surf monkey wrote:
So have most OM-D users upgraded from the 20f1.7 to the 25f1.4?
The 20f1.7 seemed to be first good prime, so I assume their were many early MFT users.
Now I see so many photos on this thread using the 25f1.4.
Is it that much better? Is it the DOF, AF speed, bokeh?
Makten wrote:
I did, but recently got the 20/1.7 again for its nicer AOV and smaller size.
Everything is a little bit better with the 25/1.4, so overall it's preferable. But it's much larger, especially with the hood on, and of course narrower.
The worst thing with the 20 is the terribly slow and inaccurate AF. Sometimes it just hunts for five seconds without finding anyting, even in good light.
Thanks Makten,
That's the kind of info I'm looking for. I typically like the 35/40 mm focal length (35mm equivalent) better for "general" use, but I might try the 25. I just a beginner with the OM-D and 20/1.7, so I'm just starting to notice the AF issues with the 20.
I've also noticed that it doesn't like shooting toward the sun.
Makten wrote:
I did, but recently got the 20/1.7 again for its nicer AOV and smaller size.
Everything is a little bit better with the 25/1.4, so overall it's preferable. But it's much larger, especially with the hood on, and of course narrower.
The worst thing with the 20 is the terribly slow and inaccurate AF. Sometimes it just hunts for five seconds without finding anyting, even in good light.
I'm always surprised to hear people complain about the 20's AF - I've never had an issue with it. I often take shots like this hiking at large apertures and a large majority are in focus......
juju1958 wrote:
many outstanding images yet again from everyone. Out trying different things toaday. often it can be a good idea to post even if you are not convinced. Next time you look in on them there can sometimes be a bit more clarity as to what you have posted. Good or not so good.
kr
michael49 wrote:
I keep thinking about picking up the 7.5 Rok- would love to see more.
I highly recommend it. Great lens, small, easy to correct if you really want to (I use Fisheye Hemi's "cropped" profile in Photoshop, which doesn't make it architecturally good but can defish it a lot.. but you can get away with the Sigma 10mm FE profile in LR4 if you want to correct it there). I typically don't correct it.
My thought was at $300-ish having a small, UWA is a no-brainer, even if it's not AF. If I really don't want the FE look it's pretty easy to get rid of (unless again you're shooting for perfectly straight lines).
(some of these might be reposts!) All with the Rok 7.5mm
cputeq wrote:
....
I highly recommend it. Great lens, small, easy to correct if you really want to (I use Fisheye Hemi's "cropped" profile in Photoshop, which doesn't make it architecturally good but can defish it a lot.. but you can get away with the Sigma 10mm FE profile in LR4 if you want to correct it there). I typically don't correct it.....
Thanks, I think you sold me on it. I've got the Pany 14 2.5 and for wider shots I often shoot pano's, but having a FE would be fun for travel.
RKTodd I too have the rattlesnake noise with the PL 25, it's an annoyance at the most. I have never seen it affect a photo or the performance of the lens.
If it acts up while I am not shooting or in a hurry I turn the camera off and on and it seems to settle down for a while.
The lens is amazing in every other way.
Second shot is great JUJU, love the all black water!
Wilbus wrote:
RKTodd I too have the rattlesnake noise with the PL 25, it's an annoyance at the most. I have never seen it affect a photo or the performance of the lens.
If it acts up while I am not shooting or in a hurry I turn the camera off and on and it seems to settle down for a while.
The lens is amazing in every other way.
Second shot is great JUJU, love the all black water!
Thanks for the feedback on the noise. I plan to place an order for that lens this week. I have the 45 1.8 coming on Wednesday--can't wait to play!
kewlcanon wrote:
Turn off the Fulltime-AF option to avoid rattlesnake on PL 25.
That may help but it doesn't completely alleviate it. I have had that option disabled since day one of my OMD but I still occasionally get rattlesnake.
Not on mine, never heard it rattles after I've turned it off.
cputeq wrote:
That may help but it doesn't completely alleviate it. I have had that option disabled since day one of my OMD but I still occasionally get rattlesnake.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Juju, what is your post processing technique?
As little as possible. Shoot Raw, import to LR, where I use curves and graduation if needed and CA removal . Export tiff 16bit 300dpi to Cs6. In Cs6 I use darkroom techniques , such as burn and dodge, local levels ,curves and saturation. Saturation is where I think you can make the greatest changes. One colour alteration whether hue,vibrancy or saturation will and does alter every other colour and contrast. This is where colour balance can help as well. In fact it is possible to alter the luminance, and contrast as much as needed through the saturation layers, using individual colours. Then re-size the image which is most often re-sampled bicubic sharper. Resizing is done as said with re-sample ticked, 72dpi and then set in what pixel dimensions I want. I rarely sharpen images even though I have sharpening off in camera and noise reduction off. I never apply noise reduction. Resizing the image deals with the noise if there is any.
Having said all this each and every image is approached as a different image and what treatment suits one, rarely if ever suits another taken on a different day, or time of day or location. Only time I ever use presets are for images taken at the same time , in a set, from the original image. It is always starting point if I feel lazy. I don't use others presets, they dont seem to help at all in how I photograph.
Probably not everyone's way, but it is the only way at the moment I know through trial and error, as I fumble along.
