Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Gallery
An infamous lens.
Apr 17, 2019 11:52:12   #
camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.
 
I am talking about the Olympus Zuiko 17mm f2.8 for their M43 system and I have made reference to this in an older post. You will not find a positive review in the Web. How could it be possible that a prime lens that sold grossly for about $300 originally has not found good reviews? How bad it is?
I have said many times in the past that all modern lenses are of very good quality. Yes, you will have many that will show chromatic aberrations, even very good ones and undesirable distortions but most of those issues are dealt with software.

I bought the Olympus 17mm f2.8 from a gentleman who desperately wanted to get rid of it. I bet he read the reviews and instead of shooting and reviewing the results he apparently could not live with a lens that has been demonized by reviewers. He sold it to me for a ridiculous price and he then decided that the most expensive, more modern version, the 17mm f1.8 was the lens he would be happy with. Annie Leibovitz says that "if you are thinking about gear you are not making good photographs." Lenses in general are pretty good, they are only tools. If we do our part the lens will do its part.

These three images were made with the "infamous lens" at a local park here in Miami. I waited till the evening light was soft and more attractive to my eyes. These images are not prize winning but good enough. at least for me.
A few years back I saw images in exhibition by a retired photographer. As a novice I asked him what camera did he use to which he answered a Canon camera. I made a comment saying those Canon lenses are of excellent quality. His answer was those are all prosumer Tokina lenses.
I could not believe that man was doing so well with third party prosumer lenses but what I did believe was that it was not necessary to own the best to make outstanding quality photographs. That day I learned my lesson.

Olympus EM-10 Mk II.
Zuiko 17mm f2.8
Images edited with Affinity Photo.


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Apr 17, 2019 12:15:51   #
BassmanBruce Loc: Middle of the Mitten
 
If it does the job you want it to do, that’s all that matters.
I like all three shots.

Reply
Apr 17, 2019 12:22:04   #
camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.
 
Thank you for your comments. I could not agree more.

Reply
 
 
Apr 17, 2019 12:28:08   #
blue-ultra Loc: New Hampshire
 
I think you have proved your point (for that lens) with these images they are of excellent quality.

Reply
Apr 17, 2019 12:50:18   #
Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona
 
Great series, I like the first one best. The sky saturation reminds me of Velvia 50.


I am an amateur picture taker who only has to satisfy myself. I was also a competition pistol shooter in my younger days. I have found that once you have the basic equipment, confidence in yourself and confidence in that equipment you are well on the way. If you genuinely feel (not GAS) that your equipment is holding you back--change it. If it improves your confidence you will take better pictures.

Reply
Apr 17, 2019 12:55:08   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
camerapapi wrote:
I am talking about the Olympus Zuiko 17mm f2.8 for their M43 system and I have made reference to this in an older post. You will not find a positive review in the Web. How could it be possible that a prime lens that sold grossly for about $300 originally has not found good reviews? How bad it is?
I have said many times in the past that all modern lenses are of very good quality. Yes, you will have many that will show chromatic aberrations, even very good ones and undesirable distortions but most of those issues are dealt with software.

I bought the Olympus 17mm f2.8 from a gentleman who desperately wanted to get rid of it. I bet he read the reviews and instead of shooting and reviewing the results he apparently could not live with a lens that has been demonized by reviewers. He sold it to me for a ridiculous price and he then decided that the most expensive, more modern version, the 17mm f1.8 was the lens he would be happy with. Annie Leibovitz says that "if you are thinking about gear you are not making good photographs." Lenses in general are pretty good, they are only tools. If we do our part the lens will do its part.

These three images were made with the "infamous lens" at a local park here in Miami. I waited till the evening light was soft and more attractive to my eyes. These images are not prize winning but good enough. at least for me.
A few years back I saw images in exhibition by a retired photographer. As a novice I asked him what camera did he use to which he answered a Canon camera. I made a comment saying those Canon lenses are of excellent quality. His answer was those are all prosumer Tokina lenses.
I could not believe that man was doing so well with third party prosumer lenses but what I did believe was that it was not necessary to own the best to make outstanding quality photographs. That day I learned my lesson.

Olympus EM-10 Mk II.
Zuiko 17mm f2.8
Images edited with Affinity Photo.
I am talking about the Olympus Zuiko 17mm f2.8 for... (show quote)


I no longer depend on reviews or referrals when selecting and buying cameras or lenses. Purchasers who have bought something better than anything they already have uniformly gush over whatever they have bought. Those who already own similar items are a little more objective, but not much. I only look at the negative reviews, decide if the problems are real or not, and if real, do they matter to me? Finally, do they appear to result from user error, user ignorance, or a legitimate shortcoming.

Like many other specialized populations, photographers' minds tend to be quite set in terms of what they think is right and how things ought to be. This has recently been reinforced to me as I bought a new camera body that is almost universally misunderstood and misrepresented. It's also been very evident here in several recent discussions in which posts have been made with great confidence, but which demonstrate complete lack of understanding of basic principles governing the subject being discussed.

So my suggestion is to enjoy your new lens. The evidence you have presented indicates that the masses are wrong about this one.

Reply
Apr 17, 2019 12:58:13   #
NMGal Loc: NE NM
 
Love them all. Just proves good pictures are 75% the taker, 10% equipment and 15% luck. This is what I think anyway.

Reply
 
 
Apr 18, 2019 08:32:18   #
Bigmike1 Loc: I am from Gaffney, S.C. but live in Utah.
 
I like these shots. The quality is good. I have an Olympus camera and the lenses have always given sharp, crisp photos.

Reply
Apr 18, 2019 08:36:44   #
mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma
 
PDG to me!

Reply
Apr 18, 2019 10:02:45   #
olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida
 
Shots look great, if you don't want to keep that old nasty lens, send it to me!!!!!!

Reply
Apr 18, 2019 10:09:42   #
StanMac Loc: Tennessee
 
I am guilty of obsession over gear as much as a goodly number of folks on this forum. I try to remind myself of the fact that many of the highly acclaimed images of highly acclaimed photographers, at least in the days of film, were not technically perfect. It was the composition, feelings evoked, story that was told by the image - not how sharp it was, color balanced, tonal clarity, etc. While the latter are important, sometimes they matter not in the story the photographer is telling.

Stan

Reply
 
 
Apr 18, 2019 11:25:35   #
Earnest Botello Loc: Hockley, Texas
 
Very good set, William, I see nothing wrong with the lens.

Reply
Apr 18, 2019 14:03:55   #
DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina
 
Nice shots.

Reply
Apr 18, 2019 15:42:00   #
Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL
 
Keep the lens. Shoot it wherever the focal length is appropriate. Those are fine images.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Gallery
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.