Since a long time we are used to read Micro Four Thirds reviews only. But ePhotozine just posted four new Four Thirds lens reviews!
1) The first lens they tested is the Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye: “Performance-wise, it is a bit of a mixed-bag, with soft images at maximum aperture and strong chromatic aberrations towards the edges, but with a little care, and maybe some post-processing, this lens should be able to produce decent enough results.”
Check the lens price and availability at: [shopcountry 20015]
2) Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm f/2.8-4 SWD: “Although the price tag may seem a little steep at first, this lens justifies it with very good optical performance, and a very handy zoom range for walking about town”
Check the lens price and availability at: [shopcountry 20016]
3) Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 II: “For the price this lens commands, I expected a better performance than this lens delivers, especially at 14mm, where I am quite disappointed.”
Check the lens price and availability at: [shopcountry 20017]
4) Olympus Zuiko Digital Ed 50mm f/2 Macro: “This 50mm macro optic from Olympus is an interesting choice for Four Thirds format cameras due to its compact dimensions and bright maximum aperture. Although the performance wide open may not be of the highest order, it is well-suited to portraiture, and stopping the lens down can produce excellent results. ”
Check the lens price and availability at: [shopcountry 20019]
35 Responses
That’s a real shame that most of the M4/3 Zuikio lenses aren’t up to scratch. I’ve tried a few and never found one I’d want to own. Come on Oly, pull your finger out; I’m rooting for you.
Maybe they are releasing the reviews because there seem to be a lot of video people buying ZD lenses for their AF-100 or GH2.
I am kinda surprised by the poor review the 14-54mm II gets. I wouldn’t say it’s cheap but the performance does more than justifying the price.
I have the mkII as well and use it most of the time. While I wouldnt say that at 14mm is at it’s sharpest, I dont consider it disappointing at all. the sharpness, contrast and colors compared to the 14-42 kit lens is still better.
Basically a fairly disappointing line up then. Come on Olympus, you used to be known for sharp lenses!
Must say I find some the results of these reviews somewhat at odds with those in DPreview. Just taking the 50mm macro results as and example. ePhtozine clerly show it is sharpest at F/11. Now if I go to DPReview we see F/4-f/5.6 as being significantly sharper than F/11. In fact for almost all Four Third lenses tests I have read they show sharpness dropping off from around F/5.6, depending on focal length. This is simply due to the diffraction that occurs around small apertures.
If 14-54 is so bad compared to 12-60 I better sell my well abused copy….
Gary
This results make absolutly no sense at all and are opposed to all other tests. The 50mm makro is very sharp at maximum aperture. Just look at this test http://www.lenstip.com/185.4-Lens_review-Olympus_Zuiko_Digital_50_mm_f_2.0_Macro_ED_Image_resolution.html. Its way softer at f/11 than f/2 and its very sharp wide open. The same goes for the dpreview review http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_50_2_o20/page3.asp. Don’t know what the hell they did but I hardly doubt the results are worth a anything.
> […] but I hardly doubt the results are worth a anything.
Considering that obligatory MTF charts are missing, I guess your evaluation of the reviews is about right.
These tests are flawed at best, and run counter to all other published results that you can find. Fail.
LOL. Just checked out the sample images 1/1000 ISO 400 for taking a shot of a statue in the bright sunlight, I guess thats all you have to say about their results.
Are the reviews serious?
Lets talk about the 50 mm/2.0.
Lenstip : The lens is outstandingly sharp up from the maximum relative aperture and by f/4.0 it reaches the record level of 50 lpmm.
DPreview : The lens is extremely sharp across the frame even wide open, and produces superb results from F2.8 though to F8
Slrgear : images are tack-sharp all the way to ƒ/16
Is there a focus problem with the E-30 used for testing?
It is well known that diffraction can be more of an issue with the (m)43 sensors. Some say the best performance is at f5.6. However my experience differs eg my Panny 45-200 is definitely sharpest around f8-11. Am I missing something?
