Jan van't Veld
Well-known member
[No message]
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What is your opinion of the 8-25 f4 pro lens?
- Thread starter Jan van't Veld
- Start date
luxborealis
Well-known member
I’ve had great success with the 8-25. Love it, particularly the nifty manual focus clutch. I’ve found focussing using MF with focus peaking to be a great way of working with ultra-wideangle and nailing depth-of-field.
The only ‘but’ is that if you intend to use if for astrophotography, you may find it a bit slow. I picked up the PL 9mm/1.7 to provide enough speed. That being said, ƒ4 of the 8-25 is not limiting as for most situations, I can simply increase the ISO or decrease the shuttle speed and rely on the excellent internal stabilization.
Terry
______________________________________
The essence of place — the art inherent in nature.
www.luxBorealis.com
The only ‘but’ is that if you intend to use if for astrophotography, you may find it a bit slow. I picked up the PL 9mm/1.7 to provide enough speed. That being said, ƒ4 of the 8-25 is not limiting as for most situations, I can simply increase the ISO or decrease the shuttle speed and rely on the excellent internal stabilization.
Terry
______________________________________
The essence of place — the art inherent in nature.
www.luxBorealis.com
Bobby J
Veteran Member
That's a very nice gallery Medisn. You've made that lens earn it's keep...and it has.
Thank's for sharing.
Thank's for sharing.
vcxz
Leading Member
I own it, but struggled putting it into a kit. I think it's a jack of all trades lens, so I struggle to find hyper optimized uses for it.
In city travel, I'm often shooting indoor architecture, and F4 is too slow. The Sigma 16-28 f2.8 on L mount is not much bigger. The Panasonic 16-35 F4 outresolves it even on a 25mp sensor and is often on sale for $1000. The 14-28 is very small too.
I think it would pair best with the 40-150 F4 in a landscape kit. But that pair weighs about the same as the Panasonic 8-18 and 50-200, and the latter gives the potential for additional for additional reach for wildlife, especially with the 1.4x TC.
And then if I'm really trying to minimize weight, I would use the 12-45 F4 and a prime. Or I would use the 75-300 for extra reach.
So I guess it's a great single lens solution, but I personally don't really use single lens kits often.
In city travel, I'm often shooting indoor architecture, and F4 is too slow. The Sigma 16-28 f2.8 on L mount is not much bigger. The Panasonic 16-35 F4 outresolves it even on a 25mp sensor and is often on sale for $1000. The 14-28 is very small too.
I think it would pair best with the 40-150 F4 in a landscape kit. But that pair weighs about the same as the Panasonic 8-18 and 50-200, and the latter gives the potential for additional for additional reach for wildlife, especially with the 1.4x TC.
And then if I'm really trying to minimize weight, I would use the 12-45 F4 and a prime. Or I would use the 75-300 for extra reach.
So I guess it's a great single lens solution, but I personally don't really use single lens kits often.
WilyKit
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,067
- Reaction score
- 1,316
It's just great. From f/4.5 it's truly sharp all over the frame, from 8mm to 25mm. f/4 is fine too, but f/4.5 can be noticeably better. The focal range is great. Sure, 12-100mm is a lot more versatile, you may think, but depending on your needs, the range of 8 to 12mm can offer so many additional opportunities that just elude you with 12mm.
The overall performance is excellent, without big issues with flare, CA, or anything, and what's out of focus (bokeh) looks smooth, never annoying. It's far better than most zoom lenses at minimizing the issues, and it's better than the f/2.8 Pro 12-40mm and 7-14mm. And it's very smooth and nice to handle, and obviously constructed well.
The overall performance is excellent, without big issues with flare, CA, or anything, and what's out of focus (bokeh) looks smooth, never annoying. It's far better than most zoom lenses at minimizing the issues, and it's better than the f/2.8 Pro 12-40mm and 7-14mm. And it's very smooth and nice to handle, and obviously constructed well.
Last edited:
drj3
Forum Pro
I do sometimes have trouble deciding on whether to take the 8-25 or the 12-100.
Since the OP asked about the 8-25 and appears to have only one mFTs camera, I am not sure why other lenses for other sensor sizes are relevant to the OPs post. The OPs gear list only includes an E-M1.2.
I agree the 8-25 is too slow for astro photography, but not for indoor architecture given the excellent stabilization of the E-M1s and OM1s and the focal lengths of the 8-25. If there are moving things indoors, then you would need flash even with the L mount.
With the great IBIS in Oly or OM cameras, I have never had a problem shooting in museums, churches, mansions, etc at F4, but no indoor action. Combined with Topaz Photo for noise reduction, 13 x19 prints are excellent. Shallow depth of field can sometimes be an issue with even faster lenses depending on the FL.
Greg
Greg
bluevellet
Senior Member
Eliminated nearly all ultra wide options for me and nearly eliminated the 12-40 f2.8, though I sometimes miss the f2.8 aperture (i can see the difference).
Great travel and walkaround lens overall.
Great travel and walkaround lens overall.
Jeff Semprebon
Active member
I used that combination on a trip last year to Nevada and Utah, and foudn it a great combination. Didn't use the 35-100mm that much, though, and there were a few times a longer reach would have been nice. Olympus 40-150mm/4 might have been a better option.
Jeff Semprebon
Active member
I really like it, but did find that the step up in size compared to the 12-40mm/2.8 was greater than I expected based just on the published numbers (lens shade is a lot of that, as it's a significant increase in diameter out at the end of the lens).
Used on a trip to Nevada and Utah (paired with a Panasonic 35-100mm/2.8) and found a number of situations in canyons etc. where the extra width was needed. Never missed the f/2.8.
With the very close focus distance, it's a great lens for creeping around damp woods shooting closeups of small fungi while including a fair amount of environment behind them.
IF you can use the additional width compared to the 12-40, it's well worth it, even losing the 1 stop. IF you don't need anything wider than 12mm (or can manage with a smaller lens for those rare occasions), the 12-40 is handier and has the f/2.8 for lower light.
Used on a trip to Nevada and Utah (paired with a Panasonic 35-100mm/2.8) and found a number of situations in canyons etc. where the extra width was needed. Never missed the f/2.8.
With the very close focus distance, it's a great lens for creeping around damp woods shooting closeups of small fungi while including a fair amount of environment behind them.
IF you can use the additional width compared to the 12-40, it's well worth it, even losing the 1 stop. IF you don't need anything wider than 12mm (or can manage with a smaller lens for those rare occasions), the 12-40 is handier and has the f/2.8 for lower light.
NowHearThis
Veteran Member
That should be doable and the filter thread could still be 72mm (maybe 77mm max).
I agree, the Olympus 40-150mm/4 would be a very nice pairing with massive reach in a small packet.
For me the extra 50mm (over the 35-10042.8) do not justify the extra purchase. I wish OM systems would offer something similar to the 40-150/4 (in terms of image quality and size) in the range up to 200-300mm.
Thomas Kachadurian
Senior Member
I found it too heavy for hiking compared to other options. Since the difference from 8-12 isn't that dramatic. I carry a Laowa 7.5mm f2 and a 12-45mm f4 pro. Both lenses together are lighter than the 8-25 and I get a better range.
Tom
Tom
Mark B UK
Senior Member
Optically excellent, sensible size and weight, takes normal filters. Above all, a very useful range. I do a lot of travel and street photography and tend to keep it on the camera for cities and interiors.
Asherax
Leading Member
reportedly OM System 50-250mm coming later this year! watch this space
Thanks for pointing this out. I'm quite aware of that.reportedly OM System 50-250mm coming later this year! watch this space
There used to be two lenses in that range on the roadmap, which has been updated recently. The one left seems to be white. I guess it aims at a different use-case (and also price range)
vcxz
Leading Member
The post asked for people's opinions on the lens. It didn't specify restrictions. My opinion is formed from my use of multiple systems.
Being afraid of comparisons is what feeds perception that M43 users have an inferiority complex. I originally avoided M43 because forum users defended it so fiercely I figured they had something to hide. I bought into it when I saw full frame users saying the 150-400 was competitive with different tradeoffs.
I'm sure you'd be happy to hear the PL 50-200 seems quite competitive or maybe better than my L mount Panasonic 70-300. The wide lenses though don't fare as well, not sure if there is more field curvature with shorter focal lengths or what.
Panasonic's L mount bodies have excellent stabilization too. F2.8 full frame is a lot faster than F4 equivalent and gives you a much better chance of being able to shoot at base ISO. Noise reduction works okay for patterns, but it's been comical at things like ceiling paintings with humans.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum