Olympus - 3 new lenses - Printable Version +- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com) +-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Micro-Four-Thirds (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=16) +--- Thread: Olympus - 3 new lenses (/showthread.php?tid=626) |
Olympus - 3 new lenses - Brightcolours - 09-13-2016 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). Olympus - 3 new lenses - Klaus - 09-13-2016 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). Olympus - 3 new lenses - toni-a - 09-13-2016 Quote: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. 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 Olympus - 3 new lenses - Rover - 09-13-2016 Quote: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 anywayI 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. Quote:I am, of course, also very tired of the equivalence discussion.I thought you would be the last person to recommend the Sony 50/1.8, given what you said in the review. Olympus - 3 new lenses - wim - 10-16-2016 Quote:I have nothing against MFT (except that personally I do not like the 4:3 aspect ratio and EEVFs). 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 Olympus - 3 new lenses - wim - 10-16-2016 Hi toni-a, Quote: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 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 Olympus - 3 new lenses - wim - 10-16-2016 Hi Klaus, Quote: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. 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 Olympus - 3 new lenses - JJ_SO - 10-16-2016 Quote:.... 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) Olympus - 3 new lenses - Rover - 10-17-2016 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. Olympus - 3 new lenses - JJ_SO - 10-17-2016 In a normal thread most essential points are taken within the first page. The rest is opinions about opinions about opinions... :lol: |