Test: cropped Zuiko 75mm 1.8 better than a good consumer zoom (Lumix 45-150) from 75 to 150mm

D Knisely wrote:

Since that was a little unfair to the 40-150, I lowered the ISO to the same value (2000), which was also the lowest ISO where I could not get significant motion blur (1/50th second @ 300mm equivalent, which is still pretty good). This is a fair representation of how good the 40-150 can be, I think. Still, the 75 or 60 could extend the shooting envelop by a couple of stops and still get the same IQ with up-sampling, I think.

In this second comparison, the 40-150 outresolves the 75.

If you shot it at base ISO, the difference would have been even greater, IMHO.

75 is mightily good. The best m43 lens. But it simply can't outresolve twice the focal length.

Comparison at equal aperture

With the Zuiko opened at 2.0

Well yes, in these conditions the 45-150 at 150 is indeed better than the upscaled 75mm shot from the Zuiko 75mm.

However to reach these speeds with the 45-150 I had to dial down exposure compensation by 1.5 EV (also did it for the Zuiko and then overexposed in post by the same amount) so, in practical terms, the hoops one has to jump through to make the 45-150 work nicely with the em5 make it close to useless to me.

Or maybe I could try to work around it

Interesting to discover the reality of shutter shock in any case!

Made this out of curiosity. One is Olympus 45/1.8, the other is Olympus 40-150 R II cheapo zoom. Shot at f/5.6.

Both at 45mm

Upscaled to match 90mm. It's pretty clear which is which.

Developed from RAW with lens distortion correction enabled. No sharpening was applied (and I really mean none).

So yeah, don't throw away you zoom lenses, guys

My first digicam was a Fuji 6900Z - with 3 Mpixels going on 6Mp (because of Fuji's peculiar configuration) and even though I made prize-winning 19"x13" prints from that camera, I have pursued quality since.

The results you show compare - reasonably enough - the sharpness of the lenses at f5.6 - but they do show significant deterioration in the noise level. mFT cameras are now excellent, but I wouldn't want to be handicapped when I want to crop from a 150mm+ lens.

Mike

greg57 wrote:

Well yes, in these conditions the 45-150 at 150 is indeed better than the upscaled 75mm shot from the Zuiko 75mm.

Still, 75mm is heck of a lens.

Interesting to discover the reality of shutter shock in any case!

Welcome, to the shutter shock show...

greg57 wrote:

Comparison at equal aperture

With the Zuiko opened at 2.0

Well yes, in these conditions the 45-150 at 150 is indeed better than the upscaled 75mm shot from the Zuiko 75mm.

However to reach these speeds with the 45-150 I had to dial down exposure compensation by 1.5 EV (also did it for the Zuiko and then overexposed in post by the same amount) so, in practical terms, the hoops one has to jump through to make the 45-150 work nicely with the em5 make it close to useless to me.

Or maybe I could try to work around it

Interesting to discover the reality of shutter shock in any case!

Thanks!

I would love to see this comparison at base iso with a tripod and also 75mm vs 75mm again. 45-150 at f5.6 and f8 and 75mm at it's best f stop which is f4-f8 I think.

BTW on recent cameras the shutter shock is eliminated by using the EFC (0s anti shock) or electronic shutter.

Michael J Davis wrote:

The results you show compare - reasonably enough - the sharpness of the lenses at f5.6 - but they do show significant deterioration in the noise level.

In the par of the world where I currently live I don't get much more light daytime so had to push the iso to 800

I agree it's not ideal

mFT cameras are now excellent, but I wouldn't want to be handicapped when I want to crop from a 150mm+ lens.

Mike

-- hide signature --

Mike Davis
Photographing the public for over 50 years
www.flickr.com/photos/watchman

secretworld wrote:

Thanks!

You're welcome

I would love to see this comparison at base iso with a tripod and also 75mm vs 75mm again. 45-150 at f5.6 and f8 and 75mm at it's best f stop which is f4-f8 I think.

I don't think I'll do any more tests but I'll be happy to see the results if someone else volunteers

BTW on recent cameras the shutter shock is eliminated by using the EFC (0s anti shock) or electronic shutter.

Yeah, if i keep the zoom, I'll use it with my GX7 and electronic shutter!

-- hide signature --

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6757037874/albums/desktop

...with a Panasonic body capable of electronic shutter on a tripod, with 2 or 10 sec timer ON.

This would be the way that could ensure that we really see the lenses performing, not other factors like shutter shock or your randomly shaking hands.

greg57 wrote:

LMNCT wrote:

Are you talking about the inexpensive 45-150 4-5.6? You are comparing a single focal length, fast aperture and somewhat expensive lens to a medium zoom which appears to be designed for light weight and low cost. Of course the 75 will come out on top. I am amazed that the 45-150 came out as well as it did.

Sure this 45-150 is not bad at all

I was trying to see if there was any reason for me to keep it in my bag for long range (did you see the comparison at 150mm equivalent?). And it appears there isn't!

Loga wrote:

...with a Panasonic body capable of electronic shutter on a tripod, with 2 or 10 sec timer ON.

This would be the way that could ensure that we really see the lenses performing, not other factors like shutter shock or your randomly shaking hands.

At these speed I don't think I get shutter shocks or camera shake blur unless I REALLY shake it around!

Robiro wrote:

D Knisely wrote:

Since that was a little unfair to the 40-150, I lowered the ISO to the same value (2000), which was also the lowest ISO where I could not get significant motion blur (1/50th second @ 300mm equivalent, which is still pretty good). This is a fair representation of how good the 40-150 can be, I think. Still, the 75 or 60 could extend the shooting envelop by a couple of stops and still get the same IQ with up-sampling, I think.

In this second comparison, the 40-150 outresolves the 75.

If you shot it at base ISO, the difference would have been even greater, IMHO.

75 is mightily good. The best m43 lens. But it simply can't outresolve twice the focal length.

Agree. In a controlled situation (tripod), as a pure lens test, the 40-150 R is better than 75 with doubled resolution.  In practice, it all depends on the shooting conditions.  I personally never feel comfortable cropping severely or upres-ing significantly.  16 Mpixels is just not enough to permit that.  The results with the cropped 75 are better than I would have expected, but I am also incredibly impressed with the $99 40-150R!

greg57 wrote:

Loga wrote:

...with a Panasonic body capable of electronic shutter on a tripod, with 2 or 10 sec timer ON.

This would be the way that could ensure that we really see the lenses performing, not other factors like shutter shock or your randomly shaking hands.

At these speed I don't think I get shutter shocks or camera shake blur unless I REALLY shake it around!

At what speed? You definitely got shutter shock at your test.

-- hide signature --

Gregory Dziedzic
gregorydziedzic.com/photos

Loga wrote:

greg57 wrote:

Loga wrote:

...with a Panasonic body capable of electronic shutter on a tripod, with 2 or 10 sec timer ON.

This would be the way that could ensure that we really see the lenses performing, not other factors like shutter shock or your randomly shaking hands.

At these speed I don't think I get shutter shocks or camera shake blur unless I REALLY shake it around!

At what speed? You definitely got shutter shock at your test.

I redid the tests there at around 1/1000th:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3910484/56594317

I did the same type of comparison with my 75mm and the Oly 40-150 f/4-5.6.  The 40-150 was better at 150 than the cropped image from the 75, both set at f/5.6.

But the 75 was much better from f/1.8 to f/5.0.

Just thinking aloud whilst reading this topic - has anyone tried the MC-14 teleconverter on this lens? Its in the middle of the range for the 40-150mm pro, and would result in a useful 105mm equivalent with still a pretty low equivalent  f no. at wide open.

Andrew

Aucupium wrote:

Just thinking aloud whilst reading this topic - has anyone tried the MC-14 teleconverter on this lens? Its in the middle of the range for the 40-150mm pro, and would result in a useful 105mm equivalent with still a pretty low equivalent f no. at wide open.

Andrew

I think I read somewhere it is not compatible. Which really sucks

It sure does!

Andrew

greg57 wrote:

Aucupium wrote:

Just thinking aloud whilst reading this topic - has anyone tried the MC-14 teleconverter on this lens? Its in the middle of the range for the 40-150mm pro, and would result in a useful 105mm equivalent with still a pretty low equivalent f no. at wide open.

Andrew

I think I read somewhere it is not compatible. Which really sucks