looking forward to the 40mm review. Almost bought a 42mm 1.2 but the bokeh I saw on the web looked far too busy.
Mike
better than many a zeiss--biogon or planar take your pick. If you missed a decent copy of the 42 for under 600, you REALLY missed
It simply amazes me that x number of posts into this "test" there is still NO clue as to the performance of the lens--that I can see anyway---despite considerable jostling by many folks to be the expert.
who can be the first to cry: that lens is not sharp!! centers or conrners or whereever.
Eric--why rush into print without a complete set of samples shot flat at mid distance and infinity?
There are plenty of samples on the web.
I don't know how anyone can get an idea of anything from what's in here.
Which is a shame because the lens has been mentioned hundreds of times in this forum.
I own 3 pen-Fs, the 42/1.2, which was so far beyond my expectations I bought a 25/2.8 and a 20/3.5
In prep I read everything I could find about the system and studied carefully the one good test I know:
http://www.skipwilliams.com/olympus/pen-lit.htm
This test looked very old and was done with film? I am not shooting film and some lenses that perform good on film aren't so good anymore. The point is adding modern well controlled digital reviews is value added.
An example of a review that changed the value of a lens drastically is that of the Vivitar Series 1 70-200mm f/2.8-4 (version III, made by Komine). It had one web review that rated it as the sharpest lens, but failed to mention it had really bad color fringing, etc. I actually thought the lens was pretty poor on digital because of this in bright lighting conditions, but people continue to site that review.
This is why I don't "rate" the lenses. I try to mention pros and cons and suggested uses for a lens. I am starting to put colored boxes around my wrap up, to give you an impression of how I feel about the lens (Red-Yellow-Green-Blue in order), but I don't want to give it a number.
I'll let you guys find it and look for what else we know with the handy little search thingy on this page, which nobody cares to use.
For anyone seriously interested in the Pen-F lenses--and they are all different-- leave this thread right now. And the whole forum. Do your research. Then maybe check back to see if there are finally any worthwhile samples once you are ready to resist all the passionate misconceptions. Like in a week or more.
I guess its good news for the Pen-F collectors who hate the idea of competing against nex users in the marketplace.
Eric you do have a good idea-- I have wondered about the way the 38/1.8 would work on the nex for a long time. But you need to learn more before tossing the worm can.
Start with an overview of the lens history. What year did it come out and on what camera? What were the years of production? How many were made? You first work on the lens should have been in the speciallized forums reaching out for info---since there are those who know all this stuff.
Why, people can go read this on Wikipedia or other sites? I don't want to rehash it all.
I also like
not reading the specialized forums, because not only do they know their information, they have aquired biases that remain in those forums. I am not saying this is bad, but I like going into a review without preconceived notions of how a lens should perform.
The web is full of half-assed lens reviews and other ones which look good, like the photozone treatment of the CV 75/2.5 on the nex, but in fact are completely misleading.
I don't think they are all misleading. They are more data. I think people often think some of the older lenses are better than they are because they have "character" (lens aberrations).
If I look at my test data, and look at my sample images, I see the very soft appearing corners at large apertures, etc. I do try to emphasize that this doesn't make the lens bad. It changes how you use it.
The main thing is to give people the data to judge for themselves--that's the VERY least you can do. That means good images and a good selection of them. Steve Huff can't even manage that anymore.
Images aren't the only kind of data.
I respect your opinion, but my goal is to keep these reviews terse. I am going to add a glossery and try to add some sample images for what the numbers mean to real world images. I do think that it would be valuable. I am also going to try to get more consistent on adding the corner performance LED test, a more fixed bokeh test, and a more consistent flare test.
However. In the digital age, sharpness is more important to many as other factors can easily be manipulated in software. Unlike slide film where you want punch and contrast straight from the lens, with digital the camera can add that. Take for example Olympus and Samsung. They implement some optical corrections in software in order to make the lenses smaller and less expensive.
Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)
See my Blog at:
http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
