My Lens Test results - 40mm FL

To better understand the strengths and weaknesses of my new gear, I spent a rainy day yesterday taking test shots at focal lengths: 12, 14, 25, 35, 40, 50, 90, 135, 150mm. The subject was a colour map taped and glued to a flat board, held flat to the wall, with the image centre aligned with the camera sensor centre at various distances to allow the same image size at each FL.

Below is the result of the first test at 40mm, including the ZD 40-150, MZ 40-150, ZD 14-42, MZ 14-42IIR, and the MZ 12-50. The results are interesting, to me at least, and if others will find this useful, I will post other results. Once the workflow is set up using Illustrator, it is quite quick to create these charts. Other lenses included in other FLs: OM 35/2.8, 50/1.8, 135/3.5. (all I have left...)

If you'd rather watch paint dry, I'll just review myself and not bore you further...

100% crops, view original for best results

Here's the full image:

The Island, circa 1981

This one surprised me a bit - I thought the 12-50 was better than this at the short end, but I guess not, at least for my sample.

14mm (and 12mm for 12-50)

Lots of work there. Appreciate that you shared it!

Thanks for the efforts put in Shawn. I know that it can be quite time consuming to do these so I do appreciate it. To be honest I would of thought the m.zuiko 40-150mm would of done better on the edges, but still quite respectable considering its cost.

I would be interested to see the other lenses you have and how they compare. I did some comparison testing with a bunch of lenses last year here  http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51482316 and whilst there may not be a lot of responses I think people do find it reasonably interesting if they want to get an idea as to what their lenses can do.  Thats the biggest thing i learnt and to be honest i thoroughly enjoyed comparing the lenses.

Anyway, long story short, keep up the good work

Thanks, it was a worthwhile rainy day project, and also good practice on the E-M5 for me. I found I was much more efficient on the camera than just a few days prior doing similar tests. I like to know a lens' weak spots rather than finding out in the field and losing a shot.

djbrom wrote:

Thanks for the efforts put in Shawn. I know that it can be quite time consuming to do these so I do appreciate it. To be honest I would of thought the m.zuiko 40-150mm would of done better on the edges, but still quite respectable considering its cost.

I would be interested to see the other lenses you have and how they compare. I did some comparison testing with a bunch of lenses last year here http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51482316 and whilst there may not be a lot of responses I think people do find it reasonably interesting if they want to get an idea as to what their lenses can do. Thats the biggest thing i learnt and to be honest i thoroughly enjoyed comparing the lenses.

Anyway, long story short, keep up the good work

Thanks! I will spend some time reviewing your tests - that is quite an arsenal of lenses, some of which I am considering, so I look forward to readining it.

Alessandro63 wrote:

zuikowesty wrote:

To better understand the strengths and weaknesses of my new gear, I spent a rainy day yesterday taking test shots at focal lengths: 12, 14, 25, 35, 40, 50, 90, 135, 150mm. The subject was a colour map taped and glued to a flat board, held flat to the wall, with the image centre aligned with the camera sensor centre at various distances to allow the same image size at each FL.

Watch out for some possible shutter shock here and there: the 12-50 at 40 is better at 5.6 and 11 than it is at f/8, this is the reason why I tell you. If shutter speed in the f/8 shot is around 1/100, you are in the danger zone. (ohyes, I know there are many other possible reasons for the difformity, but this is the first that came to mind).

EDIT sorry, didn't see at first you used all the countermeasures. Still, the worse result at f/8 is suspect.

The shutter speeds at f/4 were about 1/15s if I recall, so SS isn't an issue, although vibration could be given the long exposures. I watched the 14x display carefully, especially at the longer FLs for this. A few times I told the kids to stand still, as stomping down the stairs would cause a shake at 150mm....

I also saw a few results that puzzled me, so I will re-test to check. I now have a test setup I can reliably reproduce quickly, with space to test 12mm to 300mm (for when I get one...)

I also measured the distance at each camera position from the side of the chart to the hotshoe to ensure the camera was square to the chart, but this is probably not as crucial with slow lenses like this.

I forgot one lens to test, the 35mm macro, which should be the most uniform and sharpest of the bunch at f/8-16, but we will see. All of the OMs showed reduced contrast as expected (even the later MC 50/1.8), but otherwise did ok.

sigala1 wrote:

The OP's 12-50 sucks for a $500 lens.

I know! I just wanted to confirm this before getting rid of it. I must admit I am used to it, and find the MZ 14-42 a bit fiddly by comparison. But the number of soft, low contrast shots is unacceptable to me. I'm even considering a ZD 14-54II or 12-60 replacement, since focus speed would be less critical as a walkaround lens for mostly landscapes. I would still use a smaller lens like the 14-42 for everyday use, but take the big zoom when I have the time and space, and want the best results. The 12-40 is just too much $$ right now.

The old legacy 4/3 kit lens is very sharp.

That may be my short term solution, except my daughter uses it on my E-410 if we are out together.

The m.zuiko 14-42 gives good performance stopped down to f8. Actually, I find that f/9 works better for me. The OP's lens has a soft top left corner. A decentered lens element. Crappy quality control is the norm even in more expensive lenses.

It's too bad we can't get a high quality, lightweight, compact zoom that is a step up from the kit at say $500. The 12-40 is BIG step up in all areas. Of course if the 12-50 performed like a $500 lens, I'd be a happy camper!

I am seeing a trend - the old ZD kit lenses do very well, and the 12-50 does not. Here's an OM in the mix also.

50mm lens tests

sigala1 wrote:

zuikowesty wrote:

sigala1 wrote:

The OP's 12-50 sucks for a $500 lens.

I know! I just wanted to confirm this before getting rid of it. I must admit I am used to it, and find the MZ 14-42 a bit fiddly by comparison. But the number of soft, low contrast shots is unacceptable to me. I'm even considering a ZD 14-54II or 12-60 replacement, since focus speed would be less critical as a walkaround lens for mostly landscapes. I would still use a smaller lens like the 14-42 for everyday use, but take the big zoom when I have the time and space, and want the best results. The 12-40 is just too much $$ right now.

Focus may not work at all on the 12-60 which is not CDAF-compatible.

You may as well stick to the 14-42 legacy lens if you have a good copy, and I think its CDAF-compatible.

Yes, I forgot about that part on the 12-60. Both ZD kit lenses perform fine on the E-M5, although it seems like the focus motor is moving slower, and they overshoot and hunt more in low light. On the E-410 they very quick.

For now, I purchased a 17mm/2.8 for my wife's E-PM2, and I bought an MCON-P01 so I can borrow her MZ 14-42, and see how that combo works for a while on the E-M5.

zuikowesty wrote:

To better understand the strengths and weaknesses of my new gear, I spent a rainy day yesterday taking test shots at focal lengths: 12, 14, 25, 35, 40, 50, 90, 135, 150mm. The subject was a colour map taped and glued to a flat board, held flat to the wall, with the image centre aligned with the camera sensor centre at various distances to allow the same image size at each FL.

I appreciate the tests, but why is it that you just post the photos and not your thoughts on the result? (I see this a lot) You've taken all this time to do the test, I'm sure you can summarize it in a paragraph or two without me having to go through all your photos try and do the analysis myself. Care to give a quick summary?

CharlesTokyo wrote:

zuikowesty wrote:

To better understand the strengths and weaknesses of my new gear, I spent a rainy day yesterday taking test shots at focal lengths: 12, 14, 25, 35, 40, 50, 90, 135, 150mm. The subject was a colour map taped and glued to a flat board, held flat to the wall, with the image centre aligned with the camera sensor centre at various distances to allow the same image size at each FL.

I appreciate the tests, but why is it that you just post the photos and not your thoughts on the result? (I see this a lot) You've taken all this time to do the test, I'm sure you can summarize it in a paragraph or two without me having to go through all your photos try and do the analysis myself. Care to give a quick summary?

That's a good question. Two reasons: 1) I have not finished analyzing all the data (and in fact need to take a few more test shots); 2) I am a bit reluctant to share my thoughts, as they may not be relevant to some who have different expectations for IQ, or just disagree with my conclusions.

That said, I will post some conclusions when I find time to finish the project, since you have asked. My original thought was that those who wished to post their thoughts would do so, untainted by my conclusions (some may just a agree with me without looking critically at the results, and others may just disagree because it's in their nature). I deal with conflict all day long, so that is the last thing I wish to see here.

I certainly welcome constructive criticism as one poster has noticed that some of my shots may need to be repeated, and I will do so.

Thanks

sigala1 wrote:

zuikowesty wrote:

sigala1 wrote:

zuikowesty wrote:

sigala1 wrote:

The OP's 12-50 sucks for a $500 lens.

I know! I just wanted to confirm this before getting rid of it. I must admit I am used to it, and find the MZ 14-42 a bit fiddly by comparison. But the number of soft, low contrast shots is unacceptable to me. I'm even considering a ZD 14-54II or 12-60 replacement, since focus speed would be less critical as a walkaround lens for mostly landscapes. I would still use a smaller lens like the 14-42 for everyday use, but take the big zoom when I have the time and space, and want the best results. The 12-40 is just too much $$ right now.

Focus may not work at all on the 12-60 which is not CDAF-compatible.

You may as well stick to the 14-42 legacy lens if you have a good copy, and I think its CDAF-compatible.

Yes, I forgot about that part on the 12-60. Both ZD kit lenses perform fine on the E-M5, although it seems like the focus motor is moving slower, and they overshoot and hunt more in low light. On the E-410 they very quick.

For now, I purchased a 17mm/2.8 for my wife's E-PM2, and I bought an MCON-P01 so I can borrow her MZ 14-42, and see how that combo works for a while on the E-M5.

I experimented with a 14-54 I (that's the old version, not the II version that's CDAF compatible), and SOMETIMES the photos were out of focus even though the camera indicated that it locked focus. My conclusion therefore is that AF is NOT reliable on those lenses and you should only uses them as manual focus lenses.

But that's only one guy's impression. Other people don't seem to have that problem with the old lenses.

Thanks for the info. I remember comparing the 14-54 and 12-60 when the was new, and really liked both lenses - the 14-54 just felt great to use, but the extra 2mm of the 12-60 was what I really wanted. My plan back then was to get the 9-18, then eventually the 14-54 to replace the kit lens. That never happened as other priorities came along. Now the 9-18 is considerably more money (it was $400 back then), and there isn't an equivalent to the 14-54 in MFT (the 12-40 is almost double the cost), so the choice is more difficult.

But at least I have the old kit lenses still - I am using these on my E-M5 now. I prefer the larger diameter of these lenses for handling.