Sharpest 40-45mm landscape lens

I own the MZ 45/1.8, the MZ 40-150 (cheap version) and the Pan 35-100 (cheap version).

The Panasonic zoom is sharper than the Olympus zoom in the corners even when both are stopped down, and is significantly smaller and lighter. It also has image stabilisation, ships with a lens hood and is generally a better-quality lens in terms of materials and build.

I haven't compared it directly with the 45/1.8, but I definitely prefer it to the 40-150.

I'll probably sell the 40-150 when I get a chance.

There's a couple of reviews online comparing these lenses, for example this one:

MZ 45/1.8 versus MZ 40-150 f4/5.6 versus Panasonic 35-100 f4/5.6

Check out the size comparison too - the 35-100 is only a smidgen bigger than the 45/1.8:

S

I keep reading it is marginally sharper than the Olympus 45 f1.8 (a frighteningly good optic, for the money).  Of course, the 12-40 is hard to beat.

Fri13 wrote:

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.

I did said "for me", didn't I?

I totally agree with you, and with Canon's philosophy. The pro line is bait for people leaving DSLRs and coming to mirrorless. And I can't be happier with that, because at the end, the health of m43 benefits us all.

But, for me, in my case, and just for my personal own interests...  ... the Pro line of lenses is not what made me leave my Canon APS-C system and run to m43. But the small size and weight, and yes, also the fast affordable glass. Would I buy a 12-40 and 40-150 pro lenses in the future? I might. When the time is right, and when I'm able to consistently make some money out of photography. But for the time being, I enjoy my camera gear very much.

Is good to have options that fits multiple needs, isn't it?

Betarover wrote:

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 too do mostly landscape work, and also have used those same three lenses and have compared them (and I think the SlrGear charts are accurate because with lenses I have used they matched my own experience). While I also value consistency across the frame, the 14-45 is my favorite and most used landscape lens. Here's why:

1) I also shoot mostly at f/5.6 - f/8 and have not seen any corner softness that was enough to ruin a good photo. All my good images look just fine at the corners and edges. I don't think the difference shown between center and corners in the charts is enough to make a significant difference in a print, especially when careful and subtle sharpening in Photoshop can make up for slight differences. However, my largest prints are 12x16-ish, so this may not hold true for larger prints. IMO many photographers I read here in DPR are over-obsessed with sharpness. Even the poorer m43 lenses are plenty sharp enough to make beautiful pictures. It's the photographer that counts, not the gear.

2) I eventually sold the Oly 40-150 and replaced it with the Lumix 45-150. There are other lens qualities besides sharpness, and as I gained experience over time I became less and less fond of the lens. The 45-150 is a much better match for the 14-45. They are like twin siblings and respond in very similar ways. I don't have to adjust my thinking and do certain things differently with these two lenses.

3) Early on I did a number of landscape comparison tests with the Oly 45mm and the 14-45. In most cases there was something I liked better about the 14-45 image. Any prime advantages were so slight as to not make it worth the time and effort to change lenses. I like the 45mm very much, but now use it just for portraits in low light situations, where it excels. I found no significant advantage for landscapes.

4) The bottom line for me is how the lens renders the images. In all my tests of those lenses, the 14-45 always won in that dept. There's something about the way it draws that I find really pleasing. In the film days a Pentax 6x7 was my primary landscape camera for 20 years, always with primes. In m43 I have compared several primes with the 14-45/45-150 pair, including the 20/1.7, the Oly 75mm (an absolutely superb lens) and a Sigma 30mm which I returned after a day of testing. In most every case I ended up preferring the zoom image for one reason or another. In the case of the 75mm, yes it was a bit sharper overall, but after working it up in PS and adding some careful sharpening, the advantage was lost in the final print. The 75, like the 45, is now used mostly for portraits. The only prime I still use for landscapes on occasion is the 20/1.7, which has a rendering that I really like and is comparable to the 14-45 in that regard (I usually use it when I'm just in a mood to use a prime, or want to travel light for some reason). The technology for modern zooms has come a long way, and I find these two lenses to be exceptionally nice. So I have moved over the past years from being an all-prime shooter to favoring the 14-45. This has been, and is, one of the most satisfying landscape lenses I've ever used. I used it on a GH2 for three years, and it's now on a GX7.

Here is a 14-45 landscape (north rim Grand Canyon) shot at 20mm (on screen at 100% there is a tiny foot trail several miles in the distance that is sharply and clearly rendered - what's not to like about that?)

And another at 17mm (Zion N.P.) 1/320 @ f/7.1 iso 160

and another at 20mm (Lake Rosalie, Florida)

I hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Clayton

Info on black and white digital printing at
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 3.0 http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm