On 12/27/2015 10:20 AM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
<<I don't as yet have a 50 mm eq. prime for µ4/3. I took B&H up on their one day
offer of $100 for the new Panny 25/1.7, but don't expect to see it for a while, as it appears they
haven't actually shipped to retailers <<yet. But hey, I don't have one for $150 less than
those who ordered one any other day, and also don't have it. :-)
Snuck that in. Curious you do have the 20/1.7 though
The 20/1.7 suffers from an excess of opinions and tests, with sometimes wildly differing conclusions. It's quite an
early design, and a pancake, which often means some compromises in optical performance. The 25/1.7 is a new,
conventional form factor design. Panny is also touting the bokeh, aided by the curved aperture blades that give a
(more?) circular aperture.
The Oly has one more element, including two asphericals. The Panny has two asphericals, plus an "Ultra High Refractive
Index" element. Oly places theirs in their Premium series. Panny can hardly do that, as they have the PanLeica 25/1.4
above it.
So, lots of curiosity on my part. And the chance to satisfy it essentially for free. The lens lists for $300, and is
listed on Amazon, B&H and Adorama at $250. So if I don't like or don't need it, I should be able to sell at a profit.
(Assuming I ever get around to selling off excess stuff.)
and the Oly 25/1.8 has been available for awhile but not at that steal of a
price. Are there any comparisons with the Oly? MTF does look good.
I haven't found usable direct comparisons. DxO Mark, for unclear reasons, have not tested the Oly 25/1.8, and say it's
not on the list to do anytime soon. Ephotozine has tested both.
<https://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-g-25mm-f-1-7-asph-lens-review-28432> and.
<https://www.ephotozine.com/article/olympus-m-zuiko-25mm-f-1-8-ed-premium-lens-review-24512>
BUT, they have changed their "MTF" graph vertical axis labeling and on- screen size so that they can't be compared. When
someone asked for clarification, EPZ basically blew them off. It's clear that the new Panny has much more even
performance across the frame than the Oly, but not whether that is at the expense of center performance. More even
performance be a good choice for projects like the one Bill has asked about, and shorter working distance than the
45/1.8 or the 50 mm and up MF OM lenses might be a plus.
I am very curious about the Panny 42.5/1.7 which has OIS for my little Panny
but no the nifty aperture ring of the big big brother f1.2 lens.
I can't see quite how that fits into my panoply of bodies and lenses. If I didn't already have the 45/1.8, I might be
interested. But it's a lot of $ for a lens I probably wouldn't use on the only camera I have that would need the IS.
Once a lens gets that big, the whole 'tiny' thing about the GM1 is blown, and it might as well be used on a Pen with IBIS.
Again, a real resolution comparison to the very sharp Oly is hard. ephotozine has again made their tests less than
comparable. Their 45/1.8 test is on the older, 12 MP sensor of an E-PM1, while the 42.5/1.7 was tested on an E-M5. So is
the different profile across apertures real? DxOMark has yet to weigh in on the Panny.
I'm pretty schizo about the GM1 anyway. One moment I'm annoyed at the lack of a VF, another at the lack of IBIS. Then I
love the size for casual carrying in a pocket or on my belt. Then I'm entranced using it at a party where its built-in
flash is perfect and the size lets me both party and shoot, with it hanging on a wrist strap when I have food in one
hand and wine in the other.
Hither and Yon Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|