Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ lens test report: Olympus M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO
#11
Did you change body for the measurements from a GX1 to an E-M5 II? Or is it just for the pictures on the first page?
enjoy
#12
Quote:It is very simple. That you have the ABILITY to use more shallow DOF gives you more creative potential than when that ability is non-existant. Why? Because when you don't have that ability, that option is not there. Same as with FOV. If you only can shoot with a 45 degree FOV, you have less creative potential than when you have for instance 125 to 10 degree to work with.

 

That does not mean that you have to shoot with shallow DOF all the time. Just means you have the potential to do so.
Am I the only one to think that the issue is way overblown anyway? I have to admit I'm shooting only 1.3x and 1.6x crop cameras but even on 1.3 the DOF is a constant headache even at medium apertures (like f/5.6) when using a f/2.8 telezoom. Shoot anything even somewhat 3-dimensional or angular to the focus plane, and you run into issues. I was sifting through old pictures a few days ago and ran into a bunch of examples with large areas being OOF. Or there was a lizard picture shot from above, almost parallel to the body - all of the critter in focus EXCEPT for the (slightly raised) head which was totally OOF despite the aperture presumably being nowhere near wide open (since it was a sunny day).

Now, if you need some extreme situation - like shooting full body portrait with normal to wide lens, and wanting to separate it from a not-too-distant background - then, of course, you'd be clutching at every straw. But remember that this lens - the 40-150 that started this thread - is a journalistic telezoom (in fact, a pal of mine who works for the country's foremost agency is using this lens on an Olympus OMD body alongside 1DX), and for journalistic use, more DOF is usually better, not less.
#13
Sure that 1.3/1.5/1.6x crop cameras already show some potential problem with the bokeh, but the point is that 2x is worse. It's a matter of a trade-off: I got used to the bokeh of the 1.5x, that is balanced by lightweight. I'd be happy to go even more lightweight with long lenses, but not at the point of sacrificing more bokeh, at least for some scenarios. I use long teles even for landscape, and clearly bokeh is not a big issue here. But for wildlife, well, it is. The best bird shots are done at ground level, possibly on the seashore, so you have the horizon in the background and this solves the problem... but I can't always shoot like that. 

 

In the end, this review confirmed me that the temptation of the m43 system for the lightweight advantage on the long lenses was bad, and I'm happy I resisted  Rolleyes . This year I'm having persistent health issues that seriously limited the income, so I won't buy anything (actually I'm having also a hard time in being healthy enough for going out and taking photos... I couldn't even test my latest lens bought at the beginning of the year). I still hope the next year will bring something long for the Sony-E mount system, so I'll definitely getting acquainted with the new system.

stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
#14
Quote:Did you change body for the measurements from a GX1 to an E-M5 II? Or is it just for the pictures on the first page?
 

I used the new body (mostly).

#15
Quote:Am I the only one to think that the issue is way overblown anyway? I have to admit I'm shooting only 1.3x and 1.6x crop cameras but even on 1.3 the DOF is a constant headache even at medium apertures (like f/5.6) when using a f/2.8 telezoom. Shoot anything even somewhat 3-dimensional or angular to the focus plane, and you run into issues. I was sifting through old pictures a few days ago and ran into a bunch of examples with large areas being OOF. Or there was a lizard picture shot from above, almost parallel to the body - all of the critter in focus EXCEPT for the (slightly raised) head which was totally OOF despite the aperture presumably being nowhere near wide open (since it was a sunny day).

Now, if you need some extreme situation - like shooting full body portrait with normal to wide lens, and wanting to separate it from a not-too-distant background - then, of course, you'd be clutching at every straw. But remember that this lens - the 40-150 that started this thread - is a journalistic telezoom (in fact, a pal of mine who works for the country's foremost agency is using this lens on an Olympus OMD body alongside 1DX), and for journalistic use, more DOF is usually better, not less.
"Journalistic use" is not equal to creativity?

 

I used my 70-200mm f4 on APS-C often wide open. It does not mean everyone has to, it means that it allows for that creative freedom. That you might find shallow DOF to be silly, perhaps, is your own taste. But the concept of a lens offering more options to have more creative potential certainly should be clear?

 

[Image: gallery_10230_17_38941.jpg][Image: gallery_10230_17_58757.jpg][Image: gallery_10230_17_78901.jpg]

[Image: gallery_10230_25_104080.jpg]

[Image: gallery_10230_25_122216.jpg]The large aperture allows for creative choice. It is a very simple concept...
#16
Maybe I'm not following the argument correctly, but the way I see it, if you don't need/want the shallow depth of field potential, then there are other lenses in this focal range you can consider. If you do need/want the potential offered from this lens, the bokeh certainly could be better in some circumstances.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#17
Quote:I used the new body (mostly).


Thanks for the reply. No issue regarding a weaker (or no) AA in the new Olympus? I am wondering how compatible results are to the old GX1.


Compared to my older E-P1 I have more issues with moiré since using an E-M10.
enjoy
#18
Well, I had to adjust the USM parameter, of course, but I don't think that this makes the result incomparable in this case.

The AA filter has a linear characteristic and so has the USM. The error margin should be negligible.

 

The more interesting question is how this behaves with respect to the CAs. I think the CA auto-correction is not standardized.

Maybe I should get a new Pana body for the Pana lenses after all ;-)

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)