Quote:It seems better than what canon has to offer.
Definitely a lot better than the Canon EF 90mm f2.4 USM. Also quite a bit better than the Canon EF-M 56mm f1.5 STM.
Quote:Definitely a lot better than the Canon EF 90mm f2.4 USM. Also quite a bit better than the Canon EF-M 56mm f1.5 STM.
You should definitely start growing up and stop behaving like a troll.
Regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
12-04-2017, 06:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-04-2017, 06:48 PM by MatjazO.)
Looks to be a great portrait lens. I like that Oly went for a bit simpler optics (if one can call that in a prime with 14 elements, sic!), compared to 19 pieces of glass in 25/1.2. Hopefully with good flare resistance, often a pain with complex lenses.
Personally would welcome half a stop slower, 1,4 lens, which would reduce size. Heck, can’t have it all. 🙂
Quote:It seems better than what canon has to offer.
Canon's is different, not MFT after all.
The 85L II is in my bag, but I find I really only shoot with it in studio type situations, and need to stop it down to F/3.5 or F/4 at least to get a semblance of DoF. However, it is great lens, with just two small problems, namely LoCa and the doubling of lines in the background under certain circumstances. The latter is something the Oly does not do, and it certainly has less LoCa.
BTW, the 85L really is an F/1.26 lens, which was rounded down to F/1.2 rather than rounded correctly to F/1.3  .
Considering the apertures I generally use, the Oly is going to be a great fit for me, and it weighs little enough and is small enough to carry it around at all times rather than just in studio type situations.
I will very likely get one some time next year .
And I just love having two distinct systems available for the stuff I do, Canon FF and MFT .
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
Quote:Looks to be a great portrait lens. I like that Oly went for a bit simpler optics (if one can call that in a prime with 14 elements, sic!), compared to 19 pieces of glass overkill in 25/1.2. Hopefully with good flare resistance, often a pain with complex lenses.
Personally would welcome half a stop slower, 1,4 lens, which would reduce size. Heck, can’t have it all.
Quote:Looks to be a great portrait lens. I like that Oly went for a bit simpler optics (if one can call that in a prime with 14 elements, sic!), compared to 19 pieces of glass overkill in 25/1.2. Hopefully with good flare resistance, often a pain with complex lenses.
Personally would welcome half a stop slower, 1,4 lens, which would reduce size. Heck, can’t have it all.
The 25 out of necessity is a fairly strong retrofocus design considering Olympus' design parameters, where the 45 is not, or less so, and with the design parameters in mind it therefore ends up having more elements.
The beauty of these lenses is that they have great bokeh in both the OOF foreground and background, which makes these lenses very special.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
Quote:
The 25 out of necessity is a fairly strong retrofocus design considering Olympus' design parameters, where the 45 is not, or less so, and with the design parameters in mind it therefore ends up having more elements.
Are you sure 25 is retrofocus? With 19 mm flange distance I am not certain it is needed.
Retrofocus design could explain it, sure. On the other hand, new to be, shorter 17/1,2 is to have less lenses, 15, thus I assumed it might be a design choice.
I agree on purpose of these lenses. ðŸ˜
Quote:Canon's is different, not MFT after all.
The 85L II is in my bag, but I find I really only shoot with it in studio type situations, and need to stop it down to F/3.5 or F/4 at least to get a semblance of DoF. However, it is great lens, with just two small problems, namely LoCa and the doubling of lines in the background under certain circumstances. The latter is something the Oly does not do, and it certainly has less LoCa.
BTW, the 85L really is an F/1.26 lens, which was rounded down to F/1.2 rather than rounded correctly to F/1.3 .
Considering the apertures I generally use, the Oly is going to be a great fit for me, and it weighs little enough and is small enough to carry it around at all times rather than just in studio type situations.
I will very likely get one some time next year .
And I just love having two distinct systems available for the stuff I do, Canon FF and MFT .
Kind regards, Wim
The Canon is a f0.6 MFT equivalent, Wim. Of course f0.6 has less DOF than f1.2.
How is the LoCA on the Canon when stopped down to f2.4?
Your "BTW, the 85L really is an F/1.26 lens" is nonsense, not based on anything really.
Quote:You should definitely start growing up and stop behaving like a troll.
Regards, Wim
You are funny, Wim. The only trolling post in this thread (before yours) was this: "It seems better than what canon has to offer."
But you can't help yourself, right? Happy Sinterklaas tomorrow!
Well, with somebody desperately needing to talk about FF all the time in m43 forum, I assume thinking before pointing fingers would be wise. ðŸ˜
matjaz, welcome to the trollfest. 1st, you need to look up what trolling is, you seem to have strange idea about it. 2nd, I do not talk about "FF all the time in m43 forum <sic>". Saying Y is equivalent to Z on X is not equivalent to talking about X, but rather it is "talking about Y".
|
