Reading mode: Light Dark

14-35mm f/2.0 full-size sample with spectacular detail

Go to last post
Paco 316 said:
Paco 316 wrote:
This is not even the lens in discussion, but look at the OM-D's contrast and color.
Click to expand...
Easily adjustable.
Paco 316 said:
Sure, the "bigger" resolution comes out "great" on screen. But what you fail to acknowledge is the fact that when it comes to printing, that "resolutuion" is minimum or even null.
Click to expand...
I guess we do not need SHG lenses then, if the "resolution" means nothing when printing. Actually I think you are right, I acknowledge it. I printed few phone can frames, and they look great.
Paco 316 said:
I myself take advantage of what is in front of me. I don't stick to one brand or prefer one over the other, but I use the tools that are with in my reach to do my job. One thing I recognize is that come to glass, Olympus is top notch. When you compare a Zuiko SHG to a cheap Sigma glass and you believe that it is better than the Zuiko, you lose all credibility.
Click to expand...
Some Sigmas are exceptionally good. You could probably not be comparing them against SHG glass on the same camera, although when you need a macro lens you need a macro lens (for example), but they are quite easily comparable on different systems. When you mean resolution that is.
Paco 316 said:
I shoot Canon and Olympus, I take full advantage of both brands. They compliment each other great!
Click to expand...
Great! I agree.
 
Hey Phil,

You should know by now that any time you make a positive statement about Olympus, you might as well be telling some of these other guys that they have small penises. Why do you think they even come to this site? Obviously anyone who doesn't shoot, or even like Olympus and still comes to spend time on this site is severely screwed up. You can't win in the argument with someone who is living to cut you down.

Seriously, thanks for posting the image. There are forum members who live to cut on Olympus. All the rest of us know who they are.

BTW, I agree with you on the SHGs. These lenses and the best.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps the best in FT's arsenal.

I wish the sensors were up to the same level. But that's always been an Olympus' problem.
 
Optically they are fine on the EM5. The sensor being better than on the E5 really shows how much more these lenses have to give. Just the focusing is a touch too slow. Rumors are persistent that this will be addressed with the next, possibly more pro level m4/3 camera around Sept. At that point I'll be happy to start using my SHG zooms a lot again!
 
The Canon these days is the 5dMkIII which was a substantial upgrade from the mkII. The E5 is a great camera! But if I'm going to grab a kit that large I grab the 5dmkIII.




I'm using the em5 with the 12, 25 (Panasonic f1.4) and 45 primes - it does a awesome job!

On the Canon side I added the 17-40 and the new 100 macro.

My kit's on both sides of the fence keep growing :)

But, like tomorrow where I'll be at an 'quiet sports' outdoor show, the EM5 will be the camera of choice with the 25 f1.4 with 12 in the pocket. I don't like going to events like this with the Canon for two reasons, people react to the camera or think your some type of official photographer, and the em5 is much smaller and lighter. The large advantage the E5 had over the Canon kit lessoned somewhat with the MkIII as the MkIII has the focusing speed and accuracy like my older 1ds series of bodies and like the E5. Also the light metering and color are much improved on the newer Canon. Still, I get better IQ without pp out of the Olympus cameras.

Here's an E5 shot with the 14-35:










From my trip to Greece back in 2010 a few months after I got the E5.







--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

 

Attachments

  • 675985.jpg
    675985.jpg
    4 MB · Views: 0
Geo Wharton said:
Geo Wharton wrote:
Obviously anyone who doesn't shoot, or even like Olympus and still comes to spend time on this site is severely screwed up.
Click to expand...
+1


That kinda sums it all pretty much.
 
It really is nice to see your post, many have drifted away from this forum over time, it's nice when one of you stops by and leaves a post to let us know what your up to. I like your photos which show you can get nice pictures out of whatever gear you have on hand.

I'm sticking with Olympus for now and hoping for a new 43rds body, partially because I can't afford to make a move at this point and my skill set doesn't justify otherwise. If Oly doesn't release anything that I'm interested in this fall the 5D MKIII is the direction I'm leaning the only Nikon offering I like is the D4 and it's above my price point.

Enjoy your gear and drop by once and a while.
 

SergeyGreen said:
SergeyGreen wrote:
SergeyGreen said:
Paco 316 wrote:
This is not even the lens in discussion, but look at the OM-D's contrast and color.
Click to expand...
Easily adjustable.
Click to expand...
I don't know about "easily" adjustable, but you must agree than, that getting it right the first time is better and ideal.



SergeyGreen said:
SergeyGreen said:
Sure, the "bigger" resolution comes out "great" on screen. But what you fail to acknowledge is the fact that when it comes to printing, that "resolutuion" is minimum or even null.
Click to expand...
I guess we do not need SHG lenses then, if the "resolution" means nothing when printing. Actually I think you are right, I acknowledge it. I printed few phone can frames, and they look great.
Click to expand...
Nobody needs anything but sleep, food, water and waste what you eat and drink. The rest is just luxury.
SergeyGreen said:
SergeyGreen said:
I myself take advantage of what is in front of me. I don't stick to one brand or prefer one over the other, but I use the tools that are with in my reach to do my job. One thing I recognize is that come to glass, Olympus is top notch. When you compare a Zuiko SHG to a cheap Sigma glass and you believe that it is better than the Zuiko, you lose all credibility.
Click to expand...
Some Sigmas are exceptionally good. You could probably not be comparing them against SHG glass on the same camera, although when you need a macro lens you need a macro lens (for example), but they are quite easily comparable on different systems. When you mean resolution that is.
Click to expand...
When you talk about glass, you do get what you pay for, bottom line.
SergeyGreen said:
SergeyGreen said:
I shoot Canon and Olympus, I take full advantage of both brands. They compliment each other great!
Click to expand...
Great! I agree.
Click to expand...
 
SergeyGreen said:
SergeyGreen wrote:
SergeyGreen said:
Paco 316 wrote:
This is not even the lens in discussion, but look at the OM-D's contrast and color.
Click to expand...
Easily adjustable.
SergeyGreen said:
Sure, the "bigger" resolution comes out "great" on screen. But what you fail to acknowledge is the fact that when it comes to printing, that "resolutuion" is minimum or even null.
Click to expand...
I guess we do not need SHG lenses then, if the "resolution" means nothing when printing. Actually I think you are right, I acknowledge it. I printed few phone can frames, and they look great.
SergeyGreen said:
I myself take advantage of what is in front of me. I don't stick to one brand or prefer one over the other, but I use the tools that are with in my reach to do my job. One thing I recognize is that come to glass, Olympus is top notch. When you compare a Zuiko SHG to a cheap Sigma glass and you believe that it is better than the Zuiko, you lose all credibility.
Click to expand...
Some Sigmas are exceptionally good. You could probably not be comparing them against SHG glass on the same camera, although when you need a macro lens you need a macro lens (for example), but they are quite easily comparable on different systems. When you mean resolution that is.
SergeyGreen said:
I shoot Canon and Olympus, I take full advantage of both brands. They compliment each other great!
Click to expand...
Great! I agree.
Click to expand...
You know sergey, the Nikon has had more exposure, so the window frame is horribly blown out but you can see detail in the blinds. If we blow out the windowframe on the OMD, we will probably see less noise and more blinds in the OMD shot.
 
Simon Cowell said:
Simon Cowell wrote:

Perhaps the best in FT's arsenal.

I wish the sensors were up to the same level. But that's always been an Olympus' problem.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I feel like we Olympus DSLR's are becoming a religious sect! Is it really necessary to make invidious comparisons of other brands to prove our point, whatever that may be? Surely the Canon 24-70 f2.8 and the Nikon 17-35 f2.8, WA zooms in the same general price range, are also very good lenses, if any of dozens of tests are to be believed,
 
Sounds like Apple(Olympus) vs Pc(Nikon,Canon etc).---a unique brand doing things a different way vs the standard bearer who almost everybody owns.....
 
alatchin said:
alatchin wrote:
You know sergey, the Nikon has had more exposure, so the window frame is horribly blown out but you can see detail in the blinds. If we blow out the windowframe on the OMD, we will probably see less noise and more blinds in the OMD shot.
Click to expand...
It is not the exposure, it is the middle histogram level point shifted to the right. It slightly darkens the tone, but also brings out the perceived contrast and the color depth. I do not know why Olympus do this, but it has been so with their dSLRs for many years. I did experiment with my own cameras about this in the past, and there were several threads on this forum discussing it.

I can not prove this is exactly so with OMD, but I suspect this probably is the case. There is enough contrast for detail on both sides of the blinds.
 
Member said:
John Mason wrote:
..
From my trip to Greece back in 2010 a few months after I got the E5.


[/QUOTE]
[IMG width="400px" alt="Gars am Kamp, AUT "]http://m4.i.pbase.com/o6/83/694283/1/73957894.5InLfKMI.2007.02.0420070204_2043462.jpg
Gars am Kamp, AUT




--
-sergey
Click to expand...
 
Nice one, Sergey (as is John's) :)
Goes to show how vein we all have become for gear these days. With the overall general IQ of todays digital cams (even the old venerable E-500), it really is more about the eye than the gear itself.
 
SergeyGreen said:
SergeyGreen wrote:
SergeyGreen said:
alatchin wrote:
You know sergey, the Nikon has had more exposure, so the window frame is horribly blown out but you can see detail in the blinds. If we blow out the windowframe on the OMD, we will probably see less noise and more blinds in the OMD shot.
Click to expand...
It is not the exposure, it is the middle histogram level point shifted to the right. It slightly darkens the tone, but also brings out the perceived contrast and the color depth. I do not know why Olympus do this, but it has been so with their dSLRs for many years. I did experiment with my own cameras about this in the past, and there were several threads on this forum discussing it.

I can not prove this is exactly so with OMD, but I suspect this probably is the case. There is enough contrast for detail on both sides of the blinds.
Click to expand...
If the middle of the histogram is shifted (as you seem to suggest, rather like a levels adjustment) it wouldnt impact the highlights or the shadows, but the mid tones. Your answer doesnt quite fit the problem. It looks to me like the Nikon has more light, hence a brighter overall image, blown out highlights and more detail and less noise in the shadows.
 
alatchin said:
alatchin wrote:
If the middle of the histogram is shifted (as you seem to suggest, rather like a levels adjustment) it wouldnt impact the highlights or the shadows, but the mid tones. Your answer doesnt quite fit the problem. It looks to me like the Nikon has more light, hence a brighter overall image, blown out highlights and more detail and less noise in the shadows.
Click to expand...
Nikon (left side) mid-point shifted to 0.81, you get the same level of brightness as in the Olympus image in shades and whites alike. Notice, it starts looking like Olympus colors, does not it ;)? Similarly you can move Olympus (right side) mid-point to 1.19 instead, and you will get the same brightness (equally bright) on both sides. You get different color hues, but the levels of light are almost identical. As expected.
148829215.lfNLWJE9.Compare_mid_gray.jpg





I did experiment with this in the past, shooting the same scenes with Nikon and Olympus cameras side by side. Olympus would always come darker, and somewhat more contrasty than Nikon at the same exposure. I think it was after E-3 was announced that people started talking about the shifted mid-point and why it is so.


--
-sergey
 
Last edited:
erichK said:
erichK wrote:
erichK said:
Simon Cowell wrote:

Perhaps the best in FT's arsenal.

I wish the sensors were up to the same level. But that's always been an Olympus' problem.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I feel like we Olympus DSLR's are becoming a religious sect! Is it really necessary to make invidious comparisons of other brands to prove our point, whatever that may be? Surely the Canon 24-70 f2.8 and the Nikon 17-35 f2.8, WA zooms in the same general price range, are also very good lenses, if any of dozens of tests are to be believed,
Click to expand...
well this can be problematic, and varies between lenses, even versions of lenses
take the case of the difference between E5 and E3 with the same lens, data from DIWA

E5

96c79b35.png


E3

b31e31be.png


clearly the E5 is the victor, but not just due to its additional Mp, but also the lightness of its AA filter. A situation much criticised by some, but later in their eyes at least, vindicated when Nikon did similar things, others are to follow.

DIWAs data offers another comparison though, as the data set is made equivalent to 35mm, you can look across systems to examine a systems output in MTF, and with this in mind I offer the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 on the pro version 12mp D3

ebcabd64.png


again eyeballing the E5 chart shows that on balance it records the higher MTF, and so in areas of given output known to offer a chartable version of sharpness it betters its competition in this case. And in case you missed it, thats against the HG 12-60, quite some yards away from SHG.

One thing we shouldnt accept though, is this version of truth that is a preturbance far from reality. I dare say many crop sensor lens suites actually outshake their FF rivals considerably, but to go the other way and run FF lenses on crop bodies considerably cuts the performance of the lens, reduces the systems resolution.

This b/se FF systems are less demanding that crop systems on lenses, and it is an unfairness to make such representations as it is too confining a statistic. You may like the way a particular lens draws or renders, but that will vary depending on the sensor behind it and the system size in tow. Crossing equipment over guarantees one thing, that everything will change, and for the crop sensor it can have a devastating effect.


But of course these are not the only ways to examine lenses. Personally the build quality and niceness in use are subliminally 'niceness' factors that just make the gear a pleasure to use. These are subtle qualities though, things like metal construction, soft buffers and the ends of the zoom stops, gliding actions as opposed to 'grinding' ones.

So I guess in the final analysis you might have a grab bag of features you value and the renders you pursue for the task at hand, with the proviso that you can make sharp lenses draw softer, but not the other way around. Nice lenses always feel nice, junk is, ...well just that.
erichK said:
--
erichK
saskatoon, canada
Photography is a small voice, at best, but sometimes one photograph, or a group of them, can lure our sense of awareness.
- W. Eugene Smith, Dec 30, 1918 to Oct 15, 1978.
http://erichk.zenfolio.com/
underwater photos:
http://www.scubaboard.com/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/5567
Click to expand...
--
Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'
 
Last edited:
pris said:
pris wrote:

Darrell,

if you are familiar at all with my posting history, equipment I use and what I think of Olympus cameras and lenses, you are likely to agree it would be highly ironic to designate me as a troll. In this particular case however, the image was posted with invitation to analyze the IQ, with comment of no artistic value to it - and yes, I do see artifacts in particular areas that do look like effect of oversharpening.
Click to expand...
Er .... so what happened between you being able to actually see the issue, and your immediate retort to Sergey, and I quote:

" I see nothing of sorts at 100%. Looks very clean, crisp detail, good transitions"

??
 
philosomatographer said:
philosomatographer wrote:
Click to expand...

philosomatographer said:
the 14-35 is so good it's ridiculous. I wanted to share the above image (which has just about no artistic merit) to share this - it's a simple RAW conversion​
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is arguing that the 14-35 gives excellent optical quality. I mean ... for a lens that's designed to cover an area a quarter of the size of FX, its heavier than a 24-70/2.8 nikkor, has a more restricted zoom range, and in the Uk at least, costs £1800 instead of £1240, well it aught to be bloody excellent!!

However using your image (or rather your processing) as some kind of benchmark, just isn't working. if you really want us to see how fantastic and how much detail there is (and I personally am very confident it IS going to look excellent), you're going to need to post the RAW for us to re-process using conventional software, or you process it in something like ACR using default parameters. The RT algorithm you've used really has rendered so many aspects of the IQ alien (in a bad way), its highly unlikely that owners of these other 'inferior' lenses are going to be able to provide any comparisons, because they simply wouldn't process their images in the way you have, which has certainly (over) emphasized the sharpness, but to the extent of destroying many other aspects of Image Quality)
philosomatographer said:
(using RawTherapee on Arch Linux).​

Does any of the full-frame trolls on this forum care to post a sample from your favourite 24-70 / 28-70 at f/4.0 that competes? ;-)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top