Sharpest 40-45mm landscape lens

Betarover wrote:

Rohith Thumati wrote:

Just looking at these charts, I wouldn't agree that the prime offers no advantage over the telezoom. The 45mm's sharpness is pretty even across the frame, while the 40-150 f/4 is weaker in the corners.

My experience is that sharper corners does not sell more of my prints or win me more awards. In fact, painters often eliminate sharpness and detail from corners and edges because they are distractions that take the eye away from the center of interest. Also, the difference in sharpness indicated by the slrgear.com charts is so slight that no one would notice without being a few inches from a huge print. The lack of uniformity across the image is so very slight, the image is at or near 1.0 everywhere. And even if the result was soft corners, some feel there is an advantage for having soft corners in making prize winning images as expressed in this article:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm

I've found uniformity across the frame to be more important than pure center sharpness for my landscapes.

See above.

You're also leaving out vignetting and CA from the equation, too.

Vignetting is very easily corrected in Photoshop and is rarely noticed except in skies. For this lens I avoid F5.6 when zoomed out due to its vignetting. At F8 it is fine. To draw the eye to my center of interest I often darken the corners a bit, but not so much as to be obvious. As for CA, it is taken into account in a way by the equipment they use to measure blur units.

In use, too, I prefer the results from the Oly 45 to what I get from the 40-150. The 40-150 isn't bad by any means, but I find that the prime's rendering more pleasing.

It would be interesting to take an image with both lenses, print them at the largest size you ever have printed, hang them on a wall, and see if others (spouse and friends) can notice a difference or have a preference.

I too do mostly landscape work, and also have used those same three lenses and have compared them (and I think the SlrGear charts are accurate because with lenses I have used they matched my own experience). While I also value consistency across the frame, the 14-45 is my favorite and most used landscape lens. Here's why:

1) I also shoot mostly at f/5.6 - f/8 and have not seen any corner softness that was enough to ruin a good photo. All my good images look just fine at the corners and edges. I don't think the difference shown between center and corners in the charts is enough to make a significant difference in a print, especially when careful and subtle sharpening in Photoshop can make up for slight differences. However, my largest prints are 12x16-ish, so this may not hold true for larger prints. IMO many photographers I read here in DPR are over-obsessed with sharpness. Even the poorer m43 lenses are plenty sharp enough to make beautiful pictures. It's the photographer that counts, not the gear.

2) I eventually sold the Oly 40-150 and replaced it with the Lumix 45-150. There are other lens qualities besides sharpness, and as I gained experience over time I became less and less fond of the lens. The 45-150 is a much better match for the 14-45. They are like twin siblings and respond in very similar ways. I don't have to adjust my thinking and do certain things differently with these two lenses.

3) Early on I did a number of landscape comparison tests with the Oly 45mm and the 14-45. In most cases there was something I liked better about the 14-45 image. Any prime advantages were so slight as to not make it worth the time and effort to change lenses. I like the 45mm very much, but now use it just for portraits in low light situations, where it excels. I found no significant advantage for landscapes.

4) The bottom line for me is how the lens renders the images. In all my tests of those lenses, the 14-45 always won in that dept. There's something about the way it draws that I find really pleasing. In the film days a Pentax 6x7 was my primary landscape camera for 20 years, always with primes. In m43 I have compared several primes with the 14-45/45-150 pair, including the 20/1.7, the Oly 75mm (an absolutely superb lens) and a Sigma 30mm which I returned after a day of testing. In most every case I ended up preferring the zoom image for one reason or another. In the case of the 75mm, yes it was a bit sharper overall, but after working it up in PS and adding some careful sharpening, the advantage was lost in the final print. The 75, like the 45, is now used mostly for portraits. The only prime I still use for landscapes on occasion is the 20/1.7, which has a rendering that I really like and is comparable to the 14-45 in that regard (I usually use it when I'm just in a mood to use a prime, or want to travel light for some reason). The technology for modern zooms has come a long way, and I find these two lenses to be exceptionally nice. So I have moved over the past years from being an all-prime shooter to favoring the 14-45. This has been, and is, one of the most satisfying landscape lenses I've ever used. I used it on a GH2 for three years, and it's now on a GX7.

Here is a 14-45 landscape (north rim Grand Canyon) shot at 20mm (on screen at 100% there is a tiny foot trail several miles in the distance that is sharply and clearly rendered - what's not to like about that?)

And another at 17mm (Zion N.P.) 1/320 @ f/7.1 iso 160

and another at 20mm (Lake Rosalie, Florida)

I hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Clayton

Info on black and white digital printing at
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 3.0 http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm