Olympus 25mm PRO: Value proposition against FF

[Turbofrog]

After looking at Robin's samples, I'm not that impressed. It tends to have that flat and cool image profile that most Olympus pro lenses have. I think the Panasonic 25mm 1.4 has a bit more punch to it. I'd like to see how this lens handles for stopped down shooting, especially how it renders points of light; how it does for low light venue photography and also if the lens extracts even more detail in high res mode.

As a general photography tool I think there are cheaper alternatives that are just as sharp. This lens to me screams special application use!

What did you think of the DPReview samples? I thought they looked great. More expressive than Robin's, in my opinion.

 

[astrostl]

Buchan Grant Photography - Blog - A Cuban Epiphany - the new Olympus lenses has me surface-sold

 

[owczi]

Is it bad that my biggest takeaway is buried in his comments?

• Unknown9/20/2016 06:27:00 PM
  
  I'm also waiting for 17mm f/1.2 PRO with the same quality.
  

• View attachment 485618
  Robin Wong9/20/2016 06:39:00 PM
  It will come surely. I am sure.

Now that is a good find.

 

[kawhona]

should get enough to cover about 1/4 the price....

Indeed if you are doing photography as a business and are able to eat regularly you are in the vast minority Fortunately a hobbyist like myself looks at this as a hobby not a business proposition.

 

[DanS]

Indeed if you are doing photography as a business and are able to eat regularly you are in the vast minority Fortunately a hobbyist like myself looks at this as a hobby not a business proposition.

So don't buy it or just save a little longer.

This is not directed at you @kawhona :

Honestly I agree with Matt Granger, that photographers are way to negative. Every time a new lens/body is released we hear it's to big, to heavy, to expensive, or missing this feature or that.

 

[kawhona]

So don't buy it or just save a little longer.

This is not directed at you @kawhona :

Honestly I agree with Matt Granger, that photographers are way to negative. Every time a new lens/body is released we hear it's to big, to heavy, to expensive, or missing this feature or that.

Dan I would love an 80 Megapixel camera the size of a toothbrush that has 50% better dynamic range and can shoot noise free up to 1,000,000,000 Iso and it shouldn't cost more than $1.25 but, I don't think that is likely to happen too soon There are stupid people like me who actually consider photography a hobby and an artistic expression ( though art is of course subjective) and instead of hookers and blow would rather waste their money on camera gear. There are others who are trying to make a living in a tough business. As a manufacturer myself I am not interested in making product for no profit. As a result I have made a marketing plan based on my knowledge of the customers and have decided to sell only to customers willing to allow me to make a reasonable profit. I think Olympus is trying to do the same. The reality is if a business doesn't make money then it will be gone. The photo business has changed dramatically in the 25 years or so I have been taking pics remember a little company called Kodak ? If Pro gear isn't for you for whatever reason don't buy it. That is how you make your voice heard. But, if I'm making cameras and I see cellphones and tablets taking my business and anyone who travels will tell you how many people are taking pics with those devices ???? Lets be a little realistic.

 

[DanS]

So, I think we agree?

 

[m43happy]

This one from his review kind of says it all: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cnWDLip8...JNFcCDWzJnm7kGy8TkG_kgCPcB/s1600/P1010122.jpg

The same can be said for other camera manufacturers. 1.2 is bigger than 1.4 is bigger than 1.8.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Canon_85mm_comparison_(front).jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nGy9Dysgplg/maxresdefault.jpg

Sigma even made their 50mm 1.4 Art lens bigger than the Canon f1.2L
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9yHcoPF9hNE/maxresdefault.jpg

 

[kawhona]

So, I think we agree?

indeed we do

 

[nstelemark]

Have you guys seen how ridiculous Sony native FF lenses look? I also shoot Sony and have gone all adapted because there is no size advantage shooting native Sony lenses.

This was exactly my conclusion. I was considering buying an A7 but I realized that I was only going to use adapted lenses on it. Then I decided what exactly was the point? Given that the vast majority of frames I shoot are tele, this would have been a niche application for me.

The A7II further cemented this decision for me because it grew significantly from the original A7 decisions. FF is not a panacea. For what I shoot the 25f1.4 and at some point hi res mode should satisfy my DOF and higher resolution whims.

 

[nstelemark]

It tends to have that flat and cool image profile that most Olympus pro lenses have.

This. The word that comes to mind for me is clinical. The older SHG lenses seem to be warmer and just as sharp (IMO).

 

[Speedliner]

Hard to tell without pics from both for the same scene and light. That pic of the older Cuban gentleman though looks phenomenal. Then I notice card a few others and what they had in common was the subject's head was well forward of there body. Maybe that pose is a technique he uses to aid that 3D isolated look.

Anyway many of the Cuban pictures looked great.

 

[DanS]

perhaps he altered them in post to his taste.

 

[astrostl]

Hard to tell without pics from both for the same scene and light. That pic of the older Cuban gentleman though looks phenomenal. Then I notice card a few others and what they had in common was the subject's head was well forward of there body. Maybe that pose is a technique he uses to aid that 3D isolated look.

Anyway many of the Cuban pictures looked great.

Stressing that Buchan Grant Photography - Blog - A Cuban Epiphany - the new Olympus lenses has many more photos from the Cuban shoot

 

[Turbofrog]

Stressing that Buchan Grant Photography - Blog - A Cuban Epiphany - the new Olympus lenses has many more photos from the Cuban shoot

The night shots there are the winners. Between IBIS and the inherently increased depth of field of M4/3, those shots would be difficult to get even with FF. Not every shot needs to be a blur, and if you're stopping down with a larger sensor you're throwing away any sensor size advantage.

 

[tkbslc]

The same can be said for other camera manufacturers. 1.2 is bigger than 1.4 is bigger than 1.8.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Canon_85mm_comparison_(front).jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nGy9Dysgplg/maxresdefault.jpg

Sigma even made their 50mm 1.4 Art lens bigger than the Canon f1.2L
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9yHcoPF9hNE/maxresdefault.jpg

Yep. Logarithmic improvement in image making capabilities for exponential increase in size, weight and cost.

I was more sharing that photo to show how awesome the f1.8 is.

 

[saladin]

Looks a winner based on Neil's blog.

 

[retiredfromlife]

Some very nice pictures on the Robin Wong review. I especially like the dove taking off from the roof, but as he says that picture is really not about the lens
Robin Wong: Olympus M.Zuiko 25mm F1.2 PRO Lens Review

Cheers

 

[Amin]

What a painful thread to read through. I purposely avoided it when I saw the topic, but I had to read it since it was reported multiple times.

First of all, please report threads like this one sooner. As soon as folks start down the equivalence , we'd like to hear about it. I'm inclined to move all of that to a single backroom thread where folks can argue to their hearts' content without messing up otherwise potentially interesting discussions.

I realize that some posts left in this thread relate to equivalence while others were moved. There is some gray area, but the bickering about total light collecting and such belongs in the dedicated backroom thread.

Second, please note that repetitive argumentation is not allowed per our TOS. Even if you are definitely on the right side of the argument. If you find yourself arguing with the same member about the same stuff across multiple threads, then you are breaking our rules. Even if you are 100% right and the other person is a 100% wrong.

 

[fortwodriver]

Rather than worrying about background blur, maybe work on lighting your subject or choosing your backgrounds more wisely?

One of the early tentpoles for the 4/3rd sized sensor was increased depth of field. Mainly to prevent that obnoxious blurry tip of the nose, sharp eye, blurry ear effect so many people seem to love because they can more or less forget about organizing their background, or learning to light their foreground.

You can do it. I believe in your potential.