Image comparison: Robin Wong
Robin Wong (Click here) posted an interesting Panasonic-Leica 25mm vs Olympus 25mm lens comparison. These are Robin’s conclusions:
1) The Olympus lens is slightly wider in field of view than the Panasonic lens
2) The Olympus lens is *possibly 1/3 EV brighter than Panasonic lens (not conclusive, based on just quick observation on EXIF data)
3) There is not much difference in shallow depth of field rendering between F1.8 and F1.4 lenses (if point number 2 is true, the gap is bridged due to either the Olympus lens being 1/3 EV brighter than F1.8 or the Panasonic lens being 1/3 EV darker than F1.4. This is just my observation, not a conclusive statement)
4) Although Olympus magnification factor is 0.12x and Panasonic magnification factor is 0.11x, I find the close up shooting capability of Olympus lens to be significantly better than the Panasonic lens.
5) Panasonic lens has poorer CA control (especially shooting wide open) and corner sharpness than Olympus lens.
6) General sharpness between both lenses are almost identical
Lens store links:
25mm f/1.8 Black at Amazon, BHphoto, Adorama. In EU at Wex UK, Amazon Germany.
25mm f/1.8 Silver at Amazon, BHphoto, Adorama. In EU at Wex UK, Amazon Germany.
P.S.: Important to know is that Robert is sponsored by Olympus. That said we all know him for such a long time that we know that he is a very transparent and honest person. And he always tries to support his statement with fair tests and facts.
81 Responses
Noting Robin’s (not Robert) observation about inaccurate focus with the Panasonic lens, it makes sense that Sigma is responsible for the manufacturing. They have too many focusing issues, and even address these in their lens dock.
Sigma supposedly designs some of the Olympus lenses, specifically the 75mm. The Panasonic lenses with Leica branding seem to be co-designed with Leica and manufactured by Panasonic.
People who own and use them, seem to LOVE the Panasonic 25mm. It’s the first I’ve heard of mis-focus with them. Maybe it’s just operator error or a bad copy. Or fanboi zealotry gone awry… we may never know. 😉
Well I often have misfocused images with mine but I always thought it to be my fault or subject movement. Bit it happens very often that the focus lies slightly behind or in front of the eyes. Due to rather shallow DOF at f/1.4 this is noticeable quite we’ll in many shots and I was wondering why the images are not perfectly sharp. Meanwhile I really tend to think that there might be issues.
Plus one ! (For getting frequent soft pictures and thinking it was sure error); thinking to it, I wonder whether it isn’t some subtle shutter shock rather than misfocusing ?
Wow. All 75 comments from earlier today are gone!
Hmmmm… What gives Admin?
If it wasn’t a technical issue, I think admin should tell us when we flame too hard.
Must have been a database issue — all the comments disappeared from a number of posts. This is an unlikely response to anybody flaming, unless admin got a bit carried away with the fire extinguisher.
I doubt it was an accident. First time I see it happens and about this subject?
Mycroft: “And Sherlock… what do we say about coincidence?”
The “conversation” was quite interesting, it’s a pity all comments got lost. Anyway, this won’t change my opinion: I already have a good PanaLeica 25mm and I don’t see any reason to sell it for the MZuiko lens. CA are present in both lenses and can easily corrected in LR. The only interesting thing of the Olympus 25mm is the shorter minimun focus distance. And as far as I’m concerned, I have never experienced a misfocus issue with my copy of PanaLeica.
Yes, it was. I’m very happy with my Voigtländer 25mm, but am always interested to hear about new lenses and how they compare.
The Oly 25mm does sound pretty appealing in terms of size and price. It’s certainly good to have another standard 50mm (equiv) lens for the system and a less expensive choice at that.
Both you and Marco resume my thoughts rather well.
I own the 25mm F1.4, but after looking at Robin’s Wong pictures, I got interested in the 25mm Olympus as well : their rendering us very different; given my type of subjects choice, I would appreciate the better corners and the overall micro contrast. I think that the Panasonic is better for people photography, where I prefer the rendering. And I love the smaller size and lighter weight. But I own already too many lenses.. And have to much hesitation when I have to fill my photo bag for an outing. So I’m not sure to get one.
The bag to be filled with the right lenses can be an issue. I think I’ll leave this lens. Perhaps, having some money to “throw away”, I would go for the Voigtländer 25mm: simply because it’s a different lens. This Olympus lens would be much of a doppleganger to me.
I use the Voigtländer a lot. But sometimes autofocus is a nice thing and additionally, the Voigtländer is soft wide open, large and heavy.
I like most, that the Voigtländer has such a small minimum focus distance. Given the facts about the new Oly, I ask myself, whether the Oly wouldn’t be a better choice, because DOF and Bokeh at those 25cm distance look great.
I’m pretty sure I’ve taken more photos with the Voigtländer 25mm than any other lens on m43s. However, I think I’m coming to the exact same conclusion as you.
Although I love ability to go to f/0.95, and the manual focus is lens porn, the smaller size (and auto-focus) of the Olympus is too great to pass up.
I feel I should put up the Voigtländer on the market to get the Olympus, but there have been photos I’ve taken where the whole rendering and feel of the Voigtländer feels, dare I say, 3d, and lovely. But, the reason I wanted to get into 43s is the smaller size and weight, and Voigtländer kind of misses the point in that respect…
Hmm… Marco, your tune changed since yesterday a lot… 😉 Maybe, after all, my reasoning about unnecessary lenses made sense?
I don’t remember what you wrote yesterday about the lenss Roberto, can you please write it again? Perhaps it got deleted with old comments and I didn’t read it..
Hah! I know exactly what you mean about too many lenses and “lens dilemma” when going out some days. It can be really annoying. I’ve turned around gone back up the stairs a few times just to swap lenses… and it’s a 4th floor walk-up! 😉
I never saw any of the comments. Not sure what people are saying about the 1.4 and focus issues. Mine works the same as my other lenses in this regard and is my favorite lens in general. I agree it would be nice if it had a closer minimum distance though. I just use the 20 when I need to get closer.
In the comments already gone, there was not a word about colors. No mention of colors in the review, too. And colors is what distinguishes the Leica from other lenses.
I have 10 Zuiko lenses, 5 Sigma and 2 Samyang lenses plus the Leica 25mm. And I have some experience with the Zuiko 75mm, thought to be the best m43 lens. I think, the Samyang 85 is a better lens than the Zuiko 75mm. But anyway, I rate the Leica as No 1 among all, because its colors are great. They somehow touch the soul. Not the same with Zuiko lenses, whose colors are accurate but clinical, unemotional. I know that what I am saying is not easily definable or objectively measurable, but that’s what I feel. And, after all, pictures are about feeling what is right and beautiful and what not (quite). After acquiring the Leica 25mm and the E-PM2, this killer combination is always with me, wherever and whenever I am out shooting.
What you name color and what I’d name rendering is really a question of taste and also depends from your favorite subjects or type of photography. Personally I like the “clinical look”, but I like the Panasonic 25mm too.
I asked that before, but I have a hard time telling a difference in rendering and color cast by looking at the pictures on RW’s blog.
Both look almost identical.
I don’t see much difference in matters of colors, but there us clearly a difference in micro contrast. Colors is also difficult to judge IMO, because a lot of other elements can adjust colors : shooting raw or jpeg, plus the raw converter used, whether it was set to auto WB or not etc.
Agree. I wanted the Panasonic for the larger 1.4 aperture initially. But if this review is confirmed by other sites, I buy the Oly instead.
I agree about the clinical look vs. beautiful color and rendering. For me, rich rendering wins out every time. It’s all about the look and feel as opposed to clinical sharpness. I guess that’s why I’ve gravitated toward more classically designed and built lenses, like Nikon AI-S and Voigtländers (with all mounts). Manual control is a big plus, as well, though obviously not to everyone’s taste.
That’s not to say that I don’t like some of my electronic lenses, like the 7-14mm or 100-300mm. The 20mm falls into that realm, too, but it’s not a lens I use very often.
But as many of us always say, the choices we have are what makes the M4/3 system so great.
Well, Robin Wong gets blamed by some at least equally biased bloggers, like Soundimageplus, for being unethical. I think this goes out of the way. Robin clearly states that he works for Olympus, and thus everybody can take his comparison with the necessary grain of salt.
However, I can confirm his observation regarding the 1.4/25mm pretty well based on my sample, and Robin demonstrates the strength of the Olympus 1.8/25mm pretty well with his excellent photography, which is more useful for judgement than the images provided by most test sites.
To me the Olympus lens looks optically better, is smaller, and cheaper. It may not rattlesnake as heavy as the Panasonic lens (mine does it quite a bit).
Thus, I might consider selling the Panasonic and get the Olympus lens.
Given the reactions of Soundimageplus and some others here, the worst is not Robin’s review but the responses to it.
This review sounds really biased. So the Olympus 25/18 is not only equal to Panny in IQ, but in size, weight, price and brightness? Sounds too good to be true.
You’re reading into it what you want.
Coming from the Four-Thirds version of the lens, the micro Four-Thirds Panasonic lens isn’t very good, like most micro Four-Thirds lenses because they focus on small size instead of optical quality. The Four-Thirds version was made for Leica bodies. The micro Four-Thirds version was made to be inexpensive and light.
Had Robin Wong said that the Olympus lens was a piece of crap, all those who bought the Panasonic lens would be patting themselves on the back saying “Of course, it is” but because the results were more neutral, it’s a biased look at it.
Yeah, the 4/3 version rules the roost. It’s brighter, vignettes less, is sharper and (subjectively) has better colours.
+1
I am use the 4/3 version on E-M1 with adapter, the focus is incredible fast for a 4/3 lens(other 4/3 lens are not so fast) and the result at f1.4 is more more better if I compare with m4/3 version.
Had robin Wong said it was a piece of garbage, or anything other than precisely what Olympus his employer (do you know what an employer is?) wants said, he would be able to indulge in his “hobby” on a full-time basis, as he would be quickly unemployed.
It boggles the mind how anyone cannot see that Wong’s reviews can be anything other than extended Olympus advertising.
Robin is so good that if he wanted to discredit a lens, it would be easy to do so- but he has not done.
If you check the Phoblographer you’ll see that the lens is superlative for the price. Now this begs the question why is it so difficult for Oly to achieve instead a superlative 17mm – which BTW is my favourite focal?
Both Panny and Sigma succeeded around 20mm. Isit a matter of curvature?
So now we have two great 25mm and no great 17mm. Crazy.
If 17mm is your favorite FL, you should try (before you buy) the 17mm f/1.8.
Maybe you’ll discover why lab measurements are only a part of reality.
Thank you. THere should be a Photo Fair this year in Roma, so it is a possibility, because we can’t really try otherwise.
OTH I am used to the S 19mm so it’s not that I suffer 🙂
It’s not so much a matter of resolution only, but resolution AND microcontrast (and colour). One would like to have a Street lens, which is … cutting, and the 17mm isn’t by the samples I saw.
The 25mm instead looks what it should have been. So I’ll try both.
+1
The 17/1.8 really is better than what everyone is saying. Also the difference in FL with the 20/1.7 is smaller than one would think. These lenses are interchangeable in my opinion and the results very similar. Both are excellent.
If you are really that picky about your 35mm lens, it might be a better idea to switch to Sony A7 + FE 35/2.8. Same size/weight as an OM-D with 17/1.8, but with stunning sharpness and bokeh… and 17/1.4 equivalent.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.383,487.394,ha,t
The angle of view is that of a 17.5mm. Depth of field is that of a f1.4 lens on m43 system. Light gathered is f2.8. 😉 Let’s begin!
The Olympus 17mm f1.8 has a sharpness of a lens kit. Hope this one is better.
Do you own the lens? Didn’t think so.
Would you share any of your images to support this claim? I own a copy and my experience has been quite the opposite.
They had some Server issues( all the rumor sites : Fuji, Sony , 43)
That’s why all the older comments are gone
From the images it looks like the 25/1.8 is another fantastic performer. Great for MFT.
I’d say the results are VERY close: the Panasonic Leica has slightly more pleasing bokeh, while the Olympus has slightly better micro contrast. The differences are incredibly small though.
I would say both produce stunning images, but neither is as good as the Sony Zeiss FE 55/1.8.
I am expecting Olympus to follow up with a 25mm f/1.2 PRO quite soon that follows in the metal build quality of the 12/2 and 75/1.8.
And none of this changes the fact that Robin Wong is a terrible photographer.
Why don’t you go back quietly to the Sony’s pigsty, dear troll?
We don’t doubt that for your brats & pets you need far better equipment than what is peddled here 🙂
What’s wrong with you almaric ?
I agree with every mike sentence (and i would add that the panaleica tend to burn less the highlight, a side effect of the smother bokeh ?)
And for sure FE Zeiss 55mm is better. It’s a 1000$ lens released to higlight the capabilities of a 36mp no aa ff camera…
Don’t forget, the Sony is a 1000Euro lens (roughly the same as Em5+25mm1.8 and much larger)!
It is probably one of the best around, but looking at my D610 files produced with the 50/1.8G, I’m in no need for the 55mm Sony lens. Do I really see the difference in A4-A3 plots (if I print at all)? For these sizes it’s really hard to tell a difference and although I’m often tempted by gear lust every times s.th. new hits the market, it doesn’t make me a better photographer.
Exactly so – add the size and the weight, those Sony lenses must be made telecentric – I am not sure that there is left any fun left in it, especially when you go to the bank.
So close the results are negligible. At least to how Robin edits them in Post. Rendering, color and highlight control points go to PanaLeica, it’s bokeh is slightly more pleasing as well. Corner sharpness goes to the Olympus. You can see what is happening here – the Oly is the clinically better lens here, although on an emotional level the PanaLeica rendering and colors have the edge. In the end, a photo is all about the emotion and I’d still pick it over the Olympus here.
Beg’s the question. Why so long Olympus? 50mm FOV is bread and butter for ANY ecosystem, mirrorless or not. Did it take them this long to study the PanaLeica, aim for same performance and reduce the size and form factor? They’ve gone through so many iterations of bodies and only NOW do people get a 50mm lens. Jesus, they even gave us a 75mm 1.8 before this. It is certainly priced right though and i’m sure it will find it’s way into plenty of bags.
To the cheap swipes at Sony – lets just point a few things out. Size advantage with primes is diminishing, the Sony FE35 2.8 is the same size as the 17mm 1.8 Oly, even mounted on a EM5. The FE35 is the second highest rated 35mm lens on DXO – only being beaten by the Sigma, even then only due to the Sigma’s higher aperture. The FE55 comes achingly close the Godzilla Otus. It’s the highest rated Autofocus lens ever tested on DXO, sharpness, distortion, CA controll, its all remarkably brilliant on every aperture and will blow any other 50mm lens away..except the Otus of course, also Zeiss. They ARE pricey..then again, they are both weather sealed and part of a new ecosystem.
Time’s are changing, there are pro’s and con’s for all system camera mounts. One thing is for sure, at least for prime lenses, the size argument is diminishing. I saw a A7 with the FE55 mounted and it was ridiculously well balanced. Handling isn’t EM1 luxurious but the images from it was gob-smackingly good.
Size is diminishing, but only to a certain level. A FF lens needs to light a FF image circle, which is larger than m43. So there will always be a minimum size possible for FF cameras and everything below is almost not possible. What else did Sony do? They made the lens mount slightly smaller than the diagonal, making it necessary to have micro lenses or difficulties with wide angle lenses.
The 35/2.8 is great, but its f-stop is still only 2.8 (requiring slower shutter speeds which is not easy to achieve shake-free in low light). It’s expensive for a 2.8 lens (800 Euros in Germany). It produces significant green halos when shooting into light and higher f-stops (see DPR forums) and shows other artefacts (leicaboss). In the past all people talked m43 into not good enough, since DOF is too large. But now everybody is raving about a 2.8 lens and suddenly 2.8 (corresponding to 1.4 for m43) is more than enough.The Sony is not an amateur system in my opinion. Going with Zeiss means to pay a lot of money for the lenses (which are excellent of course). Zooms are another issue, only slow ones available and the form factor is lost, since they WILL be large and heavy. I was tempted, but found to use m43 + D610 to do it for ME. For what I shoot, I don’t need Zeiss glass, it won’t make me better.
Those reports are far and few between and have been hotly debated and narrowed down to a few instances. Just like the chatter in the PanaLeica 25 and other phenomena. There’s just as many other extensive tests that don’t report such issues. The FE55 is roughly the same size as the Oly 75, has a relatively bright 1.8 aperture and is ridiculously sharp. It wouldn’t surprised me if Zeiss/Sony release a faster 35 to appease the speed demons out there that simply want the best. Is it fast, small primes you’re after? Oh I’m sorry..I guess Pentax has been doing nothing for the past 20 years. Their limited lenses are small, AF and there are quite a few that cover the FF image circle. Olympus didn’t pull anything original designing small AF primes. I’m afraid Pentax beat them to that mantle plenty long ago.
The wide angle issue is corresponding to non-telecentric lenses such as rangefinder Leica’s and such. Leica’s Maestro engine does a fabulous job or digitally correcting images, much moreso than Sony’s. There are plenty user reports of normal SLR wide angle lenses that are fine.
When did everyone get so pissy about price as well? This is a hobby for alot of us isn’t it? Most hobbies require a certain investment. People lay out $1600 for a EM1 body and then whine about a $600 lens, the most important part of your tool bag! Ridiculous..
Well, it’s not ridiculous, because companies need to earn money to stay alive. There enthusiasts paying that amount of money, but I’m not sure this will make most of the cash of the bigger companies out there. The best sold mirror less cameras are the smaller models (NEX, Panasonc G5,6, Olympus PL…). The huge bulk of DSLRs sold are sub 800Euros bodies. I will spend 700 Euros for a Sigma 1.4, but not 800 Euros for a 2.8 lens. The Nikon DX 35mm/1.8 is small light and costs 150 Euros (I don’t mind the plastic) . You can have very good quality for a small amount of cash already. I don’t see it necessary to spend 1000Euros for a 55/1.8 when a 50mm/1.8 Nikon lens gives me very good quality already (and the 850 Euros more for the 55 is not giving me an according leap in quality).
As a professional needing to stand out from the crowd it’s another thing, price wouldn’t be the premier issue. Read Ming Theins article on sufficiency.
Furthermore, it doesn’t make sense to compare the Oly 75mm (150mm equivalent) to the 55 lens. Looking at the Zeiss lens prices, how much would a Sony/Zeiss 150mm/1.8 lens cost, weight? And here we are. The Sony offers great possibilities as long as you don’t go into the tele- or fast glass range, otherwise the lenses inevitably need to get large and heavier (a 35mm/1.4 of Zeiss would have twice the aperture diameter). But as I said, if I would have to make my living out of landscape shots I would definitely consider a A7r (or maybe D800e).
I’d love to see some primes like the Pentax Limited series released for M4/3, even at their relatively slow f2.8 apertures.
It would be like the proverbial marriage made in heaven!
“P.S.: Important to know is that Robert is sponsored by Olympus. That said we all know him for such a long time that we know that he is a very transparent and honest person. And he always tries to support his statement with fair tests and facts.”
Admin, this doesn’t matter one bit. This is an obvious conflict of interest. Even if he intended to be consciously his best objective, human behavior is such that he won’t be. And if he has a bias fueled by the passion for one brand (which he pretty much fully admits), what does that say about doing an honest comparison.
It seems to me a lot of people out there are coming into this world ignoring the consequences that human psychology in situations like these play and it’s a reason why ethics in these realms exist.
This is a good read –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest
Here’s something you need to ask- let’s imagine the Panasonic lens (which I have used btw), just wiped the floor with the Olympus version. Do you honestly think he would publish that in his blog?
(Note: I am not saying it does, I the Olympus lens to also be great and I am going to test drive it soon).
Obviously, the Panasonic lens didn’t wipe the floor with the Oly lens. We need surely to wait for lenstip or photozone to test the new 25mm lens, but assuming this to be actual pictures, they look really good. Damian Mcgillicuddy showed some other nice pictures, so things seem to indeed indicate a very good performance.
Sorry but what you said pure rhetoric.
No lens “wipe the floor” of another those days : they are all good to excellent.
Robin didn’t too a big risk 😉
You both missed my point and I already said I expect both lenses to be good (I have used the Panny one, and I know it’s good and I can’t see why the Olympus one won’t be good).
The point is, if it did- would he report it? Or to put it in other terms: look at his glowing no-faults E-5 review. That camera had a few issues at the market and asking price it was going for yet noise or DR? No problem!
Of course when the EM-5 sensor came along it was a new level of things that were said before didn’t matter, but now matter. Give me a break.
Captcha not working
Well, I prefer a reviewer that admits what he likes and for whom he is working for. You don’t know how many reviwers pretend to be fair and they are not (and in worse case PAID! by the company without us knowing that).
