Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 7, 2010, 2:30 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
gjtoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Louisville, KY, USA
Posts: 6,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven R View Post
Enjoy your dogs while you have them. I lost one of mine to lymphoma cancer this morning. She was a tough old dog, made it past 16 years before the cancer won.
Oh, Steve!! I'm so very sorry to hear that. We lost our Abby last January and it still hurts. I still can't look at her photos without get misty. I hope your heart heals faster than ours are.
__________________
Gary ---- "The best camera is the one you have with you."
<><~~~~~~~~~~~
Pentax K-70 ~ Panasonic FZ1000
My Gallery

--
Hebrews 13:3
gjtoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2010, 4:01 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Wizzard0003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Aberdeen, WA USA
Posts: 1,085
Default

So sorry to hear of your loss, Steve...
Wizzard0003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2010, 8:12 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Steven R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5,901
Default

Thank you for all your comments guys, appreciate it.
Steven R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2010, 10:21 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
PS: This is with the 25mm pancake that so many folks over at DPR say is not a very good lens.
I don't have the pancake, still mulling it over but but I've spent a lot of time on DPR's charts and everybody elses that's lab tested the 25f/2.8, the vaunted Leica 25f/1.4 and the Sigma 30f/1.4. It's all a matter of interpretation. What the numbers actually say is that at equal apertures the Leica will beat to Oly in the central 1/3 but the Oly beats the Leica outside that central 1/3d delivering nearly the same performance all the way to the 2/3d's point. At the edges, no contest, Oly rules. The Sigma can't approach the Oly at any aperture anywhere across the frame. Interpretation, where to you need sharpness, centally or across the frame?

My only issue is that I really wish it was 17mm instead of 25mm.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2010, 10:52 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven R View Post
Enjoy your dogs while you have them. I lost one of mine to lymphoma cancer this morning. She was a tough old dog, made it past 16 years before the cancer won.
Steven, I am very saddened by your loss. I love "my boy" more than I do most people, so I can imagine how you must be feeling. I have said a prayer for you. All the best, Robert
__________________
Always use tasteful words - you may have to eat them.
You cannot find knowledge by rearranging your ignorance.

My Flickr
-Robert-


Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2010, 5:43 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ac.smith View Post
I don't have the pancake, still mulling it over but but I've spent a lot of time on DPR's charts and everybody elses that's lab tested the 25f/2.8, the vaunted Leica 25f/1.4 and the Sigma 30f/1.4. It's all a matter of interpretation. What the numbers actually say is that at equal apertures the Leica will beat to Oly in the central 1/3 but the Oly beats the Leica outside that central 1/3d delivering nearly the same performance all the way to the 2/3d's point. At the edges, no contest, Oly rules. The Sigma can't approach the Oly at any aperture anywhere across the frame. Interpretation, where to you need sharpness, centally or across the frame?

My only issue is that I really wish it was 17mm instead of 25mm.
When I said "the folks at DPR" I was refering to many of the members of the Oly DSLR forum. Every once in a while someone looks at the size and price of the pancake and wonders if it can possibly be any good. So they pose that question on the DPR forum with predictable (for that forum) results. Some folks say yes, it's an excellent lens. Other folks say no it's not. Then someone makes the mistake of posting a good photo taken with the lens, which starts a barroom brawl about whether the photo is any good. As I said, predictable results.

Regarding the tests of 25mm 4/3 lenses, comments from users who have them very much disagree with your summary of the test results, in the sense that their real world experience is different. (Just like the controversy about the E5 versus the E3 - there has been not one single user of the E5 in any forum I've seen, who hasn't said the RAW output is better than the E3 despite any test results - the E5 is actually doing some processing to the RAW files.)

Users of the PL lens love it and love it the most when its wide open - they're looking for the short DOF. A few users (including Bill Turner, an excellent photographer) sold the PL, bought the Sigma, and assert it's just as good. I don't recally anyone feeling that the pancake is sharper wide open than the PL. I'm not including any personal observations here, just noting what I've been reading over the last few years.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2010, 10:34 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
...Users of the PL lens love it and love it the most when its wide open - they're looking for the short DOF. A few users (including Bill Turner, an excellent photographer) sold the PL, bought the Sigma, and assert it's just as good. I don't recally anyone feeling that the pancake is sharper wide open than the PL. I'm not including any personal observations here, just noting what I've been reading over the last few years.

Ted
Based on my 18 mos or so reading of the Oly forum in DPR I pretty much agree with your assesment. As I stated in the beginning I have no personal experience with any of the three.

I really wasn't claiming the pancake was sharper than the PL in central 1/3d of the frame. The PL is amazingly sharp there and I suspect its fans don't really care about the rest of the frame as they're using the shallow DoF to render it out of focus anyway. Not my style but valid photographically none the less. My anticipated use of a normal prime does make a trade-off of central sharpness for better performance across the frame worthwhile. In Sigma's defense if one needs f/1.4 or f/2 in a normal length and the PL is over budget then the Sigma is an alternative.

A. C.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2010, 3:01 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ac.smith View Post
In Sigma's defense if one needs f/1.4 or f/2 in a normal length and the PL is over budget then the Sigma is an alternative.
A. C.
Hi, A. C.

Speaking of Sigma, their 105mm f/2.8 macro seems to have a good reputation and although the 4/3 mount version is discontinued it's still readily available at B&H or here:

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Telephot...1841062&sr=8-1

I'm not a prime lens guy so I often wonder why prime lens folks complain that Oly dropped the 100mm macro from the road map. Is f/2.8 too slow? Get much faster than that and the lens will be getting pretty large.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2010, 10:09 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
Hi, A. C.

I'm not a prime lens guy so I often wonder why prime lens folks complain that Oly dropped the 100mm macro from the road map. Is f/2.8 too slow? Get much faster than that and the lens will be getting pretty large.

Ted
Think it is woud be anybody's guess why the 100mm macro didn't make it. I had a 105mm f/2.8 back in my film days and it felt good in the hand and would have felt appropriate on my e620. To make it a macro would have made it larger and heavier but not unreasonably so IMO. F/2 would jump the size a bunch though. If Oly can sell an f/2.8 normal lens why wouldn't they be able to sell an f/2.8 medium tele?

A. C.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2010, 7:46 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ac.smith View Post
Think it is would be anybody's guess why the 100mm macro didn't make it. I had a 105mm f/2.8 back in my film days and it felt good in the hand and would have felt appropriate on my e620. To make it a macro would have made it larger and heavier but not unreasonably so IMO. F/2 would jump the size a bunch though. If Oly can sell an f/2.8 normal lens why wouldn't they be able to sell an f/2.8 medium tele?

A. C.
My question wasn't why did Oly drop it but rather, why are so many folks upset that Oly dropped it, since the Sigma 105 is available. I suppose folks were thinking that an Oly 100mm would have the same stellar sharpness that the 50mm has, and that's what they are looking for.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:26 PM.