Zuiko versus M.Zuiko lenses

Olympus lists Zuiko lenses as Super High Grade, High Grade and Standard lenses while the M.Zuiko lenses are not differentiated in this manner. Are the M.Zuiko lenses Super High Grade, High Grade or Standard

--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri

Depends on the lens, the slow zooms would almost certainly be classed as standard. I'd say the 12mm and 45mm would be HG and the 75mm has a case for being classed as SHG, I'm not sure about the 35mm as I haven't used it but it looks like it could be HG class. You could argue that the 45mm could be classed as standard for its build quality but its performance is certainly in the HG area.

--
Any problem on earth can be solved by a well aimed Pomegranate...
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

The 60 mm Macro surely can be classified as SHG. Hermann

Hi Tony,

Though it looks to be an excellent lens optically would the 75mm's lack of weather sealing not prevent it from getting into the top rank

Jim

Hi Jim,

true, I was thinking more in optical terms. The only lens which could be classed as HG or above on build would be the 12-50mm and optically it doesn't cut it. I don't think the old grading system works for m4/3's but there are lenses that are HG and possible one or two that could be classed as SHG in optical terms. I forgot the 60mm which could probably be classed as SHG standard although the old 50mm F2 wasn't (though it's performance is right up there). I think the SHG lenses were partially hand made so maybe that's another distinction.

--
Any problem on earth can be solved by a well aimed Pomegranate...
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Hi Tony,

I just got the 60mm and it is very close to the 50mm in optical performance and obviously far far better at AF . I was actually surprised just how how small and thin the 60mm is I had only seen it online before buying. I think a lot of the FT guys would suggest that none of the mFT lenses are up to scratch, then the mFT lenses are a lot smaller lighter and happily cheaper

Jim

It's probably HG with its plastic build. It just happens to have SHG optics in it.

I'll take the bait...

The m in mFT may perhaps stand for "mish mosh" when it comes to any clear standards of optical and build quality. The 4/3's system of lenses was a well planned 3-tiered system of:

• SG - standard grade, non-weathersealed consumer lenses
• HG - high grade weathersealed lenses with fast zooms of f2.8-3.5 (4.0 in the 12-60)
  
• SHG - professional grade lenses of uncompromised design and quality, all exceedingly fast (constant f2.0 in all zooms but the 7-14mm f4) and sharp, albeit at greater weight and with prices beyond the pocket-books of all but the most devoted

Each level of the system was also set up to provide an expansive optical range with minimal overlap:

• SG: 9-18mm f4-5.6, 14-42mm f3.5-5.6, 40-150mm f4-5.6, 70-300mm f4-5.6
  
• HG: 11-22mm f2.8-3.5, 12-60mm f2.8-4 (or 14-54mm f2.8-3.5), 50-200mm f2.8-3.5
• SHG: 7-14mm f4, 14-35mm f2.0, 35-100mm f2.0, 90-250mm f2.8

They also had their anomalies such as the "HG" 50mm f2 prime, which many justifiably consider a true SHG optic.  And there were also some wonderful primes in all classes such as the very sharp yet inexpensive 35mm f3.5 macro ($220) or the superb SHG 150mm f2 and 300mm f2.8 (if you have to ask their prices, you can't afford them ).

Here's a complete chart of the 4/3's lens system: http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/

Olympus' mFT lenses follow no such clearly defined standards for cost and quality. You'll find a very pedestrian lens like the $500 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 with weathersealing, yet near $1000 fast primes like the 12mm and 75mm without weathersealing or even hoods included in the price. Regarding optics, you'll find the excellent 45mm f1.8 for $400 MSRP (and often less online) or the 12mm f2 and 75mm f1.8 approaching $1000, neither of them weathersealed or including hoods.

For 4/3's users, it's a case of be careful what you wish for, a common lament a few years back being a desire for more primes. Well, now there are plenty of Olympus primes, they just can't use them!

I have a foot in both camps, with FT DSLR's and an E-M5, so I see much that's excellent in both systems of lenses, including a couple of mFT bargains in the 45mm f1.8 and 60mm f2.8 macro. I'm hoping Olympus soon comes out with the long awaited hybrid body that can take advantage of the best of both worlds.

--
Sailin' Steve

Yes I've heard it's smaller than it looks, the results from it certainly seem impressive. I have no doubt that the "cult of Zuiko" members would not believe that any m4/3's lens could match a four thirds version. Most of them aren't directly comparable anyway. I will say that the 45mm is much better than the 4/3's version, as is the 12mm and 75mm 

--
Any problem on earth can be solved by a well aimed Pomegranate...
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

I don't care as much anymore that there aren't the same quality of lenses between 4/3 and m4/3, but I really care a lot that we never know what is coming, what is planned, what is the 'philosophy' of the m4/3 system.

It matters for 2 reasons - first, it was very easy to look at the line up of lenses within 4/3 and decide where you wanted to play.  The lenses made sense within the categories, so if you were new to the system, you could quickly look over the lenses and figure out a budget/plan for what it would take to satisfy your needs.  And if you wanted to dream the big dreams, you could also do that with knowledge.  The lenses fit within an overall framework and philosophy and didn't overlap or feel 'wasted' against each other.

With m4/3, we just never know what to expect and if doesn't feel like there is ANY philosophy or framework around lens designs, from optics to build materials to focal lengths to cosmetics to hoods.  I'm personally annoyed about buying crappy lenses that then are redesigned and resold, only to be redesigned or at least cosmetically redone (we never exactly know) and then resold again. The last thing I want to do is have to update my lenses as frequently as I update my cameras!  I can't think of any lens I bought with 4/3 where I felt I 'wasted' my money on the first and worst design, but I've bought more lenses for m4/3 that feel 'wasted' than I care to think of.

If I had a plan or an understanding of where Olympus intends to go ---- even if it changes along the way, I'm not one to feel 'betrayed' by corporate changes in plans ---- then I could develop some type of long term strategy for buying lenses.  As it is, it all feels VERY haphazard, as though there are several groups working independently within Olympus without ever talking to each other.

--
Roberto M.

Yes there is no argument about the three primes 

Jim

How about the corners of the 60mm macro ? I just looked at the resolution test made by Lenstip and while it is extremely good in the center, the corners are way less sharp.

I compared with their test of the 50mm F2 macro on the E-510 and the corners of the 50mm are just as good as the center. However I'm not sure how that lens compares to the 60mm mft : the test results are indicating less lines pairs per mm, but they were achieved on an E-510. So the results are probably not comparable.

Anyway what this tells me is that the 60mm may not be as good as the 50mm for copy work, because the 60mm lack of sharpness uniformity in the frame (I was considering it for copying slides and negs).

I looked at the test of the Panasonic 45mm F2.8 and the results were not better in the corners, in fact they look even worse than those of the 60mm Olympus.

--

rrr_hhh

I am so with you Steve. First, on your assessment that Olympus has a whole different strategy for M.Zuikos than they did for 4/3rds Zuikos. I don't think the SG, HG, and SHG idea applies because they are not really courting the professional adventurer market in the same way that they tried to do with 4/3rds. I think they wanted to market to nature/adventure photographers with the E-x line of professional cameras and SHG optics and therefore the lenses were big, fast, expensive, and sealed. That doesn't mean the 12mm, 60mm, and 75mm are not premium lenses--it's just that the intended target market is very different.

Second, I hope Olympus produces a cracking OM-D Pro that works with my Zuiko lenses, my future M.Zuiko lenses, and the legacy film lenses I plan to keep. Hopefully my bag will look like this someday:

Landscape: 11-22mm Zuiko.

Telephoto: 50-200mm Zuiko, Tamron SP 300mm f2.8, Nikkor 400mm f3.5.

Portrait: 45mm M.Zuiko, Tamron SP 35-80mm f2.8-3.8

Macro: 60mm M.Zuiko, Tamron SP 90mm f2.5

And the OM-D Pro with Grip.

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

It's going to be hard to top the 50 f2 for across the frame sharpness. I think the 75 1.8 comes closest if I remember correctly. But for copy work you can stop down right? Seems like it wouldn't be a problem.

--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK

When they first came out with m43 is was clearly aimed at a different sort of market from regular 4/3, and the clear lens grades most likely seemed unneeded. For one thing, to have real SHG lenses in m43 form would mean a whole slew of $2000 and higher selections. You would need a pro level body for such lenses (and perhaps we will see the first later this year).

It could be that the lens selection is indeed slowly clarified as Oly offers a very high end body. We'll see. But if it focuses the 4/3 lenses well there might not be a need, at least not immediately.

--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK

Optically, I would say 75mm and 12mm as SHG. 45mm, 60mm  and 9-18 are HG for me. The rest are standard.

Yes, I'm sure the folks who developed the 4/3's lens system sometimes feel like the inmates have taken over the asylum in this regard.

Getting off topic a bit here, but this got me thinking about how I would put together a solid lens system by combining the best of Olympus and Panny mFT lenses along with Olympus 4/3's lenses with adapter. A personal sampler:

• Pan 7-14mm f4
• Pan 12-35mm f2.8
• Pan 20mm f1.7 pancake
• Pan/Leica 25mm f1.4
• Oly 45mm f1.8
• Oly 60mm f2.8 macro
• And here's where it gets strange: Oly 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 MkI w/1.4x teleconverter
  

The Oly 50-200mm MkI with 1.4x teleconverter can be picked up used for under $800 (KEH), and while large/heavy and slow to focus, I think it's still the finest affordable long zoom solution purely in terms of IQ. Who knows if mFT will ever come out with an affordable comparable, so why wait.

If building an mFT system on a budget, temporarily substitute the kit 14-42 MkII for the Pan 7-14mm and 12-35mm and hold off on the Pan/Leica 25mm f1.4, nice as it is. One can also avoid breaking the bank by going the used route. I just purchased a perfect condition Pan 20mm for $225, and the Oly 45mm often goes for $325 used.

Such a budget system (Pan 20mm, Oly 45mm, Oly 60mm, Oly 50-200mm with EC1.4) can be had for about $1,850, which when combined with the kit lens, provides a comprehensive 5 lens system.

My issue with the pricier Olympus mFT primes is their lack of weathersealing. What's the point of my E-M5's weathersealed body if water can seep in when a non-weathersealed lens is mounted? No excuse at the price points of the 12mm and 75mm, one guys opinion.

Apologies for straying off the farm here...

--
Sailin' Steve

Good summary. I'd opine the 75/1.8 is the sole existing lens that could fit in the SWD category, given its uncanny wide open performance. Perhaps the 12 fits, but I think it would be a more obvious choice if it were sharper at f 2.0. Build quality is at least equivalent.

I don't think there's a 4/3 shooter who doesn't dream of several of the ZD zooms being adapted to µ4/3. I'd love to see downsized 12-60, 50-200, 35-100, 150 and an EC14--all weatherproofed.

We'll see.

Cheers,

Rick

I don't think any of the m4/3 lenses would be SHG, not even close.  In fact, I dont think any are HG, either.  Besides optical quality, build quality, sealing, etc., I don't think any of the m4/3 lenses are telecentric and that shows.  I think a few are SG, maybe 1 or 2 are SG+, and the rest are CG ("Consumer Grade").

As harsh as that sounds, I'm kind of evolving with respect to my angst over wanting 4/3 quality lenses.  I think the market seems to balk at lenses for m4/3 that cost more than $500, so Olympus would be right back where they were with beautiful lenses no one buys if they produced true SHG lenses for m4/3.  I personally feel lukewarm about paying thousands of dollars again for lenses I already purchased for 4/3.  Mostly though, once I've gotten so used to the small and lightweight lenses I'm currently using, how much increase in size, weight and cost am I now willing to trade for SHG performance?  I don't think I'm too eager to get much bigger/heavier/more expensive than my 75-300, as then it starts to beg the question again about why not go back to DSLR?  And oddly enough, the enthusiast digicams provide extremely sharp edge to edge performance, so the pressure to stay small and cheap is coming from that direction, too.

--
Roberto M.