Where are the low light m4/3 lenses?

[Robbie_EP1]

Yup i'd be happy with that... but they should also make it faster..
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/Robbie_e-p1/

 

[antoineb]

basically, photozone dot de, pretty much the only review site which does not have commercial links, is also the only review site that made an effort to test some micro four-thirds lenses independently of the software correction. In other words, they tested these lenses using the same standards applied to the testing of all lenses used on APS-C dslr's.

Here is what they say about the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 pancake for example:

• distorsions: "the raw distorsions (i.e. before the automatic corrections) are much worse at 3.26% which is fairly extreme for a prime lens"

• vignetting: "It's a bit surprising but the lens has a fairly mediocre vignetting characteristic and it is not automatically corrected. The figures below show the corresponding performance of JPEGs obtained straight from the camera. At f/1.7 the amount of vignetting is pretty hefty at 1.5EV which is easily noticeable in field images. The situation improves significantly when stopping down to f/2.8 but it really takes f/4 to get really rid of the problem.

• chromatic aberrations: "Lateral chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) are very well controlled reaching a maximum of less than 0.5px at the image borders. (...) However (...) this is the result of the usual auto-correction applied by the camera (or Photoshop). The "RAW" CAs are as pronounced as 1.5px which is fairly pronounced for a prime lens."

• bokeh: "The quality of the bokeh (the out-of-focus blur) is Okay but the lens struggles with out of focus highlights which show a distinct outlining effect. This can look a little rough just behind and in front of the focus zone."

The Panasonic 20mm is equivalent to 40mm on full frame and would be about 27mm on aps-c. Take for example the Canon 28mm f1.8, which is a bit cheaper than the Panasonic 20mm pancake. Take photozone again:

• distorsion: "The lens showed a slight to moderate degree of barrel distortions (1.2%)." That's 1.2% compared to 3.3% for the panasonic 20mm
• vignetting: "at 0.55EV vignetting is very low for such a large aperture lens." This compares to over 1.5EV for the panasonic 20mm
• CA: "can reach an average CA pixel width of more than 2 pixels at the image borders - a very weak performance here." comparable to the Panasonic 20mm

You can look at various other aps-c lenses between 28mm and 35mm or look at some 50mm primes: the conclusion is that nearly all of them, while priced lower than the panasonic 20mm pancake, do outperform it massively in distorsion and vignetting, generally outperform it in CA, and match it in resolution.

My point is NOT that m43 is a bad idea - on the contrary, I think it is a great idea. I simply believe that given the modest optical qualities of the lenses available so far, these lenses are overpriced and their price needs to come down. And, better lenses are needed for more advanced users.

I've got no camp or preconception here. I can only feel sorry that you seemed to feel the need to insult me here - as Confucius said, an insult shames only the person who speaks it.

 

[antoineb]

But again, this is pure and simple business logic - and there is nothing wrong with doing proper business: it is a big risk to launch a fully new format, and a fully new type of camera. it is an even bigger risk to have to plan a line of lenses without even knowing whether the camera will be a success or not.

It is only natural to try to price as high as possible at this stage of the life of this new product. m43 cameras are selling very well in Japan, reaching 16% of the total dlsr market. People who pay top dollar to be early adopters of these models, are not going to balk at the current high lens prices.

When and if m43 becomes more mainstream - and I wish them this kind of success because they were courageous enough to dare this big move - then the market will become more competitive and the customers less willing to pay up, and prices will have to come down.

for the time being the m43 lenses seem easily 20 to 30 percent overpriced given their optical qualities.

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

basically, photozone dot de, pretty much the only review site which does not have commercial links, is also the only review site that made an effort to test some micro four-thirds lenses independently of the software correction. In other words, they tested these lenses using the same standards applied to the testing of all lenses used on APS-C dslr's.

. . . This is precisely what's wrong with photozone's lens reviews. A lens is a component that CAN NOT be evaluated in isolation from the camera body that it's mounted on. The software that provides distortion correction is part of that system of components as well. Until you stop ignoring this commonly understood concept, there will be some doubt by some of us that you're really here to make a constructive contribution on this topic

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

. . . Why do you have a problem with the so called "commercial links" that the other review sites have with Pannasonic? DPR shows ads from just about every commercial entity that can be imagined including automobile insurance companies.

. . . Do you actually think that Andy's lens reviews are biased? Almost no one believes that except for you.

. . . If it's the Amazon thing that bothers you, what about the other camera/lens companies that Amazon also has links to? Are they biased in favor of everyone? That's a silly notion in my opinion.

 

[xavozin]

A seriours and independent reviewer, has found the lenses available for micro four-thirds to be optically quite average or even poor.

Link? Reviewers name?

Every review I have seen is telling us that the Panasonic lenses (at least) are up there with the best lenses in their class (7-14, 14-140, 20, 45):

20mm:

apparently nickclick hasnt clicked here yet:
http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/464-pana_20_17?start=2

"Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 … resolution capabilities are somewhat odd - instead of delivering a fairly even center to border quality (which would be more typical for pancake lenses) it has a very pronounced emphasis on the center ….The amount of vignetting is a bit on the high side at f/1.7 and you need to stop down a few stops to resolve the issue...Micro-4/3 cameras as well as Silkypix/Photoshop apply some image auto-corrections hidden from the user… It is likely that the distortion correction eats some of the potential border quality by stretching and interpolating the image for instance…The principal CA characteristic is also worse and not really all that great for a prime lens… we do also feel that it's a bit over-hyped especially considering its rather high price point and the need to correct some of its design problems via auto-correction during post-processing".

the same site's 14-45 review is also full of criticism, a short quote to sum it up:
"Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS is not a great lens"

http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/414-pana_1445_3556?start=2

i have allowed myself to ignore any praise that photozone had for m4/3 lenses in the same way Mr click allowed himself to ignore any criticism dpreview had in the reviews he quoted.

So far m4/3 has been a "light" (read low & slow) image quality system, can also be a light weight system under certain limited & limiting choices of bodies and lenses, but most importantly it is NOT AT ALL a light budget system. bottomline is you pay a lot and get little.

hhimihilhuiv (AKA xavozin)

image is the only validation and most of their life isn't real.
modified from Sam Sparro - Black and Gold.

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

Given the size of the sensor, 4/3 should be able to have f2 zooms where other mounts have f2.8, and at the same size & cost. The reason I didn´t get into olympus was partially the cost of the lens & partially how slow they are. For the price of a constant 2.8 in Nikon, Canon or Pentax, you get a 2.8-4 in olympus. But surely the small size of the sensor whould make the faster lenses lighter & cheaper to make, not rarer & more expensive.

. . . There aren't any fast zooms made by anyone for less than $1000. The Pany 45-200 isn't a fast zoom but it does have IS and it is less than $300. Obviously, there is a need for more lenses but it's still too early with mFt to make the arguement that these things won't eventually be available. Why don't some of you just admit that you're impatient? If you can't wait, there are other formats that can satisfy you until mFt matures and offers what you want in time. I still have my DSLR and some fast lenses for when I need them but mFt is still attractive to me at this time and will likely be even more so in the future.

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

So far m4/3 has been a "light" image quality system, can also be a light weight system under certain limited & limiting choices of bodies and lenses, but most importantly it is NOT AT ALL a light budget system. bottomline you pay a lot and get little.

. . The 14-45 and 45-200 lenses are very good values at less than $300 each. At less than $400, the 20/1.7 is an even better value. This is peanuts compared to equivalent offerings like the Nikkor 18-200VR for example at about twice the cost and less image quality. Have you ever looked at Sony's lens prices? When photozone says "pay a lot", they're just being foolish.

 

[TEBnewyork]

That's just great. All this info. Now for some more facts. I have a $3500 21mm Leica lens and a $650 Voigtlander 12mm lens. Both of these lenses are outperformed on The G's and E=P1 by the micro 4/3 20mm and 7-14mm respectively. One of the reasons the Leica M8 costs so much because to use the good glass that sits very close to the sensor they must add micro lenses to bend the light to stop the corners from going bad and I must have the lens 6 bit coded to correct for the vignetting on these lenses. This is a problem with wide angle lenses.....physics is involved. The issues are only exacerbated on the larger sensor M9. Again the camera is taking lens information into the equation to bake that information into the RAW file the Voigtlander just doesn't hold up on the M9.

So, the m4/3 concept has a sensor that is even closer to the back of the lens and you want Panasonic to make the lenses so no corrections are needed? Would you prefer them to use micro-lenses to make a multi-thousand dollar body? Face it, to make m4/3 at the wide angle, these corrections need to be built to body/lens/or both and are part of the overall design of the SYSTEM.

So, if they are meant to be paired together and work as a system you either accept it or you don't.

I'm not really sure why this subject has to be beaten to death so many times.

basically, photozone dot de, pretty much the only review site which does not have commercial links, is also the only review site that made an effort to test some micro four-thirds lenses independently of the software correction. In other words, they tested these lenses using the same standards applied to the testing of all lenses used on APS-C dslr's.

Here is what they say about the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 pancake for example:

• distorsions: "the raw distorsions (i.e. before the automatic corrections) are much worse at 3.26% which is fairly extreme for a prime lens"

• vignetting: "It's a bit surprising but the lens has a fairly mediocre vignetting characteristic and it is not automatically corrected. The figures below show the corresponding performance of JPEGs obtained straight from the camera. At f/1.7 the amount of vignetting is pretty hefty at 1.5EV which is easily noticeable in field images. The situation improves significantly when stopping down to f/2.8 but it really takes f/4 to get really rid of the problem.

• chromatic aberrations: "Lateral chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) are very well controlled reaching a maximum of less than 0.5px at the image borders. (...) However (...) this is the result of the usual auto-correction applied by the camera (or Photoshop). The "RAW" CAs are as pronounced as 1.5px which is fairly pronounced for a prime lens."

• bokeh: "The quality of the bokeh (the out-of-focus blur) is Okay but the lens struggles with out of focus highlights which show a distinct outlining effect. This can look a little rough just behind and in front of the focus zone."

The Panasonic 20mm is equivalent to 40mm on full frame and would be about 27mm on aps-c. Take for example the Canon 28mm f1.8, which is a bit cheaper than the Panasonic 20mm pancake. Take photozone again:

• distorsion: "The lens showed a slight to moderate degree of barrel distortions (1.2%)." That's 1.2% compared to 3.3% for the panasonic 20mm
• vignetting: "at 0.55EV vignetting is very low for such a large aperture lens." This compares to over 1.5EV for the panasonic 20mm
• CA: "can reach an average CA pixel width of more than 2 pixels at the image borders - a very weak performance here." comparable to the Panasonic 20mm

You can look at various other aps-c lenses between 28mm and 35mm or look at some 50mm primes: the conclusion is that nearly all of them, while priced lower than the panasonic 20mm pancake, do outperform it massively in distorsion and vignetting, generally outperform it in CA, and match it in resolution.

My point is NOT that m43 is a bad idea - on the contrary, I think it is a great idea. I simply believe that given the modest optical qualities of the lenses available so far, these lenses are overpriced and their price needs to come down. And, better lenses are needed for more advanced users.

I've got no camp or preconception here. I can only feel sorry that you seemed to feel the need to insult me here - as Confucius said, an insult shames only the person who speaks it.

--
terry
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

Photozone on the 20/1.7 Pany - "we do also feel that it's a bit over-hyped especially considering its rather high price point and the need to correct some of its design problems via auto-correction during post-processing".

. . . . The popular but larger and heavier Canon 50/1.4 is about the same price as the 20/1.7 and is quite soft wide open at 1.4.

 

[xavozin]

wake up and have a little moment of objectivity Nikon 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VR is not remotely comprable to any of the lenses you mention, it is closer but better and cheaper than the 14-140 f/4.0-5.8 (note the slower aperture in spite of the smaller sensor and lower zoom power).

14-45 is no better than 18-55IS or 18-55VR and these two cost close to nothing, same story with 45-200 is like EF-S 55-250 or any of the many excellent 75-300, let alone the excellent 3rd party options that APS-C systems enjoy, eg Tamron 17-50 f2.8 FAST CONSTANT APERTURE + ZOOM + VERY REASONABLY PRICED @ 300-350$ and there is the new stabilized version of that same lens for just 200$ more (m4/3 doesn't even have ANY fast zoom).

So far m4/3 has been a "light" image quality system, can also be a light weight system under certain limited & limiting choices of bodies and lenses, but most importantly it is NOT AT ALL a light budget system. bottomline you pay a lot and get little.

. . The 14-45 and 45-200 lenses are very good values at less than $300 each. At less than $400, the 20/1.7 is an even better value. This is peanuts compared to equivalent offerings like the Nikkor 18-200VR for example at about twice the cost and less image quality. Have you ever looked at Sony's lens prices? When photozone says "pay a lot", they're just being foolish.

 

[antoineb]

m43 lenses be evaluated JOINTLY with the camera?

Both systems use interchangeable lenses, so to me it makes sense to test each component independently. For example mosst better Nikon bodies auto-correct CAs but solid lens reviewers report CA for raw.

And by the way, photozone dot de also publish test results for the lenses including auto-correction of various flaws. Which allows to separate the optical quality, from the final result including auto-correction.

Where it makes sense to test the SYSTEM, is where the lens is fixed. Many superzoom cameras for example display the flaws common to superzoom lenses (distorsion at both ends, some CA, some vignetting) but these are corrected in-camera and the lens is fixed so it is NOT possible to test independently.

But imho, as long as m43 like APS-C offer interchangeable lenses, it is very interesting to obtain test results that show that most m43 lenses are OPTICALLY inferior despite their premium pricing.

 

[antoineb]

with commercial links - everyone must make a living.

the fact is however, that those testers with less or even no such links, (1) do tend to provide reviews that contain more data (rather than the "blur units" used by some), and (2) do dare to have opinions even when those opinions are quite negative (where the others will say that they are a bit disappointed).

I am not accusing any reviewer of not doing their job properly. I just notice that some reviewers have a visible positive bias - say their average rating is way above average - while other reviews have no such bias - say their average rating is, well, average. And, I do notice that those who do not have a bias, tend to be those who have little or no commercial links. Which makes perfect sense by the way - everyone must make a living.

 

[antoineb]

the GF1 lenses outperform your 21mm Leica lens?

 

[antoineb]

again allow me to quote photozone dot de:

• distorsions: "As expected for a fix-focal lens the level of distortions is very low (but existent)." This compares with 3.3% distorsion for the Panny 20mm, which photozone found incredibly high for a prime (and it indeed is very high)

• vignetting: Photozone find it "high" for a prime. However when you look at the numbers you've got 0.8EV at f1.4, then 0.4EV at f1.8, then pretty much zero. Whereas the Panny starts at 1.5EV and remains close to 1EV until you've stopped down quite a bit

• CA: "Similar to most other fix-focal lenses chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) are very low and nothing to worry about." This is quite different from the Panny 20mm where they wrote:

"The RAW CAs are as pronounced as 1.5px which is fairly pronounced for a prime lens."

 

[antoineb]

m43 is a great, novel idea

I'm just waiting to (1) see better lenses released (which may come sooner than expected given the success of the GF1 and E-P1), and (2) see prices come down to reasonable levels.

 

[TEBnewyork]

I will take new sample shots with the 21mm for you.... give me a day to set up the test. I went through the same process with the 7-14 on the thread linked below and other experienced testers like Sean Reid of Reid Reviews have said the same thing.....this debate started when the G1 was released more than a year ago

Here is one of the test images from the E-P1 with the 7-14 vs the Voigtlander 12mm.

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showpost.php?p=115646&postcount=309

The Voigtlander on my M8 was fantastic and I can send you examples corner to corner.

Here is a shot essentially straight from the camera on the M8 - I don't have full size crops handy right now but can send them



--
terry
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/

 

[DjarumBlack]

I personally would like to see a mFT version of the 14-54mm 2.8-3.5 oly lens. I'd also like to see a 12 or 14mm 2.8 or faster prime.

Dj

 

[nikclick]

antoineb - What a lot of anally retentive belly-button investigation.

photozone dot de are daft for trying to separate out the corrections. It is the same as removing one or more optical corrective elements from a standard lens, then criticizing it.

The 20mm is a pancake lens, the Cannon lens is a standard prime, and not without it's flaws.

I feel the detractors in this thread are nit-picking at things for no good reason. Show me a picture you have taken where you have been let down by a lens, show us the flaws and why they ruined an otherwise great picture.

It's the usual internet thing, armchair critique form the clueless or unable.

Shut up 'n' be a photographer.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30225435@N00/

 

[antoineb]

and thanks for posting it.

of course my humble eyes are not the same thing as the sophisticated equipment used by pro reviewers.

but it does look alright for sure.