Worst 75mm f1.8 (Paid) Review?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by zapatista, Aug 10, 2012.

  1. zapatista

    zapatista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    668
    Mar 19, 2012
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    Mike
    I like to joke around and be generally obnoxious on occasion in the forums, but generally try not to be nasty. However, after reading Lori Grunin's (CNET) so-called review of the Olympus 75mm f1.8 I just had to vent. Generally Ms. Grunin is ok, but the close focus distance and f22 comments make me think she should review appliances and not cameras. Am I alone with this perspective? Here a link to the review:

    Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm f1.8 lens Review - Lenses - CNET Reviews

    Mike
     
  2. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    702
    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    Hahaha. When does she ever like anything?
     
  3. zapatista

    zapatista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    668
    Mar 19, 2012
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    Mike
    Not so much that, but rather expressing seemingly astonishment that f22 is unusuable on a 13mm X 17mm sensor. Amazing that someone receives a salary for that kinda stuff.
     
  4. dre_tech

    dre_tech Mu-43 Veteran

    314
    Jan 31, 2012
    She pretty much doesn't understand m43 stuff, therefore hates it. She's probably paid for by the competition to ensure readers don't look at their camera section.
     
  5. Starred

    Starred Mu-43 Regular

    134
    Aug 7, 2010
  6. Serhan

    Serhan Mu-43 Top Veteran

    533
    May 7, 2011
    NYC
    Here is another review from Bob Atkins, who is a long time Canon reviewer:

    Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f1.8 Review - photo.net

    I used to read his Canon lens reviews. I am surprised he reviewed the Olympus lens. It shows how much the lens get attention... From the review:

     
  7. pxpaulx

    pxpaulx Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 19, 2010
    Midwest
    Paul
    So, she doesn't like heavy lenses, but doesn't like compact large sensor cameras (or at least, those of the m4/3 ilk). Then a complaint about close focus...not about its macro capability, but just that it won't focus down to 1 ft close to the lens, which has absolutely nothing to do with a lens' actual macro capability. Move along.
     
  8. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    I didn't look at the review, but I have a soft spot for Lori Grunin. She generally does know what she's talking about, and she gets a lot of flack because she is less positive overall towards everything (not just MFT) than most other reviewers.
     
  9. riverr02

    riverr02 Mu-43 Veteran

    258
    May 2, 2011
    New York
    Rafael
    Sure, she's not glowing about the lens and she doesn't comment on diffraction probably being the cause of the softer image at f/22, but I didn't think she was overly harsh. My sense was that she thought it was a pretty good lens.
     
  10. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 14, 2012
    New Mexico
    Larry
    Strange, it seemed to me an overall very positive review, with just a a couple of caveats. The first thing one sees about the the lens is this:
    "The good: The Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm f1.8 delivers generally excellent optical performance in a well-constructed lens."

    The only "bad" listed in the headline was that that manual focus was loose, a common complaint of people who don't like "servo-electric" type focus. But even as a dedicated Olympus lens user, I would be thrilled if the focus felt more "manual".

    The f22 comment does seem a little odd, but if you are going to include the f-stop, it should at least be "useable". If she finds the diffraction has reached a point where it renders the lens unuseable at a given f stop, I think that's a fair criticism.

    She admits that she is generally frustrated by the close focusing abilities of long lenses, thus putting in perspective her criticism of this one, which she acknowledges does better than many.

    She often ticks me off, but I think this is a pretty balanced and largely positive review, though not worshipful.
     
  11. D@ne

    D@ne Mu-43 Top Veteran

    593
    Feb 23, 2012
    Toronto
    "The lens' sweet spot seems to be between f2.8 and f11"

    lulz
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    702
    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    Is that not EVERY lens?
     
  13. D@ne

    D@ne Mu-43 Top Veteran

    593
    Feb 23, 2012
    Toronto
    I'm sorry, I have nothing else on which to base my opinions of this reviewer other than her m43 writings...and while I'm sure she's a nice person...she's a blithering fool when it comes to reviewing said equipment, which to me says that she should stick to reviewing DSLR and leave the others to someone else who understands how to work alternative camera equipment.

    Just in case that opinion wasn't frank enough - CNET as a whole, is a joke. Good for a laugh, and maybe a link to a store, but that's about it.
     
  14. zapatista

    zapatista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    668
    Mar 19, 2012
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    Mike
    I agree, Lori doesn't have the most positive tone and sometimes mentions things (relevant stuff) other reviewers miss. However, this is not the first time I've seen some just amazing crap. If Ms. Grunin would have said, well, why does Olympus even have an f22 setting because it's useless....that makes sense. Being extremely disappointed that f22 yields very soft image quality is just plain...well, it does not lend credit to Ms. Grunin. It would be like stating that the RX100 should have a minimum aperture beyond f11 because a Canon 24-70mm L lens "goes" to f32.

    Also, I'm not speaking about the review being slanted, it seems to honestly reflect the Ms. Grunin's opinion. I haven't used the 75mm f1.8 and can not comment on the lens itself.
     
  15. Biggstr

    Biggstr Mu-43 Regular

    32
    Mar 2, 2012
    Ashburn, VA
    I concur with the criticism of Lori Grunin's reviews. I find them almost worthless ... superficial, clique-ridden, with occasional factual errors with respect to specifications. It doesn't matter what camera she is reviewing or what rating she gives them. Lori doesn't do her homework! In her review of the PM1, for example, she states that the PM1 does not have an optional viewfinder in the same table where she lists it as optional for the rest of the PEN line (except the E-P1). Getting that wrong, what else has she glossed over or drew conclusions about without having the facts straight?
     
  16. dre_tech

    dre_tech Mu-43 Veteran

    314
    Jan 31, 2012
    Ok, her review about the Panasonic GX1 was negative, I can't understand why...

    She appears to have a sensor-size bias vs. an IQ one. PhaseOne FTW!