Will Oly 17mm 1.2 match Sigma 35mm ART?

bobn2 · Jan 11, 2018

MEDISN said:
bobn2 said:

Neither of the lenses that we are talking about has 'soft edges'.

In any case, have a look at some pictures taken wide open with an f/1.2 or equivalent lens and see just how many have sharp detail in the corners. You'll find it's vanishingly small. In any case, most of the drop-off will be due to field curvature, which means that if you get the subject in the corner (in the very few cases that you do) with a focus point over it (big advantage of mirrorless, you can have focussing points in the corner) then the subject there will be in focus and sharp.

Click to expand...

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.

I think you misunderstood, somewhat. Sorry if I wasn't making the point clear. Look at shots wide open at f/1.2 or equivalent (let's just say DOF equivalent for this discussion). That's f/1.6 APS-C, f/2.4 FF. By which I mean real world photographs taken of real 3-D subjects for the purpose of taking a photograph, not testing a lens. You will find that very few of those has subject matter within the DOF at the edges. So, in those real world situations, the usefulness of edge to edge sharpness is moot.

MEDISN said:
MEDISN said:

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.

Click to expand...

At what cost? If this was easy to do, why hasn't someone manufactured it?

I think this would have been a simpler lens so the cost should have been less. I think there have been quite a few simpler, less corrected f/1.2 lenses. As for why someone hasn't manufactured it, who knows. It's certainly feasible, since there have been plenty od smaller, less corrected f/1.2 and faster lenses in the past.

MEDISN · Jan 11, 2018

bobn2 said:
I think you misunderstood, somewhat. Sorry if I wasn't making the point clear. Look at shots wide open at f/1.2 or equivalent (let's just say DOF equivalent for this discussion). That's f/1.6 APS-C, f/2.4 FF. By which I mean real world photographs taken of real 3-D subjects for the purpose of taking a photograph, not testing a lens. You will find that very few of those has subject matter within the DOF at the edges. So, in those real world situations, the usefulness of edge to edge sharpness is moot.

Yet when you need it, you need it. If I were shooting portraits of individual people it wouldn't matter, I agree. Must of our cine primes are exceptionally sharp across the frame even wide open, and obviously cost a premium. I can't speak for the mZD 17 because I haven't used one but the 25 f/1.2 has impressed me in this regard.

bobn2 said:
I think this would have been a simpler lens so the cost should have been less. I think there have been quite a few simpler, less corrected f/1.2 lenses. As for why someone hasn't manufactured it, who knows. It's certainly feasible, since there have been plenty od smaller, less corrected f/1.2 and faster lenses in the past.

I don't disagree. Something on the order of the Oly (Sigma) 75mm f/1.8 in the same price range would be well received. Sharp, quiet, relatively compact and good rendering. But we have what the market gives us. Not perfect, no lens ever is.

bobn2 · Jan 11, 2018

MEDISN said:
bobn2 said:

I think you misunderstood, somewhat. Sorry if I wasn't making the point clear. Look at shots wide open at f/1.2 or equivalent (let's just say DOF equivalent for this discussion). That's f/1.6 APS-C, f/2.4 FF. By which I mean real world photographs taken of real 3-D subjects for the purpose of taking a photograph, not testing a lens. You will find that very few of those has subject matter within the DOF at the edges. So, in those real world situations, the usefulness of edge to edge sharpness is moot.

Click to expand...

Yet when you need it, you need it.

Maybe, but I don't see many examples of when you need it. Maybe you could provide one.

MEDISN said:
If I were shooting portraits of individual people it wouldn't matter, I agree. Must of our cine primes are exceptionally sharp across the frame even wide open, and obviously cost a premium. I can't speak for the mZD 17 because I haven't used one but the 25 f/1.2 has impressed me in this regard.

But, it would be nice to see a shot where this characteristic is actually of importance. I'm not saying that it never is, but I really can't remember an example. I just did a Google image search on 'shallow depth of field' and there was one image out of the first several hundred I looked at where the edge sharpness was of importance, and if, as is often the case, the lack of edge sharpness was caused by field curvature, that would have been fine, since the subject would be the thing focussed on.

Maybe you have some examples which show where it is that you need it.