If a lens isn’t really sharp stepping down improves the performance, so the diffraction isn’t the dominant factor. But if a lens (e.g. a fixed focal lens) is very sharp wide open, like the 50mm, it will never be the sharpest after u stepped it down 5 times, cause the diffraction eats the gain of sharpnes. Look any other available test for the 50mm Macro.
Depends. I’ve been using my 4/3 gears for more than a year now with thousands of shots behinds me, my assessment is this:
Sharpness: 14-35mm SWD ties with 50mm f2 > 50-200mm SWD > 12-60mm SWD > 14-54mm II > 7-14mm. I think E-620’s sensor is the limiting factor here, not the lens. I’m pretty sure 14-35mm SWD can be sharper. Honestly the difference in sharpness is hardly noticeable between them, except for 14-54mm II and 7-14mm. Those two are less sharp, but 14-54mm II is still very sharp for a lens of that price. You have to pixel peep to notice the difference. Keep in mind 7-14mm is uber ultra wide angle… and possible I got a bad copy (it’s a rental).
@ Brod1er: Did you test the sharpness when your Panny is on a tripod and used MF? When test sharpness, you have to make sure all other factors are not confusing with the result, such as focus is missed by 1 or 2 millimeter (which can look blurry), or IS is introducing some minor noise that makes some photos look not-sharp enough. When focus is wide open, depth of field is very discriminating. When you use something like f8-11, usually everything is in focus, so it may look sharper, but when you pixel peep, you will notice the difference in sharpness, given no other confounding factors.
For 4/3 sensor, f5.6 is the best aperture. F2.8-f8 are very excellent. F11 is usable when there is no stray light. As Maley sort of touched on, lens is also a deciding factor.
This lens testing is not reliable and we can’t trust them. See other professional lens tester like dpreview.
As you can see at ePhotozine the Sigma 50mm/1.4 is sharper wide open than the Zuiko 50mm – who believes this?
This review on those lenses (especially the 50mm macro) is absolute garbage. That 50mm is one of the sharpest lenses that you can get from any manufacturer, especially at the brighter apertures! The results you can get pixel-peeping at 100% is extraordinary and I know for a fact that my Canon 100mm f2 is not performing anywhere near as sharp as that 50mm on my 5dmkII. Pfft…”Although the performance wide open may not be of the highest order” – my arse!
On another note, I think it’s short sighted for them to think that the 14-54 is overpriced. Having said that, in Australia, it sells for $799. I have the 24-105 and it costed me more than double that ($1700) when I bought it. Optically, whilst I am getting greater bokeh from this lens with my 5D, whether I am getting a sharper performance from it (especially edge to edge) remains to be seen. Of course, the 5D is a much much better low light performer, but that’s what I bought it for. I actually like the colour output of my E5 better provided there is good light!
Agree with all of the above, those guys obviously don’t know what they are talking about. Other than Olympus’ own SHG lenses, I don’t know many lenses that can touch the 50/2 wide open – certainly not at it’s price range.
Bahhh, I won’t bother consulting them next time I am looking for lens reviews.
Lenstip to me looks like the most credible site, since it reports facts that are in line with my experience.
Agree
Lenstip have really good testing methods. Better then Photozone.
I think I’m (sadly) done with Oly. I had hear they were an “optics” company, yet here, two of their lenses really don’t pan out very well. And their zooms often are non-constant apertures, and even they have some bumps and bruises.
The E system is dead. m43 bodies are just iterating, not advancing. No great m43 lenses. And even their supposed great lenses from the 43 system are only OK. What, exactly, are they bringing to the table??? IBIS? (which I love on my EP1), but anything else???
for lens review (any brand) check out lenstip and photozone… they know what they are talking about.
Forgot to add http://www.popphoto.com/
Another side politely told us that Oly is a joke
@Maley
Thanks for that. Nice to get a response that makes sense for once!
