Impressed by first shots with 14-54ii ZD

The lens arrived today and I stepped out for a few tests against the 12-60 Lumix using the eM1.ii. The extra bulk was handled well by the larger body, af was decent but a touch slower. When set to wide open the aperture clicks are audible when zooming, weird but not annoying - but it is the first day. I'll try in a bit with the GX7 for more handling comments.

Images with the 14-54 look really nice, better sunstars than the Lumix at f/11. Close-ups looked similar with each, will look again on color and contrast but they seemed similar for those too.

I need to download and compare exif data, i attempted matching shots (each wide open). I'll post a few in the next day or so.

jimrpdx wrote:

The lens arrived today and I stepped out for a few tests against the 12-60 Lumix using the eM1.ii. The extra bulk was handled well by the larger body, af was decent but a touch slower. When set to wide open the aperture clicks are audible when zooming, weird but not annoying - but it is the first day. I'll try in a bit with the GX7 for more handling comments.

Images with the 14-54 look really nice, better sunstars than the Lumix at f/11. Close-ups looked similar with each, will look again on color and contrast but they seemed similar for those too.

I need to download and compare exif data, i attempted matching shots (each wide open). I'll post a few in the next day or so.

That lens always had good reports, and praise from its owners, and it’s one of the small set of 4/3 lenses that were designed to be compatible with CDAF. A pity that Olympus doesn’t recognise the CDAF capability with their E-M1 II, X, III which still treat those CDAF capable 4/3 lenses as PDAF-only

The audible aperture noise can be a problem with video recording - the reason I retired my old 12-60mm SWD in favour of the M.Zuiko 12-100mm F4

I look forward to seeing some images from your new 14-54II

Peter

Update

A few quick shots with the gx7 showed handling was decent, though the 12-60 being 200g lighter is best for handling. I also checked distortion at 14mm on walls and posts: none to speak of. Impressive, since distortion corrections aren't encoded in 4:3 just micro4:3. Unless it's a secret that i don't know?

Impressive, since distortion corrections aren't encoded in 4:3 just micro4:3.

They are actually, but maybe geometric distortions were less of a concern with the longer flange distance and telecentric lens designs.

Danielvr wrote:

Impressive, since distortion corrections aren't encoded in 4:3 just micro4:3.

They are actually, but maybe geometric distortions were less of a concern with the longer flange distance and telecentric lens designs.

Do you have a site source on that Dan? Reviewers began dual-testing for corrections with m43 gear, and no one mentioned it in 4Thirds sites that I visited. I'd like to know that before more 4T lenses attack my wallet..

jimrpdx wrote:

Danielvr wrote:

Impressive, since distortion corrections aren't encoded in 4:3 just micro4:3.

They are actually, but maybe geometric distortions were less of a concern with the longer flange distance and telecentric lens designs.

Do you have a site source on that Dan? Reviewers began dual-testing for corrections with m43 gear, and no one mentioned it in 4Thirds sites that I visited. I'd like to know that before more 4T lenses attack my wallet..

Olympus Workspace corrects for distortions.  I deleted my tests on the 12-60SWD when it stopped working.  Can’t remember if C1 corrects or not.  The Zuiko 50/2 has barrel distortion, so I guess an experiment might be possible.  The moustache distortion of the 12-60SWD was just so easy to see.

Andrew

ahaslett wrote:

jimrpdx wrote:

Danielvr wrote:

Impressive, since distortion corrections aren't encoded in 4:3 just micro4:3.

They are actually, but maybe geometric distortions were less of a concern with the longer flange distance and telecentric lens designs.

Do you have a site source on that Dan? Reviewers began dual-testing for corrections with m43 gear, and no one mentioned it in 4Thirds sites that I visited. I'd like to know that before more 4T lenses attack my wallet..

Olympus Workspace corrects for distortions. I deleted my tests on the 12-60SWD when it stopped working. Can’t remember if C1 corrects or not. The Zuiko 50/2 has barrel distortion, so I guess an experiment might be possible. The moustache distortion of the 12-60SWD was just so easy to see.

Andrew

That would explain the nearly-perfect straight lines with the 14-54 at its widest Bummer that such things weren't mentioned until the micro format; the 50/2 impressed imaging-resource with its "terrific resistance to chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting". No doubt the µ43 distortions are worse, so the native FT lenses are working harder to improve the image before silicon programming takes over.

jimrpdx wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

jimrpdx wrote:

Danielvr wrote:

Impressive, since distortion corrections aren't encoded in 4:3 just micro4:3.

They are actually, but maybe geometric distortions were less of a concern with the longer flange distance and telecentric lens designs.

Do you have a site source on that Dan? Reviewers began dual-testing for corrections with m43 gear, and no one mentioned it in 4Thirds sites that I visited. I'd like to know that before more 4T lenses attack my wallet..

Olympus Workspace corrects for distortions. I deleted my tests on the 12-60SWD when it stopped working. Can’t remember if C1 corrects or not. The Zuiko 50/2 has barrel distortion, so I guess an experiment might be possible. The moustache distortion of the 12-60SWD was just so easy to see.

Andrew

That would explain the nearly-perfect straight lines with the 14-54 at its widest Bummer that such things weren't mentioned until the micro format; the 50/2 impressed imaging-resource with its "terrific resistance to chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting". No doubt the µ43 distortions are worse, so the native FT lenses are working harder to improve the image before silicon programming takes over.

Zuiko had Standard, High Grade and Super High Grade lenses.  SHG lenses were excellently optically corrected, large and expensive.  They are not as good as the very best modern lenses which use modern materials, processes and design software.  Still, pretty much all modern lenses use software correction to reduce size and weight.

The 50/2 is nominally HG, but many people thought it fitted SHG IQ.  The 14-54 was a kit lens and Standard Grade, but a good copy can go head to head with the HG 12-60 SWD.  My 14-54 is best at the wide end, like my 12-40 Pro, but my 12-60 was best at the tele end and added something extra to my bag.

If you want an example of a real Standard performance, the Zuiko 9-18 fits perfectly.

I’ve just been using my 50-200SWD, after a long break.  It is better than I remember, looks like it’s not so far off the Panasonic MFT lens, maybe better at the edges.

Andrew

Just found the magic words I've sought, on the wiki page for the E-3:

"Along with other Olympus 4/3rds bodies, the E-3 has a very 'maintenance free' approach due to it having on-demand pixel mapping, the SSWF 'dust shaker', Along with other Olympus 4/3rds bodies, the E-3 has a very 'maintenance free' approach due to it having on-demand pixel mapping, the SSWF 'dust shaker', vignetting and distortion correction either in-camera or during editing with Olympus software."

jimrpdx wrote:

Just found the magic words I've sought, on the wiki page for the E-3:

"Along with other Olympus 4/3rds bodies, the E-3 has a very 'maintenance free' approach due to it having on-demand pixel mapping, the SSWF 'dust shaker', Along with other Olympus 4/3rds bodies, the E-3 has a very 'maintenance free' approach due to it having on-demand pixel mapping, the SSWF 'dust shaker', vignetting and distortion correction either in-camera or during editing with Olympus software."

I used to have the E30.  Again I’ve forgotten, but beyond a certain point Olympus bodies and software corrected Panasonic and Sigma lenses too.

Andrew

They are actually, but maybe geometric distortions were less of a concern with the longer flange distance and telecentric lens designs.

Do you have a site source on that Dan? Reviewers began dual-testing for corrections with m43 gear, and no one mentioned it in 4Thirds sites that I visited. I'd like to know that before more 4T lenses attack my wallet..

I guess it was just common knowledge in the Four Thirds days. By having the correction data inside the lens (and from there, in the EXIF of each image), FT consortium members could introduce new lenses with functional geometric and vignetting correction without having to upgrade the firmware of existing bodies.

I see that Andrzej Wrotniak, maybe the greatest 'authority' on all things Four Thirds, mentioned it in his review of the E-1, which is still available on his site:

"Lens correction:

• Light fall-off
• Geometric distortion

Now, this is something only Olympus can offer. The Four Thirds lenses, in addition to the usual data, provide the camera with their characteristics regarding these two flaws, especially hard to avoid at short focal lengths.

The camera then may use that data to correct the image. For light fall-off (Olympus refers to it as "lens shading") this is probably done by applying a multiplicative correction to pixel brightness; the correction can be turned on or off from the menu (it is meaningful, anyway, only for wide lens angles). Correction for geometric distortion — has to be done by mapping the light estimate for a given photosite to a different pixel [..]"

It was also alluded to in this brochure for the Olympus E-500:

Anyway, the fact that there was a correction mechanism built-in, should not lead you to believe that these lenses were optically lacking -- they were anything but.

Ah - I'd been checking that site but hadn't been to the E-1 page. His eM1.ii page is very helpful, I printed it for easy reference! Thanks for that.

I concur that the 4Thirds lenses are quite good; I don't do big telephoto that often and the 70-300ZD has been very useful at times. Several years back I had a used E500 with 11-22 and 18-180, but I let all that go except the 70-300. I recently picked up the 40-150 f/3.5-4.5 to check against my Lumix 45-150, and now this 14-54 vs 12-60.

Oops, I've been chatting here instead of downloading comparison images..

ahaslett wrote:

Zuiko had Standard, High Grade and Super High Grade lenses. SHG lenses were excellently optically corrected, large and expensive. They are not as good as the very best modern lenses which use modern materials, processes and design software. Still, pretty much all modern lenses use software correction to reduce size and weight.

The 50/2 is nominally HG, but many people thought it fitted SHG IQ. The 14-54 was a kit lens and Standard Grade,

Sorry, but I think you're not correct on this one. The weather resistant 14-54/2.8-3.5 was in both versions (ver. ii = SWD) High Grade lenses (-- initially, at the introduction of the E-system, pairing up with the HG 50-200/2.8-3.5). The 14-45/3.5-5.6, however, was a Standard Grade non-weather resistant kit lens.

but a good copy can go head to head with the HG 12-60 SWD. My 14-54 is best at the wide end, like my 12-40 Pro, but my 12-60 was best at the tele end and added something extra to my bag.

If you want an example of a real Standard performance, the Zuiko 9-18 fits perfectly.

I’ve just been using my 50-200SWD, after a long break. It is better than I remember, looks like it’s not so far off the Panasonic MFT lens, maybe better at the edges.

Andrew

ahaslett wrote:

jimrpdx wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

jimrpdx wrote:

Danielvr wrote:

Impressive, since distortion corrections aren't encoded in 4:3 just micro4:3.

They are actually, but maybe geometric distortions were less of a concern with the longer flange distance and telecentric lens designs.

Do you have a site source on that Dan? Reviewers began dual-testing for corrections with m43 gear, and no one mentioned it in 4Thirds sites that I visited. I'd like to know that before more 4T lenses attack my wallet..

Olympus Workspace corrects for distortions. I deleted my tests on the 12-60SWD when it stopped working. Can’t remember if C1 corrects or not. The Zuiko 50/2 has barrel distortion, so I guess an experiment might be possible. The moustache distortion of the 12-60SWD was just so easy to see.

Andrew

That would explain the nearly-perfect straight lines with the 14-54 at its widest Bummer that such things weren't mentioned until the micro format; the 50/2 impressed imaging-resource with its "terrific resistance to chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting". No doubt the µ43 distortions are worse, so the native FT lenses are working harder to improve the image before silicon programming takes over.

Zuiko had Standard, High Grade and Super High Grade lenses. SHG lenses were excellently optically corrected, large and expensive. They are not as good as the very best modern lenses which use modern materials, processes and design software. Still, pretty much all modern lenses use software correction to reduce size and weight.

The 50/2 is nominally HG, but many people thought it fitted SHG IQ. The 14-54 was a kit lens and Standard Grade, but a good copy can go head to head with the HG 12-60 SWD. My 14-54 is best at the wide end, like my 12-40 Pro, but my 12-60 was best at the tele end and added something extra to my bag.

I believe the 14-54 was HG, as the "Run of the mill "14-45 kit lens was standard. These came as a kit lens starting with the E300. Back in the day, I lusted over the 14-54. Weather sealed, Definitely optically superior to the 14-45.

If I recall, the 14-54 was optically corrected rather than corrections made in camera. But I'm not 100% sure if that.

Edit: the 14-54's were considered "Standard" in the sense of they were standard focal range  zooms.

If you want an example of a real Standard performance, the Zuiko 9-18 fits perfectly.

I’ve just been using my 50-200SWD, after a long break. It is better than I remember, looks like it’s not so far off the Panasonic MFT lens, maybe better at the edges.

Andrew

shinndigg wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

jimrpdx wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

jimrpdx wrote:

Danielvr wrote:

Impressive, since distortion corrections aren't encoded in 4:3 just micro4:3.

They are actually, but maybe geometric distortions were less of a concern with the longer flange distance and telecentric lens designs.

Do you have a site source on that Dan? Reviewers began dual-testing for corrections with m43 gear, and no one mentioned it in 4Thirds sites that I visited. I'd like to know that before more 4T lenses attack my wallet..

Olympus Workspace corrects for distortions. I deleted my tests on the 12-60SWD when it stopped working. Can’t remember if C1 corrects or not. The Zuiko 50/2 has barrel distortion, so I guess an experiment might be possible. The moustache distortion of the 12-60SWD was just so easy to see.

Andrew

That would explain the nearly-perfect straight lines with the 14-54 at its widest Bummer that such things weren't mentioned until the micro format; the 50/2 impressed imaging-resource with its "terrific resistance to chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting". No doubt the µ43 distortions are worse, so the native FT lenses are working harder to improve the image before silicon programming takes over.

Zuiko had Standard, High Grade and Super High Grade lenses. SHG lenses were excellently optically corrected, large and expensive. They are not as good as the very best modern lenses which use modern materials, processes and design software. Still, pretty much all modern lenses use software correction to reduce size and weight.

The 50/2 is nominally HG, but many people thought it fitted SHG IQ. The 14-54 was a kit lens and Standard Grade, but a good copy can go head to head with the HG 12-60 SWD. My 14-54 is best at the wide end, like my 12-40 Pro, but my 12-60 was best at the tele end and added something extra to my bag.

I believe the 14-54 was HG, as the "Run of the mill "14-45 kit lens was standard. These came as a kit lens starting with the E300. Back in the day, I lusted over the 14-54. Weather sealed, Definitely optically superior to the 14-45.

If I recall, the 14-54 was optically corrected rather than corrections made in camera. But I'm not 100% sure if that.

Edit: the 14-54's were considered "Standard" in the sense of they were standard focal range zooms.

If you want an example of a real Standard performance, the Zuiko 9-18 fits perfectly.

I’ve just been using my 50-200SWD, after a long break. It is better than I remember, looks like it’s not so far off the Panasonic MFT lens, maybe better at the edges.

Andrew

I see you are right!  The 14-54 was sold as part of a kit but is weather sealed and HG.  It is largely optically corrected but FT lenses do also have software corrections.

Andrew

In 2016 the 14-54ii ZD was my walk around lend on an EM1. Great lens. I still have it and it has its own adapter which stays on the lens. Very good, very useful.

I never gave a thought as to how it got tat way - firmware corrected or corrected in lens.  Just kind of a non-issue with me.  It just produced darn good pictures.

Peace.

John

In all seriousness, there is really no bad lenses in the 43 days (maybe the 18-180mm?), not to mention the 14-54mm is a HG lens.

ahaslett wrote:

jimrpdx wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

jimrpdx wrote:

Danielvr wrote:

Impressive, since distortion corrections aren't encoded in 4:3 just micro4:3.

They are actually, but maybe geometric distortions were less of a concern with the longer flange distance and telecentric lens designs.

Do you have a site source on that Dan? Reviewers began dual-testing for corrections with m43 gear, and no one mentioned it in 4Thirds sites that I visited. I'd like to know that before more 4T lenses attack my wallet..

Olympus Workspace corrects for distortions. I deleted my tests on the 12-60SWD when it stopped working. Can’t remember if C1 corrects or not. The Zuiko 50/2 has barrel distortion, so I guess an experiment might be possible. The moustache distortion of the 12-60SWD was just so easy to see.

Andrew

That would explain the nearly-perfect straight lines with the 14-54 at its widest Bummer that such things weren't mentioned until the micro format; the 50/2 impressed imaging-resource with its "terrific resistance to chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting". No doubt the µ43 distortions are worse, so the native FT lenses are working harder to improve the image before silicon programming takes over.

Zuiko had Standard, High Grade and Super High Grade lenses. SHG lenses were excellently optically corrected, large and expensive.

They are not as good as the very best modern lenses which use modern materials, processes and design software. Still, pretty much all modern lenses use software correction to reduce size and weight.

I reckon that the ‘old’ SHG 300mm F2.8 is optically superior to the M.300mm F4 and 150-400mm F4.5. It certainly renders better looking images IMO, despite its old materials

Peter

The 50/2 is nominally HG, but many people thought it fitted SHG IQ. The 14-54 was a kit lens and Standard Grade, but a good copy can go head to head with the HG 12-60 SWD. My 14-54 is best at the wide end, like my 12-40 Pro, but my 12-60 was best at the tele end and added something extra to my bag.

If you want an example of a real Standard performance, the Zuiko 9-18 fits perfectly.

I’ve just been using my 50-200SWD, after a long break. It is better than I remember, looks like it’s not so far off the Panasonic MFT lens, maybe better at the edges.

Andrew

Messier Object wrote:

jimrpdx wrote:

The lens arrived today and I stepped out for a few tests against the 12-60 Lumix using the eM1.ii. The extra bulk was handled well by the larger body, af was decent but a touch slower. When set to wide open the aperture clicks are audible when zooming, weird but not annoying - but it is the first day. I'll try in a bit with the GX7 for more handling comments.

Images with the 14-54 look really nice, better sunstars than the Lumix at f/11. Close-ups looked similar with each, will look again on color and contrast but they seemed similar for those too.

I need to download and compare exif data, i attempted matching shots (each wide open). I'll post a few in the next day or so.

That lens always had good reports, and praise from its owners, and it’s one of the small set of 4/3 lenses that were designed to be compatible with CDAF. A pity that Olympus doesn’t recognise the CDAF capability with their E-M1 II, X, III which still treat those CDAF capable 4/3 lenses as PDAF-only

I am glad they haven't.  The difference in how my 14-54 performs on my EM1's compared to my EM5 is significantly different.  On the EM5 it is frustratingly slow and useless on a moving subject.  It works poorly enough that I just don't bother using it on my EM5, which sucks because I was hoping (when I bought it) to be able to use it on my EM5 as a 3rd camera at events.

The audible aperture noise can be a problem with video recording - the reason I retired my old 12-60mm SWD in favour of the M.Zuiko 12-100mm F4

I look forward to seeing some images from your new 14-54II

Peter