1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Review of Olympus 25 1.2

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by drd1135, Oct 4, 2016.

  1. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    Olympus 25mm f/1.2 review at Mobile01 – 43 Rumors

    This link takes you to 43 rumors where the summary is posted along with the URL to the review. From the 43rumors article:
    • You get a Full frame look when shooting at f/1.2
    • It’s has a very good optical quality even wide open. It’s sharp in the center and has a good performance on extreme corners too.
    • Focus speed is good
    • On the PEN-F sometimes the autofocus struggles to find the focus point on objects that are too blurred because of the shallow depth of field
    • It has strong flare and ghosting in direct sunlight at wider apertures
    • The lens has no distortion issues
    • Only small vignetting at wider apertures
    Looks like a big, expensive, but very high quality lens.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  2. rezatravilla

    rezatravilla Mu-43 Top Veteran

    529
    Aug 7, 2013
    Indonesia
    Reza Travilla
  3. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Rob
  4. Wisertime

    Wisertime Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 6, 2013
    Philly
    Steve
    The ironic thing about this one is she appeared to use flash on almost all the photos....at least to my eye.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    Yeah they're all in shade with sunny backgrounds and direct diffused high flash,
    the brief was "make them POP!" and she delivered.
    Advertising is never about subtlety ;)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. datagov

    datagov Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 2, 2012
    New York
    Too expensive. 1.2 vs 1.4 is not worth the added expense. The Sigma 30mm 1.4 will have just as much bokeh and pop as the olympus 25mm 1.2 and anyone can add extra pop with photoshop.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    That's what I thought, but the pictures I've seen from the 25/1.2 are generally amazing. The DPReview samples are among the best I've ever seen produced by that site (which, of course, reviews fancy lenses on expensive full frame cameras, too). The Sigma 30/1.4 doesn't really do anything to separate itself from the 25/1.4 in real world images, somehow.

    I think the difference is that the 25/1.2 is just so blisteringly sharp wide open. The contrast in apparent detail between the in-focus and out-of-focus areas is just so stark.

    But yes, it's much too expensive for me...
     
  8. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I find it odd that they would mention trouble with AF due to shallow DOF. This will have barely thinner DOF than an f2.8 zoom on full frame.
     
  9. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Lots of f2.8 zooms on FF have trouble with DoF, too. Why do you think pros are always tearing their hair out doing AF-fine tune on their lenses? But most photographers are their own worst enemies in this respect. For commercial work, if they're just run-and-gun photos, most clients don't pixel peep.

    On the weekend I was doing some lens testing of a manual focus Pentax 50/1.7 (on a K-S2) that I'm selling, and using a DSLR it was incredibly difficult to actually get things in focus, with the PDAF focus confirmation beep just giving me no help whatsoever. I needed to shoot a high speed burst and rack focus slowly while doing it. Without it, it looks like the lens is just incredibly shitty and soft and glowy and riddled with CA. But if you move the plane of focus just a teensy tiny bit one way or the other, you realize it's actually shockingly sharp. It makes a huge difference to the subjective effect of the image. The 25/1.2 would have similar blur to the 50/1.7 in a full-body portrait...

    30197483930_5f984f8d6b_h.
     
  10. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Just think of it as our Zeiss 55mm f1.8. 900g vs 880g setups, but one is weather sealed. $2300 vs $2600 combos full retail.

    upload_2016-10-24_8-10-23.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Regarding the "full frame look", is it really that much more noticeable than the f/1.4 of the Panaleica? I've always been happy with the DoF and bokeh quality that my PL25 has delivered. While it would be nice for it to have weather sealing, I'm not certain I'd want to deal with the extra size & weight, just to gain 1/2 a stop of speed and weather sealing.

    upload_2016-10-24_12-17-22.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Yeah, the "pop" is more about the lighting than it is the lens. I didn't see one shot that couldn't be made with the PL25. It just goes to show the importance of properly lighting your subject.

    Having said that, the lens does look fantastic...
     
  13. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    The funny thing is that I find the Tracie Maglosky images to have very little "pop" due to the use of strobe lighting, which makes the images look flat and commercial to me. Boring.

    Just shows how everyone has very, very different interpretations of what "3D pop" actually even means.
     
  14. astrostl

    astrostl Mu-43 Veteran

    358
    Oct 4, 2014
    St. Louis, MO
    Justin Honold
    Waiting on LensTip. They've posted a couple rounds of sample shots, so I imagine they have one in hand.
     
  15. WGPhotography

    WGPhotography Mu-43 Regular

    150
    Oct 21, 2016
    Wayne
    The only comparison I'm interested in is against the 25mm f1.4. I'm sure the 1.2 will be better, but it's several times the size and weight, and over twice the price here in the U.K. At least.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. datagov

    datagov Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 2, 2012
    New York
    It is so heavy and impractical if you buy it you will have to invent reasons to use it because it is far handier and more practical to pull out the 12-40 and find a neutral background to shoot at 25mm f2.8. Sharpness and "micro-contrast" at that level are beyond the human eye to detect. Though clearly, the mind can trick the eye 1200 times...
     
  17. m43happy

    m43happy Mu-43 Veteran

    430
    Feb 18, 2012
    Sold my PL25 f1.4 a month ago (had it since January 2012, bought it w/ a Panasonic GX1). Should be getting in this O25 Pro this Wednesday! Price aside, I'll post up my thoughts on how it compares to the PL25 I had before it. :)
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Come now, it's really, really easy to tell the difference between 25/f1.2 and 25/f2.8. It's really easy to tell the difference between 20/1.7 and 25/2.8...

    Unless you need weather sealing, think the value proposition of the 25/1.2 is dubious against the Panasonic 25/1.4 or Sigma 30/1.4, but I think it will be clear that if you want the absolute best, the 25/1.2 is the one to get.
     
  19. astrostl

    astrostl Mu-43 Veteran

    358
    Oct 4, 2014
    St. Louis, MO
    Justin Honold
    For as much as people bring up the PL25/1.4 as the comp for the O25/1.2, the O25/1.8 is about equal to the PL25 in the center, and smokes it on the edges at f/1.8-f/2.0. Cost and size being no object, I would take the O25/1.8 over the PL25/1.4. Call me crazy.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  20. WGPhotography

    WGPhotography Mu-43 Regular

    150
    Oct 21, 2016
    Wayne
    If I'm shooting at wide apertures, which I do with that lens, I really don't pixel peep enough to care less about smeary corners. I'm rarely going to use it for landscapes. So the extra speed is the main benefit for me; f1.8 to f1.4 being a good difference, but f1.4 down to f1.2 not so much when the price and size differences are taken into account.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1