Quite agree. And if you choose to spend your money on halo products, you have every right to do so. I'm not suggesting that Olympus doesn't have every right to market these lenses (nearly said 'make' but that wouldn't be accurate), I'm just commenting on precisely what it is you're getting for the money.
Just to be accurate, you are focusing on one aspect of the product. Precisely speaking you are getting a 25mm f1.2 lens
I'm just saying it how it is. How individuals make their purchase decisons on the basis of what anyone else says or thinks is quote up to them.
Neither of the lenses that we are talking about has 'soft edges'.
As for the rest of it, now you've removed my original question from the top, it loses its context. The question I raised was 'whether for most a simpler, less corrected might have been a more generally useful lens, one which would have given maybe T1.4.
If that is your only criterion then you've clearly overspent.Just to be accurate, you are focusing on one aspect of the product. Precisely speaking you are getting a 25mm f1.2 lens
I would hope it takes picturesIf that is your only criterion then you've clearly overspent.Just to be accurate, you are focusing on one aspect of the product. Precisely speaking you are getting a 25mm f1.2 lens
Still, if you're prepared to spend money for a number on the barrel, up to you. But I'd have though the more important question is not what is that number but what the lens actually does.
Nothing ironic about your assumption, it would be called unfounded. The micro lenses have nothing to do with the transmission of the lens as I can put it on my em5.2 or my em1.2. They might impact exposure, but not the lens T-stop.
You would hope.I would hope it takes picturesIf that is your only criterion then you've clearly overspent.Just to be accurate, you are focusing on one aspect of the product. Precisely speaking you are getting a 25mm f1.2 lens
Still, if you're prepared to spend money for a number on the barrel, up to you. But I'd have though the more important question is not what is that number but what the lens actually does.
That's specifically what I meant, that it is speculative that the E-M1 II's discrepancies come from this effect. But I think we're in agreement overall.
Very many doesn't constitute most, nor have an effect on the lens.
With FF f/1.2 lenses wide open, rather soft off-center. Better on APS-C in the corners. With the 25mm f/1.2 mZD, rather uniform sharpness across the frame. Obviously sharper stopped down, but one of the only f/1.2 lenses I have used with acceptable corner and edge sharpness wide open. Is your experience different? None of the 3 PL 25 copies I have owned were sharp off-center until stopped down. In comparison to the mZD 25, no contest.
At what cost? If this was easy to do, why hasn't someone manufactured it?
Bob - For such a bright guy, you're awfully dismissive of someone's real world use cases and experience. Ego is a healthy thing, until it prevents you from learning ... TBH, I really like the other Bobn2 better, the one that is eager to learn and understand and explain. I've learned quite a few things from him, and I hope to learn more in the future.
You sure can, but it would be a rather strange composition, to say the list. The point of interest will stand out where in the frame it should not be. Unless you have several such points of interest scattered in the frame, but then why would it need to be wide open to begin with?
Lot cheaper than putting than replacing a $2,000 camera using a non WR lens in the rain.It must not be like the rest of the 1.2s then.Let me give you two more reasons why I prefer the Olympus 25/1.2 over the PL25/1.4 on my E-M1 Mk II. No purple fringing,Which would have given some advantage but not as much as you think, being a T1.8. The PL25/1.4 is also a T1.8. I suppose the issue is, had Olympus allowed it to be a little less well corrected, but not taken such a hit on the transmission, would it be a more or less useful lens.Totally agree.Sorry , Brian I should have specified if you are shooting in specific situations such as action in low light then you are forced to use high ISO . However I am not talking about the normal { though still too high for meFor your style of shooting sure. For my style of shooting high ISO is paramount. Majority of my shots are non static.Yes, I suspect there are an awful lot more shooters interested in low ISO performance better DR, higher resolution and so on. We have an excellent selection of lenses available to us and even if we had to use very low ISO settings , the excellent IBIS could help in static subjects . For me all very high ISO settings on all formats are awful just varying degrees of awfulAgreed. I wish Oly and Panny would stop dragging their feet on the MP count of their sensors.The A7s I/II are the only recent gen FF 12mp cameras and are basically designed for video . The current lowest MP FF camera is the sport and speed orientated D5 where throughput is the priority . The reason I picked the GX8 and Sony A7r11 is simply because I own both cameras. If there was a higher MP count m43 camera { ideally with a much lower base ISO please } I would own it. I also use the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 on my D810Thats all fine and good when you compare a 20MP camera to a 36MP+ camera. Why not pit these lenses using a Sony A7S instead? The numbers start to look closer when you get into the same MP territory. This is the reason why, when looking lens quality, using DxO isn't the best place because people come to the wrong conclusions. This is why Imaging Resource's blur units make more sense, they are as close of an objective way to look at the lens regardless of MP count on the sensor (especially since MP counts change VERY often).The thing is and many here seem to ignore it FF is less demanding of lenses than m43 and small and cheap { in comparison to the F/1.2 primes } FF lens on a FF camera ,will blow the the m43 offerings out of the water. The image is made up of lens plus sensor and it is system results that matter. Sony 55mm F/1.8 compared to the larger heavier and more expensive 25mm pro.
As for matching the Sigma on FF not a chance. I have the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 art and use it on a 36mp Nikon and no m43 lens / camera combination can match it .
On a far more important note how did your op go ? I hope you are doing well
--
Jim Stirling
Usually when using my zooms and I start to go above my comfort level of ISO 1600 I switch to primes. I didn't have that luxury on a Reindeer Run last December 23 in Aberdeen Maryland. Run started at 8 AM. It was a dark rainy day, sunrise at 7:27 AM, had to use 14-35/2.0 which left me focally challenged at the long end. I was still at ISO 3200. If I had to go above ISO 6400 I would have been forced to go to my 25 mm/1.2.
Sure, if you're prepared to pay several hundred dollars, you have very right to do so.
Lol.I would hope it takes picturesIf that is your only criterion then you've clearly overspent.Just to be accurate, you are focusing on one aspect of the product. Precisely speaking you are getting a 25mm f1.2 lens
Still, if you're prepared to spend money for a number on the barrel, up to you. But I'd have though the more important question is not what is that number but what the lens actually does.
I am discussing, and I haven't dismissed anyone's real world use cases. As I said 'you must spend a lot of time shooting flat subjects, but if you do, then fine'. That is the real world use case in which you need edge to edge sharpness with shallow DOF.
