Reading mode: Light Dark

Are there no decent affordable m4/3 standard zooms?

Go to last post
Tommi K1 said:
Yes... Way too many pixel peep their perfect images for lens faults and are in a search for a noise that isn't visible and blame sensor when it doesn't capture sun and the deepest shadow equally.
Click to expand...
I mean my cheap DSC-H300 does a relatively good job of taking photos suitable for 8x10 printing. The difference between the printed version and the monitor is largely correctable by adjusting the gamma to make the image lighter. If I "loupe" the photos, they can look ugly and noisy but none of the noise can be seen at 8x10. The camera is sub $200, but I get a lot of compliments when guests look at the photos on my wall.

However, the high price of the ILC cameras combined with the ridiculous cost of lenses is a bit of a downer. It's a bit much to expect consumers to be thrilled with noise at a pixel peeping level after dropping more than a grand on gear. Yo-Yo pricing only adds to the misery of the experience as consumers are also expected to try to "time" a deal.

The m4/3 manufacturers do not seem interested in marketing at a level of quality and scale that would truly inspire consumer confidence.


 
Gobzy said:
Why not try this one:

046bd0b357074ad0813cc76239009752.jpg

The 12-50 zoom kit lens. A lot for sale on the second hand market at around 200$. Not the best, but good enough for all around shots in good light...
Click to expand...
Compared to this giant of a lens, it's actually fascinating (seemingly defying laws of physics and optics) to see how small a 14-42 mm lens can be.



olympus_v314070bu000_14_42mm_f_3_5_5_6_ez_lens_1026122.jpg


BTW, I'm completely satisfied with the quality of the 14-42mm EZ (disclaimer - I'm no pixel peeper).
 
Okapi001 said:
Gobzy said:
Why not try this one:

046bd0b357074ad0813cc76239009752.jpg

The 12-50 zoom kit lens. A lot for sale on the second hand market at around 200$. Not the best, but good enough for all around shots in good light...
Click to expand...
Compared to this giant of a lens, it's actually fascinating (seemingly defying laws of physics and optics) to see how small a 14-42 mm lens can be.

olympus_v314070bu000_14_42mm_f_3_5_5_6_ez_lens_1026122.jpg


BTW, I'm completely satisfied with the quality of the 14-42mm EZ (disclaimer - I'm no pixel peeper).
Click to expand...
it would be interesting to see how this compares to the Lumix 14-42 PZ. The big hit on that one was shutter shock, which shouldn't be a problem w/ newer cameras.

--
Keep it fun!
 
The two conflicting statements about the 12-50 just mimic what happens with other lenses: different copies vary wildly. When dpreview showed the E-M5 with 12-50 when it came out the pics were clearly better than what I got with mine, but it was "usable". The 12-40 is in a completely different league.
 
Paul De Bra said:
The two conflicting statements about the 12-50 just mimic what happens with other lenses: different copies vary wildly. When dpreview showed the E-M5 with 12-50 when it came out the pics were clearly better than what I got with mine, but it was "usable". The 12-40 is in a completely different league.
Click to expand...
Paul, I think most of us are aware of some lenses that only just scrape through quality control, and that mostly really bad ones get rejected these days (e.g. Roger Cicala's articles on this subject). It makes sense that higher grade lenses are more likely to be rejected at the QA stage than cheaper, lower grade lenses. Same principle applies to car engines, etc ...

My point is that all my standard grade lenses (8) for both FTs and mFTs have been better than merely just acceptable. Chances of this occurring by chance alone is remote.

IMO kit lenses get undeserved bad press. Some may indeed be crappy, but I suggest that most are not.

I have some pretty nice lenses that have cost me a fair bit. Their better performance is not entirely just faster optical speed. Some of it is better centre to corner performance.

I haven't plonked down the significant money for my better lenses just for bragging rights after all ;-) .

That's not to bag kit lenses even though I am well aware of their generally fairly minor shortcomings. Some of my very best images have been taken with my various standard grade lenses.
 
JaKing said:
I haven't plonked down the significant money for my better lenses just for bragging rights after all ;-) .
Click to expand...
But what are you actually paying for? When inventory at the suboptimal level fails to sell, it gets priced into the cost of the higher end. A similar problem occurred in the mountain biking category where entry level bikes are now so sub-optimal that you have to upgrade immediately to get a functional bike. This creates the automatic upsell to a better model that does not need upgrading which costs nearly double the former price of an entry level bike but provides 1/3 more performance. The entry level bike won't sell at all anymore because its reputation and quality is garbage. This cost gets priced into the quality bikes that do sell. Buy one bike, pay for two because the industry no longer cares to market quality affordable entry level products.

JaKing said:
That's not to bag kit lenses even though I am well aware of their generally fairly minor shortcomings. Some of my very best images have been taken with my various standard grade lenses.

--
br, john, from you know where
My gear list and sordid past are here: https://www.dpreview.com/members/1558378718/overview
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/
Click to expand...
 
MaskedMakrel said:
JaKing said:
I haven't plonked down the significant money for my better lenses just for bragging rights after all ;-) .
Click to expand...
But what are you actually paying for?
Click to expand...
Optical excellence ... For photography! Isn't that what cameras are used for? Taking photographs ... ;-)

Examining your posting history tends to inform me that you will not understand this ...
MaskedMakrel said:
When inventory at the suboptimal level fails to sell, it gets priced into the cost of the higher end.
Click to expand...
At least I am a CPA who has successfully run my own private accounting practice. I suspect I have some little knowledge of these things. What you have stated cannot be known without intimate, first hand knowledge of an entity's financial and cost accounting information and systems. I further suspect that you do not have any of the requisite knowledge. Neither have I, but I am not the one making these ridiculous statements.

Again, I refer anyone interested to this poster's posting history.
MaskedMakrel said:
A similar problem occurred in the mountain biking category where entry level bikes are now so sub-optimal that you have to upgrade immediately to get a functional bike. This creates the automatic upsell to a better model that does not need upgrading which costs nearly double the former price of an entry level bike but provides 1/3 more performance. The entry level bike won't sell at all anymore because its reputation and quality is garbage. This cost gets priced into the quality bikes that do sell. Buy one bike, pay for two because the industry no longer cares to market quality affordable entry level products.
Click to expand...
This example is all but completely meaningless within the universe of discourse in this thread.
MaskedMakrel said:
MaskedMakrel said:
That's not to bag kit lenses even though I am well aware of their generally fairly minor shortcomings. Some of my very best images have been taken with my various standard grade lenses.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
JaKing said:
Detailed comparison here:

http://cameradecision.com/lenses/co...lympus-M.Zuiko-Digital-ED-14-42mm-F3.5-5.6-EZ

Quite different diaphragm and optics.

Have you ever owned or used the 12-50 macro? I own one ... I disagree with your statement.

--
br, john, from you know where
My gear list and sordid past are here: https://www.dpreview.com/members/1558378718/overview
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/
Click to expand...
Well both the 14-42 IIR and the EZ have 8 elements in 7 groups. Reviews of both lenses haven't led me to believe that one is better than the other. The marketing goal of the 14-42 EZ was to be smaller than the other 14-42 and not to have superior image quality. There seems to be a great deal of sample variation.

I did/do own the 12-50, which is why have have strong opinions about it. Specifically, the lens is pretty good between 25 and 50mm, but at 12 and 14mm, it's very bad, very very blurry in the corners and the sides of the image. If other people have different experiences, then it's possible that there's sample variation. However, I've seen images posted on the internet taken with that lens where I can easily identify the same flaw as mine, one side of the image is obviously blurry, even when the picture is only a 600x800 pixel (or something like that) web image.

At 14-17mm, I prefer the images from my 14-42 IIR over the images from my 12-50, and the topic of this thread is whether there's a better lens than the 14-42 II R, and for me the 14-42 II R is the better lens.

I suspect that the Olympus PRO lenses have optical designs that minimize the effect of sample variation, which is why you seldom hear anyone say anything bad about them.

If Olympus came out with an intermediary zoom that didn't have the wide aperture of the PRO but was nevertheless consistently very sharp plus having the benefit of being smaller and lighter and less expensive, I'd grab it definitely. But alas, Olympus doesn't seem to think there's a market for such a lens.
 
Last edited:
I own both the 12-32 and 12-60. Both are great lenses.



Uxmal in Yucatán, Mexico with the 12-32.
Uxmal in Yucatán, Mexico with the 12-32.
 
JaKing said:
JaKing said:
If Olympus came out with an intermediary zoom that didn't have the wide aperture of the PRO but was nevertheless consistently very sharp plus having the benefit of being smaller and lighter and less expensive, I'd grab it definitely. But alas, Olympus doesn't seem to think there's a market for such a lens.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't see the economic sense or user demographic for such a lens. Perhaps either of the Panny 12-60 lenses fills this need?

My 12-100 certainly replaces my 14-54 MkII, purely for flexibility while not giving up any image quality at all. Lovely lenses, both of them. It is my lens of choice these days.
Click to expand...
The demographic is people who want sharp images, but don't want a big heavy expensive lens and don't need f/2.8.
 
MaskedMakrel said:
JaKing said:
I haven't plonked down the significant money for my better lenses just for bragging rights after all ;-) .
Click to expand...
But what are you actually paying for? When inventory at the suboptimal level fails to sell, it gets priced into the cost of the higher end. A similar problem occurred in the mountain biking category where entry level bikes are now so sub-optimal that you have to upgrade immediately to get a functional bike. This creates the automatic upsell to a better model that does not need upgrading which costs nearly double the former price of an entry level bike but provides 1/3 more performance. The entry level bike won't sell at all anymore because its reputation and quality is garbage. This cost gets priced into the quality bikes that do sell. Buy one bike, pay for two because the industry no longer cares to market quality affordable entry level products.
Click to expand...
Raleigh Tokul 3. Get yourself one. Or upgrade your bike with last years components (as long as your frame can handle flips).
 
dgrogers said:
MaskedMakrel said:
JaKing said:
I haven't plonked down the significant money for my better lenses just for bragging rights after all ;-) .
Click to expand...
But what are you actually paying for? When inventory at the suboptimal level fails to sell, it gets priced into the cost of the higher end. A similar problem occurred in the mountain biking category where entry level bikes are now so sub-optimal that you have to upgrade immediately to get a functional bike. This creates the automatic upsell to a better model that does not need upgrading which costs nearly double the former price of an entry level bike but provides 1/3 more performance. The entry level bike won't sell at all anymore because its reputation and quality is garbage. This cost gets priced into the quality bikes that do sell. Buy one bike, pay for two because the industry no longer cares to market quality affordable entry level products.
Click to expand...
Raleigh Tokul 3. Get yourself one. Or upgrade your bike with last years components (as long as your frame can handle flips).
Click to expand...
suggest u look at bikesdirect.com if u want (much) better value
 
rashid7 said:
dgrogers said:
MaskedMakrel said:
JaKing said:
I haven't plonked down the significant money for my better lenses just for bragging rights after all ;-) .
Click to expand...
But what are you actually paying for? When inventory at the suboptimal level fails to sell, it gets priced into the cost of the higher end. A similar problem occurred in the mountain biking category where entry level bikes are now so sub-optimal that you have to upgrade immediately to get a functional bike. This creates the automatic upsell to a better model that does not need upgrading which costs nearly double the former price of an entry level bike but provides 1/3 more performance. The entry level bike won't sell at all anymore because its reputation and quality is garbage. This cost gets priced into the quality bikes that do sell. Buy one bike, pay for two because the industry no longer cares to market quality affordable entry level products.
Click to expand...
Raleigh Tokul 3. Get yourself one. Or upgrade your bike with last years components (as long as your frame can handle flips).
Click to expand...
suggest u look at bikesdirect.com if u want (much) better value
Click to expand...
 
Paul De Bra said:
The two conflicting statements about the 12-50 just mimic what happens with other lenses: different copies vary wildly. When dpreview showed the E-M5 with 12-50 when it came out the pics were clearly better than what I got with mine, but it was "usable". The 12-40 is in a completely different league.

--
Enjoying the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.
Click to expand...
The 12-50mm used on normal distances isn't a great lens, not at the edge. Why else would Olympus give away (a few months ago with camera purchase) or sell a $350 lens for $100? For macro, it is really amazing but it limits the lens's utility.
 
OlyPent said:
The 12-50mm used on normal distances isn't a great lens, not at the edge. Why else would Olympus give away (a few months ago with camera purchase) or sell a $350 lens for $100? For macro, it is really amazing but it limits the lens's utility.
Click to expand...
It is a 7 year old lens. In terms of weather sealing, the 14-150mm mark II replaces its niche on the low end, and the 12-40mm/12-1000mm on the high end.

I would imagine Olympus has a warehouse of these lenses, and sells off a few every so often. I was expecting after the last sale, that Olympus probably sold their inventory, and it would be silently removed from the product list. But perhaps they didn't sell as much as they hoped for, and it will appear once again in a future sale.

Personally, I'm starting to shoot with it again. I have two use cases for it.
  • I do steampunk cameras, where I disguise modern digital cameras like old-timey cameras with bellows. I had been using my E-5 and 14-54mm in a rather large contraption that weighed 25 pounds (see my profile picture) for outdoor events. I recently switched to my E-m5 mark I and the 12-50mm lens. For this usage, the 12-50mm is ideal, because it is internal focusing (i.e. the lens doesn't extend as you zoom out). I must admit part of my thought process is both the E-m5 mark I and 12-50mm have been replaced by the E-m1 mark I/G85 and 12-40mm respectively, so if something happens, I still have the good gear. The electronic zoom is also nice because I need less room to zoom the lens.
  • I've also been playing around with radio controlling my newer cameras (E-m1 mark I and G85). The 12-50mm once again is the go-to lens, because it has electronic zoom, and I can zoom the lens from the radio control on my smartphone.
 
JaKing said:
... Paul, I think most of us are aware of some lenses that only just scrape through quality control, and that mostly really bad ones get rejected these days (e.g. Roger Cicala's articles on this subject). It makes sense that higher grade lenses are more likely to be rejected at the QA stage than cheaper, lower grade lenses. Same principle applies to car engines, etc ...
Click to expand...
Actually industry practice with consumer-grade lenses is that quality control (unless it changed in recent years) is limited to checking electrical signal processing and maybe whether the mechanics sort-of work. Only once in ever few hundred or even thousand copies is taken from the assembly line for closer inspection of for instance AF performance, but even then no checks are done for things like decentering.

So really, the consumer and his possible complaints are the only real thorough quality control in the whole process. That is the sad state of affairs. Anything that cannot be checked in a fully automated way at the factory is not checked at all. Any further checks would drive up the cost by too much.
 
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