03-30-2011, 06:39 PM
I don't think that the review and the sample photos do this lens justice. From a technical point of view, they are certainly correct (as always), but... have a look at this review for comparison http://www.eoshd.com/content/582-Voigtla....95-Review
The sample photos give a real impression about low light capabilities (and that's what the lens is designed for, apart from relatively low depth of field for m43).
Another thing that strikes me, are the differences in resolution figures compared to the test on lenstip.com/optyczne.pl http://www.lenstip.com/276.4-Lens_review...ution.html
The lens performs stellar in the center of the frame in this test, but it doesn't in the photozone review ....
I know that the testing procedures are different, but still it's surprising and it was the same thing with the PanaLeica Macro-Elmarit 2.8/45 ... http://www.lenstip.com/289.4-Lens_review...ution.html
So sorry for my criticism, but in this case the photozone review didn't impress me.
The sample photos give a real impression about low light capabilities (and that's what the lens is designed for, apart from relatively low depth of field for m43).
Another thing that strikes me, are the differences in resolution figures compared to the test on lenstip.com/optyczne.pl http://www.lenstip.com/276.4-Lens_review...ution.html
The lens performs stellar in the center of the frame in this test, but it doesn't in the photozone review ....
I know that the testing procedures are different, but still it's surprising and it was the same thing with the PanaLeica Macro-Elmarit 2.8/45 ... http://www.lenstip.com/289.4-Lens_review...ution.html
So sorry for my criticism, but in this case the photozone review didn't impress me.