dalegaspi wrote:
it's heavy. i mean, really heavy (especially with my girly frame) and I've owned a Nikon 70-200 VR1 and this lens is considerably heavy. good thing i didn't get rid of my 3-series Gitzo tripod when i switched to mirrorless.
once you see and hold one will feel the quality from the get-go. If you have the older-design Nikon AF lenses (the crinkle finish) like the 135DC...it's like that except it's much better...even the hood itself is a masterpiece. it's kind of on par with the Zeiss DSLR lenses but the Zeiss lenses has an all-metal design that it's hard to really compare them.
also, this is the ONLY lens i've used that's very good wide open (f2.0) at nearly the entire zoom range veiling and fringing is well-controlled. the ones I've used (Nikons/Canons) are good...but pales in comparison with the Olympus at f2.0. as you can see it goes toe-to-toe with the 75 prime...
I bought this at a really good price banking on the new Olympus hybrid mount. but i'm using it today on an EP2 and EPL1 with good results, so I'm planning to keep it for a long time. ...Show more →
I have no doubts whatsoever that it's a superb piece of glass but if I want ... no ... need optics like this I would have stuck to a FF Canon as it doesn't get much better than the Canon Mk II lenses i.e. the 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 85L II, 400L II, etc.
The way I see it, the only reason to go to MFT is to get away from the bulk and weight w/o having to sacrifice too much IQ ... so it doesn't really make sense (to me) to downsize from FF to MFT ... and not lose the weight.
Enter, the 75/1.8. We want more lenses like that, Olympus! Maybe a 150/2 ... and the TC please!
Jonas B wrote:
I used to have the 14-35/2.0 SHG zoom (in 2009, used it together with my Panasonic G1) and while impressive it didn't beat the 4/3 version of the Panasonic Summilux 25/1.4 at 25mm.
I've never seen in person (let alone used) a 14-35/2 SHG BUT I've owned the Panasonic Summilux 25/1.4 MFT and boy that thing is sharp even wide open (already sold it a long time ago)...my sentiments on the wide-angle SHG glass is not the same, though, as I tend to use primes from wide to normal focal lengths...and I prefer using Leica M on those focal lengths so I'm pretty much covered (well, unless GAS comes a knockin')
mawz wrote:
Note that one reason why the 35-100/2 is so good wide open is because you are actually shooting it a stop down. The 35-100/2 optically is a 70-200/2.8 optical design with a 0.5x telecompressor integrated, producing a lens which is optically a 35-100/1.4 (the same goes for the 14-35/2). This can be confirmed by mounting the lens on a dumb adapter (or inserting it without locking so it doesn't sync electronically), you will find that without powering up it will meter about 2/3rds of a stop faster than it will powered up, as the lens actually stops down to f2 when powered up.
The origins of the base optical design are likely Sigma (along with the 70-300 and 14-35) but it's clear that the results are only somewhat related to Sigma's 70-200/2.8, Olympus worked the design over very significantly in addition to the inclusion of the telecompressor....Show more →
that's interesting information...that would certainly explain how Olympus managed to get such good performance on this glass even wide open.
bobbytan wrote:
I have no doubts whatsoever that it's a superb piece of glass but if I want ... no ... need optics like this I would have stuck to a FF Canon as it doesn't get much better than the Canon Mk II lenses i.e. the 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 85L II, 400L II, etc.
I couldn't agree more. but I already have an array of Leica M and Olympus MFT equipment. I already sold off my Nikons because I just have too much gear I do not use! an MFT is a good compromise if I need long reach and acquiring the 35-100 is much sensible than getting another SLR plus a 70-200/2.8
I can get this in $625 here, new, from a guy who just bought it but wants to sell it.
I am wondering if i need it....? Is that a good price?
I have a 14 and a 45, but i am a sucker for tele primes....
I am blown out every time I see the real life examples...this lens is an amazing piece of glass.
But then again coming from HG 4/3 camp I don't expect anything less either. Btw. the 35-100 was always considered as not zoom, but collection of 65 primes (which then again justifies it's weight).
How would you guys compare it to 45mm and 25mm 1.4 for sole application of shooting at kids running in house (this is where we spend the most time and where I shoot >80% of my shots).
I have 17mm 2.8 which is a joke, but my fastest one on EPL-5, although focus is slightly faster then 4/3 12-60.
nandadevieast wrote:
I can get this in $625 here, new, from a guy who just bought it but wants to sell it.
I am wondering if i need it....? Is that a good price?
I have a 14 and a 45, but i am a sucker for tele primes....
Extremely good price for an extremely good lens. If you can afford it it's a must-buy at that price.
The 75 is dreamy awesome. For kids in the house though? Better have large rooms and stand against the wall. Great for candid head shots though. And just stunning wide open.
I was doing a product shoot with the Canon 5D II and 100L lens and, just for fun, I took the same shot with the OM-D and 60 lens - sorry ... I didn't have the 75 lens with me, but in any case, the 75 lens would be too long.
No pp aside from some smart sharpening - Amount @ 100% and Radius @ 0.3 pixels.
Aside from the slight difference in f-stop, exposure, color temperature, and focal length, the difference in IQ, to my eyes is not significant ... in spite of the FF sensor and higher resolution advantage of the 5D II. What do you think?
It's cool vs warm colors, but this is not at all a good indication or reflective of the color bias of the Canon/Olympus sensor or lens.
What happened was that I did the product shoot with strobes, and then took the 2 lights down immediately after the shoot. When I saw how sharp the 100L lens/image was on the computer I was completely blown away and thought for a minute that maybe I made a huge mistake by dumping my FF Canon for an MFT camera.
To satisfy my curiosity and doubt, I decided to take a shot with the OM-D + 60 macro ... so I proceeded to set up the lights again - and didn't bother to check the settings of the Canon shot. For sure, the position of the lights (bounced off the wall and ceiling) was a little different - and that in itself would have affected the color balance. And the settings are different too - different ISO, different f-stop and different shutter speed - and exposure as well. So there are way too many variables which will affect both the color temperature and color balance.
Besides, the test was just to check/compare sharpness and resolution (not color) so the variables was of no concern to me. The variables may affect the color temperature/balance but not sharpness/resolution ... not so much anyway when it's between f4 and f5. Anyway you should always take any unscientific and loosey goosey test with a grain of salt.
Yakim Peled wrote:
The OM-D's black is actually purple?
I received my EPM2 yesterday and started doing some shots...will try to get the comparisons up as soon as I'm able..
a few things I've noticed on the EPM2:
- it's AF is significantly faster than the EP-2 and EPL-1 that I have but it still hunts a LOT even with the 75/1.8 for indoor shots...and not that much accurate. which is a disappointment for me...I guess this is why there's the OM-D
- i'm almost positive there is a bigger shutter lag with the EPM-2 than the EP-2 and EPL-1...I need to shoot more to confirm.
- seriously the camera UI is pretty horrible. whoever designed this needs to be strangled homer-on-bart style.
- the RAW files are too warm for my tastes regardless of what converter to use...which I thought is pretty weird since it's a Sony sensor and from my experience they tend to be more neutral.
- i was surprised with the amount of noise at its base ISO (200) when I turned off NR on conversion (I really do not like any form of NR for RAW conversion...even for the noise-challenged Leica M9)...
For now I leave you with two photos converted with Photo Ninja with NR off and a little bit contrast and sharpening adjustments.
Again here are the parameters (pretty much the same as the last except for the camera):
- Sunny WB
- Manual Focus
- IS off
- Manual exposure
- 2sec timer release
- 3-series Gitzo tripod
- Arca Swiss Z1 ballhead
- direct conversion from LR4 to PS CS5
For this I tried to re-create the last scenario where I used an EPL-1. This should be focused on the south pole of the globe...but it looks like i misfocused on the 75/1.8 by a little bit. but even comparing at the focused area, it's pretty apparent that the prime has more veiling...again...splitting hairs here at pixel-peeping mode. P4190003 (1)-Edit by dalegaspi, on Flickr
I expected one lens to pull away from the other but it's still a close match. more samples hopefully over the weekend.
Their verdict: The Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 ED is, by quite a margin, the best micro-four-thirds lens that we have tested to date. It is ultra-sharp straight from f/1.8 ...
dkmiles1 wrote:
The popcorn is warming up in the micro...
The photo of the girl that admiring light put up doesn't do it for you? Wow... I thought the cat photos were pretty sharp too...
The Oly is $899.
The OM-D body only is around $949.
An 85L new is around $2,200 - no offense, but no one's buying the FD 85L anymore, and even if they do its manual focus on canon's digital bodies with an adapter... That's not to say it isn't great BTW...
Zeiss 85 f/1.4 (Manual focus) is $1,283 on B&H
A Used D700 is what? $1,200?
$2,400 for a Nikon with the Zeiss or $1,848 for the OM-D and the 75... Taking weight into consideration, I'm going with the OM-D....
Here is the aforementioned SLR Gear review, note the first line;
"The Olympus 75mm ƒ/1.8 is one of the sharpest lenses we've ever tested. It is tack-sharp even wide open at ƒ/1.8, gets a little sharper through to ƒ/8, and stays sharp even stopped down to ƒ/16."
"You’ll notice that up til this point, I haven’t said much about the optics of the lens. We are now fortunate enough to live in a time when there are very few truly bad lenses, plenty of excellent ones, and a few really exceptional ones -but the difference between excellent and really exceptional is so small, that it takes near perfect conditions to see it. I think the 75 is one of those that manages to cross the excellent threshold into exceptional "
