1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Thom Hogan Opines on the Native Lenses

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Amin Sabet, Dec 6, 2010.

  1. Djarum

    Djarum Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Huntsville, AL, USA
    He doesn't like 17mm. I'm sorta suprised.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Oct 1, 2010
    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.
    • Like Like x 4
  3. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    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.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Boyzo

    Boyzo Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Mar 3, 2010
    One mans opinion Amin :frown:

    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.
  5. Pelao

    Pelao Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 3, 2010
    Ontario, Canada
    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.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    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.
  7. Boyzo

    Boyzo Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Mar 3, 2010
    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.
  8. Boyzo

    Boyzo Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Mar 3, 2010
    Cool but he's not so committed like David of SoundimagePlus who is SO enthusiastic about m43

    Your point taken tho' Amin
  9. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Oct 1, 2010
    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.
  10. Narnian

    Narnian Nobody in particular ...

    Aug 6, 2010
    Richmond, VA
    Richard Elliott
    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.
  11. playak47

    playak47 Mu-43 Veteran

    Nov 4, 2010
    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
  12. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    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.


    • Like Like x 3
  13. 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.
  14. phrenic

    phrenic Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 13, 2010
    Seems mostly fair...I'm surprised he wasn't more positive about the 20mm pancake though.
  15. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    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.
  16. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    Nothing's really a surprise there, is it?
  17. Djarum

    Djarum Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Huntsville, AL, USA
    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.
  18. deirdre

    deirdre Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 9, 2010
    Bah, I love the 45mm.

  19. Boyzo

    Boyzo Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Mar 3, 2010
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.