Panny 25mm 1.4 vs Olympus 25mm 1.8 Reviewed

Started Feb 15, 2014 | Discussions
mh2000 Senior Member • Posts: 2,813
Re: I could care less about the fundamentals of digital imaging...

peppermonkey wrote:

Dave Sanders wrote:

Lawrence22 wrote:

The PL25 gives more richness in color and better 3Ddimensionality is quite obvious.

Lawrence

...complete bunk. Honestly, to even say so shows that you misunderstand the fundamentals of digital imaging.

because my eyes tells me (at least with the Robin Wong samples) that the Panny 1.4 does have a more 3D look to it's images. I'm uncertain about richness of colours but the differences in colour gradients is much more smoother in the Panny.

I could care less about the how or wide, I just see it when I see the photos.

Without more images to compare, I can't really say if they are that different but at least with the images shown by Robin Wong, that is what I see.

Back when I shot Canon bodies I shot both the EF 50/1.8 MKI and Leica Summicron-R 50. No one will try to tell you that the "nifty-fifty" is anywhere near the Leica in quailtity. I had a decent focusing screen, but still shot my EF 50 at least half the time. After shooting both and just looking at the photos taken by each that were a success, I came to realize that the subtle qualities of the Leica rarely made the difference between a truly good photo or not. Yes, some photos had that Leica look, but, it was always a secondary effect. Of course it helps that in real life you don't take duplicate photos to compare... but had the Summicron had consistently resulted in much better photos I would have just used it, but since it didn't, the lessor EF 50 being much lighter and having AF still had usefulness.

-- hide signature --
mh2000 Senior Member • Posts: 2,813
agree kinda...

Lawrence22 wrote:

peppermonkey wrote:

Dave Sanders wrote:

Lawrence22 wrote:

The PL25 gives more richness in color and better 3Ddimensionality is quite obvious.

Lawrence

...complete bunk. Honestly, to even say so shows that you misunderstand the fundamentals of digital imaging.

because my eyes tells me (at least with the Robin Wong samples) that the Panny 1.4 does have a more 3D look to it's images. I'm uncertain about richness of colours but the differences in colour gradients is much more smoother in the Panny.

I could care less about the how or wide, I just see it when I see the photos.

Without more images to compare, I can't really say if they are that different but at least with the images shown by Robin Wong, that is what I see.

Yes, It is very obvious with the photos of the yellow public telephone and the red peppers.....about colors and 3D look.

Lawrence

While I agree with you on these two examples, but in the first two comparisons I'd give the edge to the Oly for pop and "3D look."

-- hide signature --
peppermonkey Veteran Member • Posts: 4,901
I actually like the Oly 25mm...

mh2000 wrote:

peppermonkey wrote:

Dave Sanders wrote:

Lawrence22 wrote:

The PL25 gives more richness in color and better 3Ddimensionality is quite obvious.

Lawrence

...complete bunk. Honestly, to even say so shows that you misunderstand the fundamentals of digital imaging.

because my eyes tells me (at least with the Robin Wong samples) that the Panny 1.4 does have a more 3D look to it's images. I'm uncertain about richness of colours but the differences in colour gradients is much more smoother in the Panny.

I could care less about the how or wide, I just see it when I see the photos.

Without more images to compare, I can't really say if they are that different but at least with the images shown by Robin Wong, that is what I see.

Back when I shot Canon bodies I shot both the EF 50/1.8 MKI and Leica Summicron-R 50. No one will try to tell you that the "nifty-fifty" is anywhere near the Leica in quailtity. I had a decent focusing screen, but still shot my EF 50 at least half the time. After shooting both and just looking at the photos taken by each that were a success, I came to realize that the subtle qualities of the Leica rarely made the difference between a truly good photo or not. Yes, some photos had that Leica look, but, it was always a secondary effect. Of course it helps that in real life you don't take duplicate photos to compare... but had the Summicron had consistently resulted in much better photos I would have just used it, but since it didn't, the lessor EF 50 being much lighter and having AF still had usefulness.

Both lenses are truly excellent lenses as far as I can tell. Well, Robin Wong can make the body cap lens look like a stellar lens...

Anyhow, both are great lenses and would definitely consider the Oly if I didn't already own the PL 25mm. Specially since it's so small, light and slightly cheaper. As I already have the Panny 20mm pancake I probably would lean towards the PL just for the IQ but if I didn't have the 20mm I can see myself picking the Oly over the PL just to save on space and weight.

All I am saying is that I can see how the lenses renders images differently (however slight that may be) and that I prefer the PL look. There will be those that prefer the Oly look. And a grand majority probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference of either. Actually, I would guess on the whole, more people will pick up on how the Oly seems to be more (clinically) sharper and therefore a better lens in their eyes. Besides, the Oly being smaller, lighter, cheaper and having market brand recognition over Panasonic, those alone pretty much already dictates that the Oly would sell way more than the Panasonic PL 25mm. Great job for them. Too bad it wasn't a pancake

-- hide signature --

Hubert
My non-digital gear: Agfa Isolette, Fed 2, Konica Auto S2, K1000, Yashica Electro 35 GX, Recesky
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2034/2457111090_00eafbf8a4_m.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/peppermonkey/

 peppermonkey's gear list:peppermonkey's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 Sigma DP2 Sony RX100 II Pentax K110D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 +11 more
mh2000 Senior Member • Posts: 2,813
nice comparison!

amtberg wrote:

Dave Sanders wrote:

amtberg wrote:

I'll reserve judgment until I or a neutral third party has an opportunity to make the comparison. Consciously or not, all but one of the bokeh comparison pics were shot in such a way as to minimize the Panasonic's advantage.

While I certainly understand your reservations about an Olympus rep doing a comparative lens review, I think 2/3 of a stop on a 25mm lens is not worth arguing about. We are, literally, talking about a DOF difference of just over an inch. Background blur differences are inconsequential. And I'm a PL 25 owner.

Robin says that the 25/1.8 is wider than the 25/1.4, but if you notice, in most of the bokeh comparison pics the framing is actually tighter in the 25/1.8 shot, meaning that he didn't shoot from the same position and he focused closer with the Olympus lens. That can make a pretty substantial difference for background bokeh.

What's significant is pretty subjective, but IMO the difference in bokeh in these shots taken at f/1.4 and f/1.8 with my Nokton 25mm is significant -- especially on a "normal" MFT lens where separation is often at a premium (rollover to see change):

http://www.3danvil.com/temp/f1.4_vf1.8/image%20rollover_02.html

Thanks for posting this!

-- hide signature --
amtberg Veteran Member • Posts: 6,151
Re: The psychology of seeing what you want to see
1

dgrogers wrote:

amtberg wrote:

You might want to have your eyes checked because the f/1.4 pic clearly has a lot more background blur than the f/1.8 pic.

As I've mentioned before, I don't have a horse in this race. It's academic for me since I have the 25/.95 and between it and the 12-35 I'm more than happy with my 25mm options. But it's good to know that "real world" photos don't have trees in the background. LOL

Confirmation bias has it's grip on you. For someone who claims to have no horse in this perceived race, you sure are acting like that obnoxious fan in the cheap seats. Why do you see this as a race instead of another excellent option in the m4/3 world?

I believe the psychological term you are looking for is "projection".

I'm comparing the two lenses because the thread is about an article that compared the two lenses.  Not exactly brain surgery, is it?

amtberg Veteran Member • Posts: 6,151
Re: "Less than precisely rigorous," maybe

mh2000 wrote:

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

Typically, when people traditionally compared a 50/1.8 vs a 50/1.4, it was usually based on lens quality differences, not nit picking the differences between f1.8 and f1.4. Looks like only the build quality of the P/L 25 is noticeably better in this case.

Disagree. Lens manufacturers don't go to such extremes of design and cost to produce fast f/1-1.4 lenses just so they'll look better at f/1.8 and above. Photographers have always been willing to pay top dollar for fast glass because it provides more flexibility in exposure and composition.

In the present case it's not a huge difference but it's noticeable and it's just silly to pretend that it doesn't exist.

Look at the differences between the Canon "nifty 50" and compare to the EF 50/1.4 (or Nikon alternatives). There is a lot more differentiating the lenses than just the faster aperture.

The speed difference between f1.4 and f1.8 is just not that much.

Granted, if you were a Leica shooter, this doesn't apply, the only real difference between a Summicron f2 and Summilux f1.4 is the aperture, they are both quality Leica lenses.

It's not a chicken and egg problem, though. Canon, Nikon, etc., put more effort and higher quality components into their faster lenses because they know that their most demanding customers want the fastest lenses they can get.

Yes, exactly! It has nothing to do with the minor difference in apperture, it has to do with all the other properties they put into their lenses besides the larger aperture!

Also, what about Leica? The quality of their 50/2.8, 50/2.5, 50/2 and 50/1.4 are all supperb. My guess is that almost every Leica shooter considers themself "demanding" and they sold many Elmars and Summicrons!

Seriously ... people ... it has to do with BOTH.  All else being equal, faster is better.  Here all else is essentially equal but the PL is a little faster.  QED....

mh2000 Senior Member • Posts: 2,813
Re: "Less than precisely rigorous," maybe
1

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

Typically, when people traditionally compared a 50/1.8 vs a 50/1.4, it was usually based on lens quality differences, not nit picking the differences between f1.8 and f1.4. Looks like only the build quality of the P/L 25 is noticeably better in this case.

Disagree. Lens manufacturers don't go to such extremes of design and cost to produce fast f/1-1.4 lenses just so they'll look better at f/1.8 and above. Photographers have always been willing to pay top dollar for fast glass because it provides more flexibility in exposure and composition.

In the present case it's not a huge difference but it's noticeable and it's just silly to pretend that it doesn't exist.

Look at the differences between the Canon "nifty 50" and compare to the EF 50/1.4 (or Nikon alternatives). There is a lot more differentiating the lenses than just the faster aperture.

The speed difference between f1.4 and f1.8 is just not that much.

Granted, if you were a Leica shooter, this doesn't apply, the only real difference between a Summicron f2 and Summilux f1.4 is the aperture, they are both quality Leica lenses.

It's not a chicken and egg problem, though. Canon, Nikon, etc., put more effort and higher quality components into their faster lenses because they know that their most demanding customers want the fastest lenses they can get.

Yes, exactly! It has nothing to do with the minor difference in apperture, it has to do with all the other properties they put into their lenses besides the larger aperture!

Also, what about Leica? The quality of their 50/2.8, 50/2.5, 50/2 and 50/1.4 are all supperb. My guess is that almost every Leica shooter considers themself "demanding" and they sold many Elmars and Summicrons!

Seriously ... people ... it has to do with BOTH.  All else being equal, faster is better.  Here all else is essentially equal but the PL is a little faster.  QED....

Everything else being equal, cheaper, smaller and lighter are also "better," but all things are not precisely even.

As far as I'm concerned, both are nice lenses. The P/L pricing and size/weight is a little too much for me, but that's a subjective meassure. The aperture difference in this case is not very important to me at all.

Really, I think the reviews are pointing to them both being good lenses. If you prefer the rendering from the P/L 25, that would be the best reason to get the P/L IMO.

-- hide signature --
draleks Forum Member • Posts: 76
Re: Panny 25mm 1.4 vs Olympus 25mm 1.8 Reviewed

Lawrence22 wrote:

The PL25 gives more richness in color and better 3Ddimensionality is quite obvious.

Lawrence

Aslo, less flares.

Altruisto Contributing Member • Posts: 910
Re: not subjective? give me a break!

How can you say that this is not subjective? Give me a break!

When you are talking about a "sense of depth" you are talking a subjective perception!

Not only is there a DoF difference, there is also a rendering difference. These will cause different people to respond differently to each photo.

If you think you cannot consistently take the photos you want using the Oly 25, then don't buy it.

Who says that I'm discarding the Oly 25 or saying that it's not a good alternative? All I'm trying to say is that Robin Wong and all those claiming that there's no depth difference between the two lenses, are just not fair to the PL25.

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/altruisto/
http://www.facebook.com/tarekmradrtci
https://twitter.com/#!/tarekmrad
owning a Nikon D600 with a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, and a bunch of Nikon primes, a Nikon J1 but not particularly a Nikon fanboy, since I have an Olympus E-PL5, a Panasonic GX7, a Sony RX10 and a Canon S110 too!

amtberg Veteran Member • Posts: 6,151
Re: "Less than precisely rigorous," maybe

mh2000 wrote:

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

Typically, when people traditionally compared a 50/1.8 vs a 50/1.4, it was usually based on lens quality differences, not nit picking the differences between f1.8 and f1.4. Looks like only the build quality of the P/L 25 is noticeably better in this case.

Disagree. Lens manufacturers don't go to such extremes of design and cost to produce fast f/1-1.4 lenses just so they'll look better at f/1.8 and above. Photographers have always been willing to pay top dollar for fast glass because it provides more flexibility in exposure and composition.

In the present case it's not a huge difference but it's noticeable and it's just silly to pretend that it doesn't exist.

Look at the differences between the Canon "nifty 50" and compare to the EF 50/1.4 (or Nikon alternatives). There is a lot more differentiating the lenses than just the faster aperture.

The speed difference between f1.4 and f1.8 is just not that much.

Granted, if you were a Leica shooter, this doesn't apply, the only real difference between a Summicron f2 and Summilux f1.4 is the aperture, they are both quality Leica lenses.

It's not a chicken and egg problem, though. Canon, Nikon, etc., put more effort and higher quality components into their faster lenses because they know that their most demanding customers want the fastest lenses they can get.

Yes, exactly! It has nothing to do with the minor difference in apperture, it has to do with all the other properties they put into their lenses besides the larger aperture!

Also, what about Leica? The quality of their 50/2.8, 50/2.5, 50/2 and 50/1.4 are all supperb. My guess is that almost every Leica shooter considers themself "demanding" and they sold many Elmars and Summicrons!

Seriously ... people ... it has to do with BOTH. All else being equal, faster is better. Here all else is essentially equal but the PL is a little faster. QED....

Everything else being equal, cheaper, smaller and lighter are also "better," but all things are not precisely even.

Well sure, I was just talking about IQ.  In terms of weight, the PL is 2.3 ounces heavier which isn't much in the scheme of things.  I suppose I might consider it significant if I was using a GM1.

As far as I'm concerned, both are nice lenses. The P/L pricing and size/weight is a little too much for me, but that's a subjective meassure. The aperture difference in this case is not very important to me at all.

Really, I think the reviews are pointing to them both being good lenses. If you prefer the rendering from the P/L 25, that would be the best reason to get the P/L IMO.

I agree!  I think they are both very good lenses.

mh2000 Senior Member • Posts: 2,813
Re: "Less than precisely rigorous," maybe

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

Typically, when people traditionally compared a 50/1.8 vs a 50/1.4, it was usually based on lens quality differences, not nit picking the differences between f1.8 and f1.4. Looks like only the build quality of the P/L 25 is noticeably better in this case.

Disagree. Lens manufacturers don't go to such extremes of design and cost to produce fast f/1-1.4 lenses just so they'll look better at f/1.8 and above. Photographers have always been willing to pay top dollar for fast glass because it provides more flexibility in exposure and composition.

In the present case it's not a huge difference but it's noticeable and it's just silly to pretend that it doesn't exist.

Look at the differences between the Canon "nifty 50" and compare to the EF 50/1.4 (or Nikon alternatives). There is a lot more differentiating the lenses than just the faster aperture.

The speed difference between f1.4 and f1.8 is just not that much.

Granted, if you were a Leica shooter, this doesn't apply, the only real difference between a Summicron f2 and Summilux f1.4 is the aperture, they are both quality Leica lenses.

It's not a chicken and egg problem, though. Canon, Nikon, etc., put more effort and higher quality components into their faster lenses because they know that their most demanding customers want the fastest lenses they can get.

Yes, exactly! It has nothing to do with the minor difference in apperture, it has to do with all the other properties they put into their lenses besides the larger aperture!

Also, what about Leica? The quality of their 50/2.8, 50/2.5, 50/2 and 50/1.4 are all supperb. My guess is that almost every Leica shooter considers themself "demanding" and they sold many Elmars and Summicrons!

Seriously ... people ... it has to do with BOTH. All else being equal, faster is better. Here all else is essentially equal but the PL is a little faster. QED....

Everything else being equal, cheaper, smaller and lighter are also "better," but all things are not precisely even.

Well sure, I was just talking about IQ.  In terms of weight, the PL is 2.3 ounces heavier which isn't much in the scheme of things.  I suppose I might consider it significant if I was using a GM1.

As far as I'm concerned, both are nice lenses. The P/L pricing and size/weight is a little too much for me, but that's a subjective meassure. The aperture difference in this case is not very important to me at all.

Really, I think the reviews are pointing to them both being good lenses. If you prefer the rendering from the P/L 25, that would be the best reason to get the P/L IMO.

I agree!  I think they are both very good lenses.

faster is only better if you are shooting at the fastest aperture, it isn't a matter of providing better IQ, in fact, it looks like on meassurables that the Oly might have the edge unless you bring in the touchy feely stuff to counter better sharpness across the frame. Personally, looking at these samples, it seems more like a mixed bag -- some of the Oly images look better to me and some of the P/L images look better. Having handled both the P/L 25 and the Oly 45, I would prefer having the smaller Oly to walk around with all day... just me.

As unexited as I was when I saw the Oly release, I'm getting more excited about the Oly 25...

-- hide signature --
mh2000 Senior Member • Posts: 2,813
Re: not subjective? give me a break!

Altruisto wrote:

How can you say that this is not subjective? Give me a break!

When you are talking about a "sense of depth" you are talking a subjective perception!

Not only is there a DoF difference, there is also a rendering difference. These will cause different people to respond differently to each photo.

If you think you cannot consistently take the photos you want using the Oly 25, then don't buy it.

Who says that I'm discarding the Oly 25 or saying that it's not a good alternative? All I'm trying to say is that Robin Wong and all those claiming that there's no depth difference between the two lenses, are just not fair to the PL25.

DoF and "3D effect" and "sense of depth" are three very different things.

-- hide signature --
amtberg Veteran Member • Posts: 6,151
Re: "Less than precisely rigorous," maybe

mh2000 wrote:

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

amtberg wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

Typically, when people traditionally compared a 50/1.8 vs a 50/1.4, it was usually based on lens quality differences, not nit picking the differences between f1.8 and f1.4. Looks like only the build quality of the P/L 25 is noticeably better in this case.

Disagree. Lens manufacturers don't go to such extremes of design and cost to produce fast f/1-1.4 lenses just so they'll look better at f/1.8 and above. Photographers have always been willing to pay top dollar for fast glass because it provides more flexibility in exposure and composition.

In the present case it's not a huge difference but it's noticeable and it's just silly to pretend that it doesn't exist.

Look at the differences between the Canon "nifty 50" and compare to the EF 50/1.4 (or Nikon alternatives). There is a lot more differentiating the lenses than just the faster aperture.

The speed difference between f1.4 and f1.8 is just not that much.

Granted, if you were a Leica shooter, this doesn't apply, the only real difference between a Summicron f2 and Summilux f1.4 is the aperture, they are both quality Leica lenses.

It's not a chicken and egg problem, though. Canon, Nikon, etc., put more effort and higher quality components into their faster lenses because they know that their most demanding customers want the fastest lenses they can get.

Yes, exactly! It has nothing to do with the minor difference in apperture, it has to do with all the other properties they put into their lenses besides the larger aperture!

Also, what about Leica? The quality of their 50/2.8, 50/2.5, 50/2 and 50/1.4 are all supperb. My guess is that almost every Leica shooter considers themself "demanding" and they sold many Elmars and Summicrons!

Seriously ... people ... it has to do with BOTH. All else being equal, faster is better. Here all else is essentially equal but the PL is a little faster. QED....

Everything else being equal, cheaper, smaller and lighter are also "better," but all things are not precisely even.

Well sure, I was just talking about IQ. In terms of weight, the PL is 2.3 ounces heavier which isn't much in the scheme of things. I suppose I might consider it significant if I was using a GM1.

As far as I'm concerned, both are nice lenses. The P/L pricing and size/weight is a little too much for me, but that's a subjective meassure. The aperture difference in this case is not very important to me at all.

Really, I think the reviews are pointing to them both being good lenses. If you prefer the rendering from the P/L 25, that would be the best reason to get the P/L IMO.

I agree! I think they are both very good lenses.

faster is only better if you are shooting at the fastest aperture, it isn't a matter of providing better IQ, in fact, it looks like on meassurables that the Oly might have the edge unless you bring in the touchy feely stuff to counter better sharpness across the frame. Personally, looking at these samples, it seems more like a mixed bag -- some of the Oly images look better to me and some of the P/L images look better. Having handled both the P/L 25 and the Oly 45, I would prefer having the smaller Oly to walk around with all day... just me.

As unexited as I was when I saw the Oly release, I'm getting more excited about the Oly 25...

I'm sure you won't be disappointed in the 25/1.8, though it's really impossible to judge absolute IQ based upon the small images Robin posted.  The size difference isn't as stark here as it is between the 45/2.8 and the 45/1.8, as the 25/1.4 is smaller than 45/2.8 and the 25/1.8 is bigger than the 45/1.8.

Dave Sanders Senior Member • Posts: 2,610
Re: The psychology of seeing what you want to see
2

amtberg wrote:

dgrogers wrote:

amtberg wrote:

You might want to have your eyes checked because the f/1.4 pic clearly has a lot more background blur than the f/1.8 pic.

As I've mentioned before, I don't have a horse in this race. It's academic for me since I have the 25/.95 and between it and the 12-35 I'm more than happy with my 25mm options. But it's good to know that "real world" photos don't have trees in the background. LOL

Confirmation bias has it's grip on you. For someone who claims to have no horse in this perceived race, you sure are acting like that obnoxious fan in the cheap seats. Why do you see this as a race instead of another excellent option in the m4/3 world?

I believe the psychological term you are looking for is "projection".

No, it's confirmation bias. You know, the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own bias.

I'm comparing the two lenses because the thread is about an article that compared the two lenses. Not exactly brain surgery, is it?

That sentence has no relationship to what he said.

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

Dave Sanders Senior Member • Posts: 2,610
Re: What advantage?

amtberg wrote:

You might want to have your eyes checked because the f/1.4 pic clearly has a lot more background blur than the f/1.8 pic.

As I've mentioned before, I don't have a horse in this race.

But you do have, what, 20 posts in this race?

It's academic for me since I have the 25/.95 and between it and the 12-35 I'm more than happy with my 25mm options. But it's good to know that "real world" photos don't have trees in the background.

Sorry, that was my way of saying that Robin takes good pictures. You can, if you want, also go out and take two good pictures that demonstrate the difference.

LOL

Do we still LOL?

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

Dave Sanders Senior Member • Posts: 2,610
Re: What advantage?

Krich13 wrote:

Dave Sanders wrote:

amtberg wrote:

Robin says that the 25/1.8 is wider than the 25/1.4, but if you notice, in most of the bokeh comparison pics the framing is actually tighter in the 25/1.8 shot, meaning that he didn't shoot from the same position and he focused closer with the Olympus lens. That can make a pretty substantial difference for background bokeh.

So you're saying any photographer with even a modicum of skill can overcome the difference?

To the same degree as a difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses in their 50 or 85 mm FF flavor could be overcome. There are scenarios where the difference can be overcome, some scenarios (like landscapes stopped down) where it is not important at all, and yet some where the difference is critical -- and for those few photographers pay x2-x3 the price for this extra 2/3-rds of a stop.

Generally, they are usually paying for speed or other design considerations, not DOF.

As a matter of fact, I think these 2/3-rds of a stop are more critical in m43 world than they are in FF world. That is, the scenarios where you need extra subject isolation are far more often: with FF the DOF becomes so thin at these apertures, that you stop down just to "get both eyes in focus".

Agreed that FF DOF is too thin for most portrait applications. My working aperture in the studio is f/8 for portraits. However, I still don't think that 2/3 of a stop at 25mm are meaningful. Any competent photographer can deal with minor difference.

Not so with m43, where you will find yourself shooting wide open (FF equivalent of f/2.8 and f/3.6 respectively) all the time.

In the FF world, f/2.8 and f/3.6 is also a meaningless difference.

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

Dave Sanders Senior Member • Posts: 2,610
Re: I could care less about the fundamentals of digital imaging...
2

peppermonkey wrote:

Dave Sanders wrote:

Lawrence22 wrote:

The PL25 gives more richness in color and better 3Ddimensionality is quite obvious.

Lawrence

...complete bunk. Honestly, to even say so shows that you misunderstand the fundamentals of digital imaging.

because my eyes tells me (at least with the Robin Wong samples) that the Panny 1.4 does have a more 3D look to it's images. I'm uncertain about richness of colours but the differences in colour gradients is much more smoother in the Panny.

I'm saying that I doubt that you can see that in a compressed JPEG, shot in sRGB using natural picture mode and AWB displayed on a monitor of unknown calibration and colour gamut and be certain what you're seeing a difference in a lens. There are simply too many steps in the imaging chain. In such a workflow, colour gradients are the things that suffer the most. Being able to see such subtle things as 'depth' and 'colour gradients' seems unlikely while viewing a low-res, 8 bit sRGB JPEG. I've spent too much time working with RAW files on a calibrated wide-gamut monitor to believe that, sorry.

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

amtberg Veteran Member • Posts: 6,151
Re: The psychology of seeing what you want to see

Dave Sanders wrote:

amtberg wrote:

dgrogers wrote:

amtberg wrote:

You might want to have your eyes checked because the f/1.4 pic clearly has a lot more background blur than the f/1.8 pic.

As I've mentioned before, I don't have a horse in this race. It's academic for me since I have the 25/.95 and between it and the 12-35 I'm more than happy with my 25mm options. But it's good to know that "real world" photos don't have trees in the background. LOL

Confirmation bias has it's grip on you. For someone who claims to have no horse in this perceived race, you sure are acting like that obnoxious fan in the cheap seats. Why do you see this as a race instead of another excellent option in the m4/3 world?

I believe the psychological term you are looking for is "projection".

No, it's confirmation bias. You know, the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own bias.

No, it's projection, as in you are projecting your fanboyism on me.

I'm comparing the two lenses because the thread is about an article that compared the two lenses. Not exactly brain surgery, is it?

That sentence has no relationship to what he said.

You really do need to see an eye doctor.

amtberg Veteran Member • Posts: 6,151
Re: What advantage?

Dave Sanders wrote:

amtberg wrote:

You might want to have your eyes checked because the f/1.4 pic clearly has a lot more background blur than the f/1.8 pic.

As I've mentioned before, I don't have a horse in this race.

But you do have, what, 20 posts in this race?

As do you, and thus by your own logic YOU are obsessing?

It's academic for me since I have the 25/.95 and between it and the 12-35 I'm more than happy with my 25mm options. But it's good to know that "real world" photos don't have trees in the background.

Sorry, that was my way of saying that Robin takes good pictures. You can, if you want, also go out and take two good pictures that demonstrate the difference.

When testing I think it's actually more important to take pictures that demonstrate the thing being tested.  You want to demonstrate resolution?  Shoot resolution charts -- not peppers.  You want to demonstrate bokeh?  Shoot a scene with clear foreground/background separation....

LOL

Do we still LOL?

Better to LOL than be the butt of it.

amtberg Veteran Member • Posts: 6,151
Re: What advantage?

Dave Sanders wrote:

Altruisto wrote:

I'm sorry to disagree on this. It does make a difference. Look at the smith photos. On the f1.4 we have a sense of depth. Not enough in the f1.8 shot. And it's not subjective.

I thought you guys were arguing that it had less depth...

And no it doesn't. And yes it is subjective.

That earns another LOL

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads