And the EPl10 - Christ. Why can't they just charge $89.95 or such to EPL9 owners to get the same feature set. If that's what it takes.
I think (I would be wrong) that the optical quality (resolution) of the Olympus 12-45mm F4 Pro lens is about the level of the Olympus 12-50mm F3.5-6.3 EZ lens.
I can bet that it won't be.. The very old 12-50 is one of the poorest in terms of resolution and sharpness whereas 12-40 Pro and 12-100 Pro are top of the line in that regard. I would expect this new lens to be comparable in quality to those Pro lenses. I would not mind, if it be a tad bit less sharp, being optimized for compact size/weight..
Theoretical MTF charts are of course - theoretical. But as we don't have much else to go on right now it looks like if you were happy with the 12-100/4 performance (as many are) then you'll likely be similarly pleased with the 12-45/4 performance:
I guess I'm not seeing the same thing you are in the charts. At the long end they look quite similar with the 12-45 actually holding performance better midway from the center. I'd have to wait for actual useful test or sample photos to draw a conclusion.
No, don't look at the DPR gallery. It is an exercise in ineptitude by the photographer who appears to be a random web developer they sent out for the weekend with the lens. An out of focus shot of the photographer's feet would have been more useful than 90% of what is in that gallery.
I was very interested in this lens. Now that the specs and some sample pictures are out, I'm going to wait and see. Wouldn't describe it as tiny. Small would be a better word. Not much smaller/lighter than the PanLeicia 12-60, which I own. If the Olympus can better it in IQ, especially with landscape, I still might be in. As you said, we need some proper reviews.
I was looking at the 60l/mm graphs - they are better on the 12-100 even in the centre.
Thanks, I wasn't expecting somthing like this and didn't check. I can hardly believe it.
Ah, I see that now. Looks like the 12-100 MTF higher in the center but then falls off a bit worse in the corner compared to the 12-45. As a landscape shooter I'd be most curious as to which has the nicer edges/corners at F/5.6. Looks like that might end up being a toss up. And the 12-100/4 is so compelling if I'd already have to carry another lens to take me out to 100 (which I do).
Yeah it is definitely not something a sane person would expect!
Theoretical MTF charts are of course - theoretical. But as we don't have much else to go on right now it looks like if you were happy with the 12-100/4 performance (as many are) then you'll likely be similarly pleased with the 12-45/4 performance:
Only if out of focus creamy bokey is what you are after. As "speed" go, f4 = f4 on any size sensor; i.e. an f4 lens on FF ain't any faster.
If you always shoot wide open at f2.8 or wider, then I agree this lens ain't for you, and maybe not even M43 for that matter. Not everyone live on the tin edge of depth of field, and having the equivalent DoF of f8 on FF at f4 is a clear advantage in many situations; arguably more often than not. Many of Leica best lenses are no faster either.
As an all purpose travel lens, if it is sharp wide open this is actually a very nice compact zoom lens. I will likely buy this lens if it proves to be optically on par with the 12-40/2.8 @ f4.
Cheerio then. Thanks for telling us.
Man if Nikon made quality, compact F/8 zooms for my Z7 I'd buy them in an instant!
That's why there is a shutter speed dial too!