MEDISN said:
MEDISN said:

I think this would have been a simpler lens so the cost should have been less. I think there have been quite a few simpler, less corrected f/1.2 lenses. As for why someone hasn't manufactured it, who knows. It's certainly feasible, since there have been plenty od smaller, less corrected f/1.2 and faster lenses in the past.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree. Something on the order of the Oly (Sigma) 75mm f/1.8 in the same price range would be well received. Sharp, quiet, relatively compact and good rendering. But we have what the market gives us. Not perfect, no lens ever is.

The question that I asked was merely whether such a lens would have been more generally useful. It wasn't an unreasonable question, was it?

Ab Latchin · Jan 11, 2018

bobn2 said:
MEDISN said:

bobn2 said:

I think you misunderstood, somewhat. Sorry if I wasn't making the point clear. Look at shots wide open at f/1.2 or equivalent (let's just say DOF equivalent for this discussion). That's f/1.6 APS-C, f/2.4 FF. By which I mean real world photographs taken of real 3-D subjects for the purpose of taking a photograph, not testing a lens. You will find that very few of those has subject matter within the DOF at the edges. So, in those real world situations, the usefulness of edge to edge sharpness is moot.

Click to expand...

Yet when you need it, you need it.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I don't see many examples of when you need it. Maybe you could provide one.

bobn2 said:

If I were shooting portraits of individual people it wouldn't matter, I agree. Must of our cine primes are exceptionally sharp across the frame even wide open, and obviously cost a premium. I can't speak for the mZD 17 because I haven't used one but the 25 f/1.2 has impressed me in this regard.

Click to expand...

But, it would be nice to see a shot where this characteristic is actually of importance. I'm not saying that it never is, but I really can't remember an example. I just did a Google image search on 'shallow depth of field' and there was one image out of the first several hundred I looked at where the edge sharpness was of importance, and if, as is often the case, the lack of edge sharpness was caused by field curvature, that would have been fine, since the subject would be the thing focussed on.

Maybe you have some examples which show where it is that you need it.

I am someone who often frames off centre, in fact as I am a full time designer and photographer and constantly need space in visuals to place copy, so from a pure photographers position who shoots only to his taste you might never want to move your subject to the side of the frame, but when shooting for commercial use you often need the negative space.

Here is an example, the entire shoot was like this, with the models off centre

I also enjoy asymmetrical framing for pictures of my kids.

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

I think this would have been a simpler lens so the cost should have been less. I think there have been quite a few simpler, less corrected f/1.2 lenses. As for why someone hasn't manufactured it, who knows. It's certainly feasible, since there have been plenty od smaller, less corrected f/1.2 and faster lenses in the past.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree. Something on the order of the Oly (Sigma) 75mm f/1.8 in the same price range would be well received. Sharp, quiet, relatively compact and good rendering. But we have what the market gives us. Not perfect, no lens ever is.

Click to expand...

The question that I asked was merely whether such a lens would have been more generally useful. It wasn't an unreasonable question, was it?

We have the f1.8, f1.7, f0.95 and f1.4 as stand out lenses.

This is a "next level" lens for people who appreciate the qualities it brings. I know many people here scoff at the "pro" designation, doesnt mean it is mis applied.

bobn2 said:
--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

bobn2 · Jan 11, 2018

Ab Latchin said:
bobn2 said:

MEDISN said:

bobn2 said:

I think you misunderstood, somewhat. Sorry if I wasn't making the point clear. Look at shots wide open at f/1.2 or equivalent (let's just say DOF equivalent for this discussion). That's f/1.6 APS-C, f/2.4 FF. By which I mean real world photographs taken of real 3-D subjects for the purpose of taking a photograph, not testing a lens. You will find that very few of those has subject matter within the DOF at the edges. So, in those real world situations, the usefulness of edge to edge sharpness is moot.

Click to expand...

Yet when you need it, you need it.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I don't see many examples of when you need it. Maybe you could provide one.

Ab Latchin said:

If I were shooting portraits of individual people it wouldn't matter, I agree. Must of our cine primes are exceptionally sharp across the frame even wide open, and obviously cost a premium. I can't speak for the mZD 17 because I haven't used one but the 25 f/1.2 has impressed me in this regard.

Click to expand...

But, it would be nice to see a shot where this characteristic is actually of importance. I'm not saying that it never is, but I really can't remember an example. I just did a Google image search on 'shallow depth of field' and there was one image out of the first several hundred I looked at where the edge sharpness was of importance, and if, as is often the case, the lack of edge sharpness was caused by field curvature, that would have been fine, since the subject would be the thing focussed on.

Maybe you have some examples which show where it is that you need it.

Click to expand...

I am someone who often frames off centre, in fact as I am a full time designer and photographer and constantly need space in visuals to place copy, so from a pure photographers position who shoots only to his taste you might never want to move your subject to the side of the frame, but when shooting for commercial use you often need the negative space.

Here is an example, the entire shoot was like this, with the models off centre

Before discussing this below, let's track back to the nature of the non-edge-to-edge sharpness that we area talking about, where it is proposed that the PL 25/1.4 is insufficiently sharp in the edges. That's not a great example, because the PL is rather sharp towards the edges. Here is LR's chart:

80fe0e82a1a048f7806d719a8450a9b7.jpg.png

So, as another example of a lens not so sharp in the edges:

735a84141a3149f589386c4cf99ad796.jpg.png

and one that is sufficiently sharp in the edges:

f6a3db6c3ace45408f9b7af67dccd5bf.jpg.png

You'll note that lens 2 only becomes less than lens 3 at 8mm image height. That is a 16mm circle. Remember that the frame is 17.3mm across. Th green circle here shows the region where lens 2 is sharper than lens 3.

722e6bc48002413d9358961a814bcc12.jpg.png

Ab Latchin said:
I also enjoy asymmetrical framing for pictures of my kids.

Well within the region where lens 2 is sharper than lens 3.

Ab Latchin said:

Also well within the region where lens 2 is sharper.

The point is, I guess, that people have a very unclear as to how big the sharp centre in these lenses is. Your examples (nice shots, BTW) come well into the category of shots where the critical sharpness of the corners is not an issue.

Ab Latchin said:
Ab Latchin said:

Ab Latchin said:

Ab Latchin said:

I think this would have been a simpler lens so the cost should have been less. I think there have been quite a few simpler, less corrected f/1.2 lenses. As for why someone hasn't manufactured it, who knows. It's certainly feasible, since there have been plenty od smaller, less corrected f/1.2 and faster lenses in the past.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree. Something on the order of the Oly (Sigma) 75mm f/1.8 in the same price range would be well received. Sharp, quiet, relatively compact and good rendering. But we have what the market gives us. Not perfect, no lens ever is.

Click to expand...

The question that I asked was merely whether such a lens would have been more generally useful. It wasn't an unreasonable question, was it?

Click to expand...

We have the f1.8, f1.7, f0.95 and f1.4 as stand out lenses.

This is a "next level" lens for people who appreciate the qualities it brings. I know many people here scoff at the "pro" designation, doesnt mean it is mis applied.

I scoff at any 'Pro' designation, not because of the quality of the things that are labelled pro, but because of the conceit that the label is all about. Ever since I saw an ad for a 'pro' frisbee.

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

samtheman2014 · Jan 11, 2018

rashid7 said:
I have generally been adverse towards big expensive primes. But they obviously fill a need, however small the niche.

The same might be said of the GH5s. I would never consider it... not unless i had $ to burn. Even the GH5 would lose out to G9 in my future. Or the EM1ii, since i am photo-centric.

I am quite a keen video user and was considering the GH5 as an upgrade to my GH4 but the more I think about it, while it has a plethora of video features that I am sure Steven Spielberg would appreciate

My needs are just a tad humbler , the G9 ticks a few more boxes as I also shoot plenty stills.

rashid7 said:
However, if u have to work in ISO 12800 territory - then the GH5 might make sense. W/out IBIS it would definitely be more limited to either moving subjects (demanding hi SSpd) or tripod stuff, like the milky way... Northern lights

While the claims about the GH5s being as good or better than the A7sII does not seem to be the case when looking at the RAW samples it is a marked improvement on its m43 cousins . If the low pixel count is not a problem it is certainly the best m43 camera in this area

12800

25600

--
Jim Stirling

bobn2 · Jan 11, 2018

samtheman2014 said:
rashid7 said:

I have generally been adverse towards big expensive primes. But they obviously fill a need, however small the niche.

The same might be said of the GH5s. I would never consider it... not unless i had $ to burn. Even the GH5 would lose out to G9 in my future. Or the EM1ii, since i am photo-centric.

Click to expand...

I am quite a keen video user and was considering the GH5 as an upgrade to my GH4 but the more I think about it, while it has a plethora of video features that I am sure Steven Spielberg would appreciate My needs are just a tad humbler , the G9 ticks a few more boxes as I also shoot plenty stills.

samtheman2014 said:

However, if u have to work in ISO 12800 territory - then the GH5 might make sense. W/out IBIS it would definitely be more limited to either moving subjects (demanding hi SSpd) or tripod stuff, like the milky way... Northern lights

Click to expand...

While the claims about the GH5s being as good or better than the A7sII does not seem to be the case when looking at the RAW samples it is a marked improvement on its m43 cousins . If the low pixel count is not a problem it is certainly the best m43 camera in this area

12800

25600

--
Jim Stirling

Guess what, it's those pesky 2 stops again:

1a0ebcf77855412da75a73561c9b49e5.jpg.png

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

cameron2 · Jan 11, 2018

bobn2 said:
Guess what, it's those pesky 2 stops again:

Physics is a hard thing to overcome ... I suppose that's why there are still differently sized sensors being made. For most of my uses, the 4/3 sensor is far larger than I need, right up until the point that it's far too small for what I need.

samtheman2014 · Jan 11, 2018

Bhima78 said:
samtheman2014 said:

Bhima78 said:

samtheman2014 said:

Bhima78 said:

samtheman2014 said:

glassoholic said:

Rjansenbr2 said:

35mm is one of my favorite FL. I still miss my 35mm ART 1.4 on a FF body. The sharpness, 3D look and subject separation are awesome on that lens.

Do you think the Oly 17mm 1.2 will match it in terms of quality and look? I am of course not expecting 1.4 FF DOF, but otherwise do you think it would be as good as the Sigma?

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rjansenbr

Click to expand...

I would expect it to "match" but as usual there will be a wide range of subjective opinions from it is "better" to those who hate it. Point is that it will be the best available and show a lot of great rendering that some may or may not see and wide open is what it is all about and there the Sigma on FF will still rule for bokeh but resolution/ detail wise wide open it would be interesting to see... hopefully someone will show us one day!

I would also like to see a Pro 25mm wide open against the undisputed best lens in the world... the Otus 50mm f1.4 as at 3 times the price of the Pro is it 3x better hahahah...

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Thats 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).

Click to expand...

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 D810

Click to expand...

Agreed. I wish Oly and Panny would stop dragging their feet on the MP count of their sensors.

Click to expand...

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 awful

Bhima78 said:

Bhima78 said:

I also have the 55mp F/1.8 and the size, cost and comparative performance of the 25mm F/1.2 Olympus lens is why I would never buy it and consider it and the other F/1.2 lenses to be little more than an expensive frippery . For any possible reason you would want F/1.2 lenses on m43 there are smaller, lighter cheaper FF lenses that on FF cameras will give you better DOF control and gather more total light

Click to expand...

They will give you more DoF control and gather more total light, but they aren't all created equal in terms of actual performance. This is also why DXO numbers can be misleading and I'll get to that later.

Click to expand...

This is the kind of argument that Leica fans use to justify their exorbitant prices . You cannot measure the magic

Bhima78 said:

Bhima78 said:

m43 from the first 12mp in 2008 to the latest G9 at 20mp hardly represents a regular MP jump .Heck there are still 16mp models being put out Olympus's latest camera the Olympus OM-D E-M10 III announced at the end of August. There are FF cameras with 24,30,36,42,45 and 50MP.

Click to expand...

I too think this is a problem for m43s.

Bhima78 said:

There have been 36mp cameras since Feb 2012 with the D800 so it is hardly an outlier. You can pick them up either used or new in the D800, D800A ,D800E, D810,A7r,K-1, there are 2 42mp models the A7r II/III , a 45mp D850 and Canon with the 2 50mp models the 5DS and R

Click to expand...

The point isn't that its hard to find a 36MP FF camera, its that when comparing lens quality, EVERY single lens benefits from a higher MP sensor. Even if its sharpness is being masked by brute forcing more pixels through it.

Bhima78 said:

Imaging resource blur units are not comparable across formats and use arbitrary definitions of their own making with little correlation with scientific methodology .They have this to say about it

http://www.slrgear.com/articles/interpret/interpret.html

Click to expand...

Here are quotes from them: "By careful choice of the camera settings and the assignment of a relative scaling factor, we've brought the blur numbers for the different camera platforms we use into reasonably close agreement....This means that numbers within a BxU unit or so of each other between the two platforms have to be considered as nearly equival

Click to expand...

The point is they are using arbitrary definitions of their own making with no relation to proper scientific measurements . It has absolutely no correlational with any normal test methodology you might as well say 2 blur units is equal to 1.7 bananas

Bhima78 said:

Bhima78 said:

Plus lens tests in isolation are all but irrelevant . I much prefer the more logical approach of a system comparison such as Photozone or DXO as that is how I use my cameras. DXO overall score thing is nonsense but the actual data recorded is worthwhile

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

A lens test in isolation is totally pointless it has to be mounted on a camera so lens plus sensor is the only test that makes sense to a photographer.

Bhima78 said:

I disagree because it doesn't tell me the potential the lens actually has when I inevitably buy a future body. Also, you can have higher sharpness numbers on DxO, but it can basically just mean enlarged, slightly fuzzy detail... it is not a true measure of actual sharpness. Case in point:

System 1: Canon 6D 17-40mm F4: DXO Sharpness Score: 14

System 2: Olympus EM10 12-40mm F2.8: DXO Sharpness Score: 8

Now its clear here that the Canon should just always look sharper because the difference in score is pretty darned pronounced right? Here are the results:

https://www.43rumors.com/full-frame...o-olympus-lens-guest-post-by-chris-corradino/

Click to expand...

That old chestnut is one of the worst tests i have ever seen You have posted it on a number of occasions and its many flaws have been point out every time. The test does not become any more worthwhile by reposting it . The fact that such a poor example of comparison shots is used to support m43 says it all

Click to expand...

what are the flaws? i mentioned its possible he got a potato of a lens and if so, that is some really bad QC, though i have heard from owners of that lens that its pretty bad all around. Still scores much higher on dxo, and i doubt its better than the 12-40...definitely not 50% sharper.

The reasons why that "test" is a joke have been explained several times . Including directly to you as you have posted the link before

Bhima78 said:
Bhima78 said:

There are plenty of excellent lenses in m43 though a fair number of them depend on a host of software corrections to achieve their end results . I have no issue when this is done on a lower end prime of zoom and it helps keep size weight and cost down . However when it is done on high end lenses like the 17mm F/1.2 I am not so sure . The 17mm F/1.2 is a £1299 lens to put that into perspective the superb Sigma 35mm F/1.4 art lens for FF comes in at £548 , though I appreciate that software correction is part of the m43 ethos it grates a little on lenses at this price point.

--
Jim Stirling

Click to expand...

the sigma is $900 new, so $300 less. The af isnt fantastic, but its significantly cheaper than canon or nikon equiv glass. the oly is cheaper than the main oems, but no one is cheaper than sigma period.

I quoted the latest UK prices from https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/ as I don't live in the USA . Looks like any UK/EU buyers are getting extra shafted on the pricing of the 17mm F/1.2 the cheapest UK price of £1199 is equal to $1623 and that is a special offer with a £100 saving on the lens

it is £1299 {$1758} everywhere else

Loading…

www.camerapricebuster.co.uk

. The new Samyang 35mm F/1.4 af for Sony FE is in the same ballpark price as the Sigma here

Loading…

www.parkcameras.com

And is garnering some good very good reviews

Loading…

www.photographyblog.com

Samyang AF 35mm f/1.4 FE Review

John Riley reviews the new Samyang AF 35mm f/1.4 FE full-frame lens for Sony E mount cameras.

www.ephotozine.com

Of course to get the same DOF , total light gathering etc as the 17mm F/1.2 a 35mm F/2.4 will do the trick just fine

Jim Stirling

Ab Latchin · Jan 11, 2018

Lol at the pro frisbee.

On your image circle, I don't disagree sorry for the time you spent, but that is one of the reasons I use m43rds as I stated in another message. So I am not saying these lenses are not evenly sharp, but that it is something I value and the system as a whole has very even performance.

samtheman2014 · Jan 11, 2018

Ab Latchin said:
Lol at the pro frisbee.

On your image circle, I don't disagree sorry for the time you spent, but that is one of the reasons I use m43rds as I stated in another message. So I am not saying these lenses are not evenly sharp, but that it is something I value and the system as a whole has very even performance.

In fairness the sometimes epic software corrections also play a part in this as the distortion correction component works by cropping the image which is then resized back to the correct output size.

This is very notable at the wide end so in effect what they are doing is putting out an optically wider lens that stated on it then applying the software corrections giving a resulting output at the designated focal length.

Example with and without corrections

So if you applied the same technique to other lenses you would see a similar jump in extreme edge performance mainly as much of it will be cut off

I wonder if with a touch of CA correction, a splash of distortion correction and a chop and resize

I could make the very good Sigma 16mm F/1.4 into a superb 17mm F/1.4

--
Jim Stirling

samtheman2014 · Jan 11, 2018

bobn2 said:
samtheman2014 said:

rashid7 said:

I have generally been adverse towards big expensive primes. But they obviously fill a need, however small the niche.

The same might be said of the GH5s. I would never consider it... not unless i had $ to burn. Even the GH5 would lose out to G9 in my future. Or the EM1ii, since i am photo-centric.

Click to expand...

I am quite a keen video user and was considering the GH5 as an upgrade to my GH4 but the more I think about it, while it has a plethora of video features that I am sure Steven Spielberg would appreciate My needs are just a tad humbler , the G9 ticks a few more boxes as I also shoot plenty stills.

bobn2 said:

However, if u have to work in ISO 12800 territory - then the GH5 might make sense. W/out IBIS it would definitely be more limited to either moving subjects (demanding hi SSpd) or tripod stuff, like the milky way... Northern lights

Click to expand...

While the claims about the GH5s being as good or better than the A7sII does not seem to be the case when looking at the RAW samples it is a marked improvement on its m43 cousins . If the low pixel count is not a problem it is certainly the best m43 camera in this area

12800

25600

--
Jim Stirling

Click to expand...

Guess what, it's those pesky 2 stops again:

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

Yes I agree however a lot of the early reviews seemed to be claiming that miracles where indeed on hand , oh well

--
Jim Stirling

MEDISN · Jan 11, 2018

bobn2 said:
Maybe, but I don't see many examples of when you need it. Maybe you could provide one.

No maybe about it. Recall I'm talking video. I'm not interested in digging up 10-bit 4:2:2 4K footage from last year for examples from the PL 25. Subjects move around the frame. I don't re-focus if the subject shifts from frame center to the the left edge. Alternatively if the camera pans slightly off the subject and the subject is now off-center.

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

If I were shooting portraits of individual people it wouldn't matter, I agree. Must of our cine primes are exceptionally sharp across the frame even wide open, and obviously cost a premium. I can't speak for the mZD 17 because I haven't used one but the 25 f/1.2 has impressed me in this regard.

Click to expand...

But, it would be nice to see a shot where this characteristic is actually of importance. I'm not saying that it never is, but I really can't remember an example. I just did a Google image search on 'shallow depth of field' and there was one image out of the first several hundred I looked at where the edge sharpness was of importance, and if, as is often the case, the lack of edge sharpness was caused by field curvature, that would have been fine, since the subject would be the thing focussed on.

See above.

bobn2 said:
The question that I asked was merely whether such a lens would have been more generally useful. It wasn't an unreasonable question, was it?

In my experience, business decisions are based on profits, not utility (ideally these would be one in the same). We have to assume Olympus put forward the best design they could sell. Or they just made a poor business decision (this is Olympus after all.)

Sergey_Green · Jan 11, 2018

MEDISN said:
Sergey_Green said:

MEDISN said:

Sergey_Green said:

Not in the center does not mean in the edges. Unless you mean landscapes, for which you stop the lens down.

Click to expand...

What would you consider the outer third of the frame right up to the edge and including corners? I'm not supposed to use that space?

Click to expand...

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?

--
- sergey

Click to expand...

All of the above. I can't limit composition because of poor corner performance. Yes, in low light I shoot wide open. I will simply use a different lens.

You mean you can not limit composition to the basic compositional rules, I am not judging, this is your choice entirely. Looking at the Sigma 35 1.4 images on flickr, on the other hand, I do not really see wide open shots with the point of interest at the far corners or edges;

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=sigma 35 1.4

Do you?

As I already said, landscape is a different story, for which you simply stop the lens down. Can you tell this forum why you would shoot wide open, by the way?

--
- sergey

mg_k · Jan 11, 2018

Sergey_Green said:
MEDISN said:

Sergey_Green said:

MEDISN said:

Sergey_Green said:

Not in the center does not mean in the edges. Unless you mean landscapes, for which you stop the lens down.

Click to expand...

What would you consider the outer third of the frame right up to the edge and including corners? I'm not supposed to use that space?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

JaKing · Jan 11, 2018

Kinson, how's your range finder focusing practice coming along?

mg_k · Jan 11, 2018

JaKing said:
Kinson, how's your range finder focusing practice coming along?

Off topic much?

Anyway I just find it funny how some m43 users want to nitpick extreme corner performance. Get real?!?! m43 isn't even up to par in center performance lol

Nothing but pro-wannabe trying to justify a "pro lens".

What an absolute joke.

JaKing said:
--
br, john, from you know where
My gear list and sordid past are here: https://www.dpreview.com/members/1558378718/overview
Gallery: https://www.canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/page/gallery/

--
My Flickr
My Getty Images

JaKing · Jan 11, 2018

What is an absolute joke, to use your words, is your utterly predictable trolling on this forum.

Your constant statements deriding this format doesn't square with my own experience at all.

But what would I know?

Started shooting Arca-Swiss 5x4 about 30-40 years before you were born ...

Have owned several Leica range finder kits over the last 50+ years, and used a lot more than I ever owned. A friend owned the Leica franchise where I spent my youth ... Nicely made. Overpriced to heck. Image quality not up to the standard of some of my Praktica hand made USM lenses, or those I had for my various OM series cameras.

A fool and his money are soon parted, I guess. Sold my last Leica and the three Summicron lenses in the mid 1990s.

You sound to me like someone striving valiantly/desperately to justify to themselves all the money you have spent with no appreciable improvement in your photography ...

bobn2 · Jan 12, 2018

MEDISN said:
bobn2 said:

Maybe, but I don't see many examples of when you need it. Maybe you could provide one.

Click to expand...

No maybe about it. Recall I'm talking video. I'm not interested in digging up 10-bit 4:2:2 4K footage from last year for examples from the PL 25. Subjects move around the frame. I don't re-focus if the subject shifts from frame center to the the left edge. Alternatively if the camera pans slightly off the subject and the subject is now off-center.

Ah, video. Roll on 8k when you might actually see the difference. Anyway, respect for your videography skills, keeping your subject in focus absolute enough for the edge sharpness to make a difference as they move around, without even changing focus. Do you paint a white line on the floor for them to move along?

MEDISN said:
MEDISN said:

MEDISN said:

If I were shooting portraits of individual people it wouldn't matter, I agree. Must of our cine primes are exceptionally sharp across the frame even wide open, and obviously cost a premium. I can't speak for the mZD 17 because I haven't used one but the 25 f/1.2 has impressed me in this regard.

Click to expand...

But, it would be nice to see a shot where this characteristic is actually of importance. I'm not saying that it never is, but I really can't remember an example. I just did a Google image search on 'shallow depth of field' and there was one image out of the first several hundred I looked at where the edge sharpness was of importance, and if, as is often the case, the lack of edge sharpness was caused by field curvature, that would have been fine, since the subject would be the thing focussed on.

Click to expand...

See above.

MEDISN said:

The question that I asked was merely whether such a lens would have been more generally useful. It wasn't an unreasonable question, was it?

Click to expand...

In my experience, business decisions are based on profits, not utility (ideally these would be one in the same). We have to assume Olympus put forward the best design they could sell. Or they just made a poor business decision (this is Olympus after all.)

I didn't mention business decisions, I just asked whether a less corrected but otherwise more usable lens might have been more generally useful. Simple enough question, but for some reason seems to have been taken personally by a couple of people. As for 'the best design they can sell', well 'best' might have a number of parameters, and edge to edge sharpness wide open is just one.

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

mg_k · Jan 12, 2018

JaKing said:
You sound to me like someone striving valiantly/desperately to justify to themselves all the moneyy ou have spent

If you are going to be a poser at least do it right like me

Arguing about extreme corner performance on m43 is almost as bad as how wide a GT wing one should install on a Toyota Yaris

JaKing said:
with no appreciable improvement in your photography ...

Mate speak for yourself

Will Oly 17mm 1.2 match Sigma 35mm ART?

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts