Reading mode: Light Dark

New 17mm f1.8 II Plastic or Metal?

Go to last post
Cafe Racer said:
Regor250 said:
Cafe Racer said:
Regor250 said:
Cafe Racer said:
gary0319 said:
Cafe Racer said:
Skeeterbytes said:
Good questions.

My eye test* says plastic shell, no focus clutch. Two net losses. Hood bayonet and sealing clear improvements. So, one hand gives and the other takes away.

SWAG the optical design is unchanged and perhaps the lens coatings have been brought up to the current tech, which will help tame flare.

Nothing fatal about the plastic shell; the metal one is just nice to hold and use (based on owning the 12 and 75). Focus clutch delete is inexplicable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, how much are they really saving omitting the focus clutch?

A compact metal version II prime lens would complement the 2k (approx.) metal bodied camera nicely. But a cheapo plastic one - meh!
Click to expand...
What if the new camera is not metal bodied? I've seen nothing definitive on the body being metal........ but, maybe I missed it somewhere.
Click to expand...
Apparently it's the same build as the Pen F, which is metal according to 4/3Rumors.
Click to expand...
You mean the same guy who from his reliable source said:
Click to expand...
Yep, the same site that has had many of their rumours verified as true and probably just as many turning out to be incorrect.

You do know what a rumour is right?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have posted what I did otherwise, but here we are having long threads discussing rumours of unknown origin as if they were factual.
Click to expand...
People discuss rumoured new products here all the time and many of them turn out to be true and many don't. That doesn't mean people think the rumour is accurate. The discussions are an opportunity for people to express what they would like to be true. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Click to expand...
i think you giving folks here more credit than is deserved. I would agree if folks would simply preface their assertions with “ it is my opinion”. But that would require an ownership of, if nothing else, at least the opinion… and even that is too much of a personal commitment for some. And….. that is my opinion, of course.
Cafe Racer said:
Cafe Racer said:
Cafe Racer said:
It's an uncertain and unverified account being circulated. That's why the name of the site is 43Rumors and not 43Facts! When a rumour is verified to be true then it's no longer a rumour.

Here's a product photo of the rumoured 25mm f1.8. Be sure to check back on the 6th Feb and let us know if it's fake or not.

This is a rumoured product photo.
This is a rumoured product photo.
Cafe Racer said:
OM-5 rumor summary:
  • 20MP (same OM-1 sensor)
  • 15fps
  • Single card slot
  • 3.6mp EVF
  • Same OM-1 BLX-1 battery
  • big hand grip similar to the E-M1III
  • Announcement late October
  • Shipment start in November
  • Likely around $1,599
  • Also a new lens will be announced
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
gary0319 said:
Cafe Racer said:
Regor250 said:
Cafe Racer said:
Regor250 said:
Cafe Racer said:
gary0319 said:
Cafe Racer said:
Skeeterbytes said:
Good questions.

My eye test* says plastic shell, no focus clutch. Two net losses. Hood bayonet and sealing clear improvements. So, one hand gives and the other takes away.

SWAG the optical design is unchanged and perhaps the lens coatings have been brought up to the current tech, which will help tame flare.

Nothing fatal about the plastic shell; the metal one is just nice to hold and use (based on owning the 12 and 75). Focus clutch delete is inexplicable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, how much are they really saving omitting the focus clutch?

A compact metal version II prime lens would complement the 2k (approx.) metal bodied camera nicely. But a cheapo plastic one - meh!
Click to expand...
What if the new camera is not metal bodied? I've seen nothing definitive on the body being metal........ but, maybe I missed it somewhere.
Click to expand...
Apparently it's the same build as the Pen F, which is metal according to 4/3Rumors.
Click to expand...
You mean the same guy who from his reliable source said:
Click to expand...
Yep, the same site that has had many of their rumours verified as true and probably just as many turning out to be incorrect.

You do know what a rumour is right?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have posted what I did otherwise, but here we are having long threads discussing rumours of unknown origin as if they were factual.
Click to expand...
People discuss rumoured new products here all the time and many of them turn out to be true and many don't. That doesn't mean people think the rumour is accurate. The discussions are an opportunity for people to express what they would like to be true. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Click to expand...
i think you giving folks here more credit than is deserved. I would agree if folks would simply preface their assertions with “ it is my opinion”. But that would require an ownership of, if nothing else, at least the opinion… and even that is too much of a personal commitment for some. And….. that is my opinion, of course.
Click to expand...
But then we all have the opportunity to ask clarifying or probing questions. If people don't bother to clarify whether their statements are being put forward as opinions or facts and responders don't bother to ask, then I think both parties are equally as responsible for any confusion. Instead of complaining we can attempt to ask the right questions. I don't think that's too difficult.
gary0319 said:
gary0319 said:
gary0319 said:
gary0319 said:
It's an uncertain and unverified account being circulated. That's why the name of the site is 43Rumors and not 43Facts! When a rumour is verified to be true then it's no longer a rumour.

Here's a product photo of the rumoured 25mm f1.8. Be sure to check back on the 6th Feb and let us know if it's fake or not.

This is a rumoured product photo.
This is a rumoured product photo.
gary0319 said:
OM-5 rumor summary:
  • 20MP (same OM-1 sensor)
  • 15fps
  • Single card slot
  • 3.6mp EVF
  • Same OM-1 BLX-1 battery
  • big hand grip similar to the E-M1III
  • Announcement late October
  • Shipment start in November
  • Likely around $1,599
  • Also a new lens will be announced
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
gary0319 said:
Cafe Racer said:
Regor250 said:
Cafe Racer said:
Regor250 said:
Cafe Racer said:
gary0319 said:
Cafe Racer said:
Skeeterbytes said:
Good questions.

My eye test* says plastic shell, no focus clutch. Two net losses. Hood bayonet and sealing clear improvements. So, one hand gives and the other takes away.

SWAG the optical design is unchanged and perhaps the lens coatings have been brought up to the current tech, which will help tame flare.

Nothing fatal about the plastic shell; the metal one is just nice to hold and use (based on owning the 12 and 75). Focus clutch delete is inexplicable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, how much are they really saving omitting the focus clutch?

A compact metal version II prime lens would complement the 2k (approx.) metal bodied camera nicely. But a cheapo plastic one - meh!
Click to expand...
What if the new camera is not metal bodied? I've seen nothing definitive on the body being metal........ but, maybe I missed it somewhere.
Click to expand...
Apparently it's the same build as the Pen F, which is metal according to 4/3Rumors.
Click to expand...
You mean the same guy who from his reliable source said:
Click to expand...
Yep, the same site that has had many of their rumours verified as true and probably just as many turning out to be incorrect.

You do know what a rumour is right?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have posted what I did otherwise, but here we are having long threads discussing rumours of unknown origin as if they were factual.
Click to expand...
People discuss rumoured new products here all the time and many of them turn out to be true and many don't. That doesn't mean people think the rumour is accurate. The discussions are an opportunity for people to express what they would like to be true. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Click to expand...
i think you giving folks here more credit than is deserved. I would agree if folks would simply preface their assertions with “ it is my opinion”. But that would require an ownership of, if nothing else, at least the opinion… and even that is too much of a personal commitment for some. And….. that is my opinion, of course.
Click to expand...
Perhaps this will help. I had to google and click in search of what Skeeterbytes' "SWAG" means (something other than the first several definitions I found, I'm sure), finally coming across a reddit thread offering, "Scientific Wild Ass Guess," which, if I'm gonna SWAG, is how Skeeterbytes used it. Perhaps its use could be encouraged in this forum . . . .
 
cc99 said:
Cafe Racer said:
cc99 said:
The original Olympus 100-400 didn't have Sync IS because it was really a Sigma, and therefore third-party.
Click to expand...
Third-party doesn't neccessarily mean a lens cannot be made to be compatible. Sigma makes compatible lenses for most brands.
Click to expand...
That's just it: the Sigma E-mount version for Sony does not have Sync IS because it is a third-party lens on the Sony system. Sigma has made lenses for Olympus before, but this was the first Sigma-Olympus with OIS, and they neglected to make it compatible.
cc99 said:
cc99 said:
When it first came out, the OIS worked so poorly I turned it off.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it just didn't meet your expectations.
Click to expand...
It was universally panned, and Olympus released several firmware updates in the following months to address these complaints.
Click to expand...
So Olympus acted on people's complaints and made an effort to fix it? That sounds like a good thing.
cc99 said:
cc99 said:
cc99 said:
After many firmware updates, it only got a little better. Many think it is defective.
Click to expand...
If it improved with firmware updates how is it defective? Do you understand there's a difference between something that's not very effective and something that's defective?
Click to expand...
It was broken to begin with; they tried many times to fix it in firmware, but couldn't.
Click to expand...
But you said "after many firmware updates, it only got a little better." A little better is not the same as not better.
cc99 said:
I still notice and regret the lack of SyncIS.
Click to expand...
Are you blaming Olympus because the lens didn't meet your expectations?
cc99 said:
cc99 said:
So are you saying Olympus didn't bother to cooperate with Sigma to make the IS system compatible with their cameras despite Sigma making the M4/3 mount for the lens with all the appropriate contacts?
Click to expand...
Correct. Sigma knew how to make M4/3 mount lenses, but had never made an OIS lens for M4/3 before. Failure to cooperate was direct result of corporate reorganization. It slipped through the cracks.
Click to expand...
How do you know your assessment is accurate?
cc99 said:
cc99 said:
cc99 said:
That scandal is not that OM is releasing a firmware update in the form of a new lens, but that the original Olympus lens had the wrong kind of hardware for Olympus cameras.
Click to expand...
How do know the lens had the wrong kind of hardware for Olympus cameras rather than ineffective firmware?
Click to expand...
The fact that they tried to fix it in firmware and failed.
Click to expand...
What exactly did the firmware try to fix?
cc99 said:
If you really think they deliberately withheld SyncIS
Click to expand...
I don't have access to inside information from OMDS I'm just throwing out there. Do you have access to inside information?
cc99 said:
from the original lens as a marketing decision, then why would they reverse that decision four years later?
Click to expand...
Maybe to relaunch an existing product as a new product and charge more money. What do you think?
cc99 said:
If not, the lack of SyncIS was a mistake, not a choice, and one that required a hardware revision to fix.
Click to expand...
Well making a mistake is not the same as doing something deliberately.
 
brentbrent said:
gary0319 said:
Cafe Racer said:
Regor250 said:
Cafe Racer said:
Regor250 said:
Cafe Racer said:
gary0319 said:
Cafe Racer said:
Skeeterbytes said:
Good questions.

My eye test* says plastic shell, no focus clutch. Two net losses. Hood bayonet and sealing clear improvements. So, one hand gives and the other takes away.

SWAG the optical design is unchanged and perhaps the lens coatings have been brought up to the current tech, which will help tame flare.

Nothing fatal about the plastic shell; the metal one is just nice to hold and use (based on owning the 12 and 75). Focus clutch delete is inexplicable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, how much are they really saving omitting the focus clutch?

A compact metal version II prime lens would complement the 2k (approx.) metal bodied camera nicely. But a cheapo plastic one - meh!
Click to expand...
What if the new camera is not metal bodied? I've seen nothing definitive on the body being metal........ but, maybe I missed it somewhere.
Click to expand...
Apparently it's the same build as the Pen F, which is metal according to 4/3Rumors.
Click to expand...
You mean the same guy who from his reliable source said:
Click to expand...
Yep, the same site that has had many of their rumours verified as true and probably just as many turning out to be incorrect.

You do know what a rumour is right?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have posted what I did otherwise, but here we are having long threads discussing rumours of unknown origin as if they were factual.
Click to expand...
People discuss rumoured new products here all the time and many of them turn out to be true and many don't. That doesn't mean people think the rumour is accurate. The discussions are an opportunity for people to express what they would like to be true. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Click to expand...
i think you giving folks here more credit than is deserved. I would agree if folks would simply preface their assertions with “ it is my opinion”. But that would require an ownership of, if nothing else, at least the opinion… and even that is too much of a personal commitment for some. And….. that is my opinion, of course.
Click to expand...
Perhaps this will help. I had to google and click in search of what Skeeterbytes' "SWAG" means (something other than the first several definitions I found, I'm sure), finally coming across a reddit thread offering, "Scientific Wild Ass Guess," which, if I'm gonna SWAG, is how Skeeterbytes used it. Perhaps its use could be encouraged in this forum . . . .
Click to expand...
Haven't heard that term used since sometime in the '80s. But some of these pontifications are more just WAGs, with little Scientific backing
 
