Bassam Guy wrote:color of the sodium vapor (?) lights sucked and it took eons to coerce acceptable colors. What magic did you employ to achieve such good results?camera have the ability to set a Custom WB. Zoom onto the white ice, set that as the the white color, and use that setting for the shoot.

FadedPhotoGuy wrote:I just returned from a weekend trip to Savannah (where I saw no less than a dozen micro43 cameras), I happened to run into a lady with an OM-1 with the 12-100, she commented on my 5 Mark II and I asked her about her impressions of the 12-100. She stated that she loved it especially for travel and I really think that's its wheelhouse. Back in the film days I traveled a lot with a 28-80, and it was nice but I often wished for more wideness or more reach or both. The 12-100 seems just about right as a walk around lens to complement the 25 1.4.I fully agree. We got into Oly / OMDS after already owning a FF camera system, but we wanted something rugged, slightly less expensive (when visiting some rather “special” countries), and it needed to be lighter than the Canon R5 + grip + L lenses. The 12–100 & 17 f1.2 were the first lenses, and we wanted to keep it like that while still using the Canon RF system as the main one. We only wanted to add the 17 f1.2 for low-light situations where we wouldn’t like to miss a shot, otherwise we would be perfectly fine with just that one travel zoom.Now it looks like this setup was so good that we’ve spent five figures on MFT gear. But this is a discussion for another day

Albert Valentino wrote:Bassam Guy wrote:color of the sodium vapor (?) lights sucked and it took eons to coerce acceptable colors. What magic did you employ to achieve such good results?camera have the ability to set a Custom WB. Zoom onto the white ice, set that as the the white color, and use that setting for the shoot.My experience with more recent gym and field lighting is the color cycles as well as intensity.It's...challenging.

unhappymeal wrote:melnais wrote:unhappymeal wrote:melnais wrote:If it isn't sharp then it is total rubbish......sharp ! sharpSHARP cried the BIFIt's not about sharpness, it's about whether the total package justifies the weight and size. From what I've seen comparing it to the 14-140, that answer is 'No'.Your first comment is about sharp.....so it must be importantSharpness is a part of the package. You expect a 1.2k lens to be sharp, no?Besides some cheap Chinese lenses when used wide open I would consider most of the lenses these days as sharp, most of them just by stopping slightly down.

Skeeterbytes wrote:Albert Valentino wrote:Bassam Guy wrote:color of the sodium vapor (?) lights sucked and it took eons to coerce acceptable colors. What magic did you employ to achieve such good results?camera have the ability to set a Custom WB. Zoom onto the white ice, set that as the the white color, and use that setting for the shoot.My experience with more recent gym and field lighting is the color cycles as well as intensity.It's...challenging.If it cycles very fast, then possibly try shooting in burst mode. Would be interesting to see different color renderings over a few seconds. Might be a nice experiment to try, and if it works, it would make for a worthy post showing how rapidly the light changes and a possible solution for those challenging conditions

Albert Valentino wrote:Bassam Guy wrote:color of the sodium vapor (?) lights sucked and it took eons to coerce acceptable colors. What magic did you employ to achieve such good results?camera have the ability to set a Custom WB. Zoom onto the white ice, set that as the the white color, and use that setting for the shoot.That is about the best I have done, only I shoot raw and WB in post - easy. The problem with the lighting commonly used in skating rinks is not its color but gaps in its spectrometry.http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Documents/SO%20Spectral.htmillustrates this:Basically, the problem is not just shifting the color temperature (WB) but filling in the holes.For example, the nearly monochromatic Low Pressure Sodium light could be shifted with WB to appear bluer or redder but it will still be nearly monochromatic.IDK exactly which type of light my local ice rink uses, and I wildly guess High Pressure Sodium vapor only because they are commonly used for ice rinks.I've photographed a couple of Boston Celtics basketball games courtside, and they use the same lamps as the Boston Bruins hockey team. Those were far less difficult to color correct than photos at my local rink.That is why I accused ikolbyi of wizardry

Bassam Guy wrote:The problem with the lighting commonly used in skating rinks is not its color but gaps in its spectrometry.Basically, the problem is not just shifting the color temperature (WB) but filling in the holes.Interesting.  Thanks for the info!

Bassam Guy wrote:Albert Valentino wrote:Bassam Guy wrote:color of the sodium vapor (?) lights sucked and it took eons to coerce acceptable colors. What magic did you employ to achieve such good results?camera have the ability to set a Custom WB. Zoom onto the white ice, set that as the the white color, and use that setting for the shoot.That is about the best I have done, only I shoot raw and WB in post - easy. The problem with the lighting commonly used in skating rinks is not its color but gaps in its spectrometry.http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Documents/SO%20Spectral.htmillustrates this:Basically, the problem is not just shifting the color temperature (WB) but filling in the holes.For example, the nearly monochromatic Low Pressure Sodium light could be shifted with WB to appear bluer or redder but it will still be nearly monochromatic.IDK exactly which type of light my local ice rink uses, and I wildly guess High Pressure Sodium vapor only because they are commonly used for ice rinks.I've photographed a couple of Boston Celtics basketball games courtside, and they use the same lamps as the Boston Bruins hockey team. Those were far less difficult to color correct than photos at my local rink.That is why I accused ikolbyi of wizardryUseful info. Thanks for posting

Shooters on My Squad wrote:unhappymeal wrote:black wrote:unhappymeal wrote:black wrote:If it isn't sharp then it is total rubbish......sharp ! sharpSHARP cried the BIFIt's not about sharpness, it's about whether the total package justifies the weight and size. From what I've seen comparing it to the 14-140, that answer is 'No'.Your first comment is about sharp.....so it must be importantSharpness is a part of the package. You expect a 1.2k lens to be sharp, no?Besides some cheap Chinese lenses when used wide open I would consider most of the lenses these days as sharp, most of them just by stopping slightly down.I seriously don't understand how people can obsess over sharpness (or lack thereof) or various other characteristics of modern mainstream lenses.  And people always talk about getting good copies and bad copies - I honestly can't think of a single time that I've been disappointed with an image and blamed the lens. I have owned some very well regarded lenses (Leica, Zeiss, etc.) and I'm honestly just as happy with my f/1.8 Zuikos.Maybe it's like with audiophiles.  They spend thousands of dollars on hi-fi gear to get a level of fidelity that most people can't even appreciate.  I'm not saying there's not a difference - but if I can't see or hear it, maybe I'm not missing anything?  And frankly, I don't see the point in developing such sophisticated sensory perception that you end up disappointed with everything.

Albert Valentino wrote:Bassam Guy wrote:color of the sodium vapor (?) lights sucked and it took eons to coerce acceptable colors. What magic did you employ to achieve such good results?camera have the ability to set a Custom WB. Zoom onto the white ice, set that as the the white color, and use that setting for the shoot.That only works if you are able to have access to the ice itself with a grey card.  (at least for me)

Bassam Guy wrote:That is why I accused ikolbyi of wizardrySome more information for you:https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66437050

grain_frame wrote:And frankly, I don't see the point in developing such sophisticated sensory perception that you end up disappointed with everything.Ignorance is bliss.

Shooters on My Squad wrote:grain_frame wrote:And frankly, I don't see the point in developing such sophisticated sensory perception that you end up disappointed with everything.Ignorance is bliss.True - although I'd prefer to improve my photography by focusing (no pun intended) on content, composition, and technique, rather than imagined or exaggerated optical design limits.

grain_frame wrote:Shooters on My Squad wrote:unhappymeal wrote:black wrote:unhappymeal wrote:black wrote:If it isn't sharp then it is total rubbish......sharp ! sharpSHARP cried the BIFIt's not about sharpness, it's about whether the total package justifies the weight and size. From what I've seen comparing it to the 14-140, that answer is 'No'.Your first comment is about sharp.....so it must be importantSharpness is a part of the package. You expect a 1.2k lens to be sharp, no?Besides some cheap Chinese lenses when used wide open I would consider most of the lenses these days as sharp, most of them just by stopping slightly down.I seriously don't understand how people can obsess over sharpness (or lack thereof) or various other characteristics of modern mainstream lenses. And people always talk about getting good copies and bad copies - I honestly can't think of a single time that I've been disappointed with an image and blamed the lens. I have owned some very well regarded lenses (Leica, Zeiss, etc.) and I'm honestly just as happy with my f/1.8 Zuikos.Sharpness is overrated. My thing about lenses I like and prefer is rendering, color signature and, for lack of a better term, “character”. Voigtländer lenses and the PL 50-200mm come to mind.Maybe it's like with audiophiles. They spend thousands of dollars on hi-fi gear to get a level of fidelity that most people can't even appreciate. I'm not saying there's not a difference - but if I can't see or hear it, maybe I'm not missing anything? And frankly, I don't see the point in developing such sophisticated sensory perception that you end up disappointed with everything.As a sort of low-end audiophile, part of that is having spent a lot of time going to concerts and developing a real passion for music. That started in high school going to free concerts in nearby Boston and Cambridge. There was the New England Conservatory, Harvard, B.U., the early music scene, free organ concerts at a number of area churches. And the Boston Symphony, not free, of course. Moving to NYC there’s Carnegie Hall, the MET Opera, NY Philharmonic and an active early music scene. I used to go to a lot of Jazz, too, but the jazz club scene kind of disappeared for the most part and the few left got expensive. When I travel I try to go to concerts. Just heard the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra play Mahler’s Ninth in Amsterdam a few months ago.Anyway, with all this listening, my ear got spoiled. There are visceral excitement and aural nuances in performances that were simply missing with low-end, consumer-level stereo equipment. Sure, you can go crazy building an amazing hi-if system. Or get good quality, good sounding relatively simple stuff that’s absolutely great. Pretty much any British equipment LINN, NAIM, Creek, KEF, etc.. I’ve had their lower-end gear for years. Still not cheap, but great sounding! But then, there are concerts.

Your images are perfectly fine but nothing special. Based on your description, you like stronger subject/background separation. This lens is not for you. You need longer FL or larger aperture or both.

Exactly this.I take out the EM1.3 and 8/1.8 and 12-100/4 as my travel kit.  And then the 40-150/2.8 with the 1.4x tele as my wildlife combo.

My 12-100pro is actually sharper than my 12-40pro. It is also my go-to travel/landscape lens for maximum versatility. Focal length coverage is always the most import factor when it comes to landscape from my experience. I got some of my favorite shots since I've bought it.

Cracking images! Focal coverage is king when you don't know what you will shoot.

Lu1Wang wrote:Focal length coverage is always the most import factor when it comes to landscape from my experience. I got some of my favorite shots since I've bought it.And that's the important part. Lovely examples by the way, although I notice that all of them could have been realised with the somewhat smaller 12-45/4... But I add that only because it's my current favourite for exactly the same reason

John Bean (UK) wrote:Lu1Wang wrote:Focal length coverage is always the most import factor when it comes to landscape from my experience. I got some of my favorite shots since I've bought it.And that's the important part. Lovely examples by the way, although I notice that all of them could have been realised with the somewhat smaller 12-45/4... But I add that only because it's my current favourite for exactly the same reasonStatistically, the 12-45 range will yield the most shootable compositions. But the extra lenght often comes in handy, especially when there is a butterfly or flower where I can zoom out and both get a frame filled shot with a narrow FOV to control background to isolate subject. The lens is a bit heavy but it replaced my wonderful 12-40 Pro nicely