Reading mode: Light Dark

Most all m4/3 lenses seem soft or mediocre at best (so far)...

Go to last post
R Stacy

R Stacy

Senior Member
Messages
3,143
Reaction score
22
Location
Cincinnati, OH, US
I know its early on, but it really is a bit of a disappointment so far. I realize all we have are entry grade lenses, albeit a couple of which are priced towards high grade...

What gives? I know these new sensors are capable and even the first round of cameras are capable of far more, but these lenses from everything I'm seeing so far are indeed the achillles heal.

I have yet to see any that compete with OLy's High Grade as yet, much less Super High Grade, including Leica's lone entry - possibly only the Pany 20mm notwithstanding.

I know its still early, but, especially given OLy's recent announcement, will we in fact see any great lenses for the m4/3 format ?

--



'There ain't no life nowhere' ~ Jimi Hendrix
Lately I'm thinking he was talking about pixel peepers.
 
Maybe I should have included the 7-14, but I don't see even it compares (image quality) with the full 4/3 OLy. As for the 14-140... poppycock... its a digitally enhanced video lens.

--



'There ain't no life nowhere' ~ Jimi Hendrix
Lately I'm thinking he was talking about pixel peepers.
 
I think the Lumix 14-45 kit lens with my G1 is as sharp as any Nikon lens I have and that includes the 17-5mm f2.8 and 80-200 f2.8. I've made 20x30 inch prints from the 14-45mm that rival anything out there. Plus it weighs five pounds less so I actually end up using it on a regular basis
 
judging by your other posts in this forum, it's doesn't appear that
you've actually used these lenses.

take a few pictures, then let us know.

fwiw, it's rarely the equipment that's the limiting factor...
 
You are correct, I haven't bought into m4/3 as yet. But, I do have eyes and (if you'll bother to also notice) I've been using 4/3 practically since the beginning (May 2004).

--



'There ain't no life nowhere' ~ Jimi Hendrix
Lately I'm thinking he was talking about pixel peepers.
 
I have compared results made with the Lumix G 14-45 against similar photos made with both Olympus and Panasonic-Leica FourThirds SLR lenses. I assure you your allegations are incorrect. The only downside to this tiny, lightweight lens is that it's somewhat slow.



Panasonic G1 + Lumix G Vario 14-45/3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
 
R Stacy said:
You are correct, I haven't bought into m4/3 as yet. But, I do have eyes and (if you'll bother to also notice) I've been using 4/3 practically since the beginning (May 2004).
Click to expand...
Making a judgement about a lens with which you have no first-hand experience isn't particularly sensible.

This is nothing more than a casual street shot, hand-held, autofocus, at ISO 100 @ f/5.6 @ 1/125 sec:



Panasonic G1 + Lumix G Vario 14-45/3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS

A 1:1 detail snip shows what's really in it:



--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
 
nor disparaging m4/3. I'd love to see this line excel fantastically in fact.

I hold my opinion based on what I've seen so far from all the reviews (I've read most of them) and from what I've seen so far on the web. In point of fact, I'm likely to buy the E-P1 in the next few days, my final decision after looking very closely at the current offerings the past few months.

My observation about the lenses is simply my observation.
Godfrey said:
I have compared results made with the Lumix G 14-45 against similar photos made with both Olympus and Panasonic-Leica FourThirds SLR lenses. I assure you your allegations are incorrect. The only downside to this tiny, lightweight lens is that it's somewhat slow.



Panasonic G1 + Lumix G Vario 14-45/3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
Click to expand...
--



'There ain't no life nowhere' ~ Jimi Hendrix
Lately I'm thinking he was talking about pixel peepers.
 
I don't have any problem with the sharpness of these lenses. Some of them have nasty distortion and CA though, and sometimes the CA can manifest as slight softness if you aren't careful. But I think even my 14-42 is quite sharp enough for most things. Contrast isn't quite as wicked as my old Canon L lenses though.
Teski said:
I disagree? The 20 1.7, 14-140, and 7-14 have produced some fantastic shots.

--
Thanks,

Teski
http://www.tedescophotography.com
Click to expand...
 
I don't know exactly how soft counts as soft or mediocre.

But looking at people's pictures on the web isn't a great way of comparing, because the photographer is a much bigger variable than between decent modern lenses.

That said I've seen some impressive images.

But looking at the SLRgear tests of the zoom you currently use (the zuiko digital 14-45) and the panasonic 14-45 says that both versions of the zuiko are pretty comparable with the panasonic. Of course the zd has a stops a 1/2 - 1 stop speed advantage. But the blur charts tell you that you ought not be able to pick the difference in real life, except maybe in some extreme corners if you are photographing a brick wall at right angles, and which lens is better here varies. Both are in fact in the very first league of standard zooms for resolution.

So if these count as soft or mediocre, I'm afraid you need to sell up and get a Leica M system. Or use only your zd 50 mm macro, which will make the brick walls sharp indeed.
 
I don't read reviews or look at someone else's sample pictures, they never me anything of useful value. I use the equipment to make my living and evaluate it first hand.

It is of course obvious that pro-quality, fast lenses should outperform the slow 14-45, and yet even it is a darn good performer. I have seen little to agree with your judgment when it comes to the G 7-14, G 14-140 and G 20 lenses. I haven't had a chance to use the new Macro-Elmarit 45/2.8 ASPH OIS yet, but I'll get that chance on Sunday.

Until you have actually used the equipment, you are only going on hearsay IMO.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
 
All of the Panasonic lenses are, by numbers and by published results, at or near the top of the range vs. comparable-coverage lenses from Canon/Nikon etc.

Panasonic has deliberately chosen not to sell low-to-medium quality lenses - I think that's been a good policy for them, considering that just a few years ago they had no market reputation in still cameras, and many consumers were fully ready to be skeptical of Panasonic as a legitimate brand. They've built a formidable reputation very quickly, and a big part of that has been a no-dogs policy in the product line.

"Digitally enhanced" performance from the lenses is no less valid than extra-optical-element enhancement that brings size, weight, flare and aberration compromises, also no less valid than the engine computer that your car depends on to provide modern levels of performance. Despite popular skepticism, I see this as part of cutting-edge development; a way to enhance quality at the price, not dilute it.

"Video" should not be a pejorative term, though you have implied so. The 14-140 is not only a sharp lens, it is (so far) unique in being well engineered for video requirements without giving up its excellent still-photography performance.

The Leica-branded 45mm has been roundly panned, because it is not the highest-resolving nor the highest-speed lens available - I too would have much preferred another stop faster - but it still a very very good lens, far from a bad or even a mediocre lens as some imply. Considering that 90mm was a favorite of mine for years with my CL, I'm thinking hard about that one.

The "worst" performance out of a Panasonic interchangeable lens so far may be the 45-200 when used right at 200mm, and even there it seems that some of the user complaints are mixed up with lens shake (the OIS only goes so far at 400mm equivalent).

The only semi-legitimate complaints I can see are:

1. Some of the Panasonic lenses are relatively costly, but mostly compared to low-end offerings from other manufacturers - not so much when compared apples to apples.

2. Perhaps another stop of lens speed could have been achieved at or near the asking price.
3. The availability (especially in the USA) has been spotty and slow to ramp.

Olympus has a nice range in 4/3, but so far hasn't shown higher-grade lenses in µ4/3. The only Zuiko I have so far is the 50-200, a great lens but not really a good match for µ4/3 (I bought it for the L1 and have used it on the G1 also). I'm looking forward to a wider range of µ4/3 offerings from Olympus.

--
JoelH
 
R Stacy said:
I know its early on, but it really is a bit of a disappointment so far. I realize all we have are entry grade lenses, albeit a couple of which are priced towards high grade...

What gives? I know these new sensors are capable and even the first round of cameras are capable of far more, but these lenses from everything I'm seeing so far are indeed the achillles heal.

I have yet to see any that compete with OLy's High Grade as yet, much less Super High Grade, including Leica's lone entry - possibly only the Pany 20mm notwithstanding.

I know its still early, but, especially given OLy's recent announcement, will we in fact see any great lenses for the m4/3 format ?
Click to expand...
...if you are going to make a deliberately provocative statement in your subject line, will you back it up with some objective data, else you risk being branded as a FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) merchant, possibly in the employ of another company?

You may well be correct in your assertions, but it is difficult to take you seriously when your judgment remains so subjective. In the meantime I, and I suspect others, will be happy to stick with the more objective judgment of reviewers such as slrgear.com:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/67

P.S. I am uncertain whether Achilles would have appreciated your spelling of his name without an upper case first letter, not to mention your reference to his heal rather than his heel. :-)
 
I sense a bit of hyperbole here. At 20x30 there are lots of lens/camera combos that crush any micro four thirds combo at least on the landscape front.

Don't get me wrong I'm a fan of this format. But my EP-1 doesn't compete against my 5D MKII and the 35L or any other lens really at 12X18 or above for the mountain landspaces that I shoot. And I'm tallking about prints not 100% pixel peeps.

The weight advantage is real I grant you. Houghing a 50 pound pack (large part of it Canon camera equipment) on a 20km one day hike through the Canadian Rockies was not fun.
Mark_photog said:
I think the Lumix 14-45 kit lens with my G1 is as sharp as any Nikon lens I have and that includes the 17-5mm f2.8 and 80-200 f2.8. I've made 20x30 inch prints from the 14-45mm that rival anything out there. Plus it weighs five pounds less so I actually end up using it on a regular basis
Click to expand...
 
I purchased the GH1 around 3 weeks and so far I'm very satisfied with the results. Below are the pics, some were even taken at higher ISO and with EZ extension, all handheld. If you still reckon not sharp enough, then I don't know what will come near your standard. Perhaps PP sharpening.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=33758878

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=33742733
--
David :) I used to rely on divine appointment with the subject.
My Gallery: http://david-low.smugmug.com/
 
I'm not saying it is a bad camera. I use my EP-1 quite a lot. Just under certain situations it does not measure up. The images you show do not require the level of detail that a mountain landscape does at 20 x 30 which is what I was responding to (or any subject matter with a lot of defined detail). DR is a challenge with the EP-1 I've found as well.

I've found the EP-1 and 20 1.7 sharp enough.
novetan said:
I purchased the GH1 around 3 weeks and so far I'm very satisfied with the results. Below are the pics, some were even taken at higher ISO and with EZ extension, all handheld. If you still reckon not sharp enough, then I don't know what will come near your standard. Perhaps PP sharpening.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=33758878

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=33742733
--
David :) I used to rely on divine appointment with the subject.
My Gallery: http://david-low.smugmug.com/
Click to expand...
 
Again, granted. I haven't yet used them. And I have said perhaps the 7-14 and 20mm notwithstanding, but everything else so far is mediocre at best imo based on what I have seen online.

I really haven't seen many images so far that strike me as fantastic. And you have to admit the lens lineup so far is not that great. I'm particularly disappointed in OLy's lens roadmap to date and hope they don't take years to develop as they did with 4/3. Even then, they started out stronger than they have with m4/3.

There are some points to my madness.
Godfrey said:
I don't read reviews or look at someone else's sample pictures, they never me anything of useful value. I use the equipment to make my living and evaluate it first hand.

It is of course obvious that pro-quality, fast lenses should outperform the slow 14-45, and yet even it is a darn good performer. I have seen little to agree with your judgment when it comes to the G 7-14, G 14-140 and G 20 lenses. I haven't had a chance to use the new Macro-Elmarit 45/2.8 ASPH OIS yet, but I'll get that chance on Sunday.

Until you have actually used the equipment, you are only going on hearsay IMO.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
Click to expand...
--



'There ain't no life nowhere' ~ Jimi Hendrix
Lately I'm thinking he was talking about pixel peepers.
 
Zoom I currently use? What would that be?

dbm305 wrote:
snip -
dbm305 said:
But looking at the SLRgear tests of the zoom you currently use (the zuiko digital 14-45) and the panasonic 14-45 says that both versions of the zuiko are pretty comparable with the panasonic. Of course the zd has a stops a 1/2 - 1 stop speed advantage. But the blur charts tell you that you ought not be able to pick the difference in real life, except maybe in some extreme corners if you are photographing a brick wall at right angles, and which lens is better here varies. Both are in fact in the very first league of standard zooms for resolution.

So if these count as soft or mediocre, I'm afraid you need to sell up and get a Leica M system. Or use only your zd 50 mm macro, which will make the brick walls sharp indeed.
Click to expand...
:O

--



'There ain't no life nowhere' ~ Jimi Hendrix
Lately I'm thinking he was talking about pixel peepers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top