11-15-2014, 10:33 AM
Pretty good albeit a little too slow for my liking:
next PZ lens test report: Olympus M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.8
11-15-2014, 10:33 AM
Pretty good albeit a little too slow for my liking:
11-15-2014, 08:49 PM
Maybe the criticism of the f1.8 (cf with the f1.4 alternative) is a bit overdone. The shot of the '3 sisters' taken at f7.1 still looks to have sufficiently shallow DoF to make the mountains in the background blurred.
11-15-2014, 09:56 PM
Quote:The shot of the '3 sisters' taken at f7.1 still looks to have sufficiently shallow DoF to make the mountains in the background blurred.
I'm not sure, that this is really due to shallow depth of field (or what remains of that at f/7.1 on a 4/3 camera).
The view over the blue mountains on a sunny day is always a bit hazy ... eventually that's what
makes the mountains that are further away look blurred.
11-15-2014, 11:41 PM
Thanks for the review Klaus.
I'm not too surprised about the f/1.8 lenses serie. It made some kind of sense as sweetspot to showcase small cameras with high abilities and they have fully succeeded with Panasonic. Just look at the competition entering the market. Now the other boys have all caught up and my bet is that Olympus will come up with close to f/1.0 lenses soon to keep its system alive. It's just incremental updates, iterating cow milking. There are already rumours of a 12mm f/1.0 apparently... Time will tell :-)
Voigtlander & slr magic have proven something within f/0.95 f/1.2 would still yield good results. Add some software correction, a fast AF drives, a moderate size increase over the f/1.8, and olympus can go on for another 2-3 years before eventually moving to some other innovations.
11-16-2014, 12:01 AM
Quote:I'm not sure, that this is really due to shallow depth of field (or what remains of that at f/7.1 on a 4/3 camera).
Yeah, there were some bushfires at the day plus the usual haziness. This has nothing to do with DOF here.
Quote:Thanks for the review Klaus.
Well, I can understand the 45mm f/1.8 and 75mm f/1.8 - they have at least a decent DoF potential - less so the 25mm f/1.8.
Even a 25mm f/1 would be just equivalent to a 50mm f/2 but at extreme costs.
Given the price issue, I am wondering how many users really have lenses such as the Panaleica 42.5mm f/1.2. This one is probably more a lighthouse product to show off rather than something you sell in serious volumes.
11-16-2014, 12:45 PM
Well I think size is also an issue; the 25f1.8 is a *lot* smaller than the 25f1.4. Mind you the panasonic 25f1.4 is larger than it should be but we have what we have. The 25f1.8 also has significantly better extreme border resolution (if that matters) though the 25f1.4 has better center resolution.
The 25f1.4 has gotten quite expensive and really isn't that much faster than the 25f1.8. I don't disagree with your comments; i.e, a 25f1.2 would be nice but I do think size is playing a role in olympus decisions on which lenses to produce. With the 'pro' lenses they are tossing size out and focusing on optics (including light gathering) so maybe there will be a 25f1.2 pro if there is demand ?
11-16-2014, 01:57 PM
Quote:Well, I can understand the 45mm f/1.8 and 75mm f/1.8 - they have at least a decent DoF potential - less so the 25mm f/1.8.
In the mirrorless scene, there's still no such thing as a f/1.4 FF equivalent.
Sony FE mount will give you 1.8 or 2.0, even 2.8
Fuji will give you f/1.2-1.4 equivalent to 1.8-2.0 in FF terms, same with samsung, etc
Olympus/Panasonic would basically join them at the same FF DOF equivalence and I don't think they'd price them any higher than the competitors. Yes they will be bigger, you2 is right, but you would have the choice to take them or not. And ultimately, you'll end up with camera+lenses around the same size. Allowing you to stick with your "superior personal experience" camera maker...
Personnally, I want this zeiss loxia but I'm hooked on the olympus controls & IBIS... imagine a PRO 25mm with IBIS and if Sony allows, latest sensor tech...
Now for costs, we see that while not being close to f/1.4FF, Zeiss sells you a 50mm f/2 for 1000USD. Sony sell 55mm f/1.8 for 1000USD, a 35mm f/2.8 for 800USD. Comparatively, the Olympus 75mm is "just a 150 f/3.6" and it sells at 900USD.
The Mirrorless gang clearly is enjoying the "marketing of the New". A marketing craze that make people buy two or three times the price of a good old SLR lens.
11-17-2014, 05:16 AM
Eh... Since when does "creative potential" (as you put it in the first version of the summary - you appear to have amended that later, thus much of my vitriol would go to waste ) equal "mega shallow DOF" alone? Because it seems that was your only gripe with this lens... But come on, do you always need the "one eyelash in focus" photos? Does that type of subject warrant a good photo? No and no.
Funny... I've only just read this review when I was shooting stuff around Moscow on the 16th, around noon. I've come across a bunch of metal trees adorned with lots and lots of "love locks" with a great background (of Kremlin, no less). There I spent about half an hour shooting with a 70-200/2.8 lens. Had to stop down well into the diffraction territory (as much as f/22 at times) to get at least the few locks in focus, while keeping the background recognizable (blurred to hell but somewhat recognizable). Quite a few photos got blurred because of slow shutter speed. I raised the ISO to 800 or even 1600. I thought of what you wrote - if the µ4/3 would've given me a much deeper DOF for the same settings, it would've been nice - I wouldn't have to stop down nearly as much (luckily that was in daytime, so I didn't get capped by ISO).
I understand that this is an oddball example, but here's a much more generalized one from me. I'm frequently shooting at a local theatre - and get paid for this work. There, I've had a lot of trouble shooting the same 70-200/2.8 lens wide open on 1D Mark II N (I had to, because I was running out of usable shutter speed and ISO). Once I upgraded to 1D Mark IV that gave me 2 more stops of highly usable ISOs, I got more leeway to stop down while maintaining decent shutter speed to stop action. Recently I took a Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 VC (that I bought as a present, since given to the new owner) to the theatre, with great success. DOF was about right even for group shots (which are a bane for my shooting). I'm already missing that lens.
So in a nutshell, this 25/1.8 looks like a supersharp lens from wide open (unlike many, if not most of 50mm FF primes) and until the diffraction creeps in. What's not to like?
11-17-2014, 07:50 AM
The way your example would work with mFT is you would set f/11 with ISO 200 or 400 and get the same DOF, diffraction and shutter as on your FF. If ISO 800 on a mFT is acceptable to your eyes while ISO 3200 on FF is not, you would gain a stop on your shutter. The f/22 on mFT is badly plaqued by diffraction, which is typically very noticeable, even to untrained eyes. I thing it is a marketing thing to offer f/22. To me there doesn't seem any benefit from mFT regarding getting larger DOF. Diffraction kills you at the same point.
I like my mFTs but I increasingly wonder about the benefits. Coming back to the Olympus lens discussed here, a 50/3.6 on FF could also be very compact. Though nobody is offering one, and if they would I doubt anyone would buy it. I am wondering whether this is all.
In the end mFT is not your system if the most shallow DOF is your thing - but then FF isn't either. How about 8x10 inch and sheet film?
I hope I didn't write the totally obvious.
|Users browsing this thread:|