Oh, one easy thing I learned form my work and life. There is always something we can compplain about someone. But we cannot look always at the small possible negative details. I prefer to too look at the full person and trust him in full. Not in pieces 🙂
You are missing the point. Please read the link I gave you.
And I have been one of the first to say that I do think that Robin’s “reviews” still have value as he shows what the equipment can do in several real world situations.
Look at the wikipedia link and read it carefully. Even when you have the best intentions (and now I don’t think Robin has bad intentions per se), it’s super easy to psychologically be influenced by the preference and treatment by the company.
Just look at the glowing E-5 review and compare some of the obvious E-5 deficiencies in the real world, and things that were said were not that important, only for the EM-5 sensor to come around and all of a sudden those things are the new light.
And for the record- yes, I think he’s doing the right thing disclosing he is an employee (btw, in the USA it is now *the law* to disclose such things). So that’s good. But it’s hard not to apply some skepticism for the reviews.
And now check this out- he says the Panasonic lens seems 1/3rd ev slower than rated. This is someone who works for Olympus.
Let me ask you- if someone was running reviews for Nikon examined m4/3rds and said the same thing about the Olympus lens, would you just say the same thing and accept it without thinking about it? Doesn’t it seem strange?
Panasonic – if they have the data to back it up and state the lens is exactly as fast as rated- could send a legal letter to Olympus saying one of their employees is casting doubt with questionable methods over their brand and equipment.
Robin could still have all the best intentions in the world, but consider this scenario for a second. Consider what I said if the blog was all about Nikon equipment in general. Can you see what I am getting at?
I respect Robin’s passion and contrary to many reviewers, he does have photographic talent which is refreshing. So please do not take it like I am “all negative” – to be frank, I got to the point where I don’t care much about this, but would be nice that people in general though about this for a second instead of simply brand it as “negative complaining” in a knee jerk reaction faction.
Oh admin and just one example, *which you are repeating* btw:
“Panasonic lens has poorer CA control (especially shooting wide open) and corner sharpness than Olympus lens.”
Inside the “review” he makes it clear that it could be one of those things that do not happen inside a Panasonic body. Yet he writes the conclusion like that, what gives? From what I saw of the “review” he’s just not using any methodology to draw any conclusion like that.
What he can say is that *in an Olympus body* you get that result. And he does suggest that strongly inside the review. I don’t know then why write such a misleading conclusion.
Someone who is working for Oly. I am sorry, I do not attach any value to such a review. And I do have Oly lenses and happy with them. But the first thing we need to get is a reviewer is as impartial as can be. There is no 100% certainty or control. but this is the other side of the spectrum.
Exactly!!
At the end of the day, whether he’s honest or not, He WORKS for Olympus.
These write-ups should not be viewed as Review, but as a Advertisement.
It’s Marketing, no matter how anyone wants ts to call it, a based view, from a paid photographer.
Honestly, instead of him saying he works for Olympus, he should just place “ADVERTISEMENT” over his posts, with links to Olympus on the bottom of them.
Giulio should do the same.
+10
There’s nothing wrong with advertisements as long as they’re labeled as such.
Robin never hid the fact that he’s an Oly fan. And that was long before he became Oly employee.
To me personally, in the end, all what matters are the images – which he always posts in abundance. It’s much easier to me to draw my own conclusion from the real world images, than from pages of words and brick wall shots.
If some unknown “photographer” were to do a similar side-by-side lens comparison, how much credibility would he have?
Or, if a person with very limited access to the latest equipment were to do a review would it be complete enough to satisfy prospective buyers?
At least these folks have the creds to get our attention, AND they have reputations to protect. If they disseminate incorrect data or mislead the buying public their reputations will be diminished and so too their usefulness to the manufacturers who they co-operate with.
Oh you mean like the E-5 4/3rds review where the noise and DR were stated as “good enough” or the like? Only for the EM-5 sensor to come along and all of a sudden it was this sudden high ISO/DR revelation?
Interesting you bring out this review, as it was one written before he started work for Olympus. He was such a big fan of Olympus before he started to work for them – which is probably why he went to work for them – that it’s clear he will rose coloured glasses toward to the Oly offerings.
What I personally took away from this review is we have two great lenses, and it’s good to have the choice!
The other thing is Olympus gave him after he finished that glowing E-5 review, a the E-5 to keep as free. Can you spell major conflict of interest there?
A lot of people tried to spin this as “Olympus paid him for a job well done” as if that made it sound any better(!).
Back then, before being an Olympus employee the problem to me is that it ends up doing a disservice to the community- the E-5 had some rather clear issues when it hit the market at the asking price it was and the market it was allegedly pursuing. To touch on those issues and say they were ok or pretty good to me is simply not acceptable, if you are going to pretend you are doing a review.
This is nothing against Robin- this would apply to anyone. I did take objection to him and a few others trying to justify the whole Olympus gave me a free E-5 thing as if its as not an issue for writing a “review.” Seriously, that has so many issues it’s hard to know where to begin.
I have nothing in particular against Robin, and I still think in the end he means well, but I think it’s good to realize what doing things like that means. The fact he is now an Olympus employee and discloses as such is actually better than the position he was when he did the E-5 review.
Now we know from the get go, it’s going to be heavily biased with Olympus. Does this mean I think the “reviews” are useless? No. I think he has photographic talent and it’s refreshing to see someone exploring equipment that can actually use it to get a photograph. So what I do is I apply a major truck of salt filter to it (if I read it, I am not really those nowadays) and get what I think sounds more reasonable than not as something of value to consider, discard the rest.
@ Raist3d . . . Perhaps I am being optimistic believing that most of these reviewers and testers will act honorably to protect their name and reputations, however, I never doubt the self-persuading power of personal bias.
Not being a pixel peeper, nor one who is persuaded by test results or the inflamed passions of fanboys, I tend to prefer to hear genuine user experiences and view real photos and videos. I am more moved by Guilio Sciorio’s video endorsement of the GH4 than by Robin’s test charts and pixel peeping photos which I am unlikely to view.
Old-style media advertisement is failing to reach targeted audiences such as the high-end photographic community. If camera companies like Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji are to survive they must find credible spokespeople with “new-media” skills to speak to our peculiar community.
If I were running a large Camera Manufacturing Co. I would certainly endeavor to hire spokesmen who were already passionate about using our products.
The prudent consumer must factor in many considerations and will inevitably decide what is trustworthy, (often based upon nothing more than our own biases).
I understand that, actually, but at that point they can call it Product Demonstration and not a review, because it’s really not a review.
+1 . . . You’re Right!
People can say what they want, I want to see it with my own two eyes. And in this case I did. I have both lenses and I can safely say that the Olympus 25mm is a fine lens. Go find out for yourself if you are in doubt.
So all in all I should stay with the PanaLeica until it breaks and then get the Olympus one. Fair enough, I am glad I have a cheaper option if I ever need one. I love the PanaLeica, not because of the brand, but because 50mm is my favorite FL (equivalent) and I grew to love it a lot.
I really want this Olympus one just for the size alone, but I will have trouble writing a feasibility report to my boss (read: my wife, lol).
Quote: “3) There is not much difference in shallow depth of field rendering between F1.8 and F1.4 lenses (if point number 2 is true, the gap is bridged due to either the Olympus lens being 1/3 EV brighter than F1.8 or the Panasonic lens being 1/3 EV darker than F1.4. This is just my observation, not a conclusive statement)”
You are comparing depth of field with transmission, which doesn’t work…
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm f/1.8 Lens video test!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhr15IUHRFc
These are normal lenses – Camera manufacturers have been making optically excellent normal lenses for 75 years in the f2 speed class, and for over 30 years in the f`1.4 speed class. There is no reason to doubt that either the Olympus or Panasonic/Leica 25mm lens would be anything less than excellent optically. One really needs to be an obsessive pixel peeper to be too concerned about the very slight optical quality differences between them. Really, it comes down to size and cost vs. a bit of extra speed (it seems the Oly may really be an f1.7 lens, and the PanaLeica an f1.5 lens, based on multiple test reports). I own the PanaLeica, and I am pleased with it, but if I were buying one new today, I’d buy the Olympus, somewhat due to the price, but mainly due to the size/weight differential.
25mm is not a ‘normal’ focal length, it’s quite a bit wider.
In Micro 4/3, 25mm lenses have the same field of view as 50mm lenses did for 35mm film and in full frame. They are in fact, normal lenses.