If it weren't so overpriced I would now be wanting this lens! Grrrrr...
Nice, yes.
Overpriced?
Going just by personal feeling about it I would agree, the 75/1.8 (and the 12/2) should be priced a bit lower - that is to me and factors like my personal cash flow, what I feel when using the lens, the resulting images and so on. But does it mean it is overpriced? I'm not sure. Marketing, for example, has always boggled me and I don't understand the logic fully. Why a lens cost more in one continent than in another is sometimes not possible to explain without mixing in "profit". Material costs aren't known to us, the exact amount of manual work, the quality control steps and so on - unknown factors once again.
Optically the lens behaves very much like the "cheap" 45/1.8 (my experience as mentioned in my first reply in this thread). Interesting.
When you say "so overpriced" then what do you base that on? I'm asking because I'm curious. I noticed a discussion at another place where a thread starter asked why the micro 4/3 standard primes (Panny 20/1.7 and 25/1.4) are so expensive compared to Canikon counterparts. Yes, a lot of reasons were mentioned but there was of course no consensus.
yeah, I base it on my own personal cash flow as well as historical lens prices. I should probably add that I don't think it's all that overpriced maybe 150 or 200 dollars overpriced? and of course for a used model it's not even that much overpriced. so yeah I think we're coming from the same place on that.
I personally don't find it overpriced at all. I think it is in the same optical league (and similar FOV) as the Canon 135mm f/2L, and it's as well built as that lens as well, and it's $100 cheaper than the Canon. If you start comparing to 85/1.8's, it may feel overpriced, except that the Oly 75 is noticeably better than any 85/1.8 I've ever seen (both optically and in construction). Considering the premium people are willing to pay for Zeiss in similar focal lengths/apertures on this forum, I wouldn't think paying for extreme quality would be an issue.
...historical lens prices aren't that good reference points. Back in the days, when I was young and happy, and for the first time bought a second lens for my SLR camera the price was close to what I made in one month. Now almost everything is cheap. It's a situation which won't last for long of course but that's were we are at the moment.
What remains is to compare to lenses from other manufacturers and systems. A FF user buying a 150/3.6 for 800? No, we won't see anyone do that. So, we end up with our own wallets and preferences.
The 75/1.8 is freak'n good. I wish the focusing ring didn't move as easily as it does and that the lens resisted flare a bit better. That, and true APO performance would have made me pay even more, easily.
Gee ... thanks! Before I decided to try the OM-D I was also encouraged by the photos posted by Jordan, etc. on these forum pages. After playing with the OM-D for a few weeks, I was convinced that it's "good enough" to replace my Canon 5DII - and I have no regrets so far. The OM-D is far from perfect though. There are no really good long lenses (yet) and the AF tracking sucks! And I really hate the ergonomics and super-tiny buttons. I was thinking about getting a GH3 as a backup body (big downside is no IBIS) ... but I think I should wait for Olympus to release the "pro version" of the OM-D which hopefully will be a hybrid of their FT E-5 and MFT EM-5 ... announcement expect sometime next year.
kmkime wrote:
+1 Really like that shot. Thanks Bobbytan--your postings were one of the factors that motivated me to buy the EM5 and I'm enjoying it immensely.
It would like to keep this thread going, but rather than just focus on the sharpness of this lens it would be nice to just see what images are being captured with this amazing lens. Here's another one from me of Mt Fuji.
Jonas B wrote:
What remains is to compare to lenses from other manufacturers and systems. A FF user buying a 150/3.6 for 800? No, we won't see anyone do that. So, we end up with our own wallets and preferences.
Some of us buy the Sigma 150 f/2.8 OS Macro at the same price (in the Netherlands the Sigma is actually cheaper than the Olympus) and stop it down to f/3.5 to get the same FoV and DoF. The 75/1.8 looks stunning, but is it better at f/1.8 than the Sigma @ f/3.5? I seriously doubt that. But maybe someone has done a comparison.
I just picked up my 75 1.8 and have a question. First off, I'm shooting an OMD.
I have noticed that when the lens hunts for focus or, I focus it over a long range (like from 10' to 5') the lens makes a low pitched buzzing sound. Olympus tech says that it shouldn't be making that type of sound. I went back to the store of purchase and two more lenses make the same type of sound in varying degrees of loudness.
I should also say that the images are incredibly sharp and the lens seems for function perfectly, it's just the noise that is bothersome.
