Yeah, it'll make you gulp, but it's so worth it, but only if you need it. Combined with the12-60 PL it covers all the bases for me, and it's much lighter than the OLY 40-150 2.8. The sharpness is also less crunchy.Damn you, Mike. I just looked up the price of this lens and my wallet cringed.
Yup, I've been saying that for ages. I routinely go up to 12800. It only looks bad if I blow the exposure. I think people who shoot straight jpeg files or people who have no clue as to how to process raw files are going to be disappointed, but otherwise if you use your noggin and expose and process with care, you can get very good results at higher iso settings on MFT.Wow, that first image is at ISO 8000!
That really puts the assertion that M4/3 can't do low light on its head...
Interesting observation, I would have thought that Oly OOC JPG would do well too (with good exposure). Not so?Yup, I've been saying that for ages. I routinely go up to 12800. It only looks bad if I blow the exposure. I think people who shoot straight jpeg files.
I don't think any camera makes good jpg files SOOC at higher iso's. They all smush the noise AND the detail. A well processed raw will retain good detail and suppress the noise in a way that looks natural and organic.Interesting observation, I would have thought that Oly OOC JPG would do well too (with good exposure). Not so?
Well that's how I also feel, but quite a many seem to extol the virtues of Oly OOC JPG. You are doing very good processing work there as my experience with the EM5 (1 & 2) and G85 I was not able to get results as good as this.I don't think any camera makes good jpg files SOOC at higher iso's.
Yeah, I think that in terms of optics and versatility, the Oly 12-100/f4 is better than the PL12-60mm/f2.8-4, but the reverse is true when it comes to the PL50-200mm/f2.8-4 vs. the Oly 40-150/f2.8.I really like the bokeh I’m seeing from this lens. It appears less nervous than the Oly 40-150.(I hate the term nervous when describing bokeh btw ) Of course it could just be the extra oof areas from the longer focal length.
I actually shoot with the 50-200 2.8-3.5 over the Oly Pro bc it’s more versatile to me. Woth the 1.4 it just covers so many bases. This would obviously be the same. I like what I’m seeing here!