08-26-2011, 09:18 PM
[quote name='gnatsum' timestamp='1314391671' post='11062']
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.
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.
[/quote]
Like popo points out: The sensor is 4x smaller in surface area. It collects 1/4th the light. Ergo: compare its ISO 100 with ISO 400 on FF. Or ISO 400 to ISO 1600. Equivalent sensitivity settings.
Yes, it is a 12mm f2 lens. However, its FIELD OF VIEW on 4/3rds is EQUIVALENT to 24mm (12mm x2) on FF. Its EQUIVALENT f-value (same apparent aperture) is f4 (f2 x 2).
So... no, with equivalent ISO settings, equivalent FOV and equivalent f-value (similar aperture), and similar exposure time, the sensors receive about the same amount of light.
Not only does a bigger aperture (for f1.4 on FF that is 3 stops bigger, an f2.8 lens still 1 stop bigger!) allow for more play in DOF, it allows for faster shutter speeds, it allows for lower light shooting.
There are only two creative decisions a photographer can make anyway, if we disregard subject movement: depth of field (aperture size) and field of view (focal length related). And you want to claim a lens with a bigger max. aperture does not allow for more creativity? really?
Anyhow... ever seen how affordable and compact a 24mm f2.8 FF lens is?
And finally, sorry to say this, but actually pixel peep the borders of the samples. Then pixel peep the borders of 24mm f1,4 L USM II samples and EF 24mm f2.8 samples. Make your own conclusions.
Klaus did not slam the 12mm f2, he just said it could/should have been a bit better, for that money.
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.
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.
[/quote]
Like popo points out: The sensor is 4x smaller in surface area. It collects 1/4th the light. Ergo: compare its ISO 100 with ISO 400 on FF. Or ISO 400 to ISO 1600. Equivalent sensitivity settings.
Yes, it is a 12mm f2 lens. However, its FIELD OF VIEW on 4/3rds is EQUIVALENT to 24mm (12mm x2) on FF. Its EQUIVALENT f-value (same apparent aperture) is f4 (f2 x 2).
So... no, with equivalent ISO settings, equivalent FOV and equivalent f-value (similar aperture), and similar exposure time, the sensors receive about the same amount of light.
Not only does a bigger aperture (for f1.4 on FF that is 3 stops bigger, an f2.8 lens still 1 stop bigger!) allow for more play in DOF, it allows for faster shutter speeds, it allows for lower light shooting.
There are only two creative decisions a photographer can make anyway, if we disregard subject movement: depth of field (aperture size) and field of view (focal length related). And you want to claim a lens with a bigger max. aperture does not allow for more creativity? really?
Anyhow... ever seen how affordable and compact a 24mm f2.8 FF lens is?
And finally, sorry to say this, but actually pixel peep the borders of the samples. Then pixel peep the borders of 24mm f1,4 L USM II samples and EF 24mm f2.8 samples. Make your own conclusions.
Klaus did not slam the 12mm f2, he just said it could/should have been a bit better, for that money.