Cafe Racer said:
Cafe Racer said:
I still notice and regret the lack of SyncIS.
Click to expand...
Are you blaming Olympus because the lens didn't meet your expectations?
Click to expand...
I knew the lens didn't have full SyncIS, but I had hoped it would work better than it did, and thought maybe they would add SyncIS in future. They did try, and failed.
Cafe Racer said:
Cafe Racer said:
The fact that they tried to fix it in firmware and failed.
Click to expand...
What exactly did the firmware try to fix?
Click to expand...
The fact that the OIS and IBIS would fight each other if they were both on at the same time, producing a lot of jerks. It was far worse than anyone had expected.
Cafe Racer said:
Maybe to relaunch an existing product as a new product and charge more money. What do you think?
Click to expand...
This year it's about re-issueing old products with flaws finally fixed, like weather-sealing f/1.8 primes, or putting SyncIS on the 100-400.
Cafe Racer said:
Cafe Racer said:
If not, the lack of SyncIS was a mistake, not a choice, and one that required a hardware revision to fix.
Click to expand...
Well making a mistake is not the same as doing something deliberately.
Click to expand...
Precisely. If the lack of SyncIS were a deliberate choice, they would never want to fix it.

Redesigning the hardware after only five years, suggests something was wrong with the first version. A redesign is much more expensive than just changing the name. They wouldn't spend that money unless it was fixing something important.
 
43Rumors price update in GBP.

17mm f1.8 £479

25mm F1.8 £399

OM-3 Body £1699

OM-3 Body + 14-45mm f4 Pro £1999

97f5671eab304db691b47639a7fee0f1.jpg.png
 
Last edited:
Cafe Racer said:
43Rumors price update in GBP.

17mm f1.8 £479

25mm F1.8 £399

OM-3 Body £1699

OM-3 Body + 14-45mm f4 Pro £1999

97f5671eab304db691b47639a7fee0f1.jpg.png
Click to expand...
That 25mm lens looks bigger than I expected. Maybe it's just the angle.
 
Cafe Racer said:
Cafe Racer said:
43Rumors price update in GBP.

17mm f1.8 £479

25mm F1.8 £399

OM-3 Body £1699

OM-3 Body + 14-45mm f4 Pro £1999

97f5671eab304db691b47639a7fee0f1.jpg.png
Click to expand...
That 25mm lens looks bigger than I expected. Maybe it's just the angle.
Click to expand...
Yeah it looks like they’re not going to do the narrowing they did with the original design, and with the 45/1.8. I think it actually looks a bit better and little less toy-like, with no real impact on portability.

As for the price, if £1,699 body only translates to $1,699, I might pre-order instead of waiting for them to hit the used market!



--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett
 
it almost always on Pen F when travelling, size and feel is nice, the focus clutch is useful, and i rarely shot in the rain anyway. If anything i wish it a bit smaller, maybe OMDS would release the New Pancake 17mm f2.8 II.

heres from a recent travel with the Old 17mm f1.8:



b61ae3d3b7ce412ba73b0c836430b9b8.jpg



a491c6bc7bc04178b4652e1cd51f99f9.jpg



1f24d3e2648e431ebed42c80ad4a77a8.jpg



1bf56321f9394b84802eb4224c5dad54.jpg

its even okay at f22:

5aac2423aa58456cb55dea905501769e.jpg

but sometimes i need that f1.8 too:

b98537eca48a4c0198341e80ebc6f28c.jpg

cheers
 
I can't help thinking OM missed an opportunity to update the 17mm & 25mm lenses with vintage styling to complement the OM-3. I don't think the new lenses do anything to enhance the retro aesthetic when paired with the OM-3. So as usual it's down to the manual focus options to get that all retro look.

f3b6f0fc86084a509ffe06b33e8f7aeb.jpg.png

59789908f5c341c898ce0ad776c3b05f.jpg

474d30a6c7384a06b940b5b83742c10c.jpg

Pentax has a nice retro zoom.

7d85e69b87d74e1d990f2a1fcd6d5f5c.jpg

That's more like it.
 
