We have two new reviews of the latest new MFT lens:
Gordon Laing from CameraLabs writes:
In my tests against the Olympus 17mm f1.8, the Summilux 15mm f1.7 delivered higher contrast images that were sharper in the corners at wide apertures, along with better-looking bokeh.
Tyson Robichaud writes:
I see this lens as a story telling lens. The type of lens that will work for a day to day, documentary lens. It’s wide enough to allow for quite a bit of your scene making for a good environmental portrait lens, and allows you to focus very closely to allow for a shallow depth of field if wanted. The relatively fast maximum aperture, combined with this wide angle of view will do me very well as a handheld, low light lens for times out and about in the darker hours.
Jurek: “Had the Panasonic LUMIX Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 for a few days. What a lovely little lens. Great color, sharp with a first class build. https://vimeo.com/99892074.”
15mm Lens store links:
Black lens at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), BHphoto (Click here), Wex UK (Click here), Amazon Japan (Click here).
Silver lens at Adorama (Click here), BHphoto (Click here), Amazon Japan (Click here).
124 Responses
No good news for my bank account…
THIS and a 4k small G7 dont care the name-and i will never by a cam next
20 years. so go on-thne never read this blog again-nerver waste may time…
Cazy amount of distortion for a high priced quality prime …
i never care much about corner sharpness, but its a nice fl for me, when the extra width is needed, how much better would it be then the 14mm…prob the extra stop makes the difference here for the ones who need that.
It’s rare when I compose with the subject dead-center, so over-all sharpness is much more important than center sharpness alone.
I have a 14mm, but rarely use it, so the extra stop, plus the aperture ring would be great. I’ve considered the 17mm for autofocus to supplement my 17.5mm, but the 15mm looks pretty compelling and different enough of a focal length from the 17.5mm to make it even more interesting. I could sell the 14mm to cover a chunk of it, too.
Jeff I prefer deadcenter composing as it makes a head/half/full body portrait more to the point(unless its an environmental portratseries which I have never done….). Especially when using my camera in portrait mode(which is my fav orientation for 80% of the time). I think that corner area is less crucial for people photography, esp portraits and modelshoots, even vignetting which adds a “natural” effect instead of the more common software based filter which tends to be used overly done.. I think the 15mm indeed is a nice option.. But for now i am without system and might consider an A7 with a Canon FD or EF 85mm f/1.2 as an alternatuve solution for new projects….no idea yet about what 28/35mm I should pick there….I am sure i will miss some stuff from the MFT world already.
Jeff I replied yesterday but somehow its not showing up…too lazy to retype..its sunday morning now after all…..:-)
Mr Laing is in the Panasonic camp…The more I read him…his biases are more apparent….I don’t need sharpness in the corners and in many cases I find softness in the corners more pleasing
Do you actually READ G.L. reviews? Your comment is laughable. He has a bias towards Olympus.
Even when he review a Pana leica zoom for the 43rds system, he used a Olympus body, when he had a L-1 there with him.
He always mentions Olympus in a Panasonic review and claims the Olympus cameras better because of looks, ibis, etc..
And if you don’t need corner sharpness, then stick with whatever you have… Olympus, right??
sad…..
If you read GL’s review, he mostly covers it, using a E-M1, when clearly the lens was made for the GM1, which it seems he has, but does he use it? Barely, as he’s using the E-M1 throughout!
He’s good for doing that. His allegiance shows.
“I find softness in the corners more pleasing”
Olympus fan girls are too funny. I’ll bet you prefer low res video that falls apart really easy as well 🙂
Yup, she sure is one… In TR’s review, she asks him to review the Olympus Tough point and shoot… like, seriously? The Bias is ridiculous!
Well, for environmental portraits, she has a point, though.
A bad point. You can add different vignettes quite easily in post, you can shoot the 15 wide open and get softer corners. The 17 will just have soft corners (and honestly… Soft middle) no matter what.
Depends. To a purist photographer (some people aspire to that, you know), you have to nail it in the camera with as little post processing as possible. So they tend to choose lenses based on the character that they like. At least, that’s what I do. It’s why I have far too many lenses than I know what to do with. Each have their own different take on the world and I enjoy their differences.
The video from Jurek has the 15mm looking good. Now I have to put this up in my wishlist next to the 25mm Summilux again. Once I finish collecting my Olympus 1.8 trinity I’ll start on the PanaLeicas. Maybe by then Panasonic would have updated the 25mm as well. You can’t have too many lenses haha.
I would like to see the Summilux updated too. Just to bring it in line with the 15mm and 42.5mm. If it was weather-sealed, had an aperture ring, nice metal body, olympus style manual focus ring with DOF markings. This would be a great update without even updating the optics or focus mechanism, which could be tweaked as well.
Then it would be worthy of the Leica name (and price tag).
If they’re going to update the 25mm Summilux, they might want to try and shoot for 1.2 instead. That would be good for me. Weathersealing would be a bonus, if they could keep the filter size to 46mm (or 52mm max).
That would be nice. But weather sealed?.. Sadly I don’t see it coming. I would bet on a metal construction like Nocticron and this 15mm.
Sorry, but I do not believe in these tests. I challenge Gordon Laing or Tyson Robichaud to tell me which plans were filmed with the Panasonic Leica 15mm f/1.7 and which plans where filmed with the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 on this comparison film on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k50t85G41uw or https://vimeo.com/99292489.
Regards,
How interesting. Why don’t you believe these tests? You like the 17mm so it MUST be the best? And you just refuse yo believe otherwise? What an odd little man. I suppose you don’t believe DxO when they said the 17mm 1.8 is softer than any prime except the 17mm pancake? How strange that someone would rather live in a fantasy world instead of accepting the truth. Nobody says the 17 is bad. I mean, it is kind of soft, but nobody says it’s bad. They just ALL say the 15 is better.
I never said I like the 17mm. I said there is NO DIFFERENCE in FILM condition between the Panasonic and the Olympus. I have both lenses. I do not speak about photo. With the bloggers, the NEW ONE is always the better. They are “NEO PATH”. Sick of novelties. Also, they are not independent. They are connected to the brands. I know the situation, I am journalist.
The life is not a laboratory. We do not film in a laboratory and our results are different from Dxo. Our shootings depends of weather, rain, sun, etc. In REAL FILM CONDITION, the Panasonic and the Olympus are equal.
But like I said, why does it matter that we have one too many choices? Some people will like the Olympus physical handling and image rendering, others will prefer the Panasonic. It’s good to have choices.
Tyson Robichaud is connected to Panasonic? I think he’ll be surprised.
You accuse them of being connected to brands, but you are the one coming here to argue WITH CAPS, that the Olympus is just as good when every reviewer says the 15 is better. It sounds like you are the one with brand loyalty.
Such strange people. If any one of them said “30mm equivalent is quite different than 35mm”, I would shrug my shoulders and say “of course”. But instead they insist the Olympus must be as good, even when it isn’t… And nobody is saying its bad. Such strange people. Like cult members almost.
I repeat there is NO DIFFERENCE in image quality in FILM condition on a professional monitor between the Panasonic and the Olympus. No more. No less..
He’s in denial. He just doesn’t want to believe that a company that makes vacuums and hair dryers can make a better lens.
In his world, there is no such company as Panasonic in M43. Sadly, he’s not the only one that thinks that way.
Interesting video. You can tell by the white balance and colour balance — one lens is cooler and more clinical with edgier sharpness, the other seems more yellowish with flatter sharpness. You may have colour corrected these but some clips still show those marked characteristics.
However, I can’t say which is which since I have never shot with either lens, therefore not familiar with their personalities. But is there a difference? Definitely. Can you tell with the naked eye? Yes, just about.
At the end of the day: we are getting yet another high quality alternative to choose from. Why grumble?
HAHA!! Oh BOY! -The Olympus Defense Force is out early!
You know, Gordon prefers Olympus over Panasonic and Is a Olympus Fanboy, on the low. So for him to say what he did, is kinda big.
These comments below just prove the Bias in this system. There is no alliance, just Fanboys and 2 companies that share a mount and a sensor size, that’s IT.
Kudos to Panasonic for making another Great Lens. Well deserved. I’m sure it’ll join the 20mm and the 25mm as the Best Selling and Most Used lenses in the M43 system.
If I didn’t buy into the Fuji X system, the 15mm was the next purchase, but I need a couple primes for my XE-2.
Man, your “loyalty” to Panasonic annihilates your Fuji love.. It’s really impressive.
Not really, but I do own the PL25mm and I really like how it renders the colors.
I’m sure the 35mm from Fuji will be up there in rendering too. I got my eye on the 14mm also.
Nope, Fiji lenses render differently. Personally I prefer the Fujinon 35mm f1.4 to the PL25mm, but Nocticron beats Fuji counterparts in micro contrast, rendering and “special feeling”. (I would buy the 35mm because it’s a really nice overall focal lenght lens, if you are more into landscaping then go with the good 14mm)
Instead of this lens I went for a Ricoh GR. Incredible tiny powerhouse with almost the same angle of view.
I think about the same thing. GR looks really good.
If you have 3 (or even 2) m43 cameras, buying a lens makes 3x (or 2x) more sense than buying yet another compact camera. If you had that 2nd or 3rd body as backup in case something happens to your main camera in the field, then it makes 5x more sense. Especially if 1 of those bodies is being used to shoot video, which the GR is not good at.
Personally if I’m walking around I have an Em1 with me. In my bag there are a 12mm, 17mm f1.8 or 17.5 mm f0.95, 25mm PL, 42.5mm PL and 60mm macro or 75mm, depending if I’m in nature or not.
If I’m in a theater/exhibition I add my Em5, but usually I stick on it a 17 or 25mm leaving the 75mm or Nocticron on Em1.
15mm is not necessary for my use,too similar to the 17mm angle of view, and if I need the best IQ I go manual with the Voigty, so I have made up my mind and decided to add a GR: this last is so tiny it’s always in my pocket or bag, it’s a street/landscape great camera.
And most important to me, a new camera is a better “toy” than a new lens and invites me to use it.
I’m not saying that this 15mm is useless. It has less use for me than a Ricoh GR.
And again, it ‘s almost ridiculous the IQ that compact camera can deliver..
I agree, the lens is nice and the overall package is very compact. It’s an ultimate street shooters camera with the leaf shutter, the nd filter, and the snap focus. I bought one thinking that it would be the perfect compliment to my system camera. But I felt very detached from it, stopped carrying it around with me, then eventually sold it.
For me it was too wide for everyday shooting. Sure I could use the crop mode and I did end up using the built in crop mode more and more which resulted in smaller, less detailed files. Second the AF was very poor in non good light. I’m not a video shooter by any means but I do like a camera to have a decent video mode to capture short clips of my daughter. I’m not asking it to be a pocket GH4, but on the GR it had the worst video functionality of any camera I’ve used so far. And because I started shooting more long exposures and got hooked on using filters, the GR didn’t make sense for me to keep anymore. Luckily I think I made back 95% of what I paid.
I ended up getting the x100s. Sure it has it’s flaws too, but the built in viewfinder, the leaf shutter, and the ability to use my Lee Seven5 filters made it the best choice for me. The GR has it’s uses and again for street shooters with the snap focus or even someone to use to capture food photography discreetly in a restaurant, it’s fantastic. I sold it to my friend who does exactly that, she’s a big foodie who loves to go to new restaurants all the time and has a food blog. She told me it’s the best camera she’s ever used for that purpose and certainly is better than using her phone camera.
28mm is too wide for me too (except for landscapes), but I’m getting used to it. I tend to use cameras for their advantages: as street and nature shooter this GR is incredible. If you like Daido Moryiama look, the high contrast B&W jpegs are the best you can get.
The last firmware update (two weeks ago) put the AF on paar with that of x100s. It still hunts in the dark (I never use the AF lamp assist), but I set it to TAv and it prefocuses.
I’m not into videos at all, so Idon’t complain about this feature on cameras: I think that if I was really into video making, I would probably invest in a proper video cam, though GH4 now seems to be the best choice.
Thanks for letting me know of the firmware update that improved AF Marco. I did enjoy my time with the GR, but at the time I ended up leaving it at home more often than not because I was shooting the E-M1 at the time and it seemed like outside of street photography which I’m not that into, the E-M1 could do whatever I was trying to do with the GR, albeit in a larger package. I setup up for disappointment trying to use a compact camera vs a system camera. Since then I’ve swapped out to an a7 with the native primes which give me great IQ but is missing a lot of the features that the E-M1 had. Just this past week I looked into another compact to use in conjunction with my a7. I had the x100s twice before and ordered it again this time in black. Received it a few days ago and it’s a phenomenal camera and just about perfect. I could honestly see using it as my only camera if my intention was to have one fixed length camera (EVF/OVF, manual controls, etc). But I now realize that whichever compact I pick will be a speciality camera for me. Because of your glowing remarks about the GR combined with learning some new tricks and my priorities changing, I’m going to sell use x100s and get the GR again.
I’ve started to do some more long exposures and filter work (using the Lee Seven5 system). In that regards I see the GR being tailored to fit what I’m looking for (allowing long exposures up to 300 seconds in body without any external triggers or timers). I don’t do a lot of video work myself either and using a GH4 would be way overkill. I’ll just have to rely on the phone camera for quick clips of my daughter. Now that I’ve come to accept that whatever I get will be a niche camera for me (long exposures, filter work, occasional street, pocket camera to carry around to social events) and my a7 with FF lenses will remain my primary, the GR seems like the best choice. Thanks again Marco.
My best friend photog asked me if I wanted his x100s, when I told him I was interested in the GR. I prefer the 35mm to the 28mm angle of view (being 50mm my preferred though), but I’m still hoping for a Sony RX with built in EVF. And I know that details are sharper on GR. It was a choice made with brain, when I asked myself: this 15mm or a GR? And made with my heart when considering the “exotic” Ricoh. Not a perfect camera (noone is), but its custom buttons, its one-hand usability, the TAv function, the lack of AA filter, big sensor in a tiny body, coolest high contrast b&w I’ve ever seen, turn it into a funny camera. I was afraid about the wide angle lens being not suitable for portraits, but you can still do it (Jeanloup Stieff anyone? 😉 ) and now it’s a trusty companion for my Em1. I prefer the Em1, overall, but I admit that I’m enjoying the GR and snapping photos with it just for fun. After all it’s simply another excuse/reason to go out and breed our passion, right? 🙂 you’re welcome!
Angry for several years with Olympus for not making 43 DSLR with the new sensor, I bought a PEN1 first to see how it would work with 43 glass. It almost didn’t, so I bought a 45mm Oly for it – wasn’t impressed. Then I bought a E-PM2 with PanaLeica 25mm. Turned out a killer combo. For this reason only, being even angrier with Olympus, I bought another 2 E-PM2s and Pana 14, Pana 20 and Sigma 60. So in my mFT lineup, 4 lenses out of 5 are non-Olympus and fare better than the 45mm. This is subjective, but in my eyes both Pana and Sigma lenses have better colour rendition (I have another four Sigmas – 4/3). Indeed, Oly lenses appear to me to be true to reality (if there can be such a thing), but in a clinical way. Oh, and let me not forget to say that now I can carry around four small cameras with a 28-50-90-120 focus range (in 35-mm terms) of very high quality, do not need any (expensive or exorbitant) zoom at 2.8, and the weight and bulk are comparable to the alternative setup.
I agree, for the most part, Panasonic makes a better lens. The ironic thing is, Olympus is a self proclaimed optics company. They get sensors from Sony/Panasonic and put it in a retro body. At this point you should cut out the middleman and switch to a Panasonic body. Same stills quality, but usually better usability, and MUCH better video,
Thank you for the idea. I checked and found that in the US Pana GX7 – with the stabilization and other interesting features, costs <2 less than in the EU. I also checked the EU price of E-M1 with the 12-40 2.8 lens – € 2200, against the price of my 3x E-PM2 14-25-60 setup, incl. one EVF4. I spent € 2000 for it instead of the € 2200 for the E-M1 & 12-40 2.8 zoom. Hence, a happy man, am I not!
To me a quite stupid setup. Three cameras with three primes vs. an E-M1 with superior ergonomics and the 12-40mm, which is better than most of the primes in its range. To me it is more hassle to change cameras, instead of using the zoom. Especially since you haven’t equipped each of you E-PMs with a view finder.
To YOU its Stupid, only to YOU.
Ever thought that most M43 users buy into the system for its Primes?
Even in your previous comment, you mention the PL25mm as a DISAPPOINTMENT?? -Seriously???
PROTIP: I suggest you use the quote “In my opinion”, when you post, so you don’t speak for the Olympus fanboy massive. Then only you would sound ridiculous.
Well, you are known as the most ultra fanboy here, biased and not be taken seriously.
At least, I own and have used the lenses I write about, and therefore my statements about the 1.4/25mm are correct with regard to my lenses. If you would have read my post carefully, you would have noted my remark with respect to sample variation.
Anyway, I posted my disagreement with two posts. The first wrote that Panasonic generally has the better quality lens line up, which is not proven by facts, and to replace a zoom with three cameras and not necessarily better primes, looks not well thought, in my opinion.
Axiomatically, a zoom cannot be better than a prime. I have and have used a lot 12-60 and now I am much happier with Panny 14, 20 and 25, Oly 45 and Sigma 60. I continue to use the 12-60 with E-520 and E-600 but the output from the primes is superior.
Well, then you haven’t used the 2.8/12-40mm, apparently. This zoom proves that the classic axiom is not necessarily valid. The 12-40mm (I can only speak of my lenses) is defininetly better than my 2.0/12mm, 2.5/14mm, 1.8/17mm, and from the test of one P 1.7/15mm, even better than that (because of that, I did not buy one).
As such, using only primes with one camera body attached to them for each focal length (in your case three bodies), does not give you better image quality necessarily. It gives you faster lenses, but in total you don’t gain more compactness as with a single camera / 12-40mm setup. Only the weight in hand will be lower.
On the other hand, I see a lot of disadvantages: you need to keep three cameras in order, need three memory cards, need three batteries to be charged and presumably also more batteries as a backup. Also I did not like the idea of having only one attachable view finder for three cameras (I prefer using view finders).
Perhaps my statement of “stupid” setup was a little harsh, but this was also a reaction to your first post, where you claim that Olympus is behind in lens quality.
I own and use lenses from Olympus and Panasonic. From my experience, one can’t claim an advantage to one or the other. As I said, each of them has its lens gems in its portfolio.
With respect to the = 1.8/45mm, your sample might be a bad copy or got damaged. My sample is perfectly sharp.
If I would rank my lenses, which I use in terms of sharpness / image quality it would be the following:
O 1.8/75mm
O 2.8/12-40mm
O1.8/25mm, O 2.8/60mm Macro, P 1.7/20mm
P 2.8/35-100mm, O 75-300mm II (75-200mm)
P 7-14mm, O 1.8/45mm
P 45-175mm
— (after here, lenses do not fulfill expecations competely)
P 1.4/25mm
O 2.0/12mm
O 75-300mm (200-300mm)
O 1.8/17mm
So if anything, I could read from this is that Olympus has the best and worst of my lenses, whereas Panasonic stays pretty well in the middle.
This, just to back my statement, that both manufacturers can be regarded about equal in lens quality. If I would have the P 1.2/42.5mm Nocticron it would probably be first or second, the P 1.7/15mm would be in the rank of my O 1.8/45mm, from what I have seen personally.
Zooms and primes are in different leagues. Zooms distort, transmit less light, are less sharp, etc. Apart from the necessity to believe one’s eyes, there are various objective tests made by dxomark, ephotozine, photozone, lenstip, etc. If one shoots landscapes only, it’s OK to have some geometric distortion. But distorting people’s faces, architecture, monuments, etc., is distasteful, at least to me. Being a tourist photographer (enthusiast), for me sharpness is important. And primes are good for stitching panoramas. Wide zooms let you down here, whatever their quality.
Again, apparently, you haven’t used the 2.8/12-40mm. Especially, for the m4/3 wide angle lenses I don’t know any of those, which have less distortion and chromatic aberrations than the 12-40mm. And the 1.7/15mm also distorts quite a bit.
It seems that you need to correct your prejudice a bit.
No doubt, the 12-40 is a great lens – I have the similarly great 12-60. But with the 12-40 2.8 you cannot break into the darkness the way you can with the Pany 25 1.4 – E-PM2 combo. If you mainly do portraits or macro or something like that, it is irrelevant. But for tourist photography it is important. You spend some time and …. it gets dark. With the Pany 25 1.4 – E-PM2 combo you continue shooting. On the other hand, with two E-PM2s each with a prime the 12-40 becomes superfluous, apart from being expensive.
Ok, every has a different strategy. I mentioned the low light capabilities as one of a prime’s advantage. On travels – if I go light – I usually have three lenses and one body with me: the O 2.8/12-40mm, the P 45-175mm, and the O 1.8/25mm (in a pocket). The two zooms and the E-M1 go into a ThinkTankPhoto Mirrorless Mover 20 bag. I can’t think of a smaller bag and setup and your three camera solution certainly would not fit in that bag.
And, to me, 2.8 gives you enough flexibility until dawn, if your subjects don’t move too fast. If I analyze my last travel shootings with more than 2000 images each, I would say there were about 10% where a cast prime was necessary.
With respect to price, I would say to replace the 12-40mm zoom, you would need at least three primes: the O 2.0/12mm, the P 1.7/15mm or O 1.8/17mm and the O 1.8/25mm / P 1.4/25mm or O 1.8/45mm. That setup isn’t cheaper than the 12-40mm.
To prime shooters, carrying those two camera bodies each with zooms when you travel is just as heavy as lugging DSLR systems is to m43 shooters. Get what I mean? I carry the EM5 + 75mm Summarit, EPM1 + 20mm Lumix, with a spare 45mm/1.8 and a Nikon V1 with 10mm (28mm equivalent). EM5 + V1 with attached lenses in the bag, EPM1 with lens in my cargo pants pocket when I travel.
Only the EM5 with 75mm Summarit rides _inside_ the main compartment. The V1 + 10mm lens is compact enough to fit into the Domke’s side pocket, so I can easily get to it when a shot opportunity turns up. And getting to the EPM1 is as easy as reaching for a pistol in a holster.
All three cameras and their respective lenses probably weigh as much as a single m43 body with f2.8 zoom. And they don’t feel as bulky.
That gives me the classic coverage of 28-40-150, with an optional 90 if I need it. Check your zoom shots: you’ll probably find most of your shots are bunched up in 2 or 3 particular FOVs. Typically for me, that would be 28-35mm and the longest end (75mm or 105mm). So I thought rather than carry a single heavy zoom, I’d be better served with 2 cameras with compact primes instead.
*okay, I exaggerated a little. The EM5 + 75mm Summarit is rather heavy. Haha. But I can easily substitute the lens with the 45mm Olympus to get a lighter load.
I challenge that. With my E-M1 and my O 2.8/12-40mm and P 45-175mm in my Mirrorless Mover I am probably (I don’t know, which bag you use) more compact, faster, and more flexible than with your three camera setup. Three different cameras even from two systems would be for the worst setup I can imagine. And no my focal length usage does not peak extraordinary at the limits of each lens, I use almost every part of that 12 to 175mm coverage.
What I don’t like on your setup are these small EPM bodies, which I don’t like ergonomically. For me a hassle to use.
I agree, ergonomically EPM bodies are crap, if used with a big lens. But if used with an EVF and a small lens (including PanaLeica 25 – for me this is a small lens), they pose no problem or restriction – they behave ergonomically in the same way as a DSLR with a big lens. However, if you hook a lens like 12-60 or 70-300 (FT) to an EPM, the combo becomes extremely clumsy. This is particularly irritating to me, because the CDAF-enabled 70-300 – that I like and use a lot – autofocuses decently on the E-PM2. Using an EVF helps just a bit. I’ve been considering adding this – http://www.amazon.de/Delamax-Pistolengriff-Ausl%C3%B6ser-Olympus-RM-UC1/dp/B00A4B86R4/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&qid=1404500332&sr=8-18&keywords=handgriff+Olympus. But I suspect that it would bring about horizontal disbalance – and, of course, for an ultrazoom you need very high stability in all directions. On the other hand, the E-520 + 70-300 combo is nothing short of perfect ergonomically. Here’s why I am even more angry with Olympus for not making a standard DSLR with the new sensor. Another note here is about the EVF. I find it necessary even for a small PEN+prime combo but I do not think the difference between the two Oly EVFs – EVF3 and EVF4 is great in practical terms. Of course, it is great to have a big hi-res screen but the difference in price between the two is greater than the added comfort. I normally carry around 2 or 3 EPM2s – two have the two EVFs, and I can always afford to use one EPM2 without an EVF – when it is a wide prime.
I’ve gone too deep into details but I think these details are extremely essential for choosing the right camera-lens combination.
Buy the PL 42.5, the PL 25, the PL15 the P100-300, and then Panasonic will make the best and middle range, and Olympus will make the middle and bottom. Just sayin…..
The strength of Olympus has always been their jpeg processing. Their Grainy B&W filter is superb and unmatched in other cameras, to me. Having owned the GF1 and G1 before, their jpegs are not as good, more “plastic” and digital looking. But for compact video nothing beats the Panasonic range. The Canon EOS-M comes close but that has its limitations.
That’s a damning indictment of Olympus. They have a long history of quirky but innovative cameras and great optics. People who think they just have “pretty JPEGs” are the ones who drop Olympus and run to Fuji when they see what the x100 does. Besides, the tiny differences in JPEGs that existed in the first generation of m43 is gone now. Olympus better have more to offer than punchy, saturated, JPEGs.
You’re telling me. I still have my OM1n + 28mm/2.8 and 50mm/1.8 sitting on my desk, and I used the E-1 with my Leica R lenses when it first came out as a sort of budget Leica DMR solution. The E-1 was just a damn good camera. A good start that Olympus squandered when they did what Panasonic “copied” with the GF2: threw out all the best aspects (how could they get rid of that beautiful E-1 shutter??) and made the successors worse.
I got the Pen EP1 with 17mm/2.8 pancake when it first came out and, sure, it was unique in its own way. The EM5 and later EM1 are innovative in a way but competition hasn’t allowed them to rest on their laurels, have they. To me the EM1 became outdated when the Fuji XT1 hit the shops.
The trouble with Olympus is that despite their photographic pedigree, today they show no signs of wanting to be a premier photography brand. Even Sony has their vaunted Sony World Photography Awards and a programme for professionals (okay, which copies Canon’s Explorer of Lights, but still…). Olympus? Their Visionaries programme seems half-hearted and needs bigger names, if you ask me. Even the recent “pro” video which was posted here just a few articles ago were terribly done.
All of which is to say that, Olympus may have _had_ an illustrious pedigree, they don’t seem to have a distinct edge over the competition now. Their products are good and some are great, which is why I decided to buy back into the m43 system after abandoning it for about 3 years. But when you look at the bigger picture, they just don’t have any compelling USP that makes them a “must-have” brand among photographers. Currently, that seems to be Fuji for stills and Panasonic for video.
But throughout it all, from the start of the 4/3 system, their jpeg engine has always been the best in the business, for me. All you need to do was compare E-1 skies to Nikon’s then offerings. These days those Olympus blues are still distinctive, and the Grainy B&W, like I said, is just unmatched. My previous Pentax K5 and KR had good jpegs, too, but not as characterful as the Oly ones.
You have a strange perception of Olympus. Do you remember the E-M5 and what successfull game changer it was? Panasonic had nothing to compete with at that time.
Does the Fuji X-T1 make the E-M1 outdated? Not at all. The handling concept of the X-T1 for me is too slow, no advantage to me. The view finders are about the same quality. But AF and the overall performance of the E-M1 is still a lot better, Fuji hasn’t caught up yet. Last, the larger sensor makes the Fuji X lenses considerably bulkier, nothing for me. The size advantage of m4/3 remains.
So, what makes the Fuji X-T1 “outdate” E-M1?
Honestly, this general statement is garbage. Each manufacturer has his gems in the portfolio. Olympus has the spectacular 2.8/12-40mm, the 1.8/75mm, the 2.8/60mm Macro, the 1.8/45mm, the 1.8/25mm, and the 75-300mm II, which are excellent lenses and in my experience better than their Panasonic counterparts.
Panasonic has the 2.8/35-100mm, the 1.2/42.5mm, the 7-14mm (although with some reservations with regard it flare and purple reflexes), and the 1.7/20mm (albeit with horrible AF), and the PZ 45-175mm.
Lenses that rather disappoint are in both portfolios: the P 1.4/25mm, the O 1.8/17mm, the O 2.0/12mm, the P 100-300mm.
Many disappointment or perfection also depends on sample variation. However, no one can say that one or the other is more competent.
But this will also depend on the new Pro lenses, Olympus will offer soon. The 2.8/7-14mm and 2.8/40-150mm look very promising.
Really? You think the Oly 45 is better than the Nocticron, or the Oly 25 is better than the PL25? That pretty much ruins your credibility right there. The 12-40 has slightly sharper corners than the 12-35, but the trade off is the ugly bokeh it produces (yes, it’s bokeh is harsh. Compare it to the 12-35… Check ANY photos. You can’t PP ugly bokeh to look good)
And you think the 35-100 is one of the gems? And the P14 kit lens disappoints you? It’s a tiny, cheap kit lens. Compare it to the 17 2.8 and it’s an all-star.
Where there is equivalent focal lengths, the Panasonic is either equivalent or better, pretty much every time. So yes, the 75 is safe, although the 60 pales in comparison to the Sigma 60 for regular shooting.
These Olympus fanboys who think they are “impartial” are like Fox News anchors, “Fair and Balanced”…. But no. Not really”
If haven’t said specifically that the O 1.8/45mm so better than the Nocticron, I was a little imprecise in the part you quoted. However, in my other post here I have clearly stated that if I would own the Nocticron, it would rank first or second amongst my lenses. So, don’t call me partial or biased.
With respect to the 12-35mm and the 12-40mm (which I own both, although I stopped using the Panasonic) I can’t see a significant difference in bokeh. However, the Olympus (in my samples) has clearly better sharpness, is far less prone to flair, and does not have the notorious chromatic aberrations, the Panasonic zoom is famous for.
And your statement comparing equivalent lenses is totally nonsense. The Olympus 60mm is certainly a better macro lens than the Panasonic 45mm, regarding usability, AF, quality of focus ring and less distinct image quality.
Why is the P 2.8/35-100mm not a gem? It is absolutely the sharpest m4/3 telezoom you can get. Great build quality too!
You’re probably the first guy I have come across who doesn’t like the 25mm. I’m genuinely curious: Any particular reason why?
*the Panasonic 25mm/1.4, I mean.
My 1.4/25mm has no consistent sharpness over the image, the O 1.8/25mm is a lot better in this respect. At the center both lenses are about equal, but towards the edges the Olympus has the lead. Also, the 1.4/25mm is more prone to chromatic aberrations. Add to this that the Panasonic is quite larger and the notorious rattlesnaking of the aperture, you have enough reasons to prefer the Olympus lens.
I have both at the moment and share your point of view. The PL25 is really showing its age on the 16mp sensor…
THe O25 is less expensive, smaller, and lighter. Even if the PL25 had better IQ I would have a hard time choosing it.
The only redeeming feature of the PL25 is the bokeh signature as it remains of summilux design but everything else is dated. (summilux design puts emphasis on aesthetics of image but not clinical sharpness… like summicrons)
you sir are right! I love the O25! Pretty Sharp at 50 field of view. Anyhow, I hope no one is expecting “satisfying” subject isolation with that lens on m43. Only a real 50 can do that on a Fullframe.
Every single PL25 vs. Z25 comparison on the internet leads to the Z being less prone to chromatic aberrations wide open with better contrast and sharpness. I have both and can repeat the experiment. No fanboyism but the pl25 is showing its age on the 16mp sensor while the z25 seems to outresolve it. (olympus em10 user here)
The Panasonic 100-300 is an awesome lens in the right hands. It’s a telephoto so you have to either have very steady hands (even with built in IS) or tripod that sucker. Couldn’t disagree with you more.
Your statement is not in contradiction to mine. Probably you have a good sample. My argument is, that the statement of Jankoff that Panasonic produces superior lenses in comparison to Olympus is not valid, based on my experience. My 100-300mm definitely disappoints, whereas the Olympus 75-300mm II shines.
I also don’t like the stiffness of the zoom ring of the Panasonic and prefer the Olympus smaller size and lower weight.
Same here. I carry 3 cameras with prime lenses covering 28mm, 40mm and 150mm in a small bag that used to fit my Canon 5D + 28-105mm zoom. All three are lighter than or as heavy as the previous Canon (which I still use for work and specific portraits). Easier than changing lenses in the field, and better than a zoom for my usage.
Now I’m thinking of getting the new Panasonic 15mm and cutting down to just two cameras covering 30mm and 150mm. Although, images from the 25mm 1.4 Panasonic also look very tempting. Decisions, decisions.
Solution: add the Pany 25 (50) + E-PM2 combo. Added weight will be negligible. Knowing and loving Pany 25, I am considering the Pany 15 as well. Problem is, first, I will have too many similar Panys, second, I like the future “superfluous” Pany 14.
Haha if only I were swimming in money. As it is I have already gone overboard with the m43 system, going from just an EPM1 + 15mm BCL lens at the beginning of this year, to having 2 bodies and 3 lenses so far (and counting!). I still plan to get the GX7 with 15mm and 25mm at the end of the year for video to replace my Canon EOS-M. We’ll see.
I had the Pen EP1 when it first came out, with the 17mm/2.8 pancake. Sold it to buy the Panasonic G1, then the GF1 + 20mm. But I sold that off, too, when I felt the quality wasn’t up to snuff. m43 has come a long way since… I’m very happy with my EM5. Though the 5D is still useful for some things, so I will keep using multiple systems (have just added a used Nikon V1 this week, which is my 28mm solution for now).
Get the 15mm it’s really worth it. been shooting everyday with it every since I got it. Wide enough, tight enough, sharp sharp and DAT COLOR 😀
I have the PL 25 and the Zuiko 25. The z25 kills the Leica25 on wide open aperture to the unfair point. Some say the L25 is sharper but it’s so full of optical defects that you’d have to shoot with it closed down… this negates the f1.4 advantage whereas the z25 is perfect at 1.8 with no defects
First things first: it’s very interesting for me to see your comments on prime lenses since I do not want to use zooms on m43. I must say that I am very happy with the Oly 45mm when attached to my GX7. It’s very fast, bokeh is remarkably good given the price, it’s very light and the camera’s excellent AF is not hindered by the lens.
The main reason why I perceive the lens differently may be this one: I do some post processing with 90% of my images which – of course – has an impact on colour and geometry (at least when shooting wide open). Additionally, the pics straight out of the camera are fine for me and this is remarkable since Panasonic cameras do tend to be ‘clinical’, too. I do expect a very neutral colour rendition when using a kit that costs $1’000 or more – slight modifications of the colour can be done in post processing in no time.
I second your disappointment with the insufficient 10 – 12MP sensors that both Olympus and Panasonic were using (I still have an E-510, sold my GF2 some months ago). The arrival of the 16 MP sensors improved things quite dramatically and the latest generation (GH4 / EM-1) has raised the bar further. The only disadvantage is the aspect ratio: 4:3 will never look pretty. One either needs to get a camera that can produce 3:2 (the GX7 supports that in RAW mode, too) or one needs to be willing to crop many shots.
Oly 45 is fine, I never said it isn’t. Simply I like Pany 12, 20 & 25 more.
Agreed. The O45 is a very good budget portrait length. It’s no where close to the Nocticron, but it’s also much less expensive. Olympus makes some nice budget alternatives to the PanaLeica stuff if cost is an issue.
That’s how I see it as well. I just bought an EM5 to accompany my EPM1 and am now collecting a trinity of Olympus 1.8 lenses as a budget, everyday set. Have the 45mm now, will get the 17mm end of this month. Then maybe the 12mm (which I don’t use often).
That way, when I start on my next target of buying the PanaLeicas mainly for video towards the end of the year, I won’t have duplications. 12-17-45mm on Olympus, 15-25mm on Panasonic, with my existing compact 75mm Summarit for portraits. I just can’t get over the look I keep seeing from the 25mm and now 15mm samples. They just have “soul”.
I think there is only subtle difference between a Nocticro and the Olympus 45. The difference in rendering of the Nocticron (sorry I wont ytalk about better resolution or sharpness as most modern lenses perform quite well) only shines when a photographer knows how take advantage of it (people photography is easiest to show capability how a lens can render, plus looking up the right position in the right light.)…Sometimes I see Nocticron shots which makes me wonder about the reason why the owner got that lens.
I have both and the Noctricron is far better. It and the 75mm f/1.8 are my two main lenses. The O45 is not bad so if you can’t swing the price of the Pany then it makes a fine alternative.
the lens is so tiny…its the gm1 lens!
ugh… i am coveting a EM10 and the Pany 15mm… but i want to be able to use the click stop aperture. I don’t love the Gx7 ergonomics. so unfair.
Tell me about it. Olympus has the better stills camera, Panasonic has the better video camera, but their lenses aren’t 100% friendly with one another. This “consortium” needs its house sorted out.
Unfortunately, Olympus buys it’s sensors from Sony/Panasonic. Until they figure that puzzle out, they can only have equivalent stills ability, and with the DFD database and better focussing, the GH4 is better for video AND stills in most situations (the exception being 43 glass or legacy glass). As others point out, they are a self proclaimed optics company. They are supposed to make the best lenses and decent cameras. They make decent cameras, but aside from a few, their lenses aren’t that special
Sony & Panasonic are not the only ones doing great sensor tech at the moment. Leica didn’t need anyone to tell them to source their new M sensor from someone else. If Olympus hasn’t even managed to sort that one out til now, they have only themselves to blame.
1oo yeasr only making lens and cameras….selfproclaiming?
agreed
Wait… you don’t love the economics of the GX7, but want something that’s WORSE?
yeah, ok…
How is an OM10 worse than a GX7? They are distinctly different designs that would suit different preferences. If Olympus had a Pen Pro that had a built-in EVF exactly like the original film Pen FT… THEN we can talk.
Yes, of course. Fortunately Olympus doesn’t care about video, and does not design its cameras’ feature set to a thing that most of photographers do not need or rarely use. Crap like 16:9 view finders aren’t yet seen at Olympus camera.
Taking video with the same amount of quality I demand from my images, takes simply too much effort: time, equipment, planning, editing, experience, sound, and if you want to do it right, you likely need assistance.
Therefore, after a few attempts with my GH2, I decided to skip video and confine it to few occasions. And for that the video capabilities of Olympus’ m4/3 cameras is plenty enough.
As such, I prefer Olympus strategy to optimize their cameras and lenses for stills photography.
IMO. People who complain about GX7’s ergonomics never handled the E-M5/E-M10. Grip of GX7 is at least long. Grip E-M5/E-M10 is both short and flat.
true, E-m5 needs the HLD-6 for the good grip experience. But advantage of a near gripless body is compactness with a small pancake where yuo dont need it, and any good grip will give up the posibility to put your body away in your jacket pocket seperately(good trick if you want to take your mft to a concert.)
How does the grip make a difference on the GX7? It extends no further than the front of the lens so is not making it any more bulky.
Do we really need to have an “ergonomics is subjective” debate? I used a Nikon FM2n for 18 years. It felt great in my hand, it was an extension of my hand really. I could use it with my eyes closed (which is bad for composition.. i wouldn’t recommend it). I shot everything with it… landscapes, portraits, weddings… everything. I’m using a Canon 70d that’s a giant bulbous glob of plastic. Sure, it’s got a grip… it just does’t feel good in my hands, although it does takes great pictures. I have an Olympus OM1 now also… it feels as nice as my Nikon did (which died some years back). small, efficient, light… low key for street photography. The Gx7 is really in between the two. I just feels like it’s fatter than it needs to be. I like simple and thin. Additionally, I worked in camera stores for the better part of 12 years, so I had held every camera out there and was really able to compare what I did and didn’t like without reading reviews or stopping in for 5 minutes to make a quick judgement call. And yes, I have held an EM5 extensively. I find it comfortable and reminiscent of film slrs in all the right ways.
Forget about MP. What happens if I crop from Oly 12mm to 15mm and compare to this lens from f2.0 and above?
I can’t test it against the PL15mm, but it will give you a sharp cropped image.
Ha ha…this is as funny as people arguing over Canon and Nikon. Entertaining. Humans are the dumbest species on this planet.
> Humans are the dumbest species on this planet.
Nah. We won the game of evolution and now simply chilling out. 😉
P.S. If you ask me, both Oly 1.8/17mm and Pana 15mm are way too expensive. In excess of 500€ for a “standard” ~35mm eq prime? This is ridonkulous.
Only because the other species are not smart enough to make such proclamations on their own species.
talk about splitting hairs. Want to take pics with a 30mm equiv… but the panasonic… want to shoot at a 35mm equiv… buy the olympus… If you feel a little resolution is going to ruin your photography, take a class.
There seems to be a lot of fan boy and pixel peeper arguments in the comments. The big difference for me between the O17 and PL15 is that the O17 has a snap ring focus with distance indicator, and the PL15 has an aperture ring. Both are incredibly useful for different kinds of shooters. I have the O17 and find the snap ring focus incredibly useful. People should think more about these two features than minute differences in image quality.
Any prime oly makes with a snap ring I will buy. It’s very useful in low light when shooting wide open. I also would love an aperture ring. Kudos to both manufacturers for including these great features. Please keep it up.
600 euro for a ps lens. This is madness. For 600 euro there is a smaller much much better A6000 including kit lens. M43 people are living in a expensieve fantasy world.
And compared to its m4/3 competitors, you get a Sony with a rather sloppy build quality and poor ergonomics. You get what you pay for. And where are the attractive E-mount lenses?
Sir obvious you are blinded by the M43 light. There are lots of superb native lenses for Emount and that much larger Sony sensor beats that tiny Sony M43 sensor every time in any situation even with much cheaper lenses. But keep in investing in those expensieve point and shoot stuff called M43 if you like.
You are right. You are a winner. you were here I would give you a pat on the back and a star on your forehead.
That made me laugh 🙂
Please stop crying, Mrs. Bubbles.
It seems, you are uninformed. The few good E-Mount lenses are Zeiss or G series lenses, which are in about the same price league as respective m4/3 lenses. The rest of E-mount usually lacks the quality even the cheaper m4/3 glass has.
The biggest drawback of E-mount, however, is its APS-C sensor format. This means the usual large APS-C lens sizes. This paired with small compact camera style bodies leads to fairly unbalanced camera / lens combination. If E-mount tries to be small, it is usually at the expense of image quality (see Sony 16-50mm lens).
Speaking of point and shoot: if any mirrorless interchangeable lens system has point and shoot like bodies, it is Sony E-mount with its Micky Mouse menu system, which only recently became slightly better.
View finder quality is not on par with m4/3 cameras, AF seems to be caught up only with the latest A6000, still no IBIS, electronic shutter, etc.
Add to this, that Sony divided its Alpha system now into APS-C and FF and one can expect that the former NEX league will become neglected.
An amazing list of silly points. Do you think you are “credible” ? How much do you get for writing this?
> This is madness.
THIS IS SPARTA!!!
You’re living in the wrong forum Chris 🙂
Very true. And watch the geeks go off! Beauty!
Some of them have non benefitted from a “traditional” education and will resort to abuse… That is even more fun for us LOL
If they make the aperture ring work with olympus I buy one . . .
The aperture can still be set the dials on the camera body. I’d like to think they will provide a firmware update to fix the ring issue at some point but in the meantime they work just fine via the dial.
yes, I think it would be nice if Olympus would provide a firmware update to make use of the aperture ring on this lens (as well as the 42.5 Nocticron).
I also wouldn’t mind it if they updated their 25mm Summilux to be in line with the 15 & 4.5 Pana-Leica lenses.. nice metal construction.. and if they updated it to be a little faster, f1.2?, even sweeter.. other than that, the 25 Summilux is a great lens as is, though I wish the build was just a bit more premium feeling… perhaps down the line in the near future.
I’m a fan of olympus, but they must have figured they’s make more money selling their lenses to oly body owners than they would make selling n increased number of bodies to those that like lenses with aperture rings. It’s a screwed move. I would prefer they supported more accessories, but that’s not the route they took.
You’re living in the wrong forum Chris 🙂
http://epanasonic.net/%D8%AF%D8%B3%D8%AA%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%87-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%84.html