Dissatisfaction coming from Oly 75mm f1.8

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by oto02, Sep 6, 2013.

  1. oto02

    oto02 Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Jul 24, 2012
    Melbourne, VICTORIA, AU
    Flo
    Hi guys,

    After months of craving, finally I got my copy of 75 lens.
    True to tell – didn’t have a wow factor to myself at all – picture wise. I like the feel of it and the way it looks on my PM-2, haven’t tried on GH-2 yet.
    I purchased it brand new and I stacked it a UV filter, right from the start. It’s fast and nice but:

    - after I compared a few shots that I’ve taken – not that crisp that I was expecting to see (to worth it About $1K)
    - very close to my Konica 135 f3.5 in sharpness & bokeh.
    - some of the landscapes are bit blurry-ish (all hand held)
    I have to mention also that I put an old Circular polarizer Hoya Series G – when I got those results. (removed UV, obviously)

    I bought it bases on the reviews and photos that I’ve seen here and elsewhere, but not impressed so far.

    Need to up load some photos here for share and to be criticized.

    Anyone else out there got similar experience?

    PART II

    Still not convinced about this “magical” 75 1.8

    Ran some test on tripod and yes it’s much sharper than 45 1.8, no doubt about it.
    Also on the hand held is not even closed to my PL 25 1.4 – done tests indoor on my baby girl. The one with the panny you can see the eye browses clean and sharp where with the 75 not as good at all, I tried to adjust the distance to have the same image in the viewfinder. (closer with 25).
    I went to few places (including Photozine.com and robin wong review…) and the pics looks sharp at a glance, but once you magnify you can see they have a micro blur

    Robin Wong: Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm F1.8 Review: Night Street & Kung Fu Shooting

    Olympus 75mm M.Zuiko Digital f/1.8 Lens Sample Photos


    If its meant to be used only with the tripod (in studio or not) there are other lenses that collect dust and they are HG (Olympus 4/3 14-54mm 2.8-3.5 and 50-200 2.8-3.5) that I could have keep using them instead of this 75.

    To send back to the manufacturer – maybe not much point, they may come saying is nothing wrong with it.

    Not sure if it’s only me or not but this is not what I was expecting from $1,000 lens.

    (As suggested by another mu43 user to post it as a new thread)
     
  2. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    I see no point in anyone trying to talk you into liking this lens. Nor anyone else telling you that they aren't happy with the lens either. Why bother?

    If you're not happy with the lens, move on. You can return it, request a replacement, get something else instead, or just take a pass. The only person who needs to be happy about this lens, for you, IS you.
     
  3. c0ldc0ne

    c0ldc0ne Mu-43 Regular

    71
    Oct 9, 2012
    I'm assuming that you also tested the lens without the UV filter?
     
  4. darosk

    darosk Mu-43 Top Veteran

    705
    Apr 17, 2013
    Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
    Daros
    I'm with DHart, if you don't like it, just return it or sell it.

    I've sold mine about a month ago, but for what it's worth, my copy seemed to be technically perfect - I remember it being very sharp indeed, so much so that I had to dial back clarity and sharpness in Lightroom occasionally.

    I sold it because 95% of the time I was reaching for the 45 instead (I do more indoors shoots than ever before these days), and so the 75 focal length wasn't really appropriate for most of the stuff I was shooting. It was cool because I got close to 90% of what I paid for it, so I didn't really lose a whole lot - but if I was doing more outdoors portrait shoots I probably would have thought about keeping it.

    From my experience shooting with lenses costing $1500-2000, I can emphatically say that this lens is a decent deal at $1000. In certain aspects it outperforms some well-regarded FF/APS-C lenses like Canon L's.
     
  5. ApGfoo

    ApGfoo Mu-43 Regular

    158
    Dec 10, 2012
    Bay Area
    Show us your pictures OP and show us the images you wish your photos to look like.
     
  6. RamblinR

    RamblinR Mu-43 Top Veteran

    545
    Aug 16, 2012
    Sunshine Coast, Qld Australia
    Maria
    Post some images with settings so that the techo people can have a look for you.
     
  7. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    Bingo! :smile:
     
  8. Edmunds

    Edmunds Mu-43 Regular

    158
    Oct 16, 2012
    I think your craving might have blown expectations out of proportion. The important things about photography still are lighting and composition, and while you should not buy crappy lenses, gear has no magical pixie dust and is simply not as important as gear heads and marketing would make you believe.
     
  9. htc

    htc Mu-43 Top Veteran

    579
    Jan 11, 2011
    Finland
    Harry
    It's as sharp as it gets, there is no better in MFT world.

    If not, it's faulty or you can't hold it steady. It's 150 equivalent after all so not the easiest to hold steady indoor. I think you can not blame the lens if you got blurred results. Wild guess you have a Panasonic body? Change that to Olympus OM-D or E-P5 and it's a whole new ball game.
     
  10. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I hate those filters :worth:
     
  11. bigboysdad

    bigboysdad Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 25, 2013
    Sydney/ London
    The focal length certainly isn't standard when you've been used to 20mm/45mm. Using it indoors in a lounge room of your house to take photos of people is generally a no no. So what I've done (because the lens is so unique) is actually build the picture around the lens and its focal length, say from one end of a long table on a restaurant to the other or mainly outdoors. Not the most used lens in my arsenal but easily the best one.
     
  12. oto02

    oto02 Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Jul 24, 2012
    Melbourne, VICTORIA, AU
    Flo
    Thanks for your input guys, really appreciated.

    Here are a few examples of unprocessed pics- pure straight from the camera. Some are on tripod and some hand held.

    Thanks to smugmug there's extif for each photo.

    TEST - Oto
     
  13. bigboysdad

    bigboysdad Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 25, 2013
    Sydney/ London
    Straight away I'm thinking its the camera settings?
     
  14. Djarum

    Djarum Super Moderator

    Dec 15, 2009
    Huntsville, AL, USA
    Jason
    The picture of the kid is really sharp. The DOF is so great though that not all of the face is in focus. It appears the eyes and lips are in focus, but other parts are out of focus.
     
  15. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    ...but how are the pictures when you don't stick another bit of glass infront of it?
    Maybe it doesn't play nice with your two filters.
     
  16. marcsitkin

    marcsitkin Mu-43 Veteran

    307
    Jan 24, 2013
    Harwich, MA USA
    Marc Sitkin
    You should shoot without filters on, and make some prints at at least 11x14 or so. Use a workflow that incorporates some RAW sharpening and Output sharpening, and then judge. You're shortchanging yourself if you are trying to judge by screen images alone (I'm not sure you are).

    I've been working on the 16,000 images I shot on a recent trip, and the images from my 75mm Oly are exceptional.
     
  17. ntblowz

    ntblowz Mu-43 Veteran

    312
    Nov 13, 2011
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Shooting with this long range can be quite a daunting task, especially with subject not being all focused or only partial focused, I found shooting with 35-100mm is a much easier affair (aside from being faster to focus and more depth of field means subject area should be all focused)

    EVF is pretty much a must for me at longer distance, because of that added point of stability, at shorter focal distance this doesn't matter much, but on longer reach it will add a difference, and that how I shoot my 85mm 1.4 on MF on GH3 and still get pretty sharp photos without IS

    Another thing would be don't always shoot @ F1.8, sometimes it is better to step down a bit to make sure the subject area is also in focus
     
  18. jjbigfly

    jjbigfly Mu-43 Regular

    89
    Sep 6, 2013
    new user here....as in minutes ago. So take this for what it's worth.
    I am using the E5M body. No filter. If I took the pic of the watch from 10 feet away, hand held, at F1.8 you could easily read the smallest writing on the watch. On an overcast day.
    I am guessing that there is a difficulty somewhere in your system based only on what I see in my pics with the same lens. I would consider taking the lens back to where I bought it and asking them to try it on another body or let you take a pic or two with another lens.
     
  19. LowTEC

    LowTEC Mu-43 Regular

    Also, you must focus with the 14x smallest focusing box to pin point the AF sincethe dof is very thin. Pin point to ones eyes and my copy is sharper than most macro lens, from any system
     
  20. Al.

    Al. Mu-43 Veteran

    372
    Jul 3, 2010
    Hull, East Yorkshire, UK
    Alan
    maybe the disatisfaction is because they have found out it its a Sigma lens...:eek: