EP-1 review: Kit lens vs. Leica/Zeiss/Voigtländer

[Pointcolville]

I posted some E-P1 shots taken with Leica Summicron lenses (28mm and 75mm). The link is here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=32360005 .

Fast manual focus primes are suited to a certain style of photography. As the old saying goes, people who like that sort of thing will enjoy it a lot. There is currently a thread in the M8 forum from someone who thought they would like it, bought the gear, and found they didn't.

I am used to shooting fast primes wide open and could not conjure up any affection for the E-P1 kit lens, even though it is extremely capable. At f5.6 with the light behind you, the difference between the kit zoom and $3K leica lens will be miniscule.

I only did one comparative shot (which I deleted). I picked a subject that I knew would confound the kit zoom - a very strongly backlit portrait. Sure enough the kit zoom bloomed and flared and created an unusable image. The 75mm Summicron fared well.

Anyone who runs out and spends a fortune on fast Leica glass in hopes of immediately achieving better results will probably be disappointed.

What you are buying is low distortion (check out raw images from the 17mm pancake for contrast; JPGs are corrected in-camera), low flare, low CA, low vignetting, edge to edge sharpness . . . all of which contribute to technically good images, but none of which make good photographs.

I agree with the OP's point - if you have fast high quality lenses, the E-P1 is a good vehicle for them - but it doesn't make sense to go out and buy such lenses simply to put them on the E-P1.

However, what I found with the E-P1 is that it is so well adapted to using third party manual focus lenses(kudos to Olympus) that it is real shame not to take advantage of this capability. . . and it needn't cost a fortune.

For a couple hundred dollars you can buy an adapter and a Nikon/Canon/Contax/Olympus/Whatever 50MM F1.4 manual focus lens and will have in hand a bright, fast portrait lens with a 100MM FOV, capable of throwing backgrounds completely out of focus. This opens up a world of low light, narrow DOF, contemplative photography.

--

 

[magicbbird]

Maybe a bit off topic...

I have a couple Leica lens with my M8, and after reading tons of threads like this makes me want to go out and get the EP-1 for fun and autofocus (hehe)

By the way, what lens adaptor(s) do you guys use? Some say it doesn't really matter, some say it makes some difference. Just want to know what you guys are using. Thanks and sorry for hijacking the thread a bit.

 

[trentdp]

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/07/olympus-ep1-pen-review.html

But now for the surprise. Using unarguably better lenses with the E-P1 does not always, or even generally, produce proportionately better results than the kit lenses! I expected my Leica, Zeiss, and Voigtländer lenses to paint some remarkable results that put the Oly kit lenses to shame. But that's just not been the reality. While the M lenses have produced very good images, I have to honestly admit that the best average results I’ve had thus far have been from the Oly 14–42mm zoom lens and the 17mm pancake (even though the latter suffers from some nasty chromatic aberrations in the edges at large apertures).

It's one thing own expensive 3rd party lenses and add the EP-1 to your collection. It's quite another to own the EP-1 and then invest big bucks on 3rd party lenses with the expectation that image quality will improve.

What has been your experience? Can you backup statements with images (100% crops preferred) taken of the same subject with both kit and 3rd party lenses?

Thomas,

There are inexpensive alternatives for legacy lenses to achieve shallow depth of field to isolate the subject. Minolta MD 50mm f1.7 does a nice job mounted to the E-P1 via two adapters. Please refer to the discussion here for additional comments in this regard:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&thread=32418188

Trent

 

[come shine come rain]

that may have saved me quite some money.

Many thanks to all the contributors - excellent insights given in here.

In a year or so we'll probably see specific MFT 3rd party lenses, expect some from Leica.

For now, for me, the 17mm will have to do.

--
http://absolutelyBangkok.com/photos

 

[Harold66]

Tho
Lei

As nice as the Voigtländer, Zeiss and Leica lenses are to handle : it's difficult to recommend them over the kit lenses. I only hope that Voigtländer sees this and produces some µ4/3 format specific lenses.

That would not change anything. The reason that the olympus lenses come ahead are because of the corrections that are applied by the software.
it ls like the computer corrects or diminishes the flaws of the lens
Harold
--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.model-mayhem.com/haroldglit

 

[Harold66]

"But the bigger conclusion here must be that the E-P1 knows how to optimally process its own lenses and leaves images from unknown lenses alone."

that kind of conclusion would rather fit to someone who has very little idea about how stuff works .

WHY ?

I think this is exactly what is happening here and I don't see why you don't understand that. the reason for the oly lenses to come ahead is BECAUSE of all the corrections applied in the software even in RAW.

this is probably why the EP1 contrary to all other olympus E cameras does not allow RAW+largest quality JPEGs ( probably would be too slow. buffer speed have never an Olympus forte)
Harold
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.model-mayhem.com/haroldglit

 

[renato]

can you name those corrections? Does the software add extra sharpness based on the lens type? If yes - who needs that, if you can do it better in photshop. Does the software remove CA? Well, than what stops it from removing CA when using non-Oly lenses?? Theoretically, the only parameter that might benefit from the body 'knowing' about the lens is the geometrical distortion correction. If the body knows a focal length of the lens then software can fix the distortion. I doubt it does so. What other information an Oly-specific lens would provide to the body in order to make pictures looking better??

 

[nboyer]

The precision of lens adapters do matter. Some issues could be slop in mount causing a loose connection against the mount or lens, imprecise infinity focus, etc. I am using a Voigtländer m-to-m43 adapter and find it top notch. -Norm

Maybe a bit off topic...

I have a couple Leica lens with my M8, and after reading tons of threads like this makes me want to go out and get the EP-1 for fun and autofocus (hehe)

By the way, what lens adaptor(s) do you guys use? Some say it doesn't really matter, some say it makes some difference. Just want to know what you guys are using. Thanks and sorry for hijacking the thread a bit.

 

[Harold66]

can you name those corrections? Does the software add extra sharpness based on the lens type?

do your homework, several reviews have alreayd pointed that way and no not sharpness ,but CA and vignetting correction for one
If yes - who needs that, if you can do it better in photshop

yes , right. there are a lot of people here who are not as skilled at photoshop as they think they are

and there is a lot of people who don't want to bother doing it if a software can do it automatically

. Does the software remove CA? Well, than what stops it from removing CA when using non-Oly lenses??
information between the body and the lens

Theoretically, the only parameter that might benefit from the body 'knowing' about the lens is the geometrical distortion correction.
WRONG. check the reviews again

Harold
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.model-mayhem.com/haroldglit

 

[renato]

can you name those corrections? Does the software add extra sharpness based on the lens type?

do your homework, several reviews have alreayd pointed that way and no not sharpness ,but CA and vignetting correction for one

no, you - do it. The original reviewer states -the Oly kit lens has produced a terrible amount of CA. So, does not seem like an electronic coupling helps to make the job better. He also states 'it produced some better images'... Ha-ha, very 'professional' way to describe a lens/body performance.

If yes - who needs that, if you can do it better in photshop

yes , right. there are a lot of people here who are not as skilled at photoshop as they think they are

and there is a lot of people who don't want to bother doing it if a software can do it automatically

again, has nothing to do with the electronic coupling. The software can sharpen any image from any lens. Every camera does it, no need for body to 'know' about the lens.

. Does the software remove CA? Well, than what stops it from removing CA when using non-Oly lenses??
information between the body and the lens

what kind of information? The only parameters the body reads from lens is: focal length, aperture, and a focusing distance; the software needs none of them in order to detect amounts of CA. Plugins do that easily without any exiff data. Or may be you mean that the lens 'tells' to the body "I'm the one that produces lots of CA, please fix me"??

Theoretically, the only parameter that might benefit from the body 'knowing' about the lens is the geometrical distortion correction.
WRONG. check the reviews again

Exactly, wrong! Because the 'gifted' Oly engineers could not implement it. Again, a plugin does it, and all it needs to know is a focal length.

 

[Thomas Niemann]

In the u4/3 system the lens communicates, via added contacts, additional information beyond focal length and f-stop. This includes coefficients for distortion correction and chromatic aberration. This strategy was adopted so that new lenses, when produced, would not require camera firmware updates to support these features.

As a side note, the coefficients for distortion correction and chromatic aberration may now be stored in Adobe's DNG format (effective with DNG 1.3.0.0).

http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/pdfs/dng_spec_1_3_0_0.pdf

 

[nosenseofplace]

I happened to have the ZD 14-54II, the PL 14-150, and the Leica R Summicron 35mm f2 with me early this morning.

So I tried all three on my E30, one after the other, purely to make a meaningful comparison for myself.

This was a quite unscientific test, but the Leica easily beat the ZD 14-54II (much sharper, better colour, more contrast). The PL 14-150 was fairly close to the Leica in terms of sharpness, but for clarity and colour again wasn't close.

hi if the olympus owner state so often that their zoom are the best in the digital age...its not a good sign if a 11x zoom beat the 14-54mm II zuiko lens , a almost professional lens

i owned on my E300 days that lens, and also on my unscientific test...the old old Panasonic LX1 beat the E300 14-54mm combo in term of resolution power ,and not by a small margin
--
angel

 

[duartix]

This was a quite unscientific test, but the Leica easily beat the ZD 14-54II (much sharper, better colour, more contrast). The PL 14-150 was fairly close to the Leica in terms of sharpness, but for clarity and colour again wasn't close.

hi if the olympus owner state so often that their zoom are the best in the digital age...its not a good sign if a 11x zoom beat the 14-54mm II zuiko lens , a almost professional lens

I haven't checked lately but wasn't the PL twice the price of the Zuiko? And isn't the Zuiko faster? I believe these are two very different beasts, so each has it's place...
--
Duarte Bruno

 

[Rich Simpson UK]

The thing is, the Panasonic / Leica 14-150 "superzoom" is really a quite exceptional lens. Nothing else exists across other marques / brands, and it can virtually be taken to be a Pro lens in terms of both cost and performance.

I seem to remember the retail price from Panasonic (when it was available) was in the order of £1100 - £1200. Performance-wise, its resolution is close to the highly aclaimed ZD 12-60, but of course with much greater focal range.

There is one for sale here:

http://cgi.ebay.de/PANASONIC-LEICA-VARIO-ELMAR-14-150-F3-5-5-6-4-3-FIT_W0QQitemZ200367766217QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN?hash=item2ea6d97ac9&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

hi if the olympus owner state so often that their zoom are the best in the digital age...its not a good sign if a 11x zoom beat the 14-54mm II zuiko lens , a almost professional lens

i owned on my E300 days that lens, and also on my unscientific test...the old old Panasonic LX1 beat the E300 14-54mm combo in term of resolution power ,and not by a small margin
--
angel

--
Regards,
Rich Simpson

 

[rocklobster]

Don't forget the 2x crop factor meaning that you are only using half the size (or a quarter of the area) that the old lens would have 'projected' on to a 35mm film. So, the old lens will in theory be disadvantaged as far as sharpness, resolution and CA goes.

Cheers

 

[John Mason]

that quote from the review compares the kit lens to 35mm film camera lenses.

That 'pushes' these film lenses to a film size 1/2 diag from what they were designed for. His comments don't surprise me at all.

What he should have compared them to was higher end Olympus glass designed from the ground up for this size sensor. Then the difference is clear.

The kit lens is wonderful for it's size, but soft wide open. Oly higher offerings are much better wide open and off center.

I have a number of earlier threads on this subject with samples, but samples shrunk here for web viewing do not tell the story.

When I first got the e-p1 it was my grandson's birthday weekend. I took about 150 pictures and rotated cameras and lenses. The kit lens shots looked fine - until a shot with the other camera and lens were brought to the screen. Then jaws dropped. However, then putting really good glass on the E-p1 the easy consensus was the Oly again, though the diffrence was not as great.

But these were not single subject shots filling the frame. These were multiple people shots, grass, water pistols. In other words, there was a lot of detail to flesh out and often the action was on both ends of the frame and not in the center. In this situation a sharp edge to edge lens that stays sharp wide open will present a very 3d look. In that type of shot, there was a large difference.

For me, the kit lens will be totally awesome when the e-p1 is in alpine ski accompnient mode. But for good shots like at the night play I went to, I'll be grabbing the 14-35 f2.
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

 

[Jay Miller]

Don't forget the 2x crop factor meaning that you are only using half the size (or a quarter of the area) that the old lens would have 'projected' on to a 35mm film. So, the old lens will in theory be disadvantaged as far as sharpness, resolution and CA goes.

Cheers

The opposite is true. If you are only using the centre of the frame of an old lens, it stands to reason you will get a much more highly corrected image than a FF camera will which is utilizing the entire image cone. In practice though, due to shortcomings in the design of old wide angle lenses (when used with sensors that is) the only benefit you are likely to see is zero or very little vignetting at wide apertures. As always, lenses have to be tested and compared to really know how they'll react on a digital camera, but the consensus seems to be that kit lenses, specifically designed for the sensor will work better overall at the same wide f.stop than old wide angle lenses. That is a generalization.

 

[Thomas Niemann]

I have a number of earlier threads on this subject with samples, but samples shrunk here for web viewing do not tell the story.

Ah... but that's when 100% crops come in handy.

When I first got the e-p1 it was my grandson's birthday weekend. I took about 150 pictures and rotated cameras and lenses. The kit lens shots looked fine - until a shot with the other camera and lens were brought to the screen. Then jaws dropped. However, then putting really good glass on the E-p1 the easy consensus was the Oly again, though the diffrence was not as great.

Anecdotal evidence is nice and appreciated. 100% crops of the same scene, shot with both lenses, would be even better. Especially when one considers the amount of money that must be invested to do the comparison.

For me, the kit lens will be totally awesome when the e-p1 is in alpine ski accompnient mode. But for good shots like at the night play I went to, I'll be grabbing the 14-35 f2.

I assume you are referring to this lens:

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1334&page=overview

I was thinking more of some of the smaller lighter (less than 2-pound) lenses such as the rangefinder lenses some folks have in their collection.

 

[nosenseofplace]

hi Brian i didnt know that it was so sharp ! if i did, sure now my GH1 could have this lens instead of the 14-140mm

btw mine was a general consideration : a 10x zoom who beat a almost 500 euro lens 3x .....it sound dont good to me for the 3x 500 euro lens (we are not talking about a 80 euro kit lens can/nik)
--
angel

 

[nosenseofplace]

This was a quite unscientific test, but the Leica easily beat the ZD 14-54II (much sharper, better colour, more contrast). The PL 14-150 was fairly close to the Leica in terms of sharpness, but for clarity and colour again wasn't close.

hi if the olympus owner state so often that their zoom are the best in the digital age...its not a good sign if a 11x zoom beat the 14-54mm II zuiko lens , a almost professional lens

I haven't checked lately but wasn't the PL twice the price of the Zuiko? And isn't the Zuiko faster? I believe these are two very different beasts, so each has it's place...
--
Duarte Bruno

Hi Bruno as i replied to Richard, i just think that it sound not so good to me that a 11x zoom beat a 3x zoom who is not a plastic 18-55mm canon kit lens but a 500 euro lens !! wow if i spend 500 euro i expect that at least is not worse then a 11x zoom ! question of optics, olympus dont give for free this lens...

--
angel