I still don't understand why it's so good but it is.

[AlmostDoctor]

I have been using this lens for several months now.

I still don't understand why I like the images from this lens so much. I just cannot figure it out.

Looking at the spec sheet, this lens does not seem so impressive.

Both the MTF charts online and my own testing show this lens to be technically less sharp than Lumix primes (20mm and 42.5F1.7) or Lumix 12-35 F2.8II at F4.

It has slow F4 maximum aperture.

Raw files have quite a bit of distortion without any software correction.

Physical size and weight is larger and heavier than people expected it to be (especially compared to say Lumix 12-60 F3.5-5.6 and Lumix 12-35 F2.8)

Yet somehow, I am constantly pleased by the output from this lens in a way that Lumix primes and Lumix 12-35 F2.8 II did not quite do at similar apertures. In fact, I have done extensive a side by side shoot with 12-35 with real world scenes and eventually decided to trade in 12-35. Of the lenses I've used, only PL15 and PL25 produce comparable quality images, but I don't even think they are necessarily better at F4 and up. The PL primes are sharper, but the last time I took the photo of the same scene with PL15 @ F4 and 12-45 @ F4, I preferred the output from 12-45 (photos posted below).

I have tried to make sense of why I like the output from this lens so much.

I think I feel like the images from 12-45 F4 just have more natural and pleasant quality to them.

It's sharp enough, without coming off as clinical or over-sharpened.

Good color and contrast without coming off excessively vibrant or contrasty.

Bokeh, while not a lot, tend to feels natural and blends smoothly into the background.

Shadows really look like shadows, rather than colors with different lightness.

Possibly most important, I feel that this lens does a good job reproducing three dimensional textures without rendering images like lines on a flat surface.

I don't know if my impression is true or it's just in my head.

It is entirely possibly that I'm just imagining it.

Either way, I know that if I'm shooting something at F4 and above in 12-45mm range, this lens is all I need to create images I am satisfied with. And that's good enough for me.

I deducted half a star from the review since I ran into a few copies of the lens with focusing issues. When you purchase this lens, I recommend you buy from a store with good return policy to ensure that you get a properly functioning copy.

Sample images are SOOC. They aren't necessarily interesting shots, but I think they are relevant.

This is a shot not from Oly 12-45 F4, but PL15 @ F4 as a reference.

PL15 @F4 for reference.

Here's the same scene with Oly 12-45 F4.

Oly 12-45 @ F4. Not identical images since it was a quick comparison driven by my own spontaneous curiosity, but I think it's good enough to make a point that the images are quite similar. PL15 image is a bit sharper, but I actually like the output from 12-45 better in this instance. Hard to tell if the difference is primarily due to slight difference in exposure/framing or something else. Either way, there isn't a huge difference between the two at F4 in a practical sense.

 

[AlmostDoctor]

Regarding your comparison, it seems like the shot with the 12-35 is a tad more exposed, leading to less saturated colors, which may make you prefer the 12-45 shot.

That's it.

Also I suspect, that lens profiles not only correct vignetting and distortion, but that Olympus lenses are set to slightly higher saturation than Panasonic lenses. At least I got that impression when I started using my 12-100.

That's possible.

I also wonder, that your 12-45 is less sharp than your 20. My 12-100 is at least as sharp as my 20. (And I unexplicably prefer the output of the 20, but use the 12-100 :-D ). But here sample variation might explain these differences.

Peter

I do like my Lumix 20 F1.7 II. It's a great lens and it's quite sharp at least similar in sharpness to Oly 12-45. I usually shoot P20 wide open though. On a few occasions I tried stopping it down for landscapes but wasn't too impressed when I used it like that for some reason. But I should try a bit more just to be sure.

Sample variation can always be a contributing factor. I tried three copies of 12-45 so I should know. In fact I think my last copy might have been slightly sharper than my current copy, but the last copy and my first copy had trouble focusing on corner of the frame sometimes. My current copy doesn't have that issue and the sharpness seems quite good in practice.

 

[Harold66]

Regarding your comparison, it seems like the shot with the 12-35 is a tad more exposed, leading to less saturated colors, which may make you prefer the 12-45 shot.

That's it.

Also I suspect, that lens profiles not only correct vignetting and distortion, but that Olympus lenses are set to slightly higher saturation than Panasonic lenses. At least I got that impression when I started using my 12-100.

That's possible.

I also wonder, that your 12-45 is less sharp than your 20. My 12-100 is at least as sharp as my 20. (And I unexplicably prefer the output of the 20, but use the 12-100 :-D ). But here sample variation might explain these differences.

Peter

I do like my Lumix 20 F1.7 II. It's a great lens and it's quite sharp at least similar in sharpness to Oly 12-45.

I would be VERY surprised if the 20mm was not MUCH sharper at f4 than the 12.45mm at the same4 focal length and aperture

I usually shoot P20 wide open though. On a few occasions I tried stopping it down for landscapes but wasn't too impressed when I used it like that for some reason.

maybe you have a bad copy . most tests will show that the 20mm is at its best between f 2.8 and f 4.5

But I should try a bit more just to be sure.

Yes no argument there

Sample variation can always be a contributing factor. I tried three copies of 12-45 so I should know. In fact I think my last copy might have been slightly sharper than my current copy, but the last copy and my first copy had trouble focusing on corner of the frame sometimes. My current copy doesn't have that issue and the sharpness seems quite good in practice.

 

[Interceptor121]

I have been using this lens for several months now.

I still don't understand why I like the images from this lens so much. I just cannot figure it out.

Looking at the spec sheet, this lens does not seem so impressive.

Both the MTF charts online and my own testing show this lens to be technically less sharp than Lumix primes (20mm and 42.5F1.7) or Lumix 12-35 F2.8II at F4.

It has slow F4 maximum aperture.

Raw files have quite a bit of distortion without any software correction.

Physical size and weight is larger and heavier than people expected it to be (especially compared to say Lumix 12-60 F3.5-5.6 and Lumix 12-35 F2.8)

Yet somehow, I am constantly pleased by the output from this lens in a way that Lumix primes and Lumix 12-35 F2.8 II did not quite do at similar apertures. In fact, I have done extensive a side by side shoot with 12-35 with real world scenes and eventually decided to trade in 12-35. Of the lenses I've used, only PL15 and PL25 produce comparable quality images, but I don't even think they are necessarily better at F4 and up. The PL primes are sharper, but the last time I took the photo of the same scene with PL15 @ F4 and 12-45 @ F4, I preferred the output from 12-45 (photos posted below).

I have tried to make sense of why I like the output from this lens so much.

I think I feel like the images from 12-45 F4 just have more natural and pleasant quality to them.

It's sharp enough, without coming off as clinical or over-sharpened.

Good color and contrast without coming off excessively vibrant or contrasty.

Bokeh, while not a lot, tend to feels natural and blends smoothly into the background.

Shadows really look like shadows, rather than colors with different lightness.

Possibly most important, I feel that this lens does a good job reproducing three dimensional textures without rendering images like lines on a flat surface.

I don't know if my impression is true or it's just in my head.

It is entirely possibly that I'm just imagining it.

Either way, I know that if I'm shooting something at F4 and above in 12-45mm range, this lens is all I need to create images I am satisfied with. And that's good enough for me.

I deducted half a star from the review since I ran into a few copies of the lens with focusing issues. When you purchase this lens, I recommend you buy from a store with good return policy to ensure that you get a properly functioning copy.

Sample images are SOOC. They aren't necessarily interesting shots, but I think they are relevant.

This is a shot not from Oly 12-45 F4, but PL15 @ F4 as a reference.

PL15 @F4 for reference.

Here's the same scene with Oly 12-45 F4.

Oly 12-45 @ F4. Not identical images since it was a quick comparison driven by my own spontaneous curiosity, but I think it's good enough to make a point that the images are quite similar. PL15 image is a bit sharper, but I actually like the output from 12-45 better in this instance. Hard to tell if the difference is primarily due to slight difference in exposure/framing or something else. Either way, there isn't a huge difference between the two at F4 in a practical sense.

I think that the strength of this lens is that performance is really strong at f/4 - f/5.6 this is apparent in your sample shots although I would like to see some real shots where you put some composition effort to be honest.

I typically shoot landscapes with zoom lenses not primes unless there is low light and I am between f2.8 to f5.6. I would say that with the exception of the fact you do not have a f/2.8 option on this lens this would work very well in majority of outdoors situations.

It would have been useful to push the tele end a bit further perhaps 50-60mm but maybe they could have not kept the same performance but with 250 grams this lens is definitely a great option for outdoors if it comes as a kit on a smaller body like the EM5 or EM10

--
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com

 

[Albert Valentino]

.

It would have been useful to push the tele end a bit further perhaps 50-60mm but maybe they could have not kept the same performance but with 250 grams this lens is definitely a great option for outdoors if it comes as a kit on a smaller body like the EM5 or EM10

We are spoiled for choice. If you want longer there is the PL 12-60 at 320 grams vs the 255 grams. Faster at the wide end, longer at the long end, and only 65grams heavier.

 

[victorav]

Yes I it's is not always practical to zoom with your feet. Although I do enjoy moving around to find a composition I like when using a prime. However I understand everyone is different and may not enjoy the process of using a prime.

Anyway thanks for the photos, help convince me that this will be the zoom lens I get.

 

[Day Hiker]

My experience is similar to yours. I got my 12-45mm f/4 Pro last May. The first few batches of images I processed, I found myself thinking, “Really?” I was drawn to the lens immediately. The images were that surprisingly good, for no good reason!

The M.Zuiko 12-45mm f/4 Pro is one of “those lenses” that a photographer appreciates having on his camera. My Leica 25mm f/1.4 and M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.2 Pro fall in the same category. All three of these are special lenses that draw with character and perform beyond what I would expect from their specifications. Some might include the M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 in the same category.


Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Life is good in the woods

 

[AlmostDoctor]

I have been using this lens for several months now.

I still don't understand why I like the images from this lens so much. I just cannot figure it out.

Looking at the spec sheet, this lens does not seem so impressive.

Both the MTF charts online and my own testing show this lens to be technically less sharp than Lumix primes (20mm and 42.5F1.7) or Lumix 12-35 F2.8II at F4.

It has slow F4 maximum aperture.

Raw files have quite a bit of distortion without any software correction.

Physical size and weight is larger and heavier than people expected it to be (especially compared to say Lumix 12-60 F3.5-5.6 and Lumix 12-35 F2.8)

Yet somehow, I am constantly pleased by the output from this lens in a way that Lumix primes and Lumix 12-35 F2.8 II did not quite do at similar apertures. In fact, I have done extensive a side by side shoot with 12-35 with real world scenes and eventually decided to trade in 12-35. Of the lenses I've used, only PL15 and PL25 produce comparable quality images, but I don't even think they are necessarily better at F4 and up. The PL primes are sharper, but the last time I took the photo of the same scene with PL15 @ F4 and 12-45 @ F4, I preferred the output from 12-45 (photos posted below).

I have tried to make sense of why I like the output from this lens so much.

I think I feel like the images from 12-45 F4 just have more natural and pleasant quality to them.

It's sharp enough, without coming off as clinical or over-sharpened.

Good color and contrast without coming off excessively vibrant or contrasty.

Bokeh, while not a lot, tend to feels natural and blends smoothly into the background.

Shadows really look like shadows, rather than colors with different lightness.

Possibly most important, I feel that this lens does a good job reproducing three dimensional textures without rendering images like lines on a flat surface.

I don't know if my impression is true or it's just in my head.

It is entirely possibly that I'm just imagining it.

Either way, I know that if I'm shooting something at F4 and above in 12-45mm range, this lens is all I need to create images I am satisfied with. And that's good enough for me.

I deducted half a star from the review since I ran into a few copies of the lens with focusing issues. When you purchase this lens, I recommend you buy from a store with good return policy to ensure that you get a properly functioning copy.

Sample images are SOOC. They aren't necessarily interesting shots, but I think they are relevant.

This is a shot not from Oly 12-45 F4, but PL15 @ F4 as a reference.

PL15 @F4 for reference.

Here's the same scene with Oly 12-45 F4.

Oly 12-45 @ F4. Not identical images since it was a quick comparison driven by my own spontaneous curiosity, but I think it's good enough to make a point that the images are quite similar. PL15 image is a bit sharper, but I actually like the output from 12-45 better in this instance. Hard to tell if the difference is primarily due to slight difference in exposure/framing or something else. Either way, there isn't a huge difference between the two at F4 in a practical sense.

I think that the strength of this lens is that performance is really strong at f/4 - f/5.6 this is apparent in your sample shots although I would like to see some real shots where you put some composition effort to be honest.

Eventually, I'm sure I'll have a nice collection of images I can share from 12-45. Unfortunately, with all my travels being cancelled due to covid, most of the images I have of this lens are initial lens qc test shots (hence the boring subjects with lots of detail) and comparison shots with another lens with little effort in composition department.

I typically shoot landscapes with zoom lenses not primes unless there is low light and I am between f2.8 to f5.6. I would say that with the exception of the fact you do not have a f/2.8 option on this lens this would work very well in majority of outdoors situations.

In a mean time, I am going through a lot of images I took with my (now sold) GX85 plus 12-35 and other lenses. That's part of the reason why I decided to sell 12-35. There were many landscape shots I took with 12-35 @ F2.8 that I think would have been much better at F4 or F5.6 both from composition and sharpness. I came to the conclusion that I'd prefer having longer end if I'm going to be shooting at F4 most of the time anyway.

It would have been useful to push the tele end a bit further perhaps 50-60mm but maybe they could have not kept the same performance but with 250 grams this lens is definitely a great option for outdoors if it comes as a kit on a smaller body like the EM5 or EM10

Agreed that 60mm would have been great on the long end. Maybe it was difficult to keep the corner sharpness high with 60mm on the long end without increasing the size. (Also redundant focal length but larger would not have been so great from marketing perspective.)

 

[Skeeterbytes]

Thank you, helpful writeup.

Pondering one for a compact standard zoom to add to the kit, something equally at home on an E-M1 and GM5. It occupies a space between the 12-40 and 12-32, much smaller than the first and less fussy than the second (plus weather-sealed).

Cheers,

Rick

12-45 would be a better match for EM1 than GM5 imo. GM5 has no IBIS so 12-35 F2.8 with OIS might be a better fit. The OIS is pretty effective too, like 3 stops.

On a WR Olympus body, I think 12-45 would be better.

Just something I'm toying with ATM. Ditching OIS can be an issue with the GM5 in low light and I often put a fast small prime in my kit, e.g., 45/1.8, for those situations--not much penalty to carry and overcomes the 12-32's being quite slow, albeit with OIS.

Comparing at the 12-35/2.8 and 12-45/4, one thing that jumps out is the amazing minimum focus distance of the new lens. That's really close! They're only a couple ounces different so that's not a big differentiator while the Oly is smaller in both width and length.

Interesting to recall that when the first version was offered, the 12-35/2.8 was US$1,300, I suppose because there was no competition back then. Hard to fathom today, with so many standard zooms to choose among.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[AlmostDoctor]

My experience is similar to yours. I got my 12-45mm f/4 Pro last May. The first few batches of images I processed, I found myself thinking, “Really?” I was drawn to the lens immediately. The images were that surprisingly good, for no good reason!

The M.Zuiko 12-45mm f/4 Pro is one of “those lenses” that a photographer appreciates having on his camera. My Leica 25mm f/1.4 and M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.2 Pro fall in the same category. All three of these are special lenses that draw with character and perform beyond what I would expect from their specifications. Some might include the M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 in the same category.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Life is good in the woods

Right. It's interesting how people who have used this lens have overwhelmingly positive impressions while the criticism mostly come from those who have never used it citing specsheets.

My wife, who has no interest nor knowledge of photography, have gone out of her way to compliment a few of the SOOC shots taken on 12-45. The only other time this happened was shots taken on PL15. I sometimes value the reaction from non-photographers when it comes to evaluating overall rendering of lenses.

 

[AlmostDoctor]

Thank you, helpful writeup.

Pondering one for a compact standard zoom to add to the kit, something equally at home on an E-M1 and GM5. It occupies a space between the 12-40 and 12-32, much smaller than the first and less fussy than the second (plus weather-sealed).

Cheers,

Rick

12-45 would be a better match for EM1 than GM5 imo. GM5 has no IBIS so 12-35 F2.8 with OIS might be a better fit. The OIS is pretty effective too, like 3 stops.

On a WR Olympus body, I think 12-45 would be better.

Just something I'm toying with ATM. Ditching OIS can be an issue with the GM5 in low light and I often put a fast small prime in my kit, e.g., 45/1.8, for those situations--not much penalty to carry and overcomes the 12-32's being quite slow, albeit with OIS.

Comparing at the 12-35/2.8 and 12-45/4, one thing that jumps out is the amazing minimum focus distance of the new lens. That's really close! They're only a couple ounces different so that's not a big differentiator while the Oly is smaller in both width and length.

Interesting to recall that when the first version was offered, the 12-35/2.8 was US$1,300, I suppose because there was no competition back then. Hard to fathom today, with so many standard zooms to choose among.

Cheers,

Rick

--
Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.

The difference in minimum focus distance is quite noticeable. I have noticed that when trying to take pictures of food with 12-35, I often had to back up to get the subject in focus. That was one of the minor gripes that made me switch to 12-45. Also, 10mm on the long end makes quite a bit of difference. 45mm gets you to classic portrait length. While you don't get much bokeh, it still creates more pleasant images than 12-35 @ 35mm F2.8.

 

[shinndigg]

Regarding your comparison, it seems like the shot with the 12-35 is a tad more exposed, leading to less saturated colors, which may make you prefer the 12-45 shot.

That's it.

Also I suspect, that lens profiles not only correct vignetting and distortion, but that Olympus lenses are set to slightly higher saturation than Panasonic lenses. At least I got that impression when I started using my 12-100.

That's possible.

More likely, in conjunction with Olympus bodies, Different, steeper tone curve.That's been my experience with comparing m.Zuiko lenses with Panasonic lenses. With one notable exception : the Panasonic 25 1.7. Fantastic lens.

I also wonder, that your 12-45 is less sharp than your 20. My 12-100 is at least as sharp as my 20. (And I unexplicably prefer the output of the 20, but use the 12-100 :-D ). But here sample variation might explain these differences.

Peter

I do like my Lumix 20 F1.7 II. It's a great lens and it's quite sharp at least similar in sharpness to Oly 12-45. I usually shoot P20 wide open though. On a few occasions I tried stopping it down for landscapes but wasn't too impressed when I used it like that for some reason. But I should try a bit more just to be sure.

Sample variation can always be a contributing factor. I tried three copies of 12-45 so I should know. In fact I think my last copy might have been slightly sharper than my current copy, but the last copy and my first copy had trouble focusing on corner of the frame sometimes. My current copy doesn't have that issue and the sharpness seems quite good in practice.

--
shinndigg
www.pbase.com/shinndigg

 

[Lichtspiel]

Thank you for this review, and especially the comparisons. I am shooting with the 12-35 and have frequently pondered the 12-45, but I feel like I might miss the f2.8. Not for low light situations, but for better subject separation/smoother background/bokeh.

If I go hiking with the zoom lens I don't take primes with me, so I would not necessarily have a faster aperture available.

Regarding your comparison, it seems like the shot with the 12-35 is a tad more exposed, leading to less saturated colors, which may make you prefer the 12-45 shot.

With such comparisons, I have always found less differences than expected (between similar lenses!). Matter of fact, one such comparison lead me to sell my 17/1.2 because, at similar apertures, there was not much difference to the 15/1.7 nor 12-35. Of course, the kit 14-42 was significantly fuzzier towards the edges, so not a serious contender for me.

I have been looking at the prices at the outlet, and if there is another 20% coupon one day and the 12-45 is available I'll bite and do my own comparisons. But even if that never happens... I am pretty happy with the 12-35 (or the primes).

Here's the PL15 prime vs Oly 12-45 comparison, both developed from raw in DxO to try to match the exposure. The preset settings are the same.

Here is what I would say after some comparing...

The light colored clouds on the left look better (cleaner) in the Olympus shot. The darker trees have more detail in the PL15 shot. It almost seems like more DR (less contrast) in the PL, but that could just be the way DxO interprets the two lenses.

The light colored sky close to the trees on the right looks better (darker) in the PL shot.

Maybe if you add another notch of contrast to the PL the two would look even closer.

The foreground grass is fuzzier in the Olympus shot, but that may be due to wind, hard to say. The PL's angle is slightly wider than what you chose with the Oly.



In any case, it would be difficult for me to pick a winner. Even though both are very different lenses based on specs, the results, when adjusted a bit, are extremely close. I'd say both zooms and primes have their particular strengths, I have always used both and will continue to do so, mostly based on focal length, weight and aperture.

 

[april fox]

A very useful lens I use it a lot for science based images due to its clinical results

 

[AlmostDoctor]

Thank you for this review, and especially the comparisons. I am shooting with the 12-35 and have frequently pondered the 12-45, but I feel like I might miss the f2.8. Not for low light situations, but for better subject separation/smoother background/bokeh.

If I go hiking with the zoom lens I don't take primes with me, so I would not necessarily have a faster aperture available.

Regarding your comparison, it seems like the shot with the 12-35 is a tad more exposed, leading to less saturated colors, which may make you prefer the 12-45 shot.

With such comparisons, I have always found less differences than expected (between similar lenses!). Matter of fact, one such comparison lead me to sell my 17/1.2 because, at similar apertures, there was not much difference to the 15/1.7 nor 12-35. Of course, the kit 14-42 was significantly fuzzier towards the edges, so not a serious contender for me.

I have been looking at the prices at the outlet, and if there is another 20% coupon one day and the 12-45 is available I'll bite and do my own comparisons. But even if that never happens... I am pretty happy with the 12-35 (or the primes).

Here's the PL15 prime vs Oly 12-45 comparison, both developed from raw in DxO to try to match the exposure. The preset settings are the same.

Here is what I would say after some comparing...

The light colored clouds on the left look better (cleaner) in the Olympus shot. The darker trees have more detail in the PL15 shot. It almost seems like more DR (less contrast) in the PL, but that could just be the way DxO interprets the two lenses.

The light colored sky close to the trees on the right looks better (darker) in the PL shot.

Maybe if you add another notch of contrast to the PL the two would look even closer.

The foreground grass is fuzzier in the Olympus shot, but that may be due to wind, hard to say. The PL's angle is slightly wider than what you chose with the Oly.

In any case, it would be difficult for me to pick a winner. Even though both are very different lenses based on specs, the results, when adjusted a bit, are extremely close. I'd say both zooms and primes have their particular strengths, I have always used both and will continue to do so, mostly based on focal length, weight and aperture.

That was my main take away as well. Though at pixel level, PL15 appears to be a bit sharper, I don't think it's really affecting the overall image in a meaningful way. Regardless of the technical differences, I doubt I would feel the need to switch to a prime for IQ reasons when I'm shooting with 12-45 and that's a good news for me.

 

[Lichtspiel]

Though at pixel level, PL15 appears to be a bit sharper, I don't think it's really affecting the overall image in a meaningful way. Regardless of the technical differences, I doubt I would feel the need to switch to a prime for IQ reasons when I'm shooting with 12-45 and that's a good news for me.

Agreed... one thing you could do is try to capture the same scene/FL/lighting, make sure both lenses are focused on the same spot, then compare the file sizes of the jpg's. The larger one will be the sharper one. But like you say... it is so close that it doesn't really matter.

Use the prime if you need the f1.7, or want to go really inconspicuous. It's good to have choices.

 

[eques]

Regarding your comparison, it seems like the shot with the 12-35 is a tad more exposed, leading to less saturated colors, which may make you prefer the 12-45 shot.

That's it.

Also I suspect, that lens profiles not only correct vignetting and distortion, but that Olympus lenses are set to slightly higher saturation than Panasonic lenses. At least I got that impression when I started using my 12-100.

That's possible.

I also wonder, that your 12-45 is less sharp than your 20. My 12-100 is at least as sharp as my 20. (And I unexplicably prefer the output of the 20, but use the 12-100 :-D ). But here sample variation might explain these differences.

Peter

I do like my Lumix 20 F1.7 II. It's a great lens and it's quite sharp at least similar in sharpness to Oly 12-45.

I would be VERY surprised if the 20mm was not MUCH sharper at f4 than the 12.45mm at the same4 focal length and aperture

Well, comparing the LensTip reviews, the modern high end zooms seem to resolve better than the ancient 20m lens, even when tanikng into account, that the 20mm was tested with the 12MP sensor and the newer ones at 16MP.

I usually shoot P20 wide open though. On a few occasions I tried stopping it down for landscapes but wasn't too impressed when I used it like that for some reason.

maybe you have a bad copy . most tests will show that the 20mm is at its best between f 2.8 and f 4.5

But I should try a bit more just to be sure.

Yes no argument there

Sample variation can always be a contributing factor. I tried three copies of 12-45 so I should know. In fact I think my last copy might have been slightly sharper than my current copy, but the last copy and my first copy had trouble focusing on corner of the frame sometimes. My current copy doesn't have that issue and the sharpness seems quite good in practice.

 

[Harold66]

comparing apples and oranges ..

and when evaluating a lens , the sharpness is only ONE of the factor

distortion , vignetting , CA must also be taken into account

Harold

 

[eques]

comparing apples and oranges ..

?

and when evaluating a lens , the sharpness is only ONE of the factor

distortion , vignetting , CA must also be taken into account

Harold

Agree, but correction for distortion, vignetting and CA is easyer than for sharpness.

And here the pros and cons for the 20mm by LensTip:

And did I say. I love the way the 20mm "renders". In a way it is the best M43 lens I ever tried. I just recently reviewed my pictures of a few holidays, I shot exclusively with this lovely lens. However, I found reflexed when photographing against the sun quite a problem.

Peter

 

[Harold66]

comparing apples and oranges ..

?

and when evaluating a lens , the sharpness is only ONE of the factor

distortion , vignetting , CA must also be taken into account

Harold

Agree, but correction for distortion, vignetting and CA is easyer than for sharpness.

in my experience CA and poor resistance to flare are worse than sharpness

And here the pros and cons for the 20mm by LensTip:

And did I say. I love the way the 20mm "renders". In a way it is the best M43 lens I ever tried. I just recently reviewed my pictures of a few holidays, I shot exclusively with this lovely lens. However, I found reflexed when photographing against the sun quite a problem.

maybe it is because you do not use a hood ?

Peter

--
FOLLOW me on IG @ledaylightstudio.
thedemandingtraveler.org
www.haroldglit.com
IG :thedemandingtraveler

 

[Skeeterbytes]

Clearly the 20 cannot fail, it can only be failed. "One lens to rule them all."

It's a nice enough optic, warts and all. Best possible @ that focal length? Who's to say; in 2009 it had the territory to itself but today there's a lot of coverage there.

Cheers,

Rick