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

The mzd 14-42 is roughly comparable to the zd 14-42. In bright light, you're hard pressed to tell shots from it as compared to the 14-54 or 12-60. In dim light, it goes soft pretty quick.

The advantage is size - the mzd 14-42 collapses down to a very short lens, making the EP1 more portable. M4/3, especially the micro bodies, are all about being small and unobtrusive. That has its own set of benefits. I am very curious about the collapsing 9-18 due out next spring.

I will say my two better 4/3 lenses work very well on the EP1, and don't tend to make it that much larger: 50M and PL25.

Do you require scientific background in your daily conversations? I hope for your spouses sake you don't. It is merely as observation I've made.

Prove me wrong if yu must. (OMG, I mispelled U)

BigBarney said:

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.

Click to expand...

--



'There ain't no life nowhere' ~ Jimi Hendrix
Lately I'm thinking he was talking about pixel peepers.

---your sig says your system includes an Oly 14-54 -- perhaps you don't use it?

I think you're spoiled by the quality of the regular ZD lenses (as I am ).

That's true that there's no 11-22, 12-60, 14-54, 50-200 and 50 macro equivalent in the 4-3 line, let alone the SHG lenses.

But until now, Olympus is targeting it's m4/3 line to consumers and P&S shooters. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not likely that we will see HG or SHG in m4/3 format soon from Olympus.

Panasonic will likely try to make high quality lenses, but I doubt they will be as good as the ZD (obviously, they are not until now). I hope they'll prove me wrong!

I would compare m4/3 lenses quality to Oly standard grade lenses or Canon EF-S line. Not mediocre, not stellar, but fully competant. Don't be too afraid, in real life, thoses lenses are nice to use.

The nice thing is that you can buy the adapter and stick your ZD and OM lenses to the E-P1, and make it a better camera.

--
Cheers,

Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/blog/

You said, albeit much more diplomatically, exactly what I was trying to say in my admittedly off center way! lol .

Pixnat2 said:

I think you're spoiled by the quality of the regular ZD lenses (as I am ).

That's true that there's no 11-22, 12-60, 14-54, 50-200 and 50 macro equivalent in the 4-3 line, let alone the SHG lenses.

But until now, Olympus is targeting it's m4/3 line to consumers and P&S shooters. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not likely that we will see HG or SHG in m4/3 format soon from Olympus.

Panasonic will likely try to make high quality lenses, but I doubt they will be as good as the ZD (obviously, they are not until now). I hope they'll prove me wrong!

I would compare m4/3 lenses quality to Oly standard grade lenses or Canon EF-S line. Not mediocre, not stellar, but fully competant. Don't be too afraid, in real life, thoses lenses are nice to use.

The nice thing is that you can buy the adapter and stick your ZD and OM lenses to the E-P1, and make it a better camera.

--
Cheers,

Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/blog/

Click to expand...

--



'There ain't no life nowhere' ~ Jimi Hendrix
Lately I'm thinking he was talking about pixel peepers.

While disagreeing with the OP in terms of content and intent, there is a point here.

I was looking for a super-wide lens for my G series cameras as I had (& sold) an Olympus 9-18. I looked at a lot of samples of the other two alternatives i.e. the Olympus 7-14 & Panasonic 7-14. I was unimpressed by the samples I saw. I even downloaded some raw files. Still unimpressed.

In the end I took the decision to buy the Panasonic lens, based solely on the advice, experience and opinions of people I trusted, & had actually used it.

I have used it extensively over the past weeks & combined with a G-Series camera, with which it is designed to work, it produces images which stand comparison with anything I've ever owned, including Nikon, Canon & Zeiss lenses. I would go so far as to say its the best super-wide I've ever used.

I learned my lesson from this. Its very dangerous to draw conclusions from samples posted on the web. I don't know why the samples that I looked at were so unimpressive, but the difference between seeing these and actually using it were significant.

Ultimately for many of us the web is the only way to come to a decision about buying a piece of kit. When I was looking to buy my lens, the nearest dealer to me who had one in stock, and would actually let me put a lens on my camera & try it out was over 200 miles away. A 400 mile round trip just to try a lens!

Since I eventually made my decision based on other users experiences, I would recommend this as a more accurate way of assessing a piece of kit.

It may seem strange to give this priority over looking at samples, but in many instances I have found it gives me a more accurate assessment.

--
http://davidmartynhughes.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29782425@N08/
http://davidmartynhughes.smugmug.com/Photography
http://web.me.com/davidmartynhughes/Site/Home.html

Well, I agree with you. I too would love to see a HG or SHG lenses introduced in m4/3's but that wont happen unless they bring a HG SHG body.... only users who never owned or used a 11-22, 7-14, 50-200 or even a 14-35 can be glad at the current lens choice. The 20 and 7-14 are good but they could be great.

Regards

João

Well I for one are glad we have the web instead of having to buy blind, at least we can see some of the great photos people take and post on this forum and the time they take to do this.

Cheers all
--
Regards, Marcus

MarconiQ said:

we can see some of the great photos people take and post on this forum and the time they take to do this.

Click to expand...

Yes I would agree, but there are also, unfortunately, a lot of photos that people post on the web that don't reach the standards you describe and depending on what we happen to see, our decisions can be influenced by them, sometimes accurately , sometimes not.

Also its very difficult to make a judgement on a lenses performance from a web sized image. Dpreview does offer full size jpgs in its reviews, which is very useful, but many other review sites don't do that.

Even if they do, with the Raw samples I saw of the 7-14 lens, they don't always do it justice.

--
http://davidmartynhughes.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29782425@N08/
http://davidmartynhughes.smugmug.com/Photography
http://web.me.com/davidmartynhughes/Site/Home.html

Hi David,

I am a Nikon shooter (lusting for Canon & Leica currently looking at the Panasonic 7-14 to go with my E-P1 for light travelling. You commented on this lens being the best ultrawide you've ever used, have you ever used the Nikkor 14-24 on your D3x, and if yes how would you compare?
Tia,
--
Tri-Bac

Hmm..

I have the Panasonic 20mm:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1295/cat/68/date/1251897114

And the Canon 35L/1.4:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/148/cat/10

On paper the Panny seems a little sharper, and in practice the GF1+20mm seems as good in detail as the 5D+35L (both shooting raw).

Of course there are other differences. The 5D is faster and has better DR and high ISO and the 35L is faster and has better contrast and bokeh, but the difference is not an order of magnitude. The difference in price and weight IS an order of magnitude

Now, true the Canon range of lenses is far wider and deeper, but for my purposes the Panny is fine.

Cheers
--
Ian
http://www.monsoonteardrops.com/

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.

Click to expand...

Yes that's true and I would go as far as to say that so far only the 20mm qualifies as a good match for the Ep1 Ep2

The M4/3 is very interesting concept on paper with smaller size and all but I would NEVER buy a new camera system with no REAL lenses

The reason is that Both panasonic and Olympus are only trying to address the entry market who want to upgrade from their P&S cameras

Nothing wrong with that as it is a big market but you would think that based on the initial success they would be in a hurry to develop higher end models with real lenses but no , at least not in the next year or so

I think that part of the issue comes from the fact that they have not also anticipated the size argument for smaller bodies like Ep1 and Gf1 .
the entry kit zooms are small but not small enough for bodies like ep and GF
For the G1 , the zooms are more acceptable

Olympus seems very slow to understand that fixed focal lenses are the only ones which can provide both quality, max brightness and size requirements

at this point it does not matter as much , the new Ricoh GXR which aleardy have one high quality single focal lens which is more than the Olympus can say after almost a year
Harold
--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit

after a while, the same partner does not provide the same satisfaction any more. "Time to try something new" syndrome.

soft or medicore , probably a bit too strong a word, but I would agree that they are not actually HG / SHG grade performance. And the native performance ( uncorrected via RAW ) is something of a worry also ..

So Oly and Panasonic quite clearly did not administrate Soft correction as a needed portion of the imaging workflow with 4/3, so why should they believe its OK with M4/3 just because the system is smaller .. well if they are aiming for similar threshold of imaging performance and quality, I suppose they either had to do a series of M4/3 lens that perform * and not needing those soft correction to perform decent, or they could committ their philosophy with their own product and give us new lens in 4/3 that are ( as they told ) much performing but require the soft correction.

Paradox aside .. with such liberty in lens design allowed by the form factor and format, one had to wonder why they simply can't do some decent lens.
--

• Franka -

I think anyone that expects and MFT system which is not close to a pro-grade system to have pro-grade lenses is crazy. The MFT system just isn't design for those kind of people. I really doubt that most MFT users would even consider spending $2000 on a lens no matter how good it was.

People are complaining about the cost of the 7-14 and the new 45mm. In fact I keep people saying wait for the Oly 9-18 it will be cheaper. The people that want and MFT system won't it either for its size or its size and video capabilities. They are not going delude themselves in to thinking that this system will ever have or ever be able to make use of a super high end lens.

If this is what you want then stick with a Canon or Nikon dSLR. MFT is not for you and you are missing the entire reason for this system.

Robert
--
Ketchup is just over loved tomatoes.

My wife is excellent and beautiful thank you. But surely I must have some new disease that used to be known simply as low IQ.

DVT80111 said:

after a while, the same partner does not provide the same satisfaction any more. "Time to try something new" syndrome.

Click to expand...

--



'There ain't no life nowhere' ~ Jimi Hendrix
Lately I'm thinking he was talking about pixel peepers.

R Stacy said:

... I really haven't seen many images so far that strike me as fantastic. ...

Click to expand...

I see very few images on-line that impress me at all with their technical quality. Anything posted on-line is a shadow of what the photograph might be in a print. I do see a lot of excellent photographs made with mFT cameras, however.

R Stacy said:

... And you have to admit the lens lineup so far is not that great. ...

Click to expand...

Lessee:
P7-14: very nice performer
P14-45: a good performer
O14-42: not much experience with it
P14-140: darn good performer
P17: not much experience with it
P20: excellent performer
P ME45 Macro: excellent performer from what I've seen so far
P45-200: surprisingly good for an inexpensive zoom

Not to mention the entire Olympus and Panasonic/Leica FT lens lines that can be used on mFT. And the hundreds of lenses that can be adapted to it.

I'd say the lens line is darn good.

R Stacy said:

There are some points to my madness.

Click to expand...

Whatever.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Teski said:

I disagree? The 20 1.7, 14-140, and 7-14 have produced some fantastic shots.

Click to expand...

don't forget the 2.8/45 macro

Teski said:

--
Thanks,

Teski
http://www.tedescophotography.com

Click to expand...

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GALLERY: http://galay.fotki.com

I have a G1 with the 14-mm and the 45-200mm lens. I would hate to have to sort a buch of pictures and tell what ones where made with what camera. I can tell only a slight differance and not all the time. I have been using a FZ20 FZ5 FZ30 and FZ50 and the way the camera works is a lot differant than the images they make. The cameras are ready for the next shot faster and the Auto focus is a lot faster too. They just keep getting better and better. Some think film is still better than digital, to each there own.

Your post just make me think a little bit...

1. Certain people tend to see the glass half empty

I upgraded from a P&S (Panasonic FZ28) and to me, the 14-140mm is more than sharp enough and the 20mm f1.7 crazy sharp. From that "glass half full" perspective, I love my MFT system.

Now certain people compare MFT to things like 5DMII (full frame!), D700 (freaky full frame!) or FT 50mm macro (which is sharp enough to use as a weapon). And they complain MFT lenses are bad because to them, the glass is always half-empty.

It's all in your mind. When you have an orange, compare it with another orange or a mandarin and you will be satisfied (e.g. from what I have read, the MFT lenses are mostly as good as similar lenses of the same specs from other systems - I tested the Canon 18-200 and see no different with my 14-140mm).

If you always insist on comparing oranges with grape fruits (or worse with crazy big genetically modified grape fruits) then you will never be satisfied and will always complain and life is just miserable.

2. Certain people don't get the point of MFT yet want to use MFT and complain about it

Why bother to compare GF1 with D700, GH1 with 5DmII, etc.? If you indeed need noiseless shooting or large prints, why bother considering MFT? Go straight to the D700/5DmII or any Full Frame (and check with your doctor in advance for shoulder sprain medication).

Why bother to compare FT 50mm macro with any MFT lens? If you need crazy sharp pictures to slash people, get an adapter! And if you can't MF properly (or complain that AF FT lens on EP1 is too slow) then you really don't need crazy sharp pictures. Really!

Different people see MFT differently. IMO, MFT is about versatility (possibility to adapt many lenses, video + photo in one package, can take camera to many places), size (my GH1 is approximately same size as my FZ28 which is about right for me, can travel light) and quality (way better than P&S).

If you really think MFT is so bad and see no point in MFT then get something that suits you better! Don't just complain about it. Be proactive and tackle the problem.

If you chose the system then stick with it, stop complaining and work out how to maximize the potential. If you chose the system and changed your mind then just walk away and don't look back. If you haven't even tried the system then please just shut up!

3. I completely disagree with the way you talk about the 14-140mm

Firstly, a lens that is designed for video is in nothing degrading. Versatility is a plus, never a minus. Considering that 14-140mm is at least on par with other super zoom lenses from other systems in term of image quality (see dpreview review), I see the video design a huge plus.

Secondly, super zoom lens cannot be as sharp as a prime (or even other shorter zoom lenses). SZ lesses are designed to be versatile and provide picture quality good enough throughout the zoom range (I think this explanation is redundant for you because you seem to have a superior photographic background - but I just need to reiterate). The time you need to swap from one lens to another is enough to miss a moment completely. With this "digitally enhanced video" piece of crap, I at least can get something. And last time I checked, 1 0.

So ya, I wouldn't want to take my 14-140mm to compete with your SHG Oly gear in term of sharpness. I'll lose. But take your gear and do video! I think I have more than an advantage. It's not always about the sharpness.

--
=============================
My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/testdasi/

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 ?

--



'There ain't no life nowhere' ~ Jimi Hendrix
Lately I'm thinking he was talking about pixel peepers.

Click to expand...

--
=============================
My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/testdasi/