that I have ever owned/used (Vivitar 28/2 Close Focus, Vivitar 35/1.9, Hexanon 52/1.8, Minolta MD 50/1.4, Minolta MD 50/1.7, Hexanon 85/1.8, Minolta MD 85/2) is that they keep up contrast (both global- and micro-) so well and that there is so little evidence of halation or purple fringing even when they are used wide open.

Sure, I am impressed with m4/3 lenses wide open. At the same time legacy lenses that are good wide open do exist. People say that Contax G Planar 45mm is already very good at f2. Contax G Sonnar (90/2.8) which I have has no issues wide open: contrast, resolution, microcontrast, all great. FD 35mm/f2 wide open looks great. These are on NEX and not scientific, but the contrast and lack of ugly aberrations is obvious (both SOOC jpeg, wide open).

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow