Reading mode: Light Dark

Lens Rentals tests m43 portrait lenses.

Go to last post
Androole said:
halfwaythere said:
Androole said:
halfwaythere said:
I think it's safe to say adding a "PRO" or a "Nocticron" to a lenses' name is nothing more than a marketing ploy.

There's also nothing outstanding optically that warrants the price. The Sigma 85/1.4 Art, which is the current 85mm optical champion, is cheaper then both m43rds F/1.2 lenses.
Click to expand...
Could you not say the exact same thing about Canon's "L" branding, or Nikon's "gold ring", or Pentax's "FA*," or Zeiss, or Leica, or...
Click to expand...
To a point.

Canon and Nikon's pedigree and professional expertise guarantees, to a degree, that they're top of the line lenses are they're best efforts. I'm not saying they don't rip you off but at least you're getting something in return.

Olympus and Pentax are milking their brand recognition from 40-50 years ago while Panasonic desperately tries to posh-up their products by using Leica's font.

Like Morgan cars, I honestly don't know why Zeiss manual lenses still exist today.
Click to expand...
I think that Mr. Cicala's article that prompted all of this quite clearly shows that the 42.5mm/1.2 Nocticron and 45mm/1.2 PRO are both exceptionally good lenses, branding notwithstanding. They could call it a 42.5mm/1.2 Crappilux and that would still hold true.
Click to expand...
The Crappilux was an exceptional lens. So sharp that one of the designers cut himself on it. Thereafter it was declared a health hazard and was never released.
 
tt321 said:
AiryDiscus said:
fyi, the code in that link will probably make it not work for other people, or after a day or so. Even though the paper is open access OSA still tokenizes the PDF link.
Click to expand...
I see. Thanks.

Can I ask a technical question? When there is symmetric field curvature the graph may have a U shape or inverted U shape. Which way is up and which way is down in terms of further away from the sensor and closer to the sensor?
Click to expand...
 
AiryDiscus said:
tt321 said:
AiryDiscus said:
fyi, the code in that link will probably make it not work for other people, or after a day or so. Even though the paper is open access OSA still tokenizes the PDF link.
Click to expand...
I see. Thanks.

Can I ask a technical question? When there is symmetric field curvature the graph may have a U shape or inverted U shape. Which way is up and which way is down in terms of further away from the sensor and closer to the sensor?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
halfwaythere said:
I think it's safe to say adding a "PRO" or a "Nocticron" to a lenses' name is nothing more than a marketing ploy.

There's also nothing outstanding optically that warrants the price. The Sigma 85/1.4 Art, which is the current 85mm optical champion, is cheaper then both m43rds F/1.2 lenses.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The “pro” designation, at least, is shorthand for a bunch of lens features.
 
RCicala said:
Kubicide said:
And IMO your take is good! (There's some bad grammar for ya!)

You've correctly described what this really is which is simply a bunch of measurements of lenses in unknown conditions. These are observations only. And it's doubtful the testers have any training in sampling theory to pose accurate conclusions.

Fact here may very be that brand x has a wider manufacturing tolerance than brand z but what does that mean? Was one lens type more expensive than the other since it has a higher manufacturing cost? Does one design have better characteristics aside from the measured clinical sharpness such as pleasing bokeh or fewer artifacts?

I find these types of comparisons being made more for hype and attention when they come from a company which is understandable as this is advertising and publicity to help their sales.
Click to expand...
I'll accept the first three paragraphs without argument, actually agree with it basically.

As to the last one, I assume you're thinking I do this to help Lensrentals sales (I don't own it anymore, but a reasonable thought). I would point out that in that case dong m4/3 testing is not a very reasonable use of my time: m4/3 gear is perhaps 4% of their sales and the vast majority of that is video, not photo. Lensrentals hasn't made a suggestion of what I should test in several years. If it mattered to their traffic I'm sure they would at least ask me to test this or that.

Anyway, I basically test whatever interests me when I'm not testing for industry. The main reason for variance testing is we're developing a 'rapid MTF' testing system that requires standards and acceptable variance so I need that data and I share a lot of what I collect. If most people aren't interested in it I can shorten the blog posts a bit, and shorter blog posts are always a good thing.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply.

Take the third paragraph with a neutral context. It's not a negative. Point is that this is what companies do: post material on a website that people would be interested in seeing. And the website promotes the business - every company does this; this site does this daily but for readership for ad revenue. And it works - the intent to promote business by posting informative articles - as look at this thread and how many other sites are linking back to the comparison. That's good business.

The critique I have with the article was already stated which was simply that where's the other criteria to consider related to the test conditions. What was shown only tells part of a story. And the conclusions are simply opinions formed by the tester. It would be interesting to see the tests conditions and other factors so folks can base there own opinions on the results.
 
Androole said:
halfwaythere said:
Androole said:
halfwaythere said:
I think it's safe to say adding a "PRO" or a "Nocticron" to a lenses' name is nothing more than a marketing ploy.

There's also nothing outstanding optically that warrants the price. The Sigma 85/1.4 Art, which is the current 85mm optical champion, is cheaper then both m43rds F/1.2 lenses.
Click to expand...
Could you not say the exact same thing about Canon's "L" branding, or Nikon's "gold ring", or Pentax's "FA*," or Zeiss, or Leica, or...
Click to expand...
To a point.

Canon and Nikon's pedigree and professional expertise guarantees, to a degree, that they're top of the line lenses are they're best efforts. I'm not saying they don't rip you off but at least you're getting something in return.

Olympus and Pentax are milking their brand recognition from 40-50 years ago while Panasonic desperately tries to posh-up their products by using Leica's font.

Like Morgan cars, I honestly don't know why Zeiss manual lenses still exist today.
Click to expand...
I think that Mr. Cicala's article that prompted all of this quite clearly shows that the 42.5mm/1.2 Nocticron and 45mm/1.2 PRO are both exceptionally good lenses, branding notwithstanding. They could call it a 42.5mm/1.2 Crappilux and that would still hold true.
Click to expand...
I don't see that. I don't think you can call lenses that produce a "F/2.4 look" exceptional. By this metric every cheapo 85/1.8 is outstanding because at F/2.4 most of them are stellar.

You can't just isolate a product or a system and call it the best without comparing it to what else is available. That's what m43rds marketing is doing, multiplying the focal length by 2 and disregarding everything else.
 
Kubicide said:
And the conclusions are simply opinions formed by the tester. It would be interesting to see the tests conditions and other factors so folks can base there own opinions on the results.
Click to expand...
This is a good case of "If that's how you think lens tests should be conducted, then why don't you do some yourself and start a web site, free of charge, as a public service". Until then, you get what the people who have decided to do it give you, for better or worse.
 
halfwaythere said:
Androole said:
halfwaythere said:
Androole said:
halfwaythere said:
I think it's safe to say adding a "PRO" or a "Nocticron" to a lenses' name is nothing more than a marketing ploy.

There's also nothing outstanding optically that warrants the price. The Sigma 85/1.4 Art, which is the current 85mm optical champion, is cheaper then both m43rds F/1.2 lenses.
Click to expand...
Could you not say the exact same thing about Canon's "L" branding, or Nikon's "gold ring", or Pentax's "FA*," or Zeiss, or Leica, or...
Click to expand...
To a point.

Canon and Nikon's pedigree and professional expertise guarantees, to a degree, that they're top of the line lenses are they're best efforts. I'm not saying they don't rip you off but at least you're getting something in return.

Olympus and Pentax are milking their brand recognition from 40-50 years ago while Panasonic desperately tries to posh-up their products by using Leica's font.

Like Morgan cars, I honestly don't know why Zeiss manual lenses still exist today.
Click to expand...
I think that Mr. Cicala's article that prompted all of this quite clearly shows that the 42.5mm/1.2 Nocticron and 45mm/1.2 PRO are both exceptionally good lenses, branding notwithstanding. They could call it a 42.5mm/1.2 Crappilux and that would still hold true.
Click to expand...
I don't see that. I don't think you can call lenses that produce a "F/2.4 look" exceptional. By this metric every cheapo 85/1.8 is outstanding because at F/2.4 most of them are stellar.

You can't just isolate a product or a system and call it the best without comparing it to what else is available. That's what m43rds marketing is doing, multiplying the focal length by 2 and disregarding everything else.
Click to expand...
Well, you heard it here first. There are no exceptional lenses over F2.4 (in 35mm terms).

Seems you're working very hard to disregard everything else except for the IQ comparison against 35mm systems.
 
Martin.au said:
halfwaythere said:
Androole said:
halfwaythere said:
Androole said:
halfwaythere said:
I think it's safe to say adding a "PRO" or a "Nocticron" to a lenses' name is nothing more than a marketing ploy.

There's also nothing outstanding optically that warrants the price. The Sigma 85/1.4 Art, which is the current 85mm optical champion, is cheaper then both m43rds F/1.2 lenses.
Click to expand...
Could you not say the exact same thing about Canon's "L" branding, or Nikon's "gold ring", or Pentax's "FA*," or Zeiss, or Leica, or...
Click to expand...
To a point.

Canon and Nikon's pedigree and professional expertise guarantees, to a degree, that they're top of the line lenses are they're best efforts. I'm not saying they don't rip you off but at least you're getting something in return.

Olympus and Pentax are milking their brand recognition from 40-50 years ago while Panasonic desperately tries to posh-up their products by using Leica's font.

Like Morgan cars, I honestly don't know why Zeiss manual lenses still exist today.
Click to expand...
I think that Mr. Cicala's article that prompted all of this quite clearly shows that the 42.5mm/1.2 Nocticron and 45mm/1.2 PRO are both exceptionally good lenses, branding notwithstanding. They could call it a 42.5mm/1.2 Crappilux and that would still hold true.
Click to expand...
I don't see that. I don't think you can call lenses that produce a "F/2.4 look" exceptional. By this metric every cheapo 85/1.8 is outstanding because at F/2.4 most of them are stellar.

You can't just isolate a product or a system and call it the best without comparing it to what else is available. That's what m43rds marketing is doing, multiplying the focal length by 2 and disregarding everything else.
Click to expand...
Well, you heard it here first. There are no exceptional lenses over F2.4 (in 35mm terms).

Seems you're working very hard to disregard everything else except for the IQ comparison against 35mm systems.
Click to expand...
There is some validity in what he says. If you want to say that these lenses are exceptional within the mFT system, then that is a true statement. If you want to say that they are 'exceptional' in an absolute sense, then you need to look at what the results are. And so far as the results go, he's right - these lenses would need to be compared with lenses that produce the same results on other systems.
 
bobn2 said:
Martin.au said:
halfwaythere said:
Androole said:
halfwaythere said:
Androole said:
halfwaythere said:
I think it's safe to say adding a "PRO" or a "Nocticron" to a lenses' name is nothing more than a marketing ploy.

There's also nothing outstanding optically that warrants the price. The Sigma 85/1.4 Art, which is the current 85mm optical champion, is cheaper then both m43rds F/1.2 lenses.
Click to expand...
Could you not say the exact same thing about Canon's "L" branding, or Nikon's "gold ring", or Pentax's "FA*," or Zeiss, or Leica, or...
Click to expand...
To a point.

Canon and Nikon's pedigree and professional expertise guarantees, to a degree, that they're top of the line lenses are they're best efforts. I'm not saying they don't rip you off but at least you're getting something in return.

Olympus and Pentax are milking their brand recognition from 40-50 years ago while Panasonic desperately tries to posh-up their products by using Leica's font.

Like Morgan cars, I honestly don't know why Zeiss manual lenses still exist today.
Click to expand...
I think that Mr. Cicala's article that prompted all of this quite clearly shows that the 42.5mm/1.2 Nocticron and 45mm/1.2 PRO are both exceptionally good lenses, branding notwithstanding. They could call it a 42.5mm/1.2 Crappilux and that would still hold true.
Click to expand...
I don't see that. I don't think you can call lenses that produce a "F/2.4 look" exceptional. By this metric every cheapo 85/1.8 is outstanding because at F/2.4 most of them are stellar.

You can't just isolate a product or a system and call it the best without comparing it to what else is available. That's what m43rds marketing is doing, multiplying the focal length by 2 and disregarding everything else.
Click to expand...
Well, you heard it here first. There are no exceptional lenses over F2.4 (in 35mm terms).

Seems you're working very hard to disregard everything else except for the IQ comparison against 35mm systems.
Click to expand...
There is some validity in what he says. If you want to say that these lenses are exceptional within the mFT system, then that is a true statement. If you want to say that they are 'exceptional' in an absolute sense, then you need to look at what the results are. And so far as the results go, he's right - these lenses would need to be compared with lenses that produce the same results on other systems.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bobn2 said:
Martin.au said:
halfwaythere said:
Androole said:
halfwaythere said:
Androole said:
halfwaythere said:
I think it's safe to say adding a "PRO" or a "Nocticron" to a lenses' name is nothing more than a marketing ploy.

There's also nothing outstanding optically that warrants the price. The Sigma 85/1.4 Art, which is the current 85mm optical champion, is cheaper then both m43rds F/1.2 lenses.
Click to expand...
Could you not say the exact same thing about Canon's "L" branding, or Nikon's "gold ring", or Pentax's "FA*," or Zeiss, or Leica, or...
Click to expand...
To a point.

Canon and Nikon's pedigree and professional expertise guarantees, to a degree, that they're top of the line lenses are they're best efforts. I'm not saying they don't rip you off but at least you're getting something in return.

Olympus and Pentax are milking their brand recognition from 40-50 years ago while Panasonic desperately tries to posh-up their products by using Leica's font.

Like Morgan cars, I honestly don't know why Zeiss manual lenses still exist today.
Click to expand...
I think that Mr. Cicala's article that prompted all of this quite clearly shows that the 42.5mm/1.2 Nocticron and 45mm/1.2 PRO are both exceptionally good lenses, branding notwithstanding. They could call it a 42.5mm/1.2 Crappilux and that would still hold true.
Click to expand...
I don't see that. I don't think you can call lenses that produce a "F/2.4 look" exceptional. By this metric every cheapo 85/1.8 is outstanding because at F/2.4 most of them are stellar.

