Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Olympus 4/3 lenses - super high vs. high grade  (Read 25741 times)

zippski

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
Re: Olympus 4/3 lenses - super high vs. high grade
« Reply #20 on: July 19, 2014, 06:42:59 pm »

Glj:

Yep, you've figured me out.  My posts are nothing more than a marketing conspiracy to dupe unsuspecting m4/3rds newbies into shelling out large for some SHG lenses with no quantifiable pixel-peeping test chart performance gain over the non-telecentric m4/3 lenses. So, keep being "deeply suspicious", as I suspect that you may not appreciate the lenses anyway.  

...Feeling like I want to post this:



;-)

Leigh
zippski
Logged

GLJ

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
Re: Olympus 4/3 lenses - super high vs. high grade
« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2014, 01:58:53 pm »

Today's lesson in how to win friends and influ...ah, screw it.



Dave, if your interest in visiting a photography forum is purely formed from a desire to 'win friends', then so be it, but I confess it differs from my main objective, which is generally to both give and receive impartial information on camera gear.
I've tried to be polite further up the thread and ask for information and clarification, but it hasn't been forthcoming.

Then, blanket statements such as "The olympus 43 lenses are very good, not just sharp but have a beautiful look" is simply wrong and very misleading. SOME are sharp and have nice rendering (but actually, on the whole they are in the minority). The real truth is that many are sharp, but have very mediocre if not pretty hideous rendering of bokeh.

I'm just trying to cut through the BS.
Logged

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4561
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Olympus 4/3 lenses - super high vs. high grade
« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2014, 04:28:16 pm »


Then, blanket statements such as "The olympus 43 lenses are very good, not just sharp but have a beautiful look" is simply wrong and very misleading. SOME are sharp and have nice rendering (but actually, on the whole they are in the minority). The real truth is that many are sharp, but have very mediocre if not pretty hideous rendering of bokeh.

I'm just trying to cut through the BS.


I am sort of curious as to how you know so much about these lenses. There are 6 SHG lenses and 8 HG lenses. Shall we assume that you bought them all and used them extensively? Given that you shelled out for 14 rather expensive lenses, shall we assume that you have the experience and expertise to judge lens quality? Since you say that the lenses with nice rendering are in the minority, perhaps you could bless us with a list of those lenses and details on how you came to your conclusions.

I own 3 of the HG lenses and am extremely happy with them. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to get into a "my equipment is great and yours is not" argument, but the fact is that Michael R. wrote an extremely glowing review of this lens line (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/one_upon_a_time.shtml) and I cannot think of a single reason why I would believe your unsupported opinions over the reports of a highly skilled and experienced photographer and my own experiences.
Logged

GLJ

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
Re: Olympus 4/3 lenses - super high vs. high grade
« Reply #23 on: July 26, 2014, 08:56:20 am »

I am sort of curious as to how you know so much about these lenses. There are 6 SHG lenses and 8 HG lenses. Shall we assume that you bought them all and used them extensively? Given that you shelled out for 14 rather expensive lenses, shall we assume that you have the experience and expertise to judge lens quality? Since you say that the lenses with nice rendering are in the minority, perhaps you could bless us with a list of those lenses and details on how you came to your conclusions.

I own 3 of the HG lenses and am extremely happy with them. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to get into a "my equipment is great and yours is not" argument, but the fact is that Michael R. wrote an extremely glowing review of this lens line (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/one_upon_a_time.shtml) and I cannot think of a single reason why I would believe your unsupported opinions over the reports of a highly skilled and experienced photographer and my own experiences.

A rather strange and provocative post, especially considering that you started the whole thread asking for advice, and the whole point of my questioning has been to provide you with the information you were originally requesting!
Its also just as well that you claim you don't want to be getting into a  "my equipment is great and yours is not" argument, because your equipment is merely a subset of mine anyway.

Its also strange where you seem to blindly believe Michael's opinions over mine, when he clearly states at the end of the article that he is the owner of only three of the lenses, so Michael himself seems to have failed your criteria stated in "Shall we assume that you bought them all and used them extensively? Given that you shelled out for 14 rather expensive lenses, shall we assume that you have the experience and expertise to judge lens quality?"

But since you're questioning me, FYI I've probably owned around 20-30 Zuiko digital lenses in total since the first E1 was released and I've had the opportunity to use and test even more (from all the various grades) . And I've shot them professionally. And I still own a number of them, including the 50/2 macro and 50-200 that you own (the 12-60 was one I passed over - initially because I already had the 11-22 and 14-54, but subsequently because despite it being a very desirable lens, range and sharpness wise, its probably the most unreliable zuiko out there, with a history of sticking aperture blades, failing SWM drives, and badly fitting lens hood mechanism causing many users to wrench the front element off, plus I don't like the moustache distortion, and since olympus is such a small player, it initially didn't have readily available correction profiles which made workflow a pain).
Also, being a professional photographer, I own and have used many different cameras and lenses from many different manufacturers, so your rather acerbic comment about an assumption that I "have the experience and expertise to judge lens quality" would actually be spot on.
So now you know how I 'know so much about these lenses'.

Your original question was along the lines of asking as to whether the SGH lenses would be a significant step up from the HG. Well, you need to qualify exactly what you are looking for, but whenever I see people like zippski claiming they are optically in some other league, I ask to see proof, and its never forthcoming. Not because they aren't themselves good, but because the HG lenses tend to be excellent as well. However none of them are in some 'other league' compared to good lenses from other manufacturers either. For example, the 50mm macro is one of the lenses that doesn't suffer from nasty bokeh, but then it has a fair bit of CA wide open. But you read some of the comments from people and you'd think the 50/2 was the best and sharpest lens ever made with no flaws whatsoever. The 50-200, despite its horrible bokeh, is one of my favourite travel lenses ever and I'm willing to bet that it could have taken the stitched landscape zippski posted (as a supposed example of SHG superiority), and nobody would ever be able to tell a difference.
As I said, I'm just trying to cut through the BS. And there is a lot of BS and hype out there when it comes to Olympus products.

I do sometimes wonder why I bother though. Help and honesty doesn't seem to be something that's appreciated on most forums these days.
Logged

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4561
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Olympus 4/3 lenses - super high vs. high grade
« Reply #24 on: July 26, 2014, 12:44:09 pm »

I do sometimes wonder why I bother though. Help and honesty doesn't seem to be something that's appreciated on most forums these days.

Oh, boo hoo. I, for one, always appreciate advice and opinions provided by others, whether I agree or not. But, you are really blind to the problem. You express your opinions as uncontrovertible fact and you want people to stand at attention, click their heels, and salute. Yet when others express different opinions, you dismiss those opinions as nonsense and ask for proof (which, ahem, you do not provide for your own opinions). You say you want to cut thru the BS, and then you present yourself as the one to do the cutting. And BS, to you, seems to be anything you don’t agree with. Can you say “hubris?” Give us a break.

As for “blindly” accepting Michael’s opinions over yours, please! Michael has been providing useful advice and reviews for years, not to mention a lot of terrific photos, and you have been providing ... what? Nothing. There’s nothing blind about my preference for Michael’s opinions over yours.

You are a “professional photographer,” big whoop. There’s a guy down the street from me who is a professional photographer. He does babies, weddings, and dogs, and I, a pure amateur, know 10 times as much about photography as he does. So, don’t give me that “professional” BS. We are not impressed.

So, if you have useful OPINIONS to contribute, I will be happy to read and consider them. But, when you come across as Mr.Know-It-All, you make no friends.
Logged

GLJ

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
Re: Olympus 4/3 lenses - super high vs. high grade
« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2014, 10:05:53 am »

Oh, boo hoo. I, for one, always appreciate advice and opinions provided by others, whether I agree or not. But, you are really blind to the problem. You express your opinions as uncontrovertible fact and you want people to stand at attention, click their heels, and salute. Yet when others express different opinions, you dismiss those opinions as nonsense and ask for proof (which, ahem, you do not provide for your own opinions). You say you want to cut thru the BS, and then you present yourself as the one to do the cutting. And BS, to you, seems to be anything you don’t agree with. Can you say “hubris?” Give us a break.

As for “blindly” accepting Michael’s opinions over yours, please! Michael has been providing useful advice and reviews for years, not to mention a lot of terrific photos, and you have been providing ... what? Nothing. There’s nothing blind about my preference for Michael’s opinions over yours.

You are a “professional photographer,” big whoop. There’s a guy down the street from me who is a professional photographer. He does babies, weddings, and dogs, and I, a pure amateur, know 10 times as much about photography as he does. So, don’t give me that “professional” BS. We are not impressed.

So, if you have useful OPINIONS to contribute, I will be happy to read and consider them. But, when you come across as Mr.Know-It-All, you make no friends.


Mate, you need to go back and read the whole thread from the beginning. Its been other people who have given opinions as if they were facts. I was the one doing the questioning.
And in case you can't even comprehend your own writing, I also wasn't the one forcing any "professional BS" on anyone. YOU are the one who became particularly unpleasant and sarcastic and wanted to know "how I know so much about these lenses". So I told you. Its as simple as that.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up