10-27-2017, 10:30 AM
I first went to Olympus website, I think that was your originally posted link.
My comment about bokeh was based on the picture of the wedding couple in the grass (tried to link that picture, doesn't work), and the grass appeared to have double contours, making the background nervous - other lenses also do so, it's not easy to get a supersilky background and nearly bitingly sharpness, wide open in main focus plane. Sharpness is out of doubt - although I know how much can be done in post and don't knwo how much Olympus effectively did tot he very small pictures.
Now, Nikon being flare magnets doesn't exactly mean others have to do the same.
Also, out of 11 lenses for my Nikons, 3 are genuine, tendency decreasing - if someone likes a 14-24, drop me a PM, indoors it still is a cool lens. Same for the 85/1.4G. Both are sensitive to frontlight, yes, but to manage to fill 1/5 of the area with flare - it's a challenge even for them. At least such a multicolor flare which are very demanding to retouch. I cannot do it properly, only reducing it.
Landscape, as you said, one needs to be careful where to aim it at. The rest of my lenses will have a hard time to give me that kind of flare. And I didn't got the impression, the dog picture was in the gallery because someone wanted to show ugly flares? Maybe I'm wrong... I thought the dog was for the furr resolution.
Why do you develop such a defense reflex? Did you buy Olympus shares or are you employed by them? I'm really only asking, because we all (here and elsewhere) follow this reflex. To justifiy our investments, choices? I mean, it's obvious that each manufacturer has some weaker items in his portfolio. If you never take a picture of a dog in frontlight, you're pretty much done and would get an outstandingly sharp, rigid, weatherproof, fast lens, not too heavy for what it is. Things may have downsides, tools, too, so what - most of the time that doesn't make them worthless. But it's good to know about strengths and weaknesses.
My comment about bokeh was based on the picture of the wedding couple in the grass (tried to link that picture, doesn't work), and the grass appeared to have double contours, making the background nervous - other lenses also do so, it's not easy to get a supersilky background and nearly bitingly sharpness, wide open in main focus plane. Sharpness is out of doubt - although I know how much can be done in post and don't knwo how much Olympus effectively did tot he very small pictures.
Now, Nikon being flare magnets doesn't exactly mean others have to do the same.
Also, out of 11 lenses for my Nikons, 3 are genuine, tendency decreasing - if someone likes a 14-24, drop me a PM, indoors it still is a cool lens. Same for the 85/1.4G. Both are sensitive to frontlight, yes, but to manage to fill 1/5 of the area with flare - it's a challenge even for them. At least such a multicolor flare which are very demanding to retouch. I cannot do it properly, only reducing it.
Landscape, as you said, one needs to be careful where to aim it at. The rest of my lenses will have a hard time to give me that kind of flare. And I didn't got the impression, the dog picture was in the gallery because someone wanted to show ugly flares? Maybe I'm wrong... I thought the dog was for the furr resolution.
Why do you develop such a defense reflex? Did you buy Olympus shares or are you employed by them? I'm really only asking, because we all (here and elsewhere) follow this reflex. To justifiy our investments, choices? I mean, it's obvious that each manufacturer has some weaker items in his portfolio. If you never take a picture of a dog in frontlight, you're pretty much done and would get an outstandingly sharp, rigid, weatherproof, fast lens, not too heavy for what it is. Things may have downsides, tools, too, so what - most of the time that doesn't make them worthless. But it's good to know about strengths and weaknesses.