Last edited:
Cafe Racer said:
I can't help thinking OM missed an opportunity to update the 17mm & 25mm lenses with vintage styling to complement the OM-3. I don't think the new lenses do anything to enhance the retro aesthetic when paired with the OM-3.

f3b6f0fc86084a509ffe06b33e8f7aeb.jpg.png

59789908f5c341c898ce0ad776c3b05f.jpg

474d30a6c7384a06b940b5b83742c10c.jpg

Pentax has a nice retro zoom.

7d85e69b87d74e1d990f2a1fcd6d5f5c.jpg

That's more like it.
Click to expand...
But the original 17mm f1.8 is still available and look much better imo.
 
Ixoye said:
Cafe Racer said:
I can't help thinking OM missed an opportunity to update the 17mm & 25mm lenses with vintage styling to complement the OM-3. I don't think the new lenses do anything to enhance the retro aesthetic when paired with the OM-3.

f3b6f0fc86084a509ffe06b33e8f7aeb.jpg.png

59789908f5c341c898ce0ad776c3b05f.jpg

474d30a6c7384a06b940b5b83742c10c.jpg

Pentax has a nice retro zoom.

7d85e69b87d74e1d990f2a1fcd6d5f5c.jpg

That's more like it.
Click to expand...
But the original 17mm f1.8 is still available and look much better imo.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they could have taken the new lenses a step further towards vintage style like they've done with the camera body. That Pentax zoom lens retro design looks very cool.
 
Last edited:
Cafe Racer said:
Cafe Racer said:
43Rumors price update in GBP.

17mm f1.8 £479

25mm F1.8 £399

OM-3 Body £1699

OM-3 Body + 14-45mm f4 Pro £1999

97f5671eab304db691b47639a7fee0f1.jpg.png
Click to expand...
That 25mm lens looks bigger than I expected. Maybe it's just the angle.
Click to expand...
Take the filter mount as reference, it is the same 46mm diameter on old and new lens:



6bd45913a8ac40f5b2b922a1dcdec1bb.jpg



bd611ec079354c159fef4d0e7e0a8d37.jpg
 
Last edited:
43Rumors have released photos of the OM-3.

008bf666fb984bd5b1c8844ed2521422.jpg

I kept looking at the previous photo and thinking it looks bland. Now the official photos have arrived I feel underwhelmed. Maybe it will redeem itself when viewing it in the flesh!



f94e1d39ff8e4288bc5b880d142a32e1.jpg



e26661a60287460bae88f09dd970507f.jpg
 
Last edited:
Cafe Racer said:
cba_melbourne said:
Cafe Racer said:
Cafe Racer said:
43Rumors price update in GBP.

17mm f1.8 £479

25mm F1.8 £399

OM-3 Body £1699

OM-3 Body + 14-45mm f4 Pro £1999

97f5671eab304db691b47639a7fee0f1.jpg.png
Click to expand...
That 25mm lens looks bigger than I expected. Maybe it's just the angle.
Click to expand...
Take the filter mount as reference, it is the same 46mm diameter on old and new lens:
Click to expand...
The design looks a bit fat but it's probably just the angle.
Cafe Racer said:
6bd45913a8ac40f5b2b922a1dcdec1bb.jpg

bd611ec079354c159fef4d0e7e0a8d37.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Assuming the diameter of the section near the lens mount didn't change in size, the diameter of the focus ring is very obviously larger. I think it makes the lens look slightly more vintage. I always felt the "narrowing" approach on the 25/1.8 and 45/1.8 looked a bit strange.



Same critique with Canon's RF-S lenses:

Loading…

www.bhphotovideo.com

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett
 
Sam Bennett said:
Cafe Racer said:
cba_melbourne said:
Cafe Racer said:
Cafe Racer said:
43Rumors price update in GBP.

17mm f1.8 £479

25mm F1.8 £399

OM-3 Body £1699

OM-3 Body + 14-45mm f4 Pro £1999

97f5671eab304db691b47639a7fee0f1.jpg.png
Click to expand...
That 25mm lens looks bigger than I expected. Maybe it's just the angle.
Click to expand...
Take the filter mount as reference, it is the same 46mm diameter on old and new lens:
Click to expand...
The design looks a bit fat but it's probably just the angle.
Sam Bennett said:
6bd45913a8ac40f5b2b922a1dcdec1bb.jpg

bd611ec079354c159fef4d0e7e0a8d37.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Assuming the diameter of the section near the lens mount didn't change in size, the diameter of the focus ring is very obviously larger. I think it makes the lens look slightly more vintage.
Click to expand...
I think it looks ok but it doesn't look vintage.
Sam Bennett said:
I always felt the "narrowing" approach on the 25/1.8 and 45/1.8 looked a bit strange.

