[quote name='gnatsum' timestamp='1314369169' post='11052']
Just confused how you are disappointed because an $800 lens performs well but not up to a socially acceptable standard of price / performance. Canon makes some horrible L lenses for 2-3x the cost and they don't receive a "disappointed" but they have excuses for being poor performers "creative potential" or "It's okay because it's meant for low light"...not an excuse for performing poorly and being sold for $1.5k to $2.5k
Just take a stand and say then lens is good, full stop. Bollocks to the trolls who complain about price performance, because they wouldn't buy it anyway (sour grapes).
Now that olympus has made this 12mm and the 45mm is coming, I'm dying to dump 35mm digital for m4/3 and just use medium format film for serious work and m4/3 for the rest... armed with a 12mm 20mm (lumix) and 45mm you can do a LOT of reportage work (obviously not things like sports or working in harsh environments)
[/quote]
Effectively this lens has the creative potential of a 24mm f/4. A full format lens with these specs (if it existed):
- is basically just as small - just take the Voigtlander 20/3.5 as the closest match.
- it is cheaper
A Canon 24mm f/1.4 would be equivalent to a 12mm f/0.7 on MFT just to mention so these are totally different beings from a creative standpoint.
We've provided several mediocre rankings here for the Canon or Nikon primes. The mentioned Canon 24/1.4 got 3*, the 50/1.2 just two.
So what exactly are you complaining about ?
Just confused how you are disappointed because an $800 lens performs well but not up to a socially acceptable standard of price / performance. Canon makes some horrible L lenses for 2-3x the cost and they don't receive a "disappointed" but they have excuses for being poor performers "creative potential" or "It's okay because it's meant for low light"...not an excuse for performing poorly and being sold for $1.5k to $2.5k
Just take a stand and say then lens is good, full stop. Bollocks to the trolls who complain about price performance, because they wouldn't buy it anyway (sour grapes).
Now that olympus has made this 12mm and the 45mm is coming, I'm dying to dump 35mm digital for m4/3 and just use medium format film for serious work and m4/3 for the rest... armed with a 12mm 20mm (lumix) and 45mm you can do a LOT of reportage work (obviously not things like sports or working in harsh environments)
[/quote]
Effectively this lens has the creative potential of a 24mm f/4. A full format lens with these specs (if it existed):
- is basically just as small - just take the Voigtlander 20/3.5 as the closest match.
- it is cheaper
A Canon 24mm f/1.4 would be equivalent to a 12mm f/0.7 on MFT just to mention so these are totally different beings from a creative standpoint.
We've provided several mediocre rankings here for the Canon or Nikon primes. The mentioned Canon 24/1.4 got 3*, the 50/1.2 just two.
So what exactly are you complaining about ?