+- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com)
+-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Micro-Four-Thirds (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Thread: next PZ lens test report: Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 ED (/showthread.php?tid=1931)
next PZ lens test report: Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 ED - Guest - 05-03-2013
Bokeh looks good (at least with such low-resolution images).
There is no flare, these blobs are just defocused things in background.
Try getting something like this using sun near image border http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l313/bgorum/110125_2845.jpg
next PZ lens test report: Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 ED - Frank B - 05-03-2013
Thanks, that's a relief. Attached are two images taken into the sun, with no lens hood. I don't know if they are good tests, as they are so directly into
the sun. They are converted from RAW in Lightroom and conveted to JPG in Photoshop with no post=processing. Looking forward to your thoughts.
![[Image: original.jpg]](http://www.pbase.com/frank_b/image/149998302/original.jpg)
![[Image: original.jpg]](http://www.pbase.com/frank_b/image/149998342/original.jpg)
next PZ lens test report: Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 ED - Guest - 05-04-2013
I think you misunderstand; the only way someone is going to find the 'flaw' due to a single 'dot' is if they look at the image with at 1:1 and know exactly where to look (such as masking with a different lens) and even then they might not spot a difference. Your talking about something (if i understand your description) that is smaller than a speck of dust. It is possible (though unlikely) that such a flaw could catch a ray of light and create a streak but it would have to actually be a fairly deep defect (such as a nick in the element) which I doubt from your description.
-
Believe me as someone who obsessed over new equipment I've been down this path of fret more than once. The optical defect of decentered lens is far greater.
-
Please ignore what I wrote if the mark you are talking about is significantly larger than 2 or 3 specks of dust.
next PZ lens test report: Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 ED - Frank B - 05-04-2013
Quote:I have looked at 100% and can spot nothng. It is one speck and there appears to be another even tinier speck next to it. As far as I can tell the defect is not having a negitive impact on picture quality. I agree that a decentered lens would be much worse. Unless, somthing shows up in my images I will keep the lens. Thanks for your help.
I think you misunderstand; the only way someone is going to find the 'flaw' due to a single 'dot' is if they look at the image with at 1:1 and know exactly where to look (such as masking with a different lens) and even then they might not spot a difference. Your talking about something (if i understand your description) that is smaller than a speck of dust. It is possible (though unlikely) that such a flaw could catch a ray of light and create a streak but it would have to actually be a fairly deep defect (such as a nick in the element) which I doubt from your description.
-
Believe me as someone who obsessed over new equipment I've been down this path of fret more than once. The optical defect of decentered lens is far greater.
-
Please ignore what I wrote if the mark you are talking about is significantly larger than 2 or 3 specks of dust.
next PZ lens test report: Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 ED - nandadevieast - 05-19-2013
Guys, if you had both the systems, will you go for this lens over a regular 85/1.8?
next PZ lens test report: Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 ED - Guest - 05-19-2013
Well that's a tough one - this lens is better than most 85f1.8 (I presume you are talking about nikon or canon); but it is also a 150mm lens with regards to shooting distance so it is a bit difficult to compare. Having look at a lot of images on the web (not the best source for comment) this lens is incredibly good with regards to image quality but it also has a perspective that I find in many cases a bit annoying for 'street' stuff - so if your happy with a 70-200f4 lens (with most of your pictures closer to 200) then this is the lens to love; but if you really want to shoot with an 85f1.8 (on a ff camera) then there will definitely be an adjustment.
(I'm making an assumption that you are talking about an 85f1.8 on a FF and not aps-c).
next PZ lens test report: Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 ED - Frank B - 05-23-2013
Just want to thank all who gave me advice on my decison on whether to exchange my Olympus 75mm f/1.8 or keep it. The 30 day return period is over and I decided to keep the lens. I could find no traces in my images created by the tiny 'flaw' I could see looking in the lens. I am so pleased with the results I am getting from this lens that I simply would not risk getting a replacement that looks perfect, burt is decentered or not as contrasty or sharp. It is the best lens I have owned. Thanks again for the help.
next PZ lens test report: Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 ED - Rena - 06-19-2013
Hi there, I just got my new 75mm lens and of course took a whole lot of "test" pics. The sharpness is incredible but only upto f/8. After that the images become unbelievably blurred, actually images taken with 70-300 are much sharper. Is this "normal" and my expectations are too high? Of course to return the lens to B&H shouldn't be a problem if I want to forfeit the shipping costs and quite a high customs duty. I feel I am trapped...
The first example is f/5.6, the 2nd one is f/16:
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
next PZ lens test report: Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 ED - Guest - 06-20-2013
>The sharpness is incredible but only upto f/8
It's ok.
Don't use f/16
next PZ lens test report: Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 ED - Klaus - 06-20-2013
Quote:Hi there, I just got my new 75mm lens and of course took a whole lot of "test" pics. The sharpness is incredible but only upto f/8. After that the images become unbelievably blurred, actually images taken with 70-300 are much sharper. Is this "normal" and my expectations are too high? Of course to return the lens to B&H shouldn't be a problem if I want to forfeit the shipping costs and quite a high customs duty. I feel I am trapped...
The first example is f/5.6, the 2nd one is f/16:
56.jpg
f/8 = f/16 in conventional terms - do you really need more than that in the real life ?
f/16 is therefore equiv to f/32! On full format cameras images will also be muddy at this setting. This is simply diffraction.