Same critique with Canon's RF-S lenses:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1707914-REG/canon_rf_s_18_150mm_f_3_5_5_6_is.html

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett
Click to expand...
 
Cafe Racer said:
Sam Bennett said:
Cafe Racer said:
cba_melbourne said:
Cafe Racer said:
Cafe Racer said:
43Rumors price update in GBP.

17mm f1.8 £479

25mm F1.8 £399

OM-3 Body £1699

OM-3 Body + 14-45mm f4 Pro £1999

97f5671eab304db691b47639a7fee0f1.jpg.png
Click to expand...
That 25mm lens looks bigger than I expected. Maybe it's just the angle.
Click to expand...
Take the filter mount as reference, it is the same 46mm diameter on old and new lens:
Click to expand...
The design looks a bit fat but it's probably just the angle.
Cafe Racer said:
6bd45913a8ac40f5b2b922a1dcdec1bb.jpg

bd611ec079354c159fef4d0e7e0a8d37.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Assuming the diameter of the section near the lens mount didn't change in size, the diameter of the focus ring is very obviously larger. I think it makes the lens look slightly more vintage.
Click to expand...
I think it looks ok but it doesn't look vintage.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's why I said slightly more vintage. I am disappointed that they didn't take the opportunity to build a new design language around these lenses that had more of a vintage vibe - I think that may be a decision that comes back to haunt them if style-conscious people don't like the look. Even just changing the material of the focus ring could have made a big difference.

But, ultimately, for me, I'm fine with this look overall for how I see it fitting into my kit.

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett
 
Sam Bennett said:
Cafe Racer said:
Sam Bennett said:
Cafe Racer said:
cba_melbourne said:
Cafe Racer said:
Cafe Racer said:
43Rumors price update in GBP.

17mm f1.8 £479

25mm F1.8 £399

OM-3 Body £1699

OM-3 Body + 14-45mm f4 Pro £1999

97f5671eab304db691b47639a7fee0f1.jpg.png
Click to expand...
That 25mm lens looks bigger than I expected. Maybe it's just the angle.
Click to expand...
Take the filter mount as reference, it is the same 46mm diameter on old and new lens:
Click to expand...
The design looks a bit fat but it's probably just the angle.
Sam Bennett said:
6bd45913a8ac40f5b2b922a1dcdec1bb.jpg

bd611ec079354c159fef4d0e7e0a8d37.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Assuming the diameter of the section near the lens mount didn't change in size, the diameter of the focus ring is very obviously larger. I think it makes the lens look slightly more vintage.
Click to expand...
I think it looks ok but it doesn't look vintage.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's why I said slightly more vintage. I am disappointed that they didn't take the opportunity to build a new design language around these lenses that had more of a vintage vibe - I think that may be a decision that comes back to haunt them if style-conscious people don't like the look.
Click to expand...
I'm a style-conscious person and while the lens design is fine I don't think it does anything to enhance the retro aesthetic of the OM-3. But now I've seen the OM-3 official product photos I'm not concerned about the lenses because I think the OM-3 design misses the mark. The OM-3 needs a retro grip or leather case to redeem itself.
Sam Bennett said:
Even just changing the material of the focus ring could have made a big difference.

But, ultimately, for me, I'm fine with this look overall for how I see it fitting into my kit.

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bluevellet
  • User review User review
Soft Spot For The 17mm f/1.8
Replies
15
Views
12K
baxters
B
bluevellet
  • User review User review
Good performance at a Bargain
Replies
1
Views
4K
DDoram
DDoram
Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn
The best set of primes for MFT?
Replies
13
Views
11K
Art_P
Art_P
nameless0ne
Nikon Z5 II -- metal or plastic?
Replies
1
Views
4K
Nebido
Nebido
B
The 84p Trioplan?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Bosun Higgs
B

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