You can't just isolate a product or a system and call it the best without comparing it to what else is available. That's what m43rds marketing is doing, multiplying the focal length by 2 and disregarding everything else.
Click to expand...
Well, you heard it here first. There are no exceptional lenses over F2.4 (in 35mm terms).

Seems you're working very hard to disregard everything else except for the IQ comparison against 35mm systems.
Click to expand...
There is some validity in what he says. If you want to say that these lenses are exceptional within the mFT system, then that is a true statement. If you want to say that they are 'exceptional' in an absolute sense, then you need to look at what the results are. And so far as the results go, he's right - these lenses would need to be compared with lenses that produce the same results on other systems.
Click to expand...
 
Just want to say thanks to LensRentals for doing these tests on MFT lenses. There hasn’t been testing released publicly with any level of rigor close to this in the history of the mount (which is apparently 10 years old now?). I can’t claim to understand any of the math behind it all, but lens variability in MFT is something I’ve personally found to be an issue in buying dozens of lenses for the mount over the past 5 years, and hopefully the manufacturers are paying attention after these posts.
 
cptobvious said:
Just want to say thanks to LensRentals for doing these tests on MFT lenses. There hasn’t been testing released publicly with any level of rigor close to this in the history of the mount (which is apparently 10 years old now?). I can’t claim to understand any of the math behind it all, but lens variability in MFT is something I’ve personally found to be an issue in buying dozens of lenses for the mount over the past 5 years, and hopefully the manufacturers are paying attention after these posts.
Click to expand...
yes indeed!!!
 
ahaslett said:
bobn2 said:
Martin.au said:
halfwaythere said:
Androole said:
halfwaythere said:
Androole said:
halfwaythere said:
I think it's safe to say adding a "PRO" or a "Nocticron" to a lenses' name is nothing more than a marketing ploy.

There's also nothing outstanding optically that warrants the price. The Sigma 85/1.4 Art, which is the current 85mm optical champion, is cheaper then both m43rds F/1.2 lenses.
Click to expand...
Could you not say the exact same thing about Canon's "L" branding, or Nikon's "gold ring", or Pentax's "FA*," or Zeiss, or Leica, or...
Click to expand...
To a point.

Canon and Nikon's pedigree and professional expertise guarantees, to a degree, that they're top of the line lenses are they're best efforts. I'm not saying they don't rip you off but at least you're getting something in return.

Olympus and Pentax are milking their brand recognition from 40-50 years ago while Panasonic desperately tries to posh-up their products by using Leica's font.

Like Morgan cars, I honestly don't know why Zeiss manual lenses still exist today.
Click to expand...
I think that Mr. Cicala's article that prompted all of this quite clearly shows that the 42.5mm/1.2 Nocticron and 45mm/1.2 PRO are both exceptionally good lenses, branding notwithstanding. They could call it a 42.5mm/1.2 Crappilux and that would still hold true.
Click to expand...
I don't see that. I don't think you can call lenses that produce a "F/2.4 look" exceptional. By this metric every cheapo 85/1.8 is outstanding because at F/2.4 most of them are stellar.

You can't just isolate a product or a system and call it the best without comparing it to what else is available. That's what m43rds marketing is doing, multiplying the focal length by 2 and disregarding everything else.
Click to expand...
Well, you heard it here first. There are no exceptional lenses over F2.4 (in 35mm terms).

Seems you're working very hard to disregard everything else except for the IQ comparison against 35mm systems.
Click to expand...
There is some validity in what he says. If you want to say that these lenses are exceptional within the mFT system, then that is a true statement. If you want to say that they are 'exceptional' in an absolute sense, then you need to look at what the results are. And so far as the results go, he's right - these lenses would need to be compared with lenses that produce the same results on other systems.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
bobn2 said:
I think the f/1.7 and f/1.8 primes are really rather nice myself, but that is all a matter of personal preference.

--
Click to expand...
So too is the 12mm f2, albeit somewhat expensive. For my needs these lenses are fast enough. Of course I would like to collect more light in gloomy places, if only it could be done with further reducing DOF. I find the DOF with these lenses wide open to be narrow enough for my liking.
bobn2 said:
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob
Click to expand...
 
bobn2 said:
Kubicide said:
And the conclusions are simply opinions formed by the tester. It would be interesting to see the tests conditions and other factors so folks can base there own opinions on the results.
Click to expand...
This is a good case of "If that's how you think lens tests should be conducted, then why don't you do some yourself and start a web site, free of charge, as a public service". Until then, you get what the people who have decided to do it give you, for better or worse.
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