• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Olympus - 3 new lenses


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#21 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,374 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 13 September 2016 - 07:06 AM

I have nothing against MFT (except that personally I do not like the 4:3 aspect ratio and EEVFs).

 

f1.2 of this lens does not allow for shooting in lower light conditions than f2.4 on FF. One can change ISO settings and the exposure times will be similar. Lens equivalence is not that hard to understand.

 

Dissing is a word used by wannabe rapper youth, isn't it? I am critical of silly products, like a very expensive 25mm f1.2 lens which is nothing more than what a 25mm f2.4 lens would be on full frame 135 format. Simply for the price it will have (based on what the 25mm f1.8 costs). I am similarly critical of lenses like the Meyer Optic 100mm f2.8 for instance, for which they ask @1500. For a 100mm f2.8 FF lens. Or the silly prices they ask for the Zeiss 55mm f1.4 Otus. Or the Nikkor AF-S 58mm f1.4 (very high price for what is a pretty simple lens).



#22 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,049 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 13 September 2016 - 01:38 PM

I think MFT is mostly awesome. The vast majority of their lenses make perfect sense. However, everything faster than f/1.4 is beyond my understanding really. That's when the costs increase exponentially in order to achieve a gain in capabilities that are a magnitude cheaper to achieve on other systems.

However, that's just my personal opinion and an opinion is simply not relevant for the rest of the world (well, mostly). 


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#23 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 912 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 13 September 2016 - 01:50 PM

The reason that a fast 25 mm for MFT is hard to make is because of tolernaces, which have to be much higher than for equivaalent lenses on FF. In addition there is the small size, and having to fit everything together within the space constraints of the smaller size, indeed.

 

There is no 30 mm F/1.6 lens for APS-C, F/1.4, yes, and that is a 3rd party lens, not OEM. Still not F/1.2. F/1.2 lenses are by definition harder to make, and that is regardless of sensor size to start with. It may be equivalent to a less fast lens, but for design and manufacturing purposes it still is an F/1.2 lens.

 

Neither is this a contrived case. An F/1.2 lens will allow you to shoot in less illuminated circumstances than an F/1.8 or F/2 lens, regardless of the system, whether the equivalence is the same or not.

 

I am getting tired of this equivalence rhetoric whenever anybody mentions anything related to MFT. That is only useful when trying to compare apples and pears, and you yourself rarely if ever do this when comparing APS-C with FF - I subject that that is because you own both APS-C and FF cameras. In the end it is what works for you, no need to diss everyhting else. Everything else may work for others for different reasons.

 

Personally, I am not a fan of APS-C, because I think there is not enough difference between FF and APS-C from a weight perspective, (lens) size perspective, etc, but you don;t see me dissing this format - I'll recommend it even, without bias, to those whom I think might benefit from an APS-C system.

 

There is a much bigger difference between MFT and FF, size wise and weight wise, than between APS-C and FF, especially with my own lens preferences, and that is what makes it interesting. That DoF is a little more at the same f-stops, that images cannot be enlarged as much, and that there is a little bit more noise is neither here nor there if it is in balance with the goals to be achieved. In short, MFT works fro some people, even if it does not for you. However, that does not give you the license to diss everything non-APS-C and non-FF, especially since I doubt you have any experience with the system as a whole. Personally, I have shot a fair amount with a GF-2, OM-D 10, OM-D 5 MkII and a bunch of lenses for the MFT system, and I can assure you that the results are very satisfying. To me more so than with APS-C. And for everything else I use my FF system.

 

Essentially one chooses cameras and lenses for different and for specific purposes and/or qualities. The same holds true for lenses. Also, one often has to stop down a FF lens to get optimal results, or get acceptable DoF, instead of, f.e., having a single eye lash in focus. For a cropped portrait at 85 mm F/4 on FF one barely gets everything in focua from nose tip to cheeks; that can be done with MFT with a 42.5 mm at F/2, allowing for a faster shutter speed in the process at the same iso setting. Yes, a bit more noise, but generally not disturbingly so.

 

As to pro shooters who use MFT for professional purposes, I have met a few, and there are a few National Geographic photographers who shoot MFT as well, including wildlife photographers. Generally they use MFT systems for its compactness, relatively small weight, unobtrusiveness, and more than enough picture quality, not to mention video quality.

 

In short, I can only commend Olympus (and Panasonic) for bringing out more professionally oriented lenses. It bodes well for the future of MFT.

 

Kind regards, Wim

 

IMHO nothing wrong with MFT (nor APS-C) however hugely heavy (and  very expensive) lenses are totally against the concept for which most people go to MFT anyway

I guess such a lens is oriented towards those who own cameras and lenses in only one system and just to stay with just one system.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying MFT can't do fast lenses or that fast lenses are not for MFT, all I am saying is that when you go MFT you are looking for a light, compact  combo, this lens has none of it.

to understand my point imagine someone using Canon 40mm pancake on 1DX, it just doesn't seem right although it works: you bought the pancake for compact size and you mount it on a big camera body

this is how it should look

 

1dxmine.jpeg


  • Rover likes this

#24 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 13 September 2016 - 05:56 PM

IMHO nothing wrong with MFT (nor APS-C) however hugely heavy (and  very expensive) lenses are totally against the concept for which most people go to MFT anyway

I guess such a lens is oriented towards those who own cameras and lenses in only one system and just to stay with just one system.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying MFT can't do fast lenses or that fast lenses are not for MFT, all I am saying is that when you go MFT you are looking for a light, compact  combo, this lens has none of it.

to understand my point imagine someone using Canon 40mm pancake on 1DX, it just doesn't seem right although it works: you bought the pancake for compact size and you mount it on a big camera body

this is how it should look

 

1dxmine.jpeg

I know a pro who is doing just this. I know I would do the same if I had both the lens and the 1D X (I do get pretty close with a 1D Mark 4, but I'm eyeing a Tamron 45/1.8 more... but if someone makes me a present of this pancake, I would still be happy).

 

I "liked" your post for the picture alone. :P

 

I am, of course, also very tired of the equivalence discussion.

However, the MFT manufacturers have started playing that game - not us. 

 

Assuming that the 25mm f/1.2 will cost in excess of 1200EUR - which is likely - you could get Sony A7 plus Sony 50mm f/1.8 for the same price (and size/weight). And that's a comparison where one can get viable headaches really.

 

I thought you would be the last person to recommend the Sony 50/1.8, given what you said in the review. :P


  • toni-a likes this

#25 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,042 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 16 October 2016 - 09:42 PM

I have nothing against MFT (except that personally I do not like the 4:3 aspect ratio and EEVFs).

f1.2 of this lens does not allow for shooting in lower light conditions than f2.4 on FF. One can change ISO settings and the exposure times will be similar. Lens equivalence is not that hard to understand.

Dissing is a word used by wannabe rapper youth, isn't it? I am critical of silly products, like a very expensive 25mm f1.2 lens which is nothing more than what a 25mm f2.4 lens would be on full frame 135 format. Simply for the price it will have (based on what the 25mm f1.8 costs). I am similarly critical of lenses like the Meyer Optic 100mm f2.8 for instance, for which they ask @1500. For a 100mm f2.8 FF lens. Or the silly prices they ask for the Zeiss 55mm f1.4 Otus. Or the Nikkor AF-S 58mm f1.4 (very high price for what is a pretty simple lens).


Been a bit busy, little time to reply, so hence a little late.

First of all, I never had a problem with lens equivalence. I do understand it, but to me it is besides the point - I select a camera for a specific goal. Regardless of the camera one shoots, an F/1.2 lens brings more light to the sensor than an F/2 lens, and therefore there will be less noise, for that particular sensor, apart from potential other benefits, like more possibilities regarding shallow(er) depth of field. That the F/1.2 equivalent of an MFT lens is twice the focal length at twice the aperture number, is neither here nor there. You can't compare the two. It only says something about the FoV and the DoF. The sensor size says something about noise, as does iso, but that is sensor related, not directly lens related.

The problem with pricing is always that it becomes exponentially higher with relatively small improvements, and similarly, with relatively low production numbers. The design and manufacturing cost of such lenses plus the investments required to produce them become rather high in this regard, and that influences the retail price. hether you'd want to spend the money on such a lens or not, is up to the individual. You may find it expensive, and decide not to go for it, and someone else who is looking for specific qualities is happy to pay for those.

As to the word "dissing": I have lived and worked in English speaking countries for 15 years, until 1998, and the word dissing was a normal word from a vocabulary POV even back then. Nothing to do with rappers.

BTW, unless my only cameras were MFT cameras, I personally would not buy F/1.2 lenses or faster for MFT either, unless I would have a very specific goal in mind. F/1.4 probably yes. I don't need very fast MFT lenses, as in those cases I will gladly use a Metabones adapter and my fast Canon glass. 3x as heavy as the actual MFT equivalent, but then, I don't need it often, so I can live with that.

Kind regards, Wim
  • JoJu likes this

#26 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,042 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 16 October 2016 - 09:56 PM

Hi toni-a,

IMHO nothing wrong with MFT (nor APS-C) however hugely heavy (and very expensive) lenses are totally against the concept for which most people go to MFT anyway
I guess such a lens is oriented towards those who own cameras and lenses in only one system and just to stay with just one system.
Don't get me wrong I am not saying MFT can't do fast lenses or that fast lenses are not for MFT, all I am saying is that when you go MFT you are looking for a light, compact combo, this lens has none of it.
to understand my point imagine someone using Canon 40mm pancake on 1DX, it just doesn't seem right although it works: you bought the pancake for compact size and you mount it on a big camera body
this is how it should look

1dxmine.jpeg


You are wrong, actually. A fast MFT lens is always smaller and lighter than a fast FF lens. The question really is how fast you want to go. For portraiture, f.e., the Panasonic 42.5 F/1.7 is totally adequate, superb actually. Why? Simply because at the 85 mm FF equivalent you need at least F/4 to get a reasonably close headshot in focus from tip of the nose to halfway the cheeks, and this lens is sharp from wide open, renders extremely nicely, and is light and small to boot. Just stop down to F/2 for the required result, DoF wise.

To get similar results on FF, you'd need a Canon 85L, stopped down to F/4 at least. And no, the 85 F/1.8 is not comparable, despite reports to the contrary, not for me anyway. I have had 3 of those, and I personally do not like the way it renders.

As to the Canon 40 F/2.8 - I know the feeling. I rarely use it, I prefer the 50L or 24L on my 5FD II. Somehow feels and fits better. However, the Panny 20 F/1.7 is the goto-lens for my MFT camera.

Do also note that for optimum results you have to stop down a FF lens 3 stops or so to get optimal results - there are a few exceptions, but not so many. With MFT that often is only 1/2 or 1 stop. In short, you are at the equivalent f-stops in those cases, and you only lose out by a bit of noise, which generally speaking is not a problem, certainly not at photographs for web viewing. Besides, my first dslrs, 350D and 400D, showed more noise anyway, and I still have a few 60 cm x 90 cm enlargements from pictures taken with those cameras on my walls.

Kind regards, Wim

#27 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,042 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 16 October 2016 - 10:04 PM

Hi Klaus,

I think MFT is mostly awesome. The vast majority of their lenses make perfect sense. However, everything faster than f/1.4 is beyond my understanding really. That's when the costs increase exponentially in order to achieve a gain in capabilities that are a magnitude cheaper to achieve on other systems.
However, that's just my personal opinion and an opinion is simply not relevant for the rest of the world (well, mostly).


It becomes relevant when it is the only format you use to shoot with :). The increase is just as exponential as with other systems when you get to those apertures, and if anything, slightly cheaper generally speaking - you need to forget about equivalence here, basically because these lenses are much harder to design and manufacture, investment costs are high, and production numbers are low.

It's horses for courses really - people who need these lenses, will buy them, and I guess there is a market for them, otherwise they wouldn't be produced. As mentioned in another reply, personally I would not likely buy those lenses, as I have another system as well, and for occasional use I can always revert to a metabones adapter :).

And yes, MFT is mostly awesome. Several young people in my circles are starting to use them to get better quality than with P&S cameras or cell phones, simply because they want to get better quality pictures, and want to use exchangeable lenses, without having to carry a lot of extra weight around.

Kind regards, Wim

#28 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,957 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 16 October 2016 - 11:50 PM

.... Do also note that for optimum results you have to stop down a FF lens 3 stops or so to get optimal results - there are a few exceptions, but not so many. With MFT that often is only 1/2 or 1 stop...

 

Sorry, then you have the wrong lenses.  -_- Of course it depends what you call "optimal results" but sharpness in the middle has to be there from wide open otherwise it's a bottom of a bottle, no lens. For some pictures nothing else than sharpness in the middle is the right thing, so stopping down will mot improve the result if I want nice blurr around.

 

And I doubt very much after looking at some resolution results for µ 4/3 lenses, that it's enough to stop down one f-stop for the same "optimal results". Compare the RAWs, then we'll talk again. I agree with most of your explanations, especially your view about equivalence, but please don't try to make µ 4/3 better than it really is (which is already pretty good)  ;)



#29 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 17 October 2016 - 08:02 AM

You're doing well, gentlemen, if your intention is bringing about the demise of this thread - just like it had happened with a dozen others lately. :)



#30 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,957 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 17 October 2016 - 09:56 AM

In a normal thread most essential points are taken within the first page. The rest is opinions about opinions about opinions...  :lol:



#31 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,042 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 17 October 2016 - 08:50 PM

Sorry, then you have the wrong lenses.  -_- Of course it depends what you call "optimal results" but sharpness in the middle has to be there from wide open otherwise it's a bottom of a bottle, no lens. For some pictures nothing else than sharpness in the middle is the right thing, so stopping down will mot improve the result if I want nice blurr around.

