Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Theo, Feb 20, 2014.
The controversial result is that it claims the PL25 has less CA then the O25.
Looking at the test results, maximum CA is actually lower on the 1.8 but average CA is higher. I would think generally the higher maximum would be more noticable.
Well they certainly can't blame CA correction for that result - the PL25 was tested on the E-P1.
Also worth comparing the sharpness graph vs. the 17/1.8. Either their testing procedure is seriously flawed, or the 17/1.8 is seriously overpriced.
The lenses were tested on different cameras. E-P1 for the PL25 and GX1 for the O25. Not sure how that effects the numbers. Lens Tip always uses the same camera and DxO tests on multiple bodies, so valid comparisons between the lenses can be made.
I don't know if the 17/1.8 is seriously overpriced, because value isn't only dependent on lens resolution, but it doesn't have great numbers.
The price of the 17 is based more on it's metal construction than it's optical superiority in testing. It's never really knocked it out of the park in formal tests.
I think the lenses need to be both compared on 16MP sensor.
Sharpness isn't the only measure of a lens. But if that's your main criterion for lens price then the 17mm f/1.8 certainly isn't the best bang-for-the-buck lens. The 17mm f/1.8 definitely isn't as sharp as any of Olympus's other f/1.8 primes, but considering it offers a unique combination of max aperture and fast AF in this focal length range (larger aperture than Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 and Olympus 17mm f/2.8; faster AF than both lenses and Panasonic 20mm f/1.7) $400 is a reasonable price for it. I do wish it were sharper though so I'm waiting for the Panasonic 15mm f/1.7, but in the meantime I'm not at all unhappy with my 17mm f/1.8 and it gets almost daily use.
On the 25mm f/1.8, I've been waiting for SLRGear's test results because their results on other lenses track very consistently with my experiences with said lenses, so I have a really good feel for what their charts translate to in real life usage. It's obvious this is another fantastic lens with great bang-for-the-buck along the lines of the 45mm f/1.8.
$400 might be, but they're charging $500!
At any rate, the 25 clearly offers excellent image quality across the board, in the tradition of the 45 and 75. I just wish the 17/1.8 did the same.
Rebates, my friend. Rebates! Paying full price is a fool's game
Controversial? What source states otherwise?
Heh- I'm waiting for cashing in on credit card rewards points + refurbished lenses to pop up.
The Robin Wong review essentially stated the opposite. Claimed the O25 had less CA than the PL25 but he did add that the Oly bodies adjust for CA from Olympus lenses and not for the Panasonic lenses. Either way though it seems both lenses are pretty killer...
I waited until B&H's black friday deals were announced and picked it up for $400. I don't know that I would ever pay full price for an Olympus lens given how frequently they're "on sale".
hmm a bit cleaner in the corners and less CA choose Oly or a touch faster lens not as clean in corners and more CA chance choose the Panny ? is kinda the way I see it
Actually, Wong's comparison shot was taken at WA if I recall, and according to SLRGear, the Panny has significantly worse CA at WA than the Oly ("Unfortunately this fringing is noticeable throughout the frame, not just in the corners, at this aperture"). So I'm guessing that's what Wong was seeing.
What's WA? Widest aperture?
This is no technical test, just a Oly spokesman hands on. Let the other real reviews come in before!
What zoom? The lens being discussed is the 25/1.8, a normal prime. Ie no zoom, no change in angle. Fixed focal length.
You're right, I'm making no sense . . . need my coffee before I post! Sorry!!
I misunderstood my own post . . . I should have written Wide-Open; e.g., f/1.4.
Here's what slrGear wrote (hopefully I can't screw up just posting a quote!):
"There is some chromatic aberration to speak of when the lens is used wide open at ƒ/1.4, taking the form of magenta fringing on areas of high contrast. Unfortunately this fringing is noticeable throughout the frame, not just in the corners, at this aperture. Happily, at other apertures, CA is less visible".
If you look at the graph you can see that the maximum CA on the Panasonic--visible only wide-open--is significantly greater than the maximum CA on the Olympus, although the average CA on the Panasonic was actually lower.
OK, back to the picture Wong posted, which was taken at f/1.8. Assuming that the CA present at f/1.4 isn't completely gone by f/1.8, then it would make sense that he sees more CA in the Panasonic than the Olympus. Had he taken the picture at a more appropriate aperture for this subject he probably would have seen the opposite result, though according to the SLRgear results they would have been very close.
That Wongs picture has in body CA correction for the Oly, and no CA correction for the Pana leica.
Separate names with a comma.