Also the 60mm macro gets DxOmarked.
After having tested the Olympus body cap lens today DxOmark (Click here) also released the Olympus 60mm macro results. They write: “Compared to its main (and more expensive) competitor, the Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 ASPH OIS, it offers better quality for the money, delivering category-leading vignetting performance among Micro Four Thirds prime lenses as well as excellent sharpness.”
And let’s keep talking about the new lens tests:
The Olympus 17mm f/1.8 has been tested by Lepidi (translation here) and Steve Huff. And there is a Panasonic 12-35mm lens test at Thebitmap.
No one of these lenses is as good as the Olympus body cap lens of course 
Fish
4 months ago |Newsflash: everyone’s a fanboy, some are just more disrespectful towards others.
Interesting review by Steve Huff though, if only because it gives a different perspective than we have seen in most reviews.
Rob
4 months ago |Drawing a direct comparison between a 90mm equivalent and a 120mm equivalent is kinda stupid.
Es
4 months ago |Yeah, a 90mm macro is far more useless than a 120mm by default.
JimD
4 months ago |Lens tested on a camera only show the synergy between the lens and the specific test camera along with the output device used. The results may/often/usually vary between tests using the same brand/model camera let alone different cameras. These tests are not lens tests. It is true that they do have some validity, but that validity is only to compare the outcome when a lens is used on this or that camera. It is not a test of the lens. It is possible it may well produce great, through to terrible results, depending on what one looks for in a lens.
A true lens test is a standalone off camera test to provide the objective data. Followed by a camera test, specifically and predominantly including test shots, static and real usage. to show subjective synergy.
I say subjective because that’s what it is. Read the comments re the 15mm f8 body cap. If you say this is not so then read the comments again, as you have missed something from the users.
Ross
4 months ago |I don’t have the 15mm body cap lens, but I do have the Oly 60mm macro lens & love it. I don’t care what score it gets because I’m really happy with what I have got. It was an extra attractive deal with the supplier selling it at a discount price followed the 20% cash