Image courtesy: Photozone.
–
We have five new MFT Lens test reports:
1) Olympus M.ZUIKO 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 II R at Photozone (Click here): “may be an unexciting lens for advanced users but many newbies start their journey with the Olympus system just right here.”
2) Panasonic Lumix G 45-150mm f/4-5.6 OIS at Photozone (Click here): “may not be able to touch the very best lenses out there but for a tele zoom lens that is usually sold as part of camera kits, the results are impressive.”
3) Panasonic Lumix G 14-42mm II at Photozone (Click here): “Panasonic has developed a real winner here and it even won’t cost you an arm and a leg to get it.”
4) Sigma 30mm f/2.8 DN A MFT at DxOmark (Click here): “In fact, it’s really only an average performer, but at $199, it’s sensitively priced and suitably complements some of the more affordable MFT camera models.”
5) Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN A MFT at DxOmark (Click here): “As for the optical quality, the 60mmputs in a solid a performance. And, at $239, it‘s not inaccessibly priced.”
Links to the current Sigma MFT lenses:
Black Sigma 19mm f/2.8 lens at Amazon and Bhphoto.
Silver Sigma 19mm f/2.8 lens at Amazon and Bhphoto.
Black Sigma 30mm f/2.8 lens at Amazon and Bhphoto.
Silver Sigma 30mm f/2.8 lens at Amazon and Bhphoto.
Black Sigma 60mm f/2.8 at BHphoto.
Silver Sigma 60mm f/2.8 at BHphoto.
32 Responses
Dimwits at photozone did not pick up the fact that the new Pana 14-42 II is half a stop slower than Oly 14-42 II in the middle of the range, and tested on Pana camera with CA correction for Pana lenses.
“may be an unexciting lens for advanced users but many newbies start their journey with the Olympus system just right here.”
Seems like a good lens for that retard amalric.
Its reviews on bloody kit lenses. Good to know that some reviews are questionable, I hardly ever have the reflex to even look at them, let alone with my critical thinking turned on.
🙂 excelent
Decent reviews. The 45-150mm has been out for a while. The 14-42mm II review is very positive. I wish there were a direct comparison between it and the 14-45mm. Maybe someone will do that elsewhere.
I picked up a 14-42mm II about a month ago (Amazon third-party $250) and it really is quite good. The only problems I had were when I forgot to disable OIS in good light. It’s really unnecessary to activate most of the time.
I still can’t understand why Panasonic insists in using that MEGA OIS that is hardly useful instead of the much better POWER OIS that is using for over 3 years in its compact cameras (for m4/3 lenses it only uses it in high end ones, it seems).
In this review of the GF6 it is shown that the 5 axis IBIS in Olympus bodies is much more useful:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GF6/
By the way, the IBIS in the GX7 is said in the announcement to be “almost as effective as MEGA OIS”. Indeed, some sample pictures published by photographyblog.com show that shooting at 1/10th with the 20mm lens (40mm eq.) gave a blurry image, which means you can only shoot 1 f-stop slower with this IBIS system. Not that useful. And not working for video….
Milan, you are calculating 1 stop improvement based on 1/20 sec as the un-stabilized reference (unstabilized hand-held) speed. But with M43, the old rule of 1/(focal length) needs to be converted to 1/(FF equiv. focal length) to get the reference speed. In addition, many have said that the acceptable blur level on the sensor is smaller than in the old film days, because resolution is typically higher. That moves the reference speed even faster. So 1/10 sec. acceptable stabilized speed (with the 20mm lens on MFT) compares correctly to 1/40 sec. or arguably faster – at least 2 stops improvement.
I have found the OIS in the old 45-200 lens to be remarkably effective; several times I’ve had sharp results when I really didn’t expect to based on shutter speeds between 1/10 to 1/30 at 200mm. The problem is almost always the subject movement blur from people moving or leaves rustling etc. So for long lenses I really believe in the in-lens stabilization.
Bottom line is that the IBIS in the GX7 is a welcome addition, icing on the cake but you don’t just eat the icing. Sure I’d like it as good as the E-M5 IBIS, but really I would buy the camera without it.
I was calculating with the eq. focal length. If you are shooting with the 20mm lens and you can’t shoot at 1/10th because of camera shake, then it doesn’t reach 2 f-stops over the rule that you mention. Less then 2 f-stops means 1 f-stop (could be 1.5, but then you would be in the limit).
Sure it is better than nothing, but to have a 1 f-stop stabilization nowadays is low. And it won’t work for video, where it’s fundamental to have IS (for hand held video). So it seems more than a feature they put there just to say they have it than something really useful (like Olympus’ IBIS).
Less than.
So, in essence, what youre saying is that the ibis in fhe ep1, 2, 3, epl1, 2, 3, 5, and epm 1 and 2 is garbage?
Cause thats not what the comments for YEARS here would suggest…
We know reading is difficult for you, but the comments concern the gx7 specifically. Since the cameras you mention have different ibis implementations, this doesn’t say anything whatsoever about those cameras.
Not to mention, an improvement of 1-2 stops can be quite useful.
Okay, so its better… COOL!! Panasonic doesn’t have ibis in tis cameras and they won’t, possibly EVER, and if they did, it’ll be their version of it.
Its time to move on…. Ibis isn’t everything, if it was, everone would have it in their cameras! Just stop HUMPING IBIS!!
Looks like your a bit out of touch with reality, as the PanaLumix gx7 has ibis.
I agree, I got the pany 14-42 mkll with my G6 and it’s edged out my 12-35 for daily use, because it is so good and small. I’m starting to think it may be worth getting one with a metal mount, just for the long term.
I’ll buy that 12-35 off you if you really think the 14-42 is better.
You’re dreaming, the 12-35 is way better than the 14-42. Just look dxomark measurement, you can compare easily (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/1105/(brand)/Panasonic/(camera1)/793/(lens2)/960/(brand2)/Panasonic/(camera2)/793). If you look at measurements + field maps you will find that the 12-35 mm is sharper at any focal and any aperture except @2.8 which 14-42 don’t have…The only real drawback of the 12-35 is chromatic aberration and distorsion @12mm. Distorsion being a problem for architecture but not for landscapes…Here, a recent shot I took with 12-35 @12mm f2.8:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-f_leguen/9490663393/in/photostream/
Large aperture lens will never be as good add smaller aperture lens optically. One wouldn’t buy one expecting better image quality.
Well, exactly. If you go to see the ratings at Lensrentals you’ll see that all lenses are bad below f/2, that is having bad resolution.
Choosing a more moderate aperture allows the maker to optimise the optical project, at least in primes.
People have forgotten the fundamentals: we live in a period of decadence of photography, where not quality but quantity matters.
But the 12-35 is. Go to ANY site that has reviewed both and youll see that the 12-35 beats it handily. It even edges out a few primes. Photozone is a good place to start before you reply how preposterous im being.
Some people will say anything to put that lens down
Theres a post in lensrentals where it out resolves the 24-70 L by quite a lot
Many of the tests I’ve read for my Nikon lenses don’t match with the performance of the lenses I’ve owned and loaned. Some better, some worse. I’ve lost faith in the reliability of online testing – it’s a rough guide only to avoid the lemons. I’m just starting with m43 but I can already see that some testers don’t seem to take testing these lenses seriously or consistently, and Photozone seems to be the most inconsistent.
That 12-35mm is unfortunately very distorted, vignetted and chromatic aberrated optically. It therefore needs too much software corrections. It also has this OIS which is redundant on the E-M5 or GX7. Removing the OIS would save weight and cost. It is also it is a bit too short at 35mm for portraits. It would have been much better as a 14-45 instead. It is excellent for those who need that zoom range, but it really has too many flaws to be really great.
“That 12-35mm is unfortunately very distorted, vignetted and chromatic aberrated optically”
Only true @12 mm, elsewhere it’s very good…Distorsion is a problem in some situations only and not in some others:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-f_leguen/9490663393/in/photostream/
Measurements don’t agree with you…
Just look dxomark measurement, you can compare easily (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/1105/(brand)/Panasonic/(camera1)/793/(lens2)/960/(brand2)/Panasonic/(camera2)/793). If you look at measurements + field maps you will find that the 12-35 mm is sharper at any focal and any aperture except @2.8 which 14-42 don’t have…
Where is the double zoom kit with 14-42 II and 45-150 for Panasonic GX7? I would be interested.
Hmm, the Sigma 60mm is getting some great reviews. I just wish it was faster or at a longer focal length and I’d scoop it up.
Yes, it’s optically better than the Olympus 60mm 2.8 macro, while being smaller and cheaper. Though it’s not a macro.
I guess it’s a better match for the NEX cameras, where 2.8 is fast enough and where 90mm makes a better focal length for portraits.
Also DXO published a review of the Olympus 75-300mm II lens, and it is much better than the previous version, while being much cheaper too.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Olympus-M.ZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-75-300mm-F4.8-6.7-II-lens-review-Updated-design-and-new-lower-price
DxO is filth. The Sigmas 19and 30mm have plenty of reviews showing they are excellent, even in comparison with the best, if you peruse Lensrentals.
With sadness in my heart I am beginning to think that DxO rates in proportion of the sponsorships it receives.
DxO ratings exist to sell their software.
Anything from the M4/3 system get garbage reviews. They don’t bother reviewing popular lenses, like the 20mm or even bothering to have a baseline of equipment and cameras they use to make comparisons when doing the few lens reviews they bother to do. DPReview isn’t much better and now they’ve formed a lens review partnership.
It wouldn’t be a bit surprising if they get spiffs from Nikon/Canon.
Another explanation might be that they don’t use different samples of the same lens, like Lensrentals, and so they fell in sample variation. But that’s a mistake again.
If DPR and DxO make only one concern I fear that the noobs’ opinion will become even more biaised.
Honest sites are becoming few and far between, so better verify personally what is alleged as truth.
who really cares what German site says about lenses ?
if you want to read real lens test go slrgear or lenstip.