[thxbb12]

In that gallery, the bokeh is indeed agreeable, it almost seems as if it is a different lens than the images from the Olympus web page.

 

Indeed. One has to wonder why the company didn't choose better photos as the product's showcase.

It's not like there is a lack of great photographers able to produce astounding photos regardless of the gear.

I see this as a very poor marketing decision on Olympus' part.

[toni-a]

Canon did the same before with 5D and 17-40f4L the ugly photo showing very poor borders didn't affect the sales of the camera or lre

[Rover]

The Canon 17-40 is not a stellar lens any way you slice it. 

[wim]

Another review, non-technical, and comparison with Panny 42.5 F/1.7 and Fuji 56 F/1.2:

 

https://outlier-v.livejournal.com/206786.html

 

Kind regards, Wim

[Guest]

Well he certainly likes the lens.

Another review, non-technical, and comparison with Panny 42.5 F/1.7 and Fuji 56 F/1.2:

 

https://outlier-v.livejournal.com/206786.html

 

Kind regards, Wim

[Brightcolours]

Haha, what a fraud in that "comparison". Sad.

[toni-a]

He's not a guy to do reviews, he used a lens and loved it, I would not call it a review, especially his conclusion: If you can afford it. Buy it, period.

Everyone is free to express what he thinks correct.

Before the era of reviews, they used to pay Paul Simon to sing for Nikon and kodachrome... Just this time he uses photos instead of music

[wim]

A few more reviews, and a comparison with the Nocticron (PanaLeica 42.5 F/1.2):

 

http://lenswork.tistory.com/entry/Olympu...-425mm-f12

 

http://photoreview.com.au/reviews/lenses...2-pro-lens

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/o...pro_review

https://camerajabber.com/olympus-m-zuiko...ro-review/

 

Kind regards, Wim

[Brightcolours]

Love the coma, for a 90mm f2.4 FF equivalent. :ph34r:

[Guest]

It seems better than what canon has to offer.