The video on top shows the latest work form Seb Farges. he used the GH2 + C-mount Canon 35mm 1.2 ([shoplink 23221 ebay]Click here to see that lens on eBay[/shoplink]) + Cine-Nikkor 10mm 1.8 ([shoplink 23222 ebay]Click here to see that lens on eBay[/shoplink]).
Disappointed… 4/3 lens adapted to μ4/3 (jjsemplephotography).
Sharpness comparison, PL45 vs ZD50 (m43photo.blogspot.com): “When it comes to the general sharpness and contrast, I think that the 100% views show the PL45 to be slightly better.”
Olympus Pen + Holga lens image samples on Flickr and Dpreview Forum.
Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42 review at Photozone: “In terms of sheer optical performance the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH O.I.S. is not a great lens. However, when looking at the auto-corrected results, and this is where it counts from a user perspective, it’s capable of producing quite good results.“
30 Responses
Looking at the indoor photos taken with the EPL-1 and 14-54 that is user error. The photos appear to possibly have camera shake or the camera AF point is not being pointed at the best thing to lock focus. Can’t see any sharp point of focus. I have used that combination in lower light than that and it is capable of much better results. Yes it is slow to focus then but it will lock correct focus in the end. Using the magnifier view can also help when focusing.
looks like horrible camera shake, either he was waving the camera or he tried to use long exposure handheld, the user review is useless (we all know that its slow to focus)
Off topic: Cn someone try to edit their own avatar image and see if it works? Thanks 🙂
He tried shooting human subjects under available indoor lighting at f/11! I mean wow, what was he thinking? It’s ridiculous to try and review something when you obviously have only a very superficial knowledge of how to operate it.
What’s especially bizarre is that based on his intro he seems to understand why a faster lens would be useful, and then he totally fails to take advantage of it.
Problem really isn’t camera shake (background/environment is sharper) but target is way too fast moving for that long exposures.
that jj semple fellow should start by learning photography before posting “review” sample shots. f11 indoors ? the incompetence boggles the mind….
who puts a 6000 $ lens on a crap m43 ….??
And not AF and not auto aperture 6000,-$ 😀
ZD50 less sharp than the PL45? I somehow find that hard to believe…
M43 needs to sell and PL has to justify it’s huge price 😉
From the comparison of D[review. ZD50 is way better than PL45.(the sensors are different. L10 VS G1)
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_50_2_o20/page3.asp
Picture exemple show ZD 50mm F2 is better, so i look the, but not correct RAW also. 😉
I dunno, but lots of people are putting $6000 lenses on decent 4/3 cameras and getting good results. Good glass + good (if small) sensor = good results.
~$ exif /tmp/Oly14-54-20110427-01.jpg
…
Exposure Time |1/2 sec.
FNumber |f/11.0
Exposure Program |Aperture priority
ISO Speed Ratings |200
If the exif information is correct, he would have got a decent shutter speed (4 stops for 1/32 shutter speed) if he’d shot wide open.
Yeah, I don’t get it too.
He wanted a bright zoom yet used small apertures for his photos.
With the exception of slight vignetting at 14mm, the 14-54mm is more than “okay(which he commented on his outdoor photo taken at f5)” when use wide open.
Also, for users new to the 43 system.
There is no need like using a full frame camera to have small aperture to achieve a deep DOF.
Very often I see people using f11 or even smaller on m43 cameras and then complain about their image quality.
Come on…..
Just because someone wrote something about photography online doesn’t mean everyone of them knows photography…. Shooting f/11 @ 1/2″ without a tripod? Needs to go back to school for elementary photography. The slowest handheld-able shutter speed is 1/125″ or 1/focal length (@35mm equivalent), which ever is the quicker. If you have very steady hand, you might try 1/60″ with IS turned on. 1/2″ handholding? Probably a P&S user….
Another bizarre thing is…, anybody noticed he used Aperture Priority? So he specifically chose f/11…. Maybe he shot something that required f/11, but forgot to change the setting. Probably a spur of the moment shot. Not a scientific test.
K…, I read the author’s concession (by the way, that article is a blog, not meant to be scientific). He said, “Not one to over-analyze when things don’t work out…” that is the key right there. To improve your photographic skill (or any skill, really), you need to scrutinize every single small detail, why things didn’t work out. Compare EXIF with another photo that works (EXIF is such an important invention to help aspiring photographers to replicate successful result. Even when I shoot film, I write down aperture, shutter speed and ISO setting on my note because there is no EXIF). If exposure is wrong, load the photo up in a software that shows histogram and try to figure out why, and make a theory. Then go out and shoot again to test if your theory is right. It’s not that hard (just tedious) if you are willing to improve.
It’s not always the equipment’s fault. Sometimes it is, but if you bought a good equipment and still get bad result, it’s time to review one’s technique.
The macro comparison is flawed on so many levels… and so is the 43/m43 comparison. Might not be even worth mentioning here?
I second that. The issue clearly appears not to be a 43 vs m43 lens question – rather the way the lens has been used. So not a useful reference.
The Panasonic 14-42 is no where as good as the old 14-45.
the 14-45 is a really good kit lens, the later version can’t compare at all, the difference is telling.
While better than 14-42 neither is Lumix G 14-45 optically any special, Photozone reviewed it earlier. (It’s Oly whose 4/3 kit zooms were all very good)
http://www.photozone.de/olympus–four-thirds-lens-tests/414-pana_1445_3556?start=1
Flawed test.
I’ve not been impressed by my Zuiko 14-42 (the ordinary 4/3 version) — granted, it’s all plastic, and I bought it used and haven’t exactly babied it, so maybe it’s just gotten out of mechanical tolerance.
The 43rds 14-42 is actually quite good. It’s actually not easy to see the difference between this and the 14-54mm. I remember my canon friend was quite impressed with it.
Then again maybe canon’s kit is the poster child of derogatory “kit”…
When people say, “the first thing you should do after bought a DSLR kit is throw away the kit lens,” that’s Canon’s kit lens right there. It is THAT bad. I am suspecting my brother is using kit lens in the mean time with his Canon T3i, because the distortion at the edge of the photo is beyond bad (I think even photos shot with a good point and shoot is better). You constantly hear Canon users mention how good Sigma lenses are, that’s because they’re comparing it to Canon’s low end lenses. You rarely hear the same when comparing Olympus to Sigma lenses.
The us of the 14-54mm II DOES deserve mention here – but it should be pointed out that the article is based on flawed testing.
While he mentions in the article that the combo is unwieldy, that’s definitely not the emphasis of the article. He should have that article tagged as flawed – or perhaps the admin here can do so? It will add to the education of visitors that may be taken astray.
It’s interesting to see that 35mm f1.2 canon phf-35 being used. It should be noted that without grinding down a significant portion of the back, it wont screw on enough to focus to infinity. I removed the focusing ring and dremelled off a significant portion. Then since that removed the screw the focus from going all the way till the lens pops off, I bent the adapter up in a corner and put a screw in the focusing ring to limit it.
Works great for close up, but with distant objects the image wont cover the full sensor. NB though.
PL45 vs ZD50 is weird. It’s been stated multiple times that the pl45 isn’t perfectly sharp and that it’s better for portraits as a result. The zd50 is blisteringly sharp.
“PL45 vs ZD50 is weird. It’s been stated multiple times that the pl45 isn’t perfectly sharp and that it’s better for portraits as a result. The zd50 is blisteringly sharp.”
I’ve seen that same trend from other Panasonic/Leica lenses on regular 4/3, like the PL14-50 and PL25: Pana/Leica’s goal seems to be a warm, “pleasant” look, with very nice bokeh and pleasing “rendition”, while Olympus goes for sharpness and neutral color above everything else (resulting in lenses like the 50-200 — very sharp and clean but with somewhat bizarre bokeh)
My cousin told me sharp macro lenses are rarely good bokeh performers, so my initial expectation for perfect bokeh from Zuiko 50mm was too much. It also doesn’t help Zuiko 50mm f2’s blades are not rounded. It is very sharp (very important for macro), but sharpness also can make bokeh looks “jagged.” That’s why portrait lens usually have the corners soft (that’s why if you really care about quality, never use a portrait lens for macro and vice versa). All the lenses I’ve used, Zuiko 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 mkII, Zuiko 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 and Zuiko 50-200mm f2.8-3.5, all have better bokeh than Zuiko 50mm f2’s. Tack sharp they are, but none of them are “macro” lenses. Since to me bokeh is more important than the marginal sharpness from a macro lens, I returned 50mm f2.
It all depends on what you need. Buy the lens accordingly.
Comparing my samples of the 50 and 45, the 45 has a slight sharpness advantage in the center. The 50 has a more definite advantage in the corners. By f/5.6, they’re both diffraction limited and are essentially equivalent across the frame. The 45 is far better in terms of control of longitudinal CA.
The 50 has an overwhelming advantage at f/2 :-).