Short Reviews of Micro4/3 Lenses by Thom Hogan via Buy, Sell or Hold? Thom Hogan judges M43rds lenses - 1001 Noisy Cameras What do you think? Was Thom on target?
It's pretty hard to say. Most of his conclusions beg the question: "Recommended (or not recommended) for what?" For example, I would opine that the best lens for use as a hammer or to throw at an attacking dog is unquestionably the 14-140, mediocre aperture specs notwithstanding. For saving money, it is not a good choice however. Take the 45-200 and 14-140 Panny reviews. His comments are similar for both lenses except for the words "Expensive" and "Inexpensive." So is cost the criterion that gets one a "Qualified" and the other a "Highly" recommended evaluation? Hard to tell, especialy when the even more expensive 7-14 also gets a "Highly." For me, the 45-200 range didn't work well on a tourist camera, but the 14-140 does. So that is my criterion. Not weight. Not cost. Not subtleties in optical performance. Utility in the intended application. So, ho hum. I have no idea what his target was so also no idea whether he was on it. Not singling him out, though. The unanswerable question "What is the best widget?" (purpose unstated) is ubiquitous on internet forums.
Yeah, I think it's interesting that the one he says "optically it's excellent" gets a "not recommended" and for autofocus issues which are probably more to do with the body than the lens.
One mans opinion Amin Is he a m43 aficionado don't think so. Hardly worth providing counter opinions on his mini-review (were you hoping for some forum opinion's) ??? Problem with reviewers is they simply don't understand optical design.
I like his comments and reviews. Like Reichman's on LL, they are field reviews: based on his experience while shooting the things he is known for, and doing so his way. I find his approach very practical. In an ideal world each review would deliver absolutes. In reality, there is a lot of “it all depends”, because we have different needs. In his case, it's worth spending time on his site, and viewing some of his work. This way you can get some context. When I consider his reviews and measure against my own experience, I often find he is right, although I will admit there are some points I don't necessarily want to hear.
John, Thom's a Nikon guy, but he has been very positive on Micro 4/3 and is himself a Micro 4/3 (in addition to Nikon) user. I've read a lot of his writings over time and have come to respect his opinion. I don't agree with all of his assessments, but I found them interesting.
Exactly my sentiments too ..... I think he's happy playing with his M9 or putting some megabuck Leica lens on a E-PL1 for the rest he don't care.
Cool but he's not so committed like David of SoundimagePlus who is SO enthusiastic about m43 Your point taken tho' Amin
With all due respect, I think applying a religious test is unwise. These things are simply tools. Hammers, screwdrivers, electron microscopes, cameras ... All tools. The sensible question is "What is the best tool for my job today?" At one point in my photography history, a Koni-Omega Rapid M was the tool for the job. At another a Hassleblad 500C. For a long time, the Nikon F-series and a bag of lenses was my Crescent wrench. Now, M43. Next? I have no idea. My comment on Thom's evaluations was basically that he didn't tell us what job he was evaluating the tool for. His religion isn't a factor for me.
I prefer to listen to the scuttlebutt in forums like this to see what people are using and to look at the actual pictures taken with the lenses at hand. I will give Thom's opinions some credit in my decisions as a m4/3 user, but the people here like StreetShooter who live by the 20/1.7 and 17/2.8 will carry much more weight with me.
I have begun to notice a distaste for m4/3 olympus lens and cameras compared to panasonic. Not so much on this forum but other forums like dpreview and other review sites. Is olympus not considered a good brand? I remember watching the iphone shoot video (amin posted) where the photographer says I need crappy camera and he asks for olympus
I think some forums have a lot more discussion about Panasonic m4/3s basically because Panasonic has more bodies and a pretty good range of lenses. I especially think the GH range is still more often favoured, because it's like a DSLR, which many still consider the better form factor (given the EVF that's available). Thom's views are based on how he works, so everyone should take that into account. For example, my 17mm lives on my E-P1 (with the optical viewfinder) and is my P&S camera. It does an admirable job at that task and the f2.8 aperture hasn't affect picture taking ability at all. Cheers Ray
I'm not a big fan of Olympus compacts, but I do like their 4/3 and m4/3 cameras. I think if you are using M4/3 as your primary camera system it probably makes more sense to go with the DSLR-style Panasonics, but as a secondary system I prefer the smaller form factor of the Olympus cameras. Re lens development, Olympus still has a strong presence in mirrored cameras, whereas Panasonic has committed 100% to m4/3. This has probably slowed down the development of Olympus m4/3 lenses, and certainly the development of any high-end lenses.
Panasonic is making some great glass. They appear to have learned a lot from their partnership with Leica. In almost every case, the panny version is as good or better than the Olympus versions - and that is saying something because Olympus Zuiko glass is fine indeed.
To elaborate more the 17mm at f2.8 is sharper than the kit lens at the same focal length while being faster. While 34mm is not great for landscape nor is it close to a normal lens, I'm finding it a good all round lens. My old point and shoot was wide at 36mm and it takes nice pictures. While the 20mm is a great lens and I haven't used it personally, I know that I rarely use that focal length. I'm waiting for a 12mm and a 25mm.
