Yeah, the extremely thin DOF aficionados might also benefit from a tilt-shift lens - while none of them are particularly fast (duh), there's probably a lot of fun in bending the focus plane to your will.
FWIW, I'm not shooting FF, only APS-H (and have a backup APS-C body). But the sheer IQ and fast AF of the 1D Mark IV - as well as many other benefits - mean that I'll be sticking with that, and I don't really want to invest into a second system (unless it's able to adapt EF lenses, but then what's the point). I have to admit that µ4/3, E, NX and X mount mirrorless have piqued my interest at one time or another, but so far... I'd have to pass.
11-17-2014, 03:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-17-2014, 03:22 PM by thxbb12.)
Thanks for the review, Klaus.
All in all an excellent performer. Given the high sharpness at all apertures and the very homogeneous performance, why is this lens not highly recommend by PZ?
It also seems better overall than the Pany 25mm (except for bokeh perhaps) despite scoring the same 3.5. Just wondering why it's not scored higher (4 for instance).
Now, if only Oly would start designing f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses...
Quote: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.
Well it's about potential
, so you don't have to make use of it in every shot. If the lens was f/1.2 you could still use it at f/1.8, but you obviously can't use a f/1.8 lens at f/1.2
I, for one, like the look I get with my 2.8/80 on 6x6, which is equivalent to a ~1.4/40 on 35mm (1.2/35 if you crop to 24x24). Very nice for separating larger objects from the background without getting too much of a tele perspective.
This is something you can't get with lenses like the 1.8/25 on m43. Doesn't make it a bad lens, but it shows the limits of its creative potential
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?
Felix covered the 1st paragraph quite eloquently.
The rest is well explained by joachim.
I would just like to add: the 25mm f1.8 is only a 50mm f3.6 equivalent. Just about any FF 50mm is sharp at f3.5/f4.... Until the same diffraction sets in, of course.
The cheap Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II:
The Oly 25mm f1.8:
When you compare them at equivalent f-values, they are pretty similar in performance... You also see the diffraction loss being similar (Canon f8 vs Oly f4).
Sometimes I feel that Olympus made their mistakes in the first place when they chose the 43-size sensor. The m43 system does not seem to have much size/weight advantage compared to an APS mirrorless system, e.g. EM5+PL 25/1.4 vs XE1+X35/1.4. To compensate the limit of the very small sensor they have to make "over qualified" (in some sense) lenses, e.g. the old 43 pro lenses. Look also at the f0.95 Voigtlander lenses, the f1.2 PL 42.5mm lens. They are all quite bulky/weighty but have only mildly fast apertures f1.9-2.4 in terms of dof.
Quote:Sometimes I feel that Olympus made their mistakes in the first place when they chose the 43-size sensor. The m43 system does not seem to have much size/weight advantage compared to an APS mirrorless system, e.g. EM5+PL 25/1.4 vs XE1+X35/1.4. To compensate the limit of the very small sensor they have to make "over qualified" (in some sense) lenses, e.g. the old 43 pro lenses. Look also at the f0.95 Voigtlander lenses, the f1.2 PL 42.5mm lens. They are all quite bulky/weighty but have only mildly fast apertures f1.9-2.4 in terms of dof.
I'm not so sure. I still think mft fills a great spot in terms of IQ/size ratio.
If one doesn't need very high dof control, the system is great. Sure, FF mirrorless could also be compact with slow lenses, but the problem is: 1) such lenses wouldn't be manufactured, thus the system wouldn't be as compact. 2) for any focal length longer than ~100mm, FF would be way too big.
Consider the following 3 mft lenses: oly 9-18, pany 12-32, pany 45-150.
These 3 lenses cover an equivalent range of 18 to 300m. Now imagine the same in aps-c or FF in terms of size/volume/weight... Not even close.
Mft has a great advantage when you need reach. Also oly bodies are stabilized which is something sorely lacking with other manufacturers.
Finally, mft provides more than good enough IQ for pretty much anyone today.
MFT has a natural advantage when it comes to super tele lenses. The problem is, however, they just don't offer something here - I mean a high quality option.
To thxbb12 (I don't know why Quote does not work on my computer):
"Considering the follwoing 3 mft lenses: oly 9-18, pany 12-32, pany 45-150"
IQ: just decent. Wide end, FF 18mm not wide enough. Tele end, FF 300mm not long enough.
So I don't find this combination is very attractive.
Yes, agree. What about the pany 100-300mm? But of course a more pro version is demanded.
The panny is good but not great. A 60-250mm f/4 would be something. Thinking of the Pentax variant it wouldn't be a brick.