 

And I doubt very much after looking at some resolution results for µ 4/3 lenses, that it's enough to stop down one f-stop for the same "optimal results". Compare the RAWs, then we'll talk again. I agree with most of your explanations, especially your view about equivalence, but please don't try to make µ 4/3 better than it really is (which is already pretty good)  ;)

 

Whether I have the wrong lenses, JoJu, is a matter of opinion. Personally I think I own many great lenses. A few not so great ones, as in, standard type zooms, but other than that they are all great lenses. As to blur, it depends a lot on how one shoots. I tend to get close, which means that F/1.2 is great for focusing, but not necessarily great to get enough DoF with the blur ;).

 

I generally shoot with primes, certainly on FF (only 1 zoom lens for FF), and with MFT it depends on what I am carrying it around for, but again it is mostly primes I shoot with, which are all great wide open, even though I have a nice range of good to excellent MFT zooms, which are great even wide open, e.g. Panny 7-14 F/4, Oly 12-40 F/2.8, Panny 35-100 F/2.8. The FF primes tend all to be better stopped down a little, except the 135 F/2, which is as good as it gets from F/2. However, I often need more than F/2. I find myself shooting at F/2.8 and F/4 or even smaller apertures just to get enough DoF. Do note that DoF tables are generally overoptimistic, as the human eye is sharper than the standard used for DoF, namely a CoC of 0.030 mm for FF, while in reality acuteness of the human eye at the viewing distance and resolution for the standard use really requires a CoC of around 0.010 mm. In addition a sensor has a completely different sharpness pattern in the DoF field than film has and slightly smaller apertures make it look more like film.

 

BTW, MFT is better than most people think it is, actually :). In addition, I was comparing to my old 350D and 400D, I didn't say anything about FF sensors. I don't know whether you ever shot with MFT or not, and if not, do yourself a favour and give it a try :). You might be surprised :). I was, and that was with a used Panasonic GF2 when I started with MFT.

 

Kind regards, Wim


  • Rover likes this

#32 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,957 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 17 October 2016 - 10:38 PM

Times ago I also bought a Panasonic, I think it was GF5 with 14-42. Liked the touchscreen, disliked some other things but for 200$ new...

 

Whenever I looked lateron at the offerings of Olympus and Panasonic, I found the buttons and the bodies just a tad too fiddly. For my hands, the Fujfeeling is better  ^_^ So, I pass the µ 4/3 systems as there's stil this prejudice in me, the Fuji sensors have better DR and less noise - but please, just let me have this dream. At the end of the day it doesn't matter much if it's APS-C or µ 4/3.

 

DoF tables are another kind of voodoo in my eyes, I strictly don't believe in them  :D especially when they try to convince me, f/2.8 and f/4 with an 85 mm are the same 0.09 m DoF and I think for myself, I would not believe this data if it would be only the half of it... (source: DoF Rechner from neyMedia). 

 

To me, FF is more like getting enough resolution for big prints with a bit of crop reserve. Packing too much MP on a small sensor will deliver no good results, after doing some A3 photobooks and using double pages (80 cm) with some crop and very nice details, I know what a FF is good for. Now, in two weeks I'm off to Portugal and see what the Fuji can do.



#33 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,042 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 18 October 2016 - 10:18 PM

Hi JoJu,

I got the GF2 with 14-45 at the time, and got a bunch of other lenses very quickly thereafter :).
Personally, I dont mind the small buttons, I used a Pentax ME, ME II, and MX back in my analog days, and the size of those cameras is very similar to the Panny and Olympus form factors.

In principle the Fuji has a 1.8x better noise suppression, so yes, less noise indeed, everything else being equal, but yes, in the end it does not matter much. What matters to me personally is the weight and size advantage :).

I got rather sick of DoF calculators on the net, none of them seem to take FL into account - it is a part often omitted from the calculation, as it makes it a tad more complex. I ended up creating my own DoF calculator, in which two DoF versions are calculated, one according to the standard, i.e., 0.030 mm CoC, and one at 0.010 CoC, and the latter I use to give a good indication of what to expect, if I need it that is. Both do take FL into account :).

As to using FF for large prints; yes, those do absolutely look nicer. More details, more 3D in look. Having said that, the latest Olympus and Panasonic offerings are really very good.
I'd love to hear how you do with your Fuji, in comparison to FF, so do share please once you're back.

Kind regards, Wim




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de