What a disappointing situation with the 17mm lens! Why?

Started Sep 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP Sergey Borachev Veteran Member • Posts: 4,703
Re: Lenstip makes the 17mm look worse than e.g. photozone.

texinwien wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Paul De Bra wrote:

Lenstip gives sharpness figures of 65 / 53 for the 17mm versus 75 / 68 for the 25mm lens (just as an example). Photozone gives figures of 2832 / 2134 for the 17mm versus 3075 / 2213 for the 25mm lens. That is a much smaller difference. (We cannot compare with other lenses such as the 20mm on photozone as their tests of these lenses were done on a different camera. We need tests on the same camera.)

This example shows just how dangerous it is to rely on a review site instead of actual experience from actual users.

That's ridiculous. Most actual users are not experienced in the art of testing photographic equipment carefully and thoroughly. Most actual users are offering nothing more than subjective, unscientific impressions of something they've purchased, and people who've purchased a thing, by and large, tend to be positively biased toward that thing.

Lenstip makes the 17mm look bad compared to the other lenses (I also looked at figures of other lenses than the 25) but on Photozone the 17mm looks close to what the very well regarded 25mm lens does.

If the 17mm lens was much worse than the 20mm or 25mm people wouldn't be jumping up and down about how good the 17mm f/1.8 is.

Ridiculous. Some people simply have lower standards of quality than others. People have different priorities, as well. The preponderance of evidence provided by experienced professional testers under controlled settings in well-equipped labs says the 17mm f/1.8 under performs the 20mm f/1.7 in most meaningful respects, optically. I'm not interested in the subjective opinions of a bunch of mostly anonymous lens owners whose qualifications as lens testers is unknown. Frankly, I'm surprised that you are.

Don't just believe numbers. Try to get some real experience, with a good copy of the lens.

What a strange aversion to numbers. It's something I'd expect from a backwoods hillbilly, but certainly not from a Computer Science PhD.

Sorry, I do not understand your logic. We are talking about measurable properties and it is not just Lenstip, also DXOMark, LensRental, Photozone and more.

I don't understand his logic, nor his aversion to numbers and measurements performed under controlled conditions by experienced testers in well-equipped labs. Don't understand it one bit.

It's fine if you think I am asking for the impossible, but I think it is so easy to get a lot better.

Of course it is. We see what's possible regarding sharpness and size at a certain price point with the 20mm. If Panasonic had simply fixed the banding issue with its updated 20mm lens, the lens would be superb. If they'd also updated the focus mechanism without sacrificing image quality, it would have been off-the-charts good.

Olympus' offering is lackluster. It costs more than the Panasomic 20mm (on average, for the prices I have seen), but it's larger and offers measurably poorer image quality. More expensive, larger & poorer image quality than the existing competition. How can that be considered a success by anyone?

For example, in terms of sharpness, the 20mm, a pancake, and the CV 17mm are proof that it is not just possible but already done. They are both much sharper. People jump up and down about how good their purchased lens is, OK, that's certainly not new around here. It is risky to base on the number of people jumping up and down to tell the quality of a lens if that is not supported by its test measurements (like the 75mm).

Absolutely. As an example, a certain user who used to frequent this board often (but who's since moved on to other systems and boards, mostly), frequently boasts about the number and variety of cameras he owns or has owned. Leicas, X-Pro 1, GH3, E-M5 - the list is long and, really, uninteresting.

In a thread comparing the sharpness of images taken by the E-M5 with the sharpness of comparable images taken by the GH3, this poster (who had owned both cameras) swore up and down that the GH3 provided sharper output. Even in the face of comparable photos that suggested otherwise.

He even wrote a blog article on the subject. Guy's an expert, right? He's owned dozens of expensive cameras.

Well, the guy was just plain wrong, as the recent DXOMark tests show. The poster, although he's owned so many cameras, and taken so many tens of thousands of photos, and written so many tens of thousands of words in reviews about cameras and lenses, was flat out wrong.

The Average Joe camera buyer is not experienced in the art of carefully testing the performance of photographic equipment, and owning a thing does not automatically make one an expert about that thing.

You can say it so much better than I.

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