Four Thirds lenses vs Micro Four Thirds lenses IQ

Hi, I am becoming more and more interested in trying Four Thirds lenses on my Panasonic GX7. Mainly because of price at the given image quality, I found, up for sale, an Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm f 3.5 Macro for 60 Euros and an Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm f 2.8-3.5 I at 100 Euros,

I found, up for sale, an Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm f 3.5 Macro for 60 Euros and an Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm f 2.8-3.5 I at 100 Euros, and from what I have read they offer very good image quality. Also, an Olympus MMF-2 at 50 Euros (alternatively, if it's sold off before I can buy it, there's a Chinese made Four Thirds to Micro Four Thirds for 60 Euros) is up for sale.

I know it's going to focus slow (very slow in low light) and it's going to be noisy too and I think I can live with that, for now, since I shoot mostly landscape at wider than 100mm and I will keep my Sigma 60mm f 2.8. I wonder, in terms if image quality, if Panasonic 12-32mm f 3.5-5.6 does offer better image quality (or the like of Panasonic 14-42mm f 3.5-5.6 II / Panasonic X 14-42mm f 3.5-5.6 PZ / Olympus 12-50mm f 3.5-5.6, though these are more expensive).

Oh, and should I try to go to a legacy 50/100mm f 3.5 macro lenses instead of the Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm f 3.5 Macro ? From what I understand the  wider angle gives more DOF and it would make it a bit easier to get the subject in focus, though the small working distance will make it hard for sensitive subjects not to be scared and fly away. And if a lens is 1:2 macro (when used in FF) shouldn't the magnification double when mounted on a Micro Four Thirds camera because of the 2x crop factor, making pseudo macro lenses into half macro and half macro lenses in full macro lenses and, subsequently, full macro lenses in 2:1 (like the Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm f 3.5 ?

I have an EM1 but now rarely use my FT lenses.  The mFT lenses are smaller, focus faster, and are optically at least as good.  I replaced my 14-54 with the 12-32 and 35-100 F4-5.6.  I will probably get the Panny 12-60 as a one lens solution for most of my photographic needs.  I am taking my FT70-300 to Ecuador for wildlife as its my longest lens.

My 14-54mm ZD - FT lens is awesome on my E-PL5. Fast and image quality is awesome. Be aware it is the MK 2.

I have several 4/3 lenses that I use on  my EM1 with an inexpensive Viltrox adapter.  They auto focus fast and well on the EM1, and will also AF on the GX7 - but slower.

I really like the 4/3 15-54 II lens on the EM1.  Great pictures, if you don't mind it being a bit bigger and heavier than say, the 14-45 micro 4/3 lens.  Of course, the 14-54 II is faster, and i frequently use it as an all purpose lens in darker places.  Recommended.

I also use a 4/3 9-18 lens with adapter on the EM1, and love it.  I think it is at least just as sharp, maybe sharper - than the micro 4/3 version.  Recommended.

I also have the 4/3 14-45 lens, but see no point to it as I have the smaller micro 4/3 14-45 lens, which is a very good lens.

However, The 4/3 70-300 lens on the EM1 is just as fast focusing as my Panasonic 100-300 lens - and IMO, just as sharp - maybe sharper - at 300.  I think it also has better color and contrast.  With the adapter, it is about 1/2 inch longer than the Panny.   It is a bit heavier, however.  Recommended - and it is cheaper than the 100-300 lens or the Oly equivalent.  Recommended.

I do not have a 4/3 macro lens.  I do have a Raynox 150, and it works great with the 70-300 or the 100-300.  It takes not much space in the bag either.  For a macro lens, any of the various 50 mm macro film era, manual focus lenses will work just fine, as will any of the 90-105 manual focus film era lenses - with appropriate cheap adapters, of course.

Most macro needs manual focus anyway, so you haven't lost much, if anything, by not having auto focus.  I had the 4/3 35 macro, but the working distance was very short, and I sold it.  I've not had the 4/3 50 macro.

Now if I want to go light, the 12-32, the Oly 17, and the oly 40-140 all fit with an M1 (or GX7) body in a small Pacsafe brand belt pack.  I can still use the Raynox on the 40-140.

With the larger 4/3 lenses, you will probably want a more traditional bag.

I hope my experience with these lenses might be helpful, or at least provides some things to consider.

Peace.  ...and Best Wishes

John

How is the 70-300 on non-EM1 bodies?

I haven't tried the 70-300 on bodies other than the EM1, but hang on and I'll see how it works on the GX7.

OK - I just got back from trying the 4/3 70-300 on my GX7. It eventually focused but hunted a great deal, and continued to hunt on its own without my finger on the shutter button. It was also quite noisy. Not recommended. Same on my Olympus EPL-5.

On my EM10 and EM5, things were quite a bit better. Still hunted a bit, but locked on focus relatively quickly. No additional hunting with my finger off of the shutter button like like it did on the GX7 and EPL-5. Te lens could be used on these two cameras, but was far faster on my EM1. Still noisy on the EM10 and EM5, but slower (not bad) AF..

My thoughts - 4/3 is a very good lens on the EM1, could be used on the EM10 and/or the EM5, but slower to focus. Don't bother with it on the GX7 or the EPL-5.

So - EM1=good, EM10 and EM5=Fair to midlin', GX7 and EPL-5 (or equivalent)= No go, use the Oly 75-300 or the Panasonic 100-300 (Note: Has lens stabilization) on those. I have a G5, but didn't try that. If you are going to use the 70-300, best to do so on a newer Olympus body with internal body image stabilization.

I hope that helps. Note: On EM1, worked great, AF faster than on my old EVOLT 510,

Peace. ...and Best Wishes.

John

OK, To round this out - I just tried my 4/3 Oly 9-18, with Viltrox adapter and my Oly 14-54 II, with Viltrox adapter specifically on my GX7.

The 14-54 II was excellent - locked on very fast and with no hunting. Recommended.

The 9-18 locked on very quickly, but a bit slower than the 14-54, again almost no hunting. Recommended.

The Oly 4/3 70-300 was the only one not recommended, as it hunted up a storm on the GX7.

Peace. ...and Best Wishes.

John

After working outdoors with several different macro focal lengths outdoors on a Nikon D300S, I found the ideal focal lengths for me to be 150-200mm or 225-300 in FF equivalent. So I went with the 50-200 SWD though the 40-150 Pro plus 1.4 TC might work better at over double the cost. I'll probably pick up a EC-14 TC for the 50-200 to get closer. Have a EC-20 but haven't tried it yet for close shooting.

TwoMetreBill wrote:

After working outdoors with several different macro focal lengths outdoors on a Nikon D300S, I found the ideal focal lengths for me to be 150-200mm or 225-300 in FF equivalent. So I went with the 50-200 SWD though the 40-150 Pro plus 1.4 TC might work better at over double the cost. I'll probably pick up a EC-14 TC for the 50-200 to get closer. Have a EC-20 but haven't tried it yet for close shooting.

Hi Bill

the EX-25 turns the 50-200mm into a very handy close lens

Peter

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Optically, the 35/3.5 macro is excellent and gives a true 1:1 (the 50/2 is 1:2). As noted by others focus is slow but it's a heck of a bargain for what it delivers. FWIW it is one of a handful of Oly 4/3 lenses that are CDAF-enabled, meaning you don't necessarily need an E-M1. Same goes for the Mkii edition of the 14-54. Either version is a good, fast standard zoom but only the Mkii will focus decently on all m4/3 bodies.

The information for the 14-54 is correct but not for the 35/3.5.  The 35 is an older lens that is not CDAF enabled.  It will focus but it will be slow.  I haven't used it on my G3 so I don't know how slow (still have a good 4/3 body to use it on).

This chart shows lens compatibility for the GX7:

http://av.jpn.support.panasonic.com/support/global/cs/dsc/connect/gx7.html

Only those with an 'OK' in the fifth column from the left have fast focus capability on the GX7.  The others will work, but slowly, and in one instance, manual focus is needed.

L0n3Gr3yW0lf wrote:

Oh, and should I try to go to a legacy 50/100mm f 3.5 macro lenses instead of the Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm f 3.5 Macro ? From what I understand the wider angle gives more DOF and it would make it a bit easier to get the subject in focus, though the small working distance will make it hard for sensitive subjects not to be scared and fly away.

It's a myth that wider angle lenses provide greater DOF. At the same magnification and aperture the depth of field will be the same, you'll just be closer and see more of the background with the wider lens.

I own the 50mm f/2 Olympus 4/3 1:2 macro lens and struggle with its limited working distance - to me the 35mm isn't a good choice for things like bugs. As well as scaring subjects away, it makes it harder to light the subject with off camera flash, especially when using a lens hood. I'd also class its AF on my GX7 as completely unusable, not just slow (although that's not a big deal for macro use).

Plenty of people get good results with legacy macro lenses, but to me the lack of automatic aperture is a significant disadvantage. It isn't practical to focus wide open and then stop down for the shot, not when shooting handheld or dealing with a moving subject. Accurately focusing stopped down is more difficult and the lack of light can degrade EVF/LCD image quality.

To me the best budget macro option on M4/3 is to use a dioptre (e.g. a Raynox DCR-150/250) on a cheap (M)4/3 zoom lens (e.g. a 40-150mm f4-5.6). That gives you a decent working distance and versatile range of magnification with the convenience a native lens provides.

And if a lens is 1:2 macro (when used in FF) shouldn't the magnification double when mounted on a Micro Four Thirds camera because of the 2x crop factor, making pseudo macro lenses into half macro and half macro lenses in full macro lenses and, subsequently, full macro lenses in 2:1 (like the Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm f 3.5 ?

Technically the magnification isn't increased, but you will fill the frame with a smaller 1:1 subject on M4/3 rather than full frame.