Sharpest 40-45mm landscape lens

I'll vouch for the sharpness of the 45--terrific and tiny lens to be sure.

Looks like the slider for the Panny zoom is at 25mm, so you may want to re-do @45 for a better comparison.

Cheers,

Rick

Here is the corrected comparison.  Thanks for noticing my mistake.  My points seem still valid:  The Olympus 45mm is astonishing for certain applications, but for landscape photography at F5.6 and F8:

1:  The lower cost Oly 40-150mm lens is really sharp at 40mm and the $350 Oly 45mm seems to offer no advantage over it while having the disadvantage of not being able to zoom a bit to get a more perfect composition, and

2:  My Panasonic 14-45mm, which was very highly touted on this forum 3 years ago by enthusiastic posters, is not as sharp as the Oly 40-150mm.

I do not know how reliable these slrgear.com charts are.

In general and esp. for cheap zooms, the longest end tends to be the weakest and the shortest the best.

The observations made from these charts may be dependent on slrgear's testing methods. Some of these results are at the finest resolutions of their tests, i.e. what they call a single 'blur unit'. For all we know the prime could be 0.1 of a blur unit and the zoom might be closer to 1.5, and this might actually be observable in photos.

However, at this level it's entirely possible for sample variations within one model to be more significant than differences between models. So if you do get a 45, you need to make sure it's from someone who takes returns/replacements on sharpness.

Just looking at these charts, I wouldn't agree that the prime offers no advantage over the telezoom. The 45mm's sharpness is pretty even across the frame, while the 40-150 f/4 is weaker in the corners. I've found uniformity across the frame to be more important than pure center sharpness for my landscapes.

You're also leaving out vignetting and CA from the equation, too.

In use, too, I prefer the results from the Oly 45 to what I get from the 40-150. The 40-150 isn't bad by any means, but I find that the prime's rendering more pleasing.

As for not being able to zoom, well, yeah, that can't be helped for the 45

Hopefully SLR Gear will review the Panasonic 42.5 f/1.7 and 35-100 f/4-5.6 soon, so you have an even tougher decision

I found that my lowly 40-150mm 2nd version was nearly the same as my 45mm at middle apertures and ended up selling the 45mm.

Now I have the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro, and all I can say is WOW. And I'm a prime kind of guy. If you get a chance check out the 12-40mm f2.8, its the ideal focal range for landscapes or architecture which is what I use it for. In the store I compared the 12-40mm against the Olympus 12mm f2 and the Olympus 25mm f1.8 and Olympus 45mm f1.8 and the 12-40mm Pro was better in every case, especially edge performance.

Sandeep Singh Brar wrote:

I found that my lowly 40-150mm 2nd version was nearly the same as my 45mm at middle apertures and ended up selling the 45mm.

Great, that confirms what the slrgear.com charts show for F5.6 and F8.

Now I have the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro, and all I can say is WOW. And I'm a prime kind of guy. If you get a chance check out the 12-40mm f2.8,

Its chart is just a bit better than the 40-150mm at middle apertures (F5.6 and F8). I think the difference might not be visible on even a large print hanging on a wall when viewed at a normal viewing distance. What size prints do you make and have you noted a difference in prints?  Here is the link:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1641/cat/15

I can't help but agree the 40-150 is a very good lens even without considering the bargain price. If I don' a "weight budget" forcing me to leave bigger lenses home, I always make sure to bring it along. From the graphs the Panny zoom does seem a half-step behind the other two.

Not important for landscapes, but the 45 has great focus response. Super quick, and quiet.

Cheers,

Rick

The observations made from these charts may be dependent on slrgear's testing methods. Some of these results are at the finest resolutions of their tests, i.e. what they call a single 'blur unit'. For all we know the prime could be 0.1 of a blur unit and the zoom might be closer to 1.5, and this might actually be observable in photos.

A very interesting comment.  I wonder what they would consider is enough sharpness?  What number on their scale can actually be seen in a large print hanging on a wall when viewed at a normal viewing distance?  It might be 1, under 1, or it might be 2 or 3.

One of my disappointments with dpreview and other sites is that they never say how much sharpness is enough, or how many pixels are enough.  This of course depends on what our products are, and the most demanding product of all is large prints hanging on a wall.

However, at this level it's entirely possible for sample variations within one model to be more significant than differences between models. So if you do get a 45, you need to make sure it's from someone who takes returns/replacements on sharpness.

I agree, but only if making large prints is the product.

Even with landscapes resolution is only one desirable characteristic. Contrast, acutance and color play important roles, too. Lens comparisons have always been tough for me, as lens A will be good at a couple things, B at completely other things and C some combination of the other two. I would have trouble counting the lenses I have that cover 40-50mm, and am suspicious that if I ever had a "lens battle" there wouldn't be a lone winner. Or even worse, it would be the three-pounder.

Cheers,

Rick

Some of these results are at the finest resolutions of their tests, i.e. what they call a single 'blur unit'. For all we know the prime could be 0.1 of a blur unit and the zoom might be closer to 1.5, and this might actually be observable in photos.

Look at the F5.6 and F8 rows of the comparison image. Note that the inexpensive Oly 40-150mm has an area of bright pink both at F5.6 and F8. The Oly 45mm does not. The bright pink is an area of greater resolution than the darker pink shown for the Oly 45mm. So the test equipment had sufficient sensitivity to measure any greater sharpness of the Oly 45mm, had there been any.

If you look at the 40-150mm at 70mm and F5.6 you will see half the image area is the bright pink color.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/olympus40-150f4-56m/tloader.htm

I agree. To make the decision even harder there are many software measures that can be used to achieve greater sharpness and greater contrast. Topaz has many such products such as Topaz Clarity, Topaz Detail, and Topaz Focus. Any initial contrast shortcoming can be easily corrected.

Then to make it even more difficult are opinions expressed by some that most prize winning photographs have blurry corners and edges, detail in corners and edges is a distraction, etc. This article explains these thoughts well.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm

Rohith Thumati wrote:

Just looking at these charts, I wouldn't agree that the prime offers no advantage over the telezoom. The 45mm's sharpness is pretty even across the frame, while the 40-150 f/4 is weaker in the corners.

My experience is that sharper corners does not sell more of my prints or win me more awards. In fact, painters often eliminate sharpness and detail from corners and edges because they are distractions that take the eye away from the center of interest. Also, the difference in sharpness indicated by the slrgear.com charts is so slight that no one would notice without being a few inches from a huge print. The lack of uniformity across the image is so very slight, the image is at or near 1.0 everywhere.  And even if the result was soft corners, some feel there is an advantage for having soft corners in making prize winning images as expressed in this article:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm

I've found uniformity across the frame to be more important than pure center sharpness for my landscapes.

See above.

You're also leaving out vignetting and CA from the equation, too.

Vignetting is very easily corrected in Photoshop and is rarely noticed except in skies.  For this lens I avoid F5.6 when zoomed out due to its vignetting.  At F8 it is fine.  To draw the eye to my center of interest I often darken the corners a bit, but not so much as to be obvious.  As for CA, it is taken into account in a way by the equipment they use to measure blur units.

In use, too, I prefer the results from the Oly 45 to what I get from the 40-150. The 40-150 isn't bad by any means, but I find that the prime's rendering more pleasing.

It would be interesting to take an image with both lenses, print them at the largest size you ever have printed, hang them on a wall, and see if others (spouse and friends) can notice a difference or have a preference.

I would not be surprised. Stopping a lens down several stops is generally an equalizer- even some cheap lenses can be quite good. The 40-150 has been considered a value gem, and is especially good at the wide end. The Oly 45 is geared more as a portrait lens, so ultimate sharpness is not its stregnth.

The 45mm is a great lens. Its small, fast and performs quite well all around. It does very well at or near fully wide open. If you want  a reasonably priced portrait type lens, i think its the best option in the system. That said, if you don't need the wide apertures for a certain purpose, be it low light, shallow dof, portraits or what have you, there is much less reason to buy a lens like the 45.

I must admit that I was really surprised today when I made my chart comparing the Oly 40-150 to the Oly 45mm.  I am not sure I can believe the slrgear.com test results.  The cheap 40-150 has some bright pink areas at 40mm and F5.6 to F8 whereas the highly thought of $350 45mm does not.  It appears the 45mm has a uniform sharpness edge to edge but the 40-150mm has an average sharpness that is higher because the squares of bright pink are greater in number than the darker pink squares.  I wish I could get my hands on the lens and test it myself.

One great use for me of the 45mm would be I enjoy photographing paintings in art museums.  But for now if the resolution charts can be believed I see no advantages for the 45mm to photograph landscapes at F5.6 to F8.

It breaks only Your philosophy, not the m4/3 mount (4/3 sensor) idea that is to have small and light system camera compared to larger formats without compromise to image quality or depth of field control.

The 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro is very compact and light as is. It just doesn't fit to people who want everything to be f/1, 100g, with between 6mm and 150mm and $150.

// Off topic:
I quote:

"A Canon rep explained to me back in the '90s that Canon didn't care if itever recouped its investment costs on the three tilt-shift lenses for the EOS system...the point was that certain pros needed such lenses and would switch to the Canon system in order to get them. Which meant that those pros would also begin buying Canon bodies, Canon lenses, and Canon accessories, and would switch from NPS to CPS, and would lend their implicit endorsement and the prestige of their professional accomplishments to Canon instead of to Nikon."

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2014/12/the-ten-best-digital-cameras.html

And that is exactly the same thing that many needs to get. Like Olympus needs to bring a Pro zoom between 150mm and 400-500mm range with f/2.8 or at least f/4. It would be big, heavy and expensive, but that is exactly that many professional and enthusiastic needs and they are ready to invest to such system that offers that they need. If there isn't what they need, they look elsewhere.

It is as well amazing how a normal street salesman understands this in tourist areas, they only need to get the tourist in your shop, and they more likely buy a one thing if they can just slap quickly enough goods to their front in first 10 seconds that catches their eye, then just bombard with other similar kinds.
And that is as well consumer service as they show toy what you are interested at without asking different things. And the possibility you buy one or more goods is much higher than just offering one thing that everyone else is doing.

Olympus knew it needs to offer Pro line, and some people are negative claiming it is "against m4/3" while it isn't. As those people doesn't need fast shutter speeds and large magnification with specific image quality.

Yes, most need just something between 12-45mm and nothing else. They are ready to carry multiple primes and switch those as they have time and moment isn't going away. And they want everything fits to palm and weights as little as possible, even with cost of usable leveling.

Eh, I can find plenty of links that say that you'd want landscape lenses to be sharp across the frame. I barely had to go past link 4 in my google search for these three, so you'll forgive me if I take Rockwell's post with a rock of salt -

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/03/28/the-10-commandments-of-landscape-photography-and-how-to-break-them/2/

https://photographylife.com/landscape-photography-guide

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/gear/lenses/landscape-lens-tech.html#.VSSz4VwUriY

And anyway, you can always add softening in post if that's what you want. But like I said - it's what I prefer in my landscapes. Your mileage may vary.

It would be interesting to take an image with both lenses, print them at the largest size you ever have printed, hang them on a wall, and see if others (spouse and friends) can notice a difference or have a preference.

Most people I know can't tell the difference between a super zoom point and shoot and a DSLR with an f/2.8 telephoto (might be a slight exaggeration, but only just slight), so I doubt that'd be helpful. I can tell the difference, and that's more or less all I'm concerned with when it comes to my work.

I almost bought the 12mm f/2.0 ($700+) before using the 12-40, but the extra stop isn't worth it.