Micro 4/3 A few from the new Olympus M. Zuiko 25mm F1.8

[Armanius]

Paid or not, the man takes good photos, writes good reviews, and I have not found any reason to doubt the man.

 

[Luckypenguin]

Robin's comparison of the two m4/3 25mm lenses has incited some classic internet lynch mob behaviour in places, I'm afraid. It's not right that he should say that the PL25 is a great lens but does not outclass the new lens and display examples showing that fact which can be downloaded in full resolution. I've very disappointed because I was dearly hoping that Micro 4/3 would be gaining a nifty fifty in the same mold as the Canon EF50mm f1.8, but they appear to have delivered a very good lens instead.

 

[IVN]

Robin's comparison of the two m4/3 25mm lenses has incited some classic internet lynch mob behaviour in places, I'm afraid. It's not right that he should say that the PL25 is a great lens but does not outclass the new lens and display examples showing that fact which can be downloaded in full resolution. I've very disappointed because I was dearly hoping that Micro 4/3 would be gaining a nifty fifty in the same mold as the Canon EF50mm f1.8, but they appear to have delivered a very good lens instead.

His comparison does sound like grasping at straws, just to make the Oly look better. And I'm writing this with 0 bias and 0 investment in the mFT system. I'm neither Oly nor Pana fanboy, I don't care one way or another.

 

[Luckypenguin]

Sorry, I wasn't referring to your comment, but rather a LOT of commentary elsewhere. As far I was concerned the only thing wrong in his review was his back-to-front history of f/1.4 and f/1.8 50mm Canon and Nikon lenses. He actually said nothing about the performance of the Panasonic 25mm lens that isn't true.

 

[rparmar]

Paid or not, the man takes good photos, writes good reviews, and I have not found any reason to doubt the man.

You haven't been reading that closely then. Over the course of his many articles he has said many things that have made me doubt him. Or at least many things that place him firmly in the "cheerleader" camp of reviewers. Such readers tend to be the most popular and have the largest following, since they provide positive feedback for their fans. Personally, I prefer critical reviewers who do the best to find all the flaws. Then I can make my own decision as to whether those flaws concern me. I do not need ego boosting.

This is not to say his articles are useless; far from it. I take them with a very large pinch of salt, however

In this particular case, he notes the 1/3 EV difference in auto exposure settings and states the resulting image are the same. No one has challenged this. And yet the images are clearly not the same. In fact the exposure appears to differ by a small amount. I am guessing 1/3 EV! So all that is different is the exposure line the camera is setting for the two lenses. Light transmittance is equivalent at the same aperture, as one would expect for a near-identical optical design. (Though there are lots of factors.)

Robin Wong has made similar, and even more significant, errors in other articles. It's a difficult thing, this camera reviewing game.

The new Olympus looks nice. I am not fond of the classic 50mm FOV, however, so a 25mm MFT lens does not interest me.

 

[krugorg]

A good time, during this Oly 25mm honeymoon period, to buy a used PL25.

I am going to try to hold off on the O25 until there is a sale, but still thinking it would be perfect on my wife's GM1.

 

[Armanius]

Everything on the internet should be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

[Armanius]

A good time, during this Oly 25mm honeymoon period, to buy a used PL25.

I am going to try to hold off on the O25 until there is a sale, but still thinking it would be perfect on my wife's GM1.

I keep hoping to see that PL15/1.7 that seems more like vaporware than anything else at this point. That lens (based on the size of the mockup) would be a great combo w/ the GM1. It would look great on my silver EM5 too!