@George and @WT21 – you are clearly ignorant, just like the reviewer of the lenses. Your credibility is no good, just like ePhotozine. ePhotozine is just like trolls that come to run their mouth – ie worthless.
My favorite comment from the review was that the 50 mm f2.0 cannot manual focus. Yet, I’ve manual focuses it on two different FT bodies and one MFT body. Reviewer needs someone to knock some sense into him.
Poor reviews IMHO.
The 50/2 macro is one of the best lenses I have ever owned (Zeiss & Leica lenses included in my collection).
Agreed – Zeiss, Leica and Zuiko make some of the best optics available.
The Zuiko 50 mm f2.0, compared to it’s siblings (other Zuiko HG and SHG glass), is a bargain at only $450. I’m using this lens on an EPL-2 right now, and the results are just amazing. Yes, I have to manual focus a lot, because the autofocus is a bit slow, but I don’t care considering this is one of the few FT lenses that actually fits decently on a MFT body. I am looking forward to getting a MFT version of this lens, but for now, this does just fine. To get comparable quality from Nikon or Canon, I’d have to spend way more (especially because a stabilized lens costs a lot more). And to get comparable size to my EPL2/50mm f2.0 setup, well, Nikon or Canon don’t even have anything comparable in size….
I have used the 50mm olympus on my e-p1 as well and it is ridiculously sharp wide open even for portraits. Pixel peeping at 100% can show all the blemish on the skin which is actually good in a way but not really flattering for portraits. Now how is it ephotozine don’t get the sharp part??
Hi folks, we’ve seen your comments and feel it is only right to post a reply. Having investigate further it appears the E-3 used for testing has developed a fault. We are going to be performing a thorough retest and will let you know the outcome as soon as possible.
Many Thanks
Dan
ePHOTOzine
Hello.
We’ve since discovered an issue with the E-30 used for testing which has tainted the results on all four recent Olympus lens reviews. To be honest, it’s something I should’ve noticed during testing (But being human, I sometimes make mistakes)so we have taken the reviews down for now.
We’ll be making every effort to re-test the lenses on a fully functioning Olympus body, and hopefully this will result in a review in line with your expectations.
I appreciate feedback, but I think some of you should maybe calm down with the personal insults I don’t know you, just as you don’t know me, such is the nature of the internet. 😉
It seems Gary Wolstenholme has to retest,lazy bugger. 🙂
Oi, less of the lazy! 😛
Ok, maybe a litle tired in the daytime, shooting Stage-photo all night…:)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inventory-photo/5263810904/in/photostream/
You may admit, Olympus gear is not your strong point.
Plus teaching at the weekends and in my position as a photo editor in any time I have between all that.
I don’t use Olympus gear personally, but have had plenty of experience playing different models from the E-1 onwards. As is always the case when dealing with all the different camera systems, sometimes specific nuances of the system do escape me, just as I’m sure they would if I dropped Contax N digital in your lap and asked for a review tomorrow. 😉
As with anything involving human input, human error is inevitable somewhere along the line. All I can do is ensure I do my utmost to prevent it, and to rectify it when it does creep through.
A replacement body is being sent to me, which should arrive tomorrow, so hopefully more accurate tests will be there in place of the old ones after the weekend.
Just an update for anyone wondering where the updated reviews are…
The first Olympus E-30 had an issue where the sensor plane was out of alignment with the viewfinder and focusing system by a very slight margin, probably caused by mistreatment by other people who’ve ed the camera. A second Olympus E-30 body sourced to re-do the reviews had the same issue, but much more severe. This would explain why the lenses showed higher sharpness beyond the normal threshold of diffraction (kind of like a pinhole camera would).
Finally we managed to source an Olympus E-3 body (which is very nice by the way) which is performing as it should and the lenses have been re-tested with Imatest. All that is left to do is to spend a bit of time with them in the field (on a body that works as it should) so that I can write them up again very soon.