Short break from GX7 news:
DxOmark (Click here) posted the table of the best prime and zoom lenses for the MFT system. As usual takes these kind of tests with a grain of salt. There are different ways of doing tests and as we have seen from the past conclusions do change from reviewer to reviewer. That said results are not really a surprise for anyone here 🙂
90 Responses
Where’s the legendary panasonic 20mm 1.7?
they haven’t tested it
… so its a review of the best lenses they’ve tested
Like any other review by anybody else…
To even have the 12-50 or 14-42 pig glass in this dxo list has rendered this test site utterly useless to me from now on. The actual users on this 43rumors site have far more credibility.
+1!
No kidding!
DxO blows.
They haven’t bothered to test the 20mm (the most popular M4/3 lens!!!), the 14mm, the Voigtländer 17.5mm or 25mm, or any of the SLR Magic native M4/3 lenses (12mm, 25mm, 35mm or 50mm).
Meanwhile they test the recycled APSC Smegma 19mm and 30mm lenses.
Pfffffffft…
I posit that lenses with no electronic contacts (i.e Voigtlander)are not suitable for testing using DXO’s methodology – it has no electronic contacts to measure current focus point or aperture with
So DXO didn’t test your favourite lens…boo hoo
If it matters so much to you go an test it yourself and publish yourself? – its easy to criticise when you contribute nothing.
AND I’M TRYING MY HARDEST TO BE NICE. THEY REVIEW “RECYCLED” SIGMA LENSES, YET NOT “THE” MFT LENS, THE 20mm??
STOP.
I am surprised about Leica Macro 45mm. Other than it is pretty much as expected.
Information from DxO is of questionable value. The Panny 45mm Macro is a fantastic little lens..so don’t let the clowns of Markland persuade you otherwise…read reports from other sources and wonder why the DxO info is so far in the other direction. A thinking mind can see the obvious.
DXOMark is the most comprehensive quantitative way to measure IQ – it is not perfect sure, but please, if you think you have a way of improving it, go and create something or provide constructive feedback to DXO.
Otherwise you are contributing nothing but your whining.
is the most meaningless set of metrics for lenses ever dreampt up. The low MTF values they use benefit full frame lenses, but they are not in line with reality.
Who’d have thunk, DXO not in line with reality.
More surprised by Sigma lenses, make so good.
Just read a review on the Sigma 60mm and 30mm tested on the same camera in British Journal of Photography and that was a really very positive review as well.
An alternative view on the above:
http://photofocus.com/2013/08/01/why-i-couldnt-care-less-what-dxomark-says-about-my-lens-or-yours/
+1
-1
“99% of all lenses are better than 98% of all photographers.”
i’ll remember and pray this sentence like a mantra everytime i am tempted by the 7-14, 45/1.8, 20/1.7, 75/1.8, 12-35… vade retro!
Use pinhole, easy and nice also to digital camera. 😉
+1.
DxOmark – still trying to quantify the qualitative, and objectify the subjective. Magic of the numbers. But people like the magic of numbers, especially when you can reduce something as sophisticated as a lens (or a camera) to a simple single number.
+1000!
So what about the rumors about the new OM-D that were supposed to be coming soon after GX7 announcement? I am really looking forward to those, and especially anything about a new E-7 (heavily invested in HG lenses).
Its been ONE DAY
Actually pixel peepers and complainers are the ones that put pressure on manufacturers to do a better job. That makes these people very valuable even from a photographers point of view.
Charles…could you please post your comment again using silver ink?
Where’s my Oly 14-150 🙂 ?
I own one too, but I’m not really interested in its performance figures: don’t want to know how “bad” it really is. The Pany 14-140 should be a good indication, though 🙂
Given the price, the combination of range, small size and fast focus is sweet. It’s a true Dad’s Lens!
I resemble that remark, and love my 14-150!
Well the four super Olympus primes I own are all up there and no surprises there but I must say considering the lumix 12-35 and 35-100 are zooms, they score admirably well.
Hurry up Olympus and give me those zooms or it’ll be the lumix I’ll grab.
I’d like to see the lumix 20 f1.7mk2,
Voigtlander 17.5 f0.95 and even the Olympus 50 f2 macro with an adapter all tested to see how everything stacks up.
Why are you waiting for something that already exists? They need to say zuiko on the front?
Must say that the look-and-feel of these lenses is quite Panasonic… It’s 99% irrational, but in all honesty I’d prefer a Zuiko-labeled lens as well. No reason to wait, though: Pany has done well.
Just but optically the shorter lens at least elsewhere has had quite poor reviews for the money. Plus there have been a few issues with the sealing not being up to much. Well certainly not Olympus standard anyway.
I have been puzzled on why OM-D resolved better than GH3 although they use the same sensor and lenses. I have the same feeling when I look at DPReview comparison. After some research I realized OM-D uses a very thin anti alias filter. That explain everything (for me).
The D800E doesn’t have an anti aliasing filter and if you compare it with D800 (with AA filter) in DPReview, you will also notice the D800E resolves better. But you must pixel peep and compare side by side to see the differences.
Yes, it suggests the GH3 can’t keep up with the Om-D as a stills camera. Maybe the GH3 compromise is that the AA filter is needed primarily for video over stills? I also noted that for the GH2 is as sharp as the GH3 for some lenses tested too.
The biggest joke is the ranking of Olympus 17mm f1.8 at #4. This lens is so soft as a prime where many zooms can easily beats it.
My 17mm F1.8 is nice, but i use this most for street photos.
I have it. Did you actually compare it to zoom lenses? What apertures?
The 17mm 1.8 gives me a nice “prime feel”. Small, soft but fast wide open, more than sharp enough when stopped down to 5.6.
It’s interesting to see how it performs better on the E-M5 according to dxo. That at least is an indication that most other sensors cannot take full advantage of this “big joke” lens…
Following the laws of physics, the bumblebee could not fly (because of its shape and its wings), but it doesn’t know it, and fly. Same for Zuiko17mm f1.8: following tests the lens sucks and it’s overpriced (because we want it for free), but it takes good photos.
“Following the laws of physics, the bumblebee could not fly”
This is a false statement, if you use the right physical model you must find that the bumblee can fly, otherwise your model is just inaccurate or doesn’t take the right phenomenon into account…
For the 17 mm f1.8 maybe the dxo computation can’t take into account the caracter and the rendition of the lense than human feel (colors, contrast, saturation,…) and just compute a pure mathematical resolution which doesn’t make all…I don’t know, I don’t own this lense and don’t care that much about it !
“and just compute a pure mathematical resolution which doesn’t make all…” exactly my point. 😉
Can’t see the Panasonic 14 and Sigma 19. They would blow most of the other primes on this list in terms of sheer performance per price which is easily confirmed by their measurements at SLR Gear and perhaps everyone who actually uses them. Also no sign of the venerable Panasonic 20, while the Olympus 17/2.8 is all but irrelevant. Anyhow, the idea of comparing lenses of every imaginable focal length on a single scale is utterly ridiculous. How can a 75mm lens “be better” than a 12mm lens? Do DX Mark understand focal lengths at all, I wonder…
Do you actually own the 17mm 1.8 lens? It’s actually very sharp stopped down. Yes, it’s soft in the corners wide open, but whether that is an issue or not depends on how you use it. If you shoot it wide open to capture people in the evening (which is what I use it for), it never even comes into play because the corners are out of focus anyhow. The softness only comes into play if you use it to shoot a landscape or church interiors wide open. But then again, from what I can tell from my lens, even there the softness is overstated. And even then, it’s not an issue. If you’re looking for tack-sharp professional results, you’d be using a tripod and stopping down anyway, since all wide angle lenses have some softness in the corners. But I find I can generally stop down to 2.8 (or use another lens) and let the OM-D’s ibis handle the rest.
This is all reasonable until the much sharper (wide open) Panasonic 20/1.7 comes into play as a considerably less expensive yet overall better performing alternative, with an added benefit of also being more compact. OTOH if only shooting stopped-down for the sharpest results, the Sigma 19/2.8 fares as well as the Olympus lens for a small fraction of its cost.
Don’t care. My 20mm/1.7 is for sale. Because in practice, it focuses way too slow and is mostly a little sharper in the center only (so the differences between center and corner are simply more evident). And let’s not start about the looks.
I also sold my 20mm for the same reason. On paper, it’s slightly sharper, but the real world differences in IQ are marginal. On the other hand, the difference in autofocus speed on my E-P5–especially in low or marginal light–is huge.
Gosh, the worse lens on the planet, the body cap lens, is listed among the top lenses!!! Ummm better amend the title of this post to be less misleading 😉
Two zoom lenses from 2013 not tested:
Panasonic LUMIX G VARIO 14-140mm / F3.5-5.6 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S.
Tamron 14-150mm F/3.5-5.8 Di III VC (Model C001)
As far as I know, the Tamron zoom remains little more than a promise.
It hasn’t been released, or even been given a release date.
wow Olympus Macro 2.8/60 has lower scored than Sigma Macro 2.8/60mm.,.i have the Oly 2.8/60mm,.and also CZ 2.0/50 Makro planar Nikon mount and..when i compared the sharpness both of them mounted on my OM-D ,.Oly 2.0/60 better sharpness, clarity ,contrast,.,.
so in this case is even true it means Sigma better than Oly or CZ
The Sigma is a excellent lens even without considering the price, but it is not a macro lens.
20mm has been released for over 4 years and still haven’t been tested?
dxo just knew about mark II…
Leica lumix 45 f2.8 macro is barely better than the humble and often ostracized 17 f2.8??!!!….dxo results seem a bit strange sometimes.
They put a lot of weight into f-number (justly so), and seem to measure sharpness at sharpest aperture, not wide open.
And that lens crap thingy….5?
A fasion accessory that mimics a lens so no surprises there. Choice is good though and it’s there for those who are daring enough.
It is a pity that DxO did not test the Olympus 14-150….
I keep reading and it almost seems unanimous that the 17 f1.8 is inferior to the 12 f2 but it seems otherwise here.
It seems we can always rely on a surprise of some sougjt with the dxo crew.
Yep. I must say they seem to have a neutral to positive take on the m43 system and the lenses. No suprise, given the m43 lenses tend to outperform all the APS-C lenses by Canon and Nikon put together. This is good, because dxo can be used to slap APS fanboys with.
Heheeeh +1000 😀
In all fairness from the images I’ve downloaded off various websites and looked at the 17 f1.8 doesn’t look bad at all and has very nice contrast.
I own the 12 f2 and while I think it’s an excellent from what I see when examining my images, my 45 and 60 macro outperform it but dxo would say otherwise regarding the later. My 75 is obviously in another class and hopefully we’ll see that leica 42.5 and other Oly lenses in that class soon enough.
Agreed. I have owned the 12/2 for quite some time and don’t see what the fuzz is about. Even stopped down it’s just fine, but never great (never saw a WA lens that was, btw, so maybe that’s it).
But in practice, just like the 17/1.8, it’s a really nice lens: you just bring it along. 24mm equiv + f/2 + IBIS + small form factor -> sweet experience.
Somehow Oly really gets that “whole experience” thing quite well, I think.
The only real surprises to me are that the Oly 60mm macro was not rated higher, and the Oly 17mm f/1.8 was rated so high.
Cool, The Olympus body cap lens is on the 5th place 😛 😛
I’m getting so tired of this DXO cult, seriously, what purpose does it serve ? IMO it does more harm than good, those test are an incomplete vision of what photography is as an experience. I sometimes wonder how many DXO fanatics are actually good photographers, not many I’m guessing. I know I’ll get flamed for this sacrilege I’m saying but I think we should get out more and actually take some photographs instead of wanking to DXO results all the time. When someone sees one of your photos they won’t ask for the DXO score of the camera or lens, they’ll judge it based on the value of its aesthetic content, which doesn’t get a score at DXO.
Of course this post won’t persuade anyone at all, i know that, I’m just trying to put this stuff in perspective.
+1000 again.
I couldn’t agree more!
If you ever read the M4/3 forum posts at DPReview, there’s a certain segment of posters who continually trot out charts and graphs and blathering on about “physics” and whatnot to prove invisible, esoteric and essentially pointless points. It’s always good for a cheap laugh. Sort of…
I think those charts are actually family portraits. 😉
Most dpr forum users wouldn’t own a tripod, let alone how to use one with a good piece of glass.
Disagree… Gf1+oly14-42 is very good but oly 40-150 which is ranked 2 is very bad at150
Seems DxOmark don’t take into account software correction for scores, this sucks. Software correction is part of optical design for m43. Wish they could compare end result. This affecting scores in a bad way even inside m43 lenses, since some focal lengths have to be corrected more than others. Sigmas for example were designed first for bodies that do not use software correction, so native m43 lenses in dxo tests are at a disadvantage.
OM-D is a better still camera than GH-3.
Is GX-7 close, the same, or better?
Better at what? Both have their strengths and weakness and areas of application.
The Blackmagic 2.5K Cinema MFT Camera just got a *massive* price drop!
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/08/blackmagic-cinema-camera-ef-mft-price-cost-drop/
to say it in normal 43rumors-forum user words:
the prove that the OM-D beats the crap out of the GH3 🙂
+1000 my friend. So when panasonic says that the gx7 is the best pana sensor it’s not so exciting because the Omd IS better than the gh3.
DXO tests are serious and performed in a consistent way – more than you can say about most testers on the net.
Primes do remarkably well I think!
One thing about interpreting tables with points: For DXO says there needs to be 5 point difference to be significant. A one or two points difference is not relevant.
So, when is the lens/camera poor? On the DXO score graph 20 is in the middle between poor and excellent. I would say below 10 is poor and below 15 is not acceptable for an ambitious photographer. I have owned 6 of the listed lenses and the Oly 17/2.8 is 15 DXO marks – to me this was a shit lens and I made less than 50 exposures with it! 25, 45 were really great and 12 was great for a WA lens.
DXO tests are relevant to be used with Photozone and SLR gear when you want to know about lenses.
DXO and Photozone are used by the best photographers.
The best photographers don’t give a rat’s ass about that stuff.
They go out and shoot!
Sorry mr Reese! They do both! It’s like walking and chewing gum at the same time – not everybody can do that, but many. Same thing with making great photos and finding out the proper equipment, many can do that 🙂
(On the other hand – great photographers never buy cheap shit, they arev beyond those kind of mistakes.)
The DxO numbers are at least consistent, and give photographers another means of making purchase decisions. You can’t shoot a lens you don’t have, and not many of us can have them all. I appreciate the DxO work as a tool to help me decide which three or four lenses to put on my EM-5.
DxOMark score is heavily biased toward distortion. Look at Sigma 30/2.8 vs Panasonic 24/1.4 scores – 18 vs 21, really? The Panasonic is 2 stops faster, has CA 1.5 times lower, and sharper too. For me it feels like the score should differ by the factor of 4.
They totally overweight the importance of distortion – 1.6% for Pana vs 0.3% for Sigma, which IN REALITY DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL! It is easily software corrected, right in camera (and m43 protocol provides for this), meaning that 1.6% distortion is just up to 1.6% sharpness loss on the sides on the picture (for pulling out corners in case of barrel distortion – which would reduce vignetting by the way; and sharpness increase in case of pulling in the center).
Same with the Olympus 17mm vs 12mm.
The 12mm is much sharper, but has more distortion and thus gets a lower score.
However in this case I agree with them.
The 12mm’s distortion correction software fixes the center but distorts the edges a lot.
I have JPEGs with elongated heads on tall people and oval shaped glasses on a table, yet the uncorrected RAW image looks fine.
Software correction degrades the resolution of the image (by stretching and removing pixel data)
We need more ‘pro-grade’ tele lenses. 250-300mm f4, 200mm f4, 150/100mm f2.8. The wide/normal range is pretty well covered already. Super macro lenses. Olympus should have the knowledge to make those, I would think.
Hmm. Sigma lenses better than Macro lenses from Olympus and Panasonic? … lol
So the 12mm f2 is better that the 60mm macro? Yeah, DXO.
The finest filter AA facilitates OMD photos with a little bit more sharpness, but instead, the video quality (rolling shuter, moire…) is much less than one Gh3.
The thinnest filter facilitates OMD photos with a little bit more sharpness, but instead, the video quality than the codec (rolling shuter, moire, etc..) is much less than one Gh3.
PD: Sorry, english is not my native language…
Not why all this DxO bashing. It is interesting that pretty much confirm, what practical reality tells, mostly, and therefore DxOMark IS quite relevant.
The famous Panasonic zoom triple 7-14mm, 12-35mm, and 35-100mm really stands out. That is something so many buyers feel and the DxOMark confirms it with their tests.
I think DxOMark is the test, closest to what user experience says, closer than most magazine tests, where almost everything is “super”.
LOL @ zooms. Primes rule.
according to what or who?
this post says it all about DxO
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51411057