[shoplink 14800]
[/shoplink]
Image courtesy: Photozone
Photozone (Click here) posted a full review of the Olympus 14-150mm lens: “The Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm f/4-5.6 is an acceptable “high-power 10.7x zoom” but don’t expect magic from it. The delivered center resolution is actually pretty decent across the range whereas the border and corner performance is not that impressive“. Get the lens here at [shopcountry 14800]
SLRgear tested the Panasonic 14-42mm kit lens: “good sharpness wide open, and excellent stopped down a little. Given that it’s the kit lens to a G3 package, you’ll probably find yourself with one of these lenses just by buying into the system, and then it’ll become a question of whether to stay with the kit lens, or buy something else. While you’re deciding, you should be able to make excellent photographs.” Get the lens here at [shopcountry 23962] (Those are all direct search links)
ePhotozine tested the Olympus 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 Lens:”The levels of sharpness it can deliver throughout the zoom range are excellent, especially in the centre of the image area. This coupled with the low levels of CA and distortion make it an excellent choice for anyone looking to expand the zoom range of their Micro Four Thirds camera into telephoto.” Direct search links at [shopcountry 15864].
ePhotozine also tested the new Olympus PEN Converter Lenses: “All three converters offer a cheaper way of extending the usability of your kit lenses, without adding much bulk to your existing Micro Four Thirds camera kit and they are quite reasonably priced too.”
Olympus Macro Converter links at [shopcountry 21293].
Olympus Fisheye Converter links at [shopcountry 21289].
Olympus Wide Angle Converter links at [shopcountry 21292].
FourThirdsUser posted someShooting wide with the m.Zuiko 12mm f/2.0. Preorder at [shopcountry 23576].
There is a new set of 45mm f/1.8 image samples at Callotype.com. Preorder at [shopcountry 23577].
29 Responses
besides that photozone’s 14-150 review surprised me, i thought the lens is supposed to be as good as the Panasonic 14-140, but in the review it doesnt even comes close, i wonder if they got a lemon?
After reading, I went and shot with my 14-150. I’m still quite pleased with the results, given it’s focal range, though I’ll have to look more closely at CA issues. It is soft generally at 150mm, but it’s pretty good through 135.
And also “you’ve”, “I” and “doesn’t”. Oh wait, that was you. 🙂
What are you expecting when they crammed that focal length range into that small lens?
You should remember that smaller size doesn’t come for free in optics unless you also utilize only smaller part of image circle.
And actually mediocre/low IQ outside center toward extremes of the range, high CA and extreme distortion are clearly evident also in Dpreview’s results.
And as for Pana 14-140mm that relies also to software corrections and no doubt also its conclusion would be lot less rosy in Photozone’s hands which are lot less gentle for marketing claims and don’t suffer from the disease of political correctness.
Dpreview’s results show that Pana has better wide end than Oly (though only center good at full aperture) but resolution lowers sooner when zooming. Also without software corrections its CA is high and distortion really extreme.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_m_14-150_4-5p6_o20/page3.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh1/page17.asp
“Also without software corrections its CA is high and distortion really extreme.”
Does this matter, given that Micro Four Thirds is a system intended to use software correction? Even in RAW files, you’ll never actually see the distortion and CA…
The fisheye and wide converters to a hell of a lot better than I thought they would. I wonder what the equivalent lens would be with the wide converter on 14mm.
For macro, the converter seems too weak. This is the converter that has competition to fight – several other achromatic macro converters exist already.
14mm+wide=11mm
Boy, I want more lenses that are reviewed as being EXCEPTIONAL. “Actually not that bad” and “acceptable” lenses aren’t going to excite too many about the system. I’m still fantasizing about that high-end walk-around zoom (12-50 or 12-60) that is desperately needed as a better option to the kit lenses.
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
m43 lenses are not optically as great as 43 ones, but they are smaller and sometimes cheaper. Don’t expect optical perfection out of m43.
Yes for Digital flat sensors 4/3 lenses are the best design concept on the market! – I do hope they find a way of getting good/as intended AF with 4/3 lenses on m4/3 cameras – that way they can support a 2 level lens option – use the m4/3 for size and the full 4/3 for tip top quality!
I pray 4/3 can still survive (or at least the lenses and the design concept)!
Time for you to get 4/3 adapter as 4/3 has quality lenses all the way to actually high quality travel zoom.
http://www.photozone.de/olympus–four-thirds-lens-tests/455-leica_14150_3856?start=2
Compared to 4/3 m4/3 has been quite complete aboutface or “turning jacket around” (like we say about politicians here in Finland) in both bodies and lenses so it’s plain inconceivable how some people bow down m4/3 as some second coming of the Jesus when instead of increasing the choises all it has done is shrinking choises into lowest part of the barrel.
The high-end walkaround zoom will be huge and heavy, preventing it from being actually usable on the camera, and very expensive too. It will also have visibly worse picture quality than the 4/3 12-60.
The Panasonic version won’t focus as fast as the Olympus version, but the Olympus version will focus slower on a future Panasonic body when Olympus abandons micro 4/3 in a couple of years for nano 4/3, which is finally going to make them profitable and tap into the emerging Asian markets.
Sadly, three years after that, nano 4/3 will be abandoned for pico 4/3, and the lenses will have plastic instead of glass. Fear not, though, because the E-PL15 pico 4/3 will have 50 art filters, and everyone knows those are awesome.
+11
The problem is with the extremes of the M4/3 user base.
Many of us want the best possible lenses and don’t balk (too much 😉 ) paying for them.
On the other side, P&O are actively courting the P&S upgrade crowd. These are people who think a lens should be a zoom lens and can barely fathom paying even a few hundred dollars for one, never mind the prices of top quality M4/3 lenses like the 7-14mm, 12mm, or Voigtländer Nokton 25mm.
There was a recent thread in the DPReview M4/3 forums:
WHY is the Olympus 45mm f1.8 $400?
That says it all right there.
P&O have actually done a pretty decent job trying to cover the spectrum. Although the trend of releasing “upgrade” lenses really diminishes the platform. Meanwhile some of us happily fill in the gaps with manual lenses until the lens selection diversifies a bit more.
And, yeah, the rumored Panasonic 12-50 or 60mm is high on my list, too!
45/1.8 examples are VERY VERY VERY GOOD
They are fine, a bit too much art filters for my taste.
The model should have closed her zippers however, doesn’t look very professional 🙂
Iwert
I didn’t get too much out of the shots, either. There will be more samples coming, i’m sure.
Yep,.. I agree the “ZIP ” litle bit Wide Open and some of them are misfocused,.. Lol
+1. Art filters are hardly the lens’ fault. I will start saving.
Buh-rilliant. Another argument for selling my MZD 14-150 to help fund the E-P3 upgrade.
Now waiting for a 40-150R announcement / review…
WOW- that new micro 4/3’s camera body looks great! I can’t wait until it comes out! It looks so much better than the recent ones that …what? OH…. nevermind 😉
I have the 14-150mm and it has very good optical quality for a superzoom..
there was a japanese blog that compared it to 40-150 4/3 version and it was about the same at long end..
this lens has very good flare resistance… good contrast…
very sharp results from 18-60mm focal lenghts even in the corners!
at 14 and 70 its very good in the center and only the corners never seemed to sharp up… even at f8… they are always blurred… but there is never a focal lenght that you need to use longer than f7.1 to get very good results even at 150mm results are quite good for such a long zoom
chromatic aberrations in a olympus body are visible at 14mm and 150mm but purple fringing is very well corrected
its a must buy! if it the front element was of the same size of panasonic 14-140 it would have better resolution at all focal lenghts and not only at the long end
this lens is very good and i have a 20mm f1.7 lens and a Canon FD 50mm f1.4 lens and can say that it is not in the same level but differences are small… it is sharper than 14-42 m.zuiko kit lens which already is a sharp kit lens no matter what some users say. micro four third lenses are very good
i have a kiron Vivitar MC 24mm f2.0 FD mount lens that i plan to sell because resolution at f5.6 isnt as good as 14-150mm… at the same focal lenght. although in contrast the vivitar is very good if not pointed to a light source
m.ZD 40-150 is easily the most underrated lens in the Micro Four Thirds world (much like the ZD 40-150 in Four Thirds). So cheap, so small, so useful 🙂
I am LOVING it. I got mine for $270 canadian, which was a lot more than the cheapest price i had found elsewhere previously (but couldnt find wheni i wanted to buy), but i am having a blast with it.
Ab
Yes, poor Faye, none of us noticed the zipper until it was too late…
Face-detect, or possibly getting used to the touchscreen focussing for the few mins I got to try it out, meant a bit of focussing on buttons, rather than eyes (and, of course, cameras). A few pictures of bricks walls, etc., were also taken, and all of them are also in .ORF, as well as trying out the filters. Once .ORF can be read, then I’ll post some more shots without the filters… (which were fun to try out).
Both lenses (12 and 45mm) really, really nice to use.