Lens Mojo... Nokton VS Olympus 17mm

F

filmguy123

Veteran
My Nokton 25mm is a different focal length, but there's something about that lens. Just so sexy, makes everything look good

I also like my olympus 12mm quite a bit.

Been playing with the olympus 17mm f/1.8, I may need to play more cause I just shot a few things real quick, but doesn't seem to have the same "mojo" as a nokton look.

What characteristics play into making certain glass just look so hot?

I don't dislike the 17mm and it's nice to have a something fast in that focal range especially for the $450 sale right now, but I'm betting if I dropped the $1200 voigtlander 17mm on there I'd be happier with the image... why?
 
It's the glass. Different qualities of color, contrast, sharpness, distortion, etc. based on what the lens is made of, how it's shaped & formed, and various degrees of wizardry. It's the prime reason (no pun intended) companies like Leica and Zeiss can command so much for a full-manual, single focal length lens, when an equal-speed/length 70's Vivitar can be gotten for the change in your pocket. Both will get a shot, but the different qualities yield... well, different quality. My Summilux-35 with Speedbooster (effectively 25/f1) just looks "better" than my PanaLeica 25/1.4 at equivalent speeds. That's not to say the PL25 is bad by any means - it's sharper with more contrast - it just has different qualities that don't catch me as much.

Mechanics are another big element, which is a huge positive of the Noktons... nothing like a smooooooth mechanical focus and iris ring, focus by wire just doesn't yield that same connectivity.

Then, of course, there's the fact that you shot it with such-and-such a lens, and there's an inevitable bias when we're using equipment we spent a heck of a lot of money to acquire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top