Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Steven, Jan 9, 2018.
Finally, Some m4/3 MTF Testing: 25mm Prime Lens Comparison
Thanks for the link. I love reading Roger's blog posts, partly because they're so geeky, and partly for his irreverent writing style.
It shows nicely, that the cheapest lens is already quite nice and you get options for improvement in different ways for additional cost. And it's because of r&d, scaling and marketing that little improvement comes at high cost. What is most interesting to me, is his statement about the bad service of high cost voightlander lenses and the bigger than I expected sample variation of the pl1.4 and o1.2. one could argue, that the PL with it's simple design should be able to do better more easily than the complex Oly, but the production line will be quite newer of the latter. In the end I take from it: in mft you can't pay more and be safe - you have to check the copy regardless of the price and marketing.
Did he really say that the ‘bad’ copies of the lenses were bad though? I understand he pointed out high sample variation, especially for the PL25. It wasn’t clear to me, however, that he was saying the bad copies were bad, or just not as good as the better copies.
Also, maybe I’m being defensive because I own and like the PL25, but isn’t the way he tests lenses pretty clinical and limited in what he tests? I mean, sometimes a lens renders in a way that is pleasing, but it may not necessarily be as ‘sharp’ as other lenses.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the blog post, but I would actually like to see photo examples and other lens characteristics taken into account.
Yay, my 25/1.8 ranks nicely!!!
Sure. Every review is usually done to whatever the reviewer is interested. To your point, sharpness isn't everything, but he is testing optics on an optics bench so there you would be looking at the technical details such as lines of resolution rather than how dreamy and soft are your out of focus areas. This is why some still enjoy shooting with old pre-digital film lenses that clearly don't match up technically with modern designs, but some of those lenses have certain characteristics that show up in photos that those people just like. Even the "flaws" such as lack of contrast might lend itself well to the type of photos the person is trying to get with a particular lens.
In the end, shoot with what you enjoy using and like the results regardless of how it might rank compared to some arbitrary set of other lenses reviewed by some random web site.
That was a nice read. He was clear about what he was testing and made it fun. Fortunately, as the comments show, lab testing isn't a tell-all. It's only indicative of how a lens performs under controlled conditions (and helps explain some known problems). Real-world performance involves many variables and optical characteristics: close-focusing vs. focusing near infinity, low-light focusing, ease of use, light transmission, bokeh, sample variation... What works very well for one person or task doesn't always work for another.
He's usually entertaining with some nice, sarcastic observations.
Right, more importantly the performance of the lenses compared to one another don't really matter all by themselves. What matters is if specific deficiencies will have an effect on the types of things you shoot and if those "problems" are really a problem for your situation. For example, the comparison of how the corner or edge sharpness is for various lenses may not matter at all to a portrait shooter who likely will have blurred out background in the corners & edges. But a landscape shooter may be very concerned with this. Just like someone who shoots buildings and bridges may not be as concerned about over all sharpness as they are about various distortions that will mess up their straight lines. They will pick the slightly less sharp lens if the distortions are much better controlled.
I'm kind of hoping Panasonic updates the f/1.4, it really does look like it needs it. I Got the f/1.7 when I got into MFT, and I just can't see myself ever upgrading to the f/1.4.
I bought the PL25 1.4 when it was the only 25 available. It was really a choice between the 25 1.5 or the P20. Now there are several to choose from. While the others definitely have some advantages over the PL25, I still really enjoy mine and plan to keep it.
I read it and I think that I understand maybe 40 %
But hey, I am very, very very dumb.
So the take-aways are that the Voigt is pretty poor in the outer 1/3 of the image, all have good central sharpness, and there is variation amongst all the lenses, regardless of their price.
Had the PL25, nice lens. Had the Voigt 25, hated the CA. Have the O25, great performer. Have the 25 PRO, great performer
I will say that there are things optical bench testing doesn't provide insights on, things like Chromatic Aberrations, as well as bokeh quality. The Voigt 25 has pretty severe CA as well as a generally nervous bokeh profile, whereas the 25 PRO seems to have good CA performance and very soft bokeh. These are important areas to consider when evaluating one lens versus another, but are lost when one only looks at optical bench test results.
Roger says often and clearly (albeit not in this particular post) that he is doing MTF curves and only MTF curves and that his posts shall by no means be taken as lens reviews.
The lines were colorful...
Pity that the P25/1.7 like I went with couldn't be tested too. I do think it and the 25/1.8 are 2 of the most wonderful reasons for m4/3 yet. It's still an interesting test though and it gives me such a nice feeling of bias confirmation that it's better to go with somewhat slower but vastly cheaper lenses and to ignore the so-called "Pro" lenses.
The most interesting information for me is the copy variation and field curvature. I didn't know the PRO held up so well compared to the normal primes. Field curvature testing definitely shows that these lenses are suited for more real world shooting than shooting flat test charts/objects (Which is nice just to get some MTF numbers). Hopefully they'll do more disassemblies of Micro Four Thirds lenses, given we know what's inside a lot of other lenses now.
I wouldn't say its better or worse, it just meets different needs. If you need a 1/3 to 2/3rds of a stop more light then you need a Pro lens. If you need a weather sealed 25 then the Oly Pro is your only option.
Where a lot of people get tripped up is the assumption that Pro means better in every way.
I should have added "for me" at the end because your comment is exactly correct Dan.
Part of my decision to spend the extra money on the Olympus Pro is the weather sealing.