New Olympus 17mm 1.8

Started Mar 7, 2014 | Discussions thread
Sergey_Green Forum Pro • Posts: 11,008
I disagree here ..

Anders W wrote:

honeyiscool wrote:

The Jacal wrote:
There has been plenty of criticism about the 1.8 too; being a tad soft.

I'm fairly certain a good percentage of these criticisms come from 20mm fanboys and review trollers who have never even used the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 and just like to pixel peep test charts from reviewers.

In what way does it matter who says something if what is being said is factually correct? And you don't need to use a lens in order to pass judgment on it. All you need is to look at images produced by it.

Not only you need to use the lens, but you also need to use it effectively, and with good results to show. In other words, learn the tool first, then talk about it.

I think the reason why this lens can often be preferred (over the others) is that 35mm equivalent is often the easiest and the most forgiving focal length to use. People simply have more fun with it when they see more frames that do look better than from the other lenses.

The 20/1.7 is sharper than the 17/1.8. That's a fact. Whether it's an important fact or not is a personal matter.

Sharpness is not all. I had several examples in the past (and still do) when sharper with better test results lens is in fact less preferred then the lens that have some noted flaws in it. The notorious Nikon 18-200 was one of them. It spent almost a year and half in a drawer, as I personally prefer faster lenses to a larger FL range, till I sold it, but I can well see how it could be a better lens for many those who used it. And some use it very well.

In case you wonder, this is 18-200 on D200, and since we are on the subject of flowers

-- hide signature --

- sergey

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