08-26-2011, 08:47 PM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1314370585' post='11053']
Effectively this lens has the creative potential of a 24mm f/4. A full format lens with these specs (if it existed):
- is basically just as small - just take the Voigtlander 20/3.5 as the closest match.
- it is cheaper
A Canon 24mm f/1.4 would be equivalent to a 12mm f/0.7 on MFT just to mention so these are totally different beings from a creative standpoint.
We've provided several mediocre rankings here for the Canon or Nikon primes. The mentioned Canon 24/1.4 got 3*, the 50/1.2 just two.
So what exactly are you complaining about ?
[/quote]
Actually there's more to creative potential than just the ability to create shallow depth of field. How about the micro size which can be snuck into places to increase creative potential? Or the light weight which would make balancing on natural objects more easy than a 77mm front ended 24mm? Or how about it's still has a light transmission equal to f2, does that not assist creative potential by allowing to shoot in darker conditions than an f2.8 or 3.5 lens?
Also, it's just as small as the AF Voigtlander 20mm? Right, so +1 for AF if shooting in a situation where you may be unable to set focus manually.
What about the weight assisting your creative potential? It's almost 1 pound lighter than comparable primes for 35mm.
If you weren't able to get what I meant in the first post, let me reduce it for you.
12mm f2 lens @ $800 has centre resolution in the "Excellent" region from f2 to f8 and because the borders are in the very good region from f2 to f5.6?
24mm f1.4L @ $1,700 (price has come down A LOT) has very good to excellent centre resolution but borders only scratch very good at f5.6
Canon 50mm f1.2 @ $1,500 is much worse than the 24mm.
You give the Canons a lower rating, which I am not arguing, but I don't see how the price / performance ratio disappoints with the Olympus, but it's okay for the two L's because they have "creative potential" and "low light ability"?
I can't make it any more clear if you still don't understand.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1314370798' post='11054']
To gnatsum, which Canon "L primes" are so horrible and yet get excuses?
Just to put things into perspective, this is a 24mm f4 lens, if you want to compare it to "Canon L" lenses.
[/quote]
Canon 24mm L mark 1 and 2 are not that great and that mark 1 was horrible. The 50mm L as well.
And no, a 12mm f2 is on m4/3 is not a 24mm f4, it's a 12mm f2. Field of view relative to 35mm is 24mm and light transmission is still f2, but depth of field is equal to an f4 lens.
Effectively this lens has the creative potential of a 24mm f/4. A full format lens with these specs (if it existed):
- is basically just as small - just take the Voigtlander 20/3.5 as the closest match.
- it is cheaper
A Canon 24mm f/1.4 would be equivalent to a 12mm f/0.7 on MFT just to mention so these are totally different beings from a creative standpoint.
We've provided several mediocre rankings here for the Canon or Nikon primes. The mentioned Canon 24/1.4 got 3*, the 50/1.2 just two.
So what exactly are you complaining about ?
[/quote]
Actually there's more to creative potential than just the ability to create shallow depth of field. How about the micro size which can be snuck into places to increase creative potential? Or the light weight which would make balancing on natural objects more easy than a 77mm front ended 24mm? Or how about it's still has a light transmission equal to f2, does that not assist creative potential by allowing to shoot in darker conditions than an f2.8 or 3.5 lens?
Also, it's just as small as the AF Voigtlander 20mm? Right, so +1 for AF if shooting in a situation where you may be unable to set focus manually.
What about the weight assisting your creative potential? It's almost 1 pound lighter than comparable primes for 35mm.
If you weren't able to get what I meant in the first post, let me reduce it for you.
12mm f2 lens @ $800 has centre resolution in the "Excellent" region from f2 to f8 and because the borders are in the very good region from f2 to f5.6?
24mm f1.4L @ $1,700 (price has come down A LOT) has very good to excellent centre resolution but borders only scratch very good at f5.6
Canon 50mm f1.2 @ $1,500 is much worse than the 24mm.
You give the Canons a lower rating, which I am not arguing, but I don't see how the price / performance ratio disappoints with the Olympus, but it's okay for the two L's because they have "creative potential" and "low light ability"?
I can't make it any more clear if you still don't understand.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1314370798' post='11054']
To gnatsum, which Canon "L primes" are so horrible and yet get excuses?
Just to put things into perspective, this is a 24mm f4 lens, if you want to compare it to "Canon L" lenses.
[/quote]
Canon 24mm L mark 1 and 2 are not that great and that mark 1 was horrible. The 50mm L as well.
And no, a 12mm f2 is on m4/3 is not a 24mm f4, it's a 12mm f2. Field of view relative to 35mm is 24mm and light transmission is still f2, but depth of field is equal to an f4 lens.