Robin Wong comparison of Oly and Panasonic 25mm lenses

[Lisandra]

I don't get the people who always slam Wong's reviews. For goodness sake, he posts pictures! You can see for yourself if his conclusions are justified. For those of you who reflexively criticize everything he writes, do you actually think he manipulated images to make the Panny softer in the corners? Did he fudge the image in LR to throw in a little CA? Did he tweak focus a little to ensure all his Panny images were "off"? Really, seriously? Again, the images speak for themselves . . . and they're very, very, very close. I'd be hard-pressed to tell them apart!

i wouldn't put it past him, that's how low I think of him. You'll see, as ALWAYS when real non brand loyalist testers come out with their findings it'll turn out completely different. Does no one remember his past claims? Where he claimed the em1 ibis was stoops steadier, and then the samples posted where at 7mm looking up? Then he claimed the em1 sensor was a leap ahead the em5 (1 or 2 stops I can't recall) then it turns out it wasnt? Not even half a stop. Now suddenly the em10 3 axis ibis is identical to the 5 axis in the em1.

I don't care how much he clarifies he works for olympus, that doesn't give him the right to manipulate people. Get a pana body and do the test, then show photos of ca and other stuff.

 

[fortwodriver]

Well, I would say that for several decades Canon and Nikon seemed to have decided that among 50mm primes, their f/1.8 lenses would be inexpensive kit lenses and that their f/1.4 lenses would be made to a higher level of build and image quality. There is no reason it needed to be this way, but Canon and Nikon's parallel decisions about how to configure their 50mm lens line ups has created a conventional wisdom that f/1.4 normal lenses are "better" than f/1.8. I think Wong was just responding to that.

It could be related to what those two companies decided to do with those two lenses. If I remember correctly, the Nikon 50mm 1.4 was somewhat of a breakthrough. US Military men brought them back from overseas and their optical quality was seemingly revolutionary for the time.

American cameras often had f2.5 or f3.5 50mm lenses if that's the focal length they were using.

Many other lens companies like Minolta, Miranda, Pentax, and later Olympus didn't really have an f1.4 50mm lens initially. They all stuck with slower versions for a lot longer than Nikon and Canon. In fact, amongst my friends back in the film days, I was the only one who had a camera with a 50mm 1.4 (Pentax Spotmatic II)... Everyone else had 50mm 1.8, or 2.0, or 2.5. Some of them had 28mm 2.5 lenses - and many of them were later models than my Pentax. On top of that the 1.8 version wasn't really significantly cheaper. It was always the f2 or f2.5 which was offered up as a "value proposition" when buying the camera with a "normal lens".

 

[HappyFish]

I don't care how much he clarifies he works for olympus, that doesn't give him the right to manipulate people. Get a pana body and do the test, then show photos of ca and other stuff.

he is not manipulating ? if someone wants to believe only one person ? oh well if he has said silly stuff he would not be the first won't be the last and then ignore him
and he has the right to saw what ever he wants !! at least in the world I live in ?

yes he is FORCING you to go to his site and FORCING you to read it then FORCING YOU TO BELIEVE ONLY HIM !!!! just so he can manipulate you hahahaahahah funny though

and if you get a panny body and the OLY sucks on that then what blame the reviewer again ?
every one has a bias one way or the other look at the crap Ken Rockwell gets ?

pics speak louder than words seems both are pretty darn nice and maybe folks can make up there own decision once more reviews come out

 

[fortwodriver]

I don't care how much he clarifies he works for olympus, that doesn't give him the right to manipulate people. Get a pana body and do the test, then show photos of ca and other stuff.

Were you one of those people who got all butt-hurt during the Coke-Pepsi challenge years because they were "forcing" you to pick a side?

Where's the manipulation? Besides, it's only "manipulation" to you because you just don't agree with him.

I borrowed one about a year ago, slapped it on my wife's G2 and lookie lookie! It was kinda soft and had as much CA as my old cheap Nikkor 50mm 1.8!

I think the new Oly 25mm lens is looking pretty good. I'll probably buy that instead of the PL25. I didn't need Robin to tell me that, but seeing what he got out of the lens certainly helped me decide.

 

[bye]

I had sent off an email to him asking him to comment on the E-M10 ESP metering (matrix pattern zone metering) and how it is dealing with the highlights as well as Spot Highlight Control as well as Spot Shadow Control. Mind you that I sent this off 2 weeks already followed by a kind reminder. I got no response.

Why am I asking him these questions? Because I found some inconsistencies in his reviewing of the E-M10, namely as it seemed like it's more of a marketing advertising campaign much like Canon or Nikon (I've been in the industry for a long while so I can smell someone selling snake oil), and I just wanted to confirm that he's not selling snake oil. It's funny he never responded to my inquiries.

It's possible that two of the same focal length lenses may have slightly different FOV even though they are labelled as 50mm standard lens equivalent. I suspect that it's due to how the internal focusing elements are arranged to focus on the subject. This can have an effect of reducing the FOV as the focusing bellows moves. This happens on the new Nikkor 70-200VR II (the second version) which can effectively reduce the focal length on the long end to about 180mm compared to the older 70-200VR I lens. The same with other makers like Canon with their own lenses of the same FOV. I suspect that this would have attributed also to better focusing on the Olympus depending on the focusing bellow design and also its ability to close focus (another tell-tale sign of a different design). A better design of course, because this is a 2014 lens and the Panasonic Leica is an older design. This is to be expected.

Now, Robin claims the Olympus is a brighter lens than the Panasonic. There are 2 ways to explain this.

1, It's possible that this lens is designed specifically for Olympus Digital sensor design to promote better micro-contrast. In effect, the lens will provide better contrast on bodies designed for it; this case Olympus. But we can also present the same case with Panasonic bodies like the GX-7 or GM-1 which can probably duplicate the same phenomenon having an up advantage for the Panasonic Leica lens.

2, The ESP pattern metering system is compensating for a wider field of view. ESP Matrix metering is a metering system based on an 18% grey standard. And then the pattern zones would overlay the image and is used to compare to its scene database to determine the appropriate exposure by either over or undercompensating its 18% grey reading. Compounding the problem with ESP metering is the fact that it seemed Olympus ESP metering tends to underexpose the scene to protect the highlights. This has been documented somewhat with the E-M10, but I'm also noticing the same problem with my E-PL1. This was where Robin seemed to be quite silent about -- not commenting on anything on this performance issues. Which was also the reason why I asked about Spot metering. As a competent reviewer he would have provided some Spot metering shots of the same lenses to see if the metering deviates or shoot in full manual from a metered reading obtained from a Sekonic handheld meter and see if both images turn out to be of the same brightness. You can do this with Photoshop to spot check RGB values. He didn't do that.

But here is the problem. If Robin used ESP, 2 lenses with a different FOV will not cover the same areas of the patterning zones. Thus the one covers less and the one covers more will and can provide a differing exposure outlook and because the ESP metering is an automatic metering system compensated by its internal algorithm, it could only mean that this test provides a difficult conclusion.

I'm keeping my Pana Leica btw.

 

[fortwodriver]

Now, Robin claims the Olympus is a brighter lens than the Panasonic. There are 2 ways to explain this.

1, It's possible that this lens is designed specifically for Olympus Digital sensor design to promote better micro-contrast. In effect, the lens will provide better contrast on bodies designed for it; this case Olympus. But we can also present the same case with Panasonic bodies like the GX-7 or GM-1 which can probably duplicate the same phenomenon having an up advantage for the Panasonic Leica lens.

You do understand the difference between F-Stops and T-Stops right? F-Stops only represent the fraction of the opening relative to the size of the optical diameter. T-Stops are an actual measurement of the amount of light the lens can transmit all the way through to the film plane or sensor plane. T-Stops can be affected by something as simple as a difference in coatings on the lens elements. This is why nobody in the cine world uses F-Stops. T-Stops are used because when you have a battery of lenses for filming, you need to keep your exposures identical across lenses. You can't do that with F-Stop nomenclature - you have to use T-Stops.

So yes, it's certainly possible that the Oly has a higher T-Stop factor over the PL25 and that's what he may be seeing. Perhaps the PL25 is really T1.9 and the Oly is T1.6?

 

[bye]

Were you one of those people who got all butt-hurt during the Coke-Pepsi challenge years because they were "forcing" you to pick a side?

Where's the manipulation? Besides, it's only "manipulation" to you because you just don't agree with him.

I borrowed one about a year ago, slapped it on my wife's G2 and lookie lookie! It was kinda soft and had as much CA as my old cheap Nikkor 50mm 1.8!

I think the new Oly 25mm lens is looking pretty good. I'll probably buy that instead of the PL25. I didn't need Robin to tell me that, but seeing what he got out of the lens certainly helped me decide.

Seriously, the f/1.4 is worst than an old Nikkor 50mm f/1.8?

Just so you know, my Pana Leica 1.4 is "BETTER" than my super duper expensive Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G at f/1.4 setting, even if it had gone through DXO Optics Pro 9. Now who's manipulating who. L.O.L

 

[fortwodriver]

Seriously, the f/1.4 is worst than an old Nikkor 50mm f/1.8?

My Pana Leica 1.4 is "BETTER" than my super duper expensive Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G at f/1.4 setting, even if it had gone through DXO Optics Pro 9. Now who's manipulating who. L.O.L

Btw, it's my E-PL1 against my Nikon Df just so you know.

But generally, if you read around the net the 58mm isn't getting the best reviews. A lot of people aren't really sure what Nikon was doing making that lens - at the price they pegged it at... but I digress...

Yes, I found the PL25 1.4 worse than a 20 year old NIkkor 50mm 1.8. Apparently, according to you, that's simply not possible?

 

[bye]

You do understand the difference between F-Stops and T-Stops right? F-Stops only represent the fraction of the opening relative to the size of the optical diameter. T-Stops are an actual measurement of the amount of light the lens can transmit all the way through to the film plane or sensor plane. T-Stops can be affected by something as simple as a difference in coatings on the lens elements. This is why nobody in the cine world uses F-Stops. T-Stops are used because when you have a battery of lenses for filming, you need to keep your exposures identical across lenses. You can't do that with F-Stop nomenclature - you have to use T-Stops.

So yes, it's certainly possible that the Oly has a higher T-Stop factor over the PL25 and that's what he may be seeing. Perhaps the PL25 is really T1.9 and the Oly is T1.6?

Perhaps it is you who don't understand F-stops and T-stops factor. This is a rather common phenomenon. In fact, I believe the Nikkor 17-35 lens (when I attended an NPS show and tell conference) was the first that was designed TO BE digital ready even during the times that they were making film bodies, so that provides better micro-contrast compared to the normal film lenses when MOUNTED on a digital body. So do you call a Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 a T/2.0 or whatever even today where some people INSIST that lens to be what they believe it should be rated, in T-factor.

I digress when some people make fantasy over things that are basically design issues placed by the maker..

Cheers..

 

[fortwodriver]

Perhaps it is you who don't understand F-stops and T-stops factor. This is a rather common phenomenon. In fact, I believe the Nikkor 17-35 lens (when I attended an NPS show and tell conference) was the first that was designed TO BE digital ready even during the times that they were making film bodies, so that provides better micro-contrast compared to the normal film lenses when MOUNTED on a digital body. So do you call a Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 a T/2.0 or whatever even today where some people INSIST that lens to be what they believe it should be rated, in T-factor.

I digress when some people make fantasy over things that are basically design issues placed by the maker..

T-Stops have nothing to do with Digital vs Analog capture. Where do you get that from? T-Stops existed long before digital capture existed.

So you don't understand the difference between T-Stops and F-Stops... You keep talking about micro contrast and metering. T-Stops have nothing to do with either. You're just spewing a bunch of tin-foil hat reasoning as to why you think Robin feels the Oly is brighter than the PL25. I just gave you a valid reason and it's fairly obvious it went right over your head.

 

[zapatista]

I had to double check the URL after going through this post. For a second I thought I was reading the forums on fredmiranda.com or dpreview.com.

 

[bye]

But generally, if you read around the net the 58mm isn't getting the best reviews. A lot of people aren't really sure what Nikon was doing making that lens - at the price they pegged it at... but I digress...

Yes, I found the PL25 1.4 worse than a 20 year old NIkkor 50mm 1.8. Apparently, according to you, that's simply not possible?

I found generally that the PL 25 1.4 to be superior in difficult lighting conditions probably due to its nano coating. The older Nikkors, while technically good are not as good as the newer N lenses which are Nano-coated to improve contrast, so seriously I'm not seeing what you are seeing. And that's not only me either as my peers say the same as well.

Being sharp means 3 things.

1, Resolving power (It's MTF abilities)
2, Aberrations (be it CA and LCA combined as well as Spherical)
3, Contrast (micro-contrast based on lens design to be digital ready as well as the coating to increase or maintain contrast in difficult lighting conditions).

Yes, I did find the Leica 1.4 to be easily influenced by strong and harsh lighting, so I always have the hood on. It's the same with my 40-150mm which I also have a hood installed on it as well. Having a hood reduces the flaring which then improves contrast and thus improves the acuity of the images.

Mind you that CA is easily corrected via any PP software. DXO Optics Pro 9 corrects this automagically, so I don't have CA issues at all.

The Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G is actually pretty sharp lens, once you stop it down to f/4 or f/5.6 and it actually can kick Pana Leica's butt so to speak especially when it's on my D800. This is a little fact that few people know about. Which is why I have it. It's just that at f/1.4, it does have severe LCA and CA which makes it somewhat soft.

 

[bye]

T-Stops have nothing to do with Digital vs Analog capture. Where do you get that from? T-Stops existed long before digital capture existed.

So you don't understand the difference between T-Stops and F-Stops... You keep talking about micro contrast and metering. T-Stops have nothing to do with either. You're just spewing a bunch of tin-foil hat reasoning as to why you think Robin feels the Oly is brighter than the PL25. I just gave you a valid reason and it's fairly obvious it went right over your head.

Then why are you bringing in T-stops as an explanation then? You keep trying to defend your flawed conclusion which in the photography world is described as normal. First of all, are you sure Robin's work is accurate? As others had pointed out, his past work were not. When a manufacturer like Olympus rated the lens at f/1.8, then it is f/1.8. There are other explanations that can describe the increase in brightness, but if a lens is rated at f/1.8 then it is f/1.8. Whatever happens when the meter meters can probably be explained. If a lens is rated at say T stops, then how can you be sure every single lens combining out of the factory is EXACTLY at this T-stop. It could always swing to be less bright. Then what do you have to say on that? If the variance is so much, that means Olympus manufacturing is flawed.

Not sure why there are so many people who are extremely defensive towards Robin? He's only human and he's providing his own personal bias. He's a marketing guy, not a technical guy so take his advise as such!

 

[fortwodriver]

Then why are you bringing in T-stops as an explanation then? You keep trying to defend your flawed conclusion which in the photography world is described as normal. First of all, are you sure Robin's work is accurate? As others had pointed out, his past work were not.

Well, Robin says it's "a feeling" and that's why I suspect the PL25 and Oly25 have different T-Stop ratings. I don' think he has the ability to test for that and he may not even know about it.

I don't really read everything he says. I don't know if it's a language/cultural thing but a lot of his descriptions tend to sound a little too flowery or optimistic. However, he does post photos with exif data. You can take that for whatever you like. You don't need DxO tests to see that the Oly seems to be a very good lens, at a lower price-point than the PL25. If you need DxO tests to see that, you're just measurebating and not really taking pictures.

Why on earth would you buy a lens like the 58mm 1.4 if it only "kicks butt" at f4 or smaller. What year is this? 1978?

 

[Amin]

Closing this thread temporarily. Some of the posts here cross the line of what is acceptable on this site. Everyone, we expect the posts here to be nice, friendly, courteous, and free of flaming and repetitive argumentation. These are rules, not guidelines.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Mu-43 mobile app

 

[Amin]

Thread back open. Be nice!

 

[Swandy]

I don't think that Robin's analysis of traditional 50mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.8 lens is entirely correct. In the case of Canon the 50mm f1.4 is no sharper than the 50mm f1.8 II, has more distortion, and more CA. The extra money in that case pays for much better (but still not amazing) build quality, more aperture blades for better bokeh, a better AF system, and an extra 2/3 stop of softness.

This is where I feel that he is being a bit disingenuous re PL25 vs MZ25, by implying that f1.4 lenses SHOULD be better optically than f1.8 lenses. If the MZ25 has equivalent or perhaps even better optical performance than the PL25 it does not break any rules of standard focal length primes by doing so.

I don't know about Canon lenses (my background was Olympus and Minolta) but going back then (film days), the 50mm1.4 were always sharper and more expensive than the equivalent manufacturer's 50mm1.8.
And he does not say that the Panasonic should have better optical quality BECAUSE it is a 1.4 lens. He specifically says that he is referring to what people's believed bias based upon their experiences or what they have read about the non-4/3 lenses and their 50mm 1.4 vs 1.8 lens.

 

[pdk42]

OK, different tack...

In Robin's review, he shows a graphic of the design of various 25/50mm lenses:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

What's interesting is the amount of "space" (I realise it's not really space!!) around the elements in the PL25. In other words, the barrel of the PL25 is much wider than the elements would indicate (the same is true of the Nikkor).

 

[RT_Panther]

The Nikon 50mm f1.4G has a built-in AF motor...

 

[carterru]

Really great comparison by Robin. I have been waiting for some one to do this for a while and for some reason I trust Robin to be honest.

The main point for me is the difference in light gathering. It looks like the panasonic only has 1/3 EV not 2/3. The bokeh looks similar on both.

This will now complete my prime lens collection 12mm 25mm 45mm. 135mm OM Hanimex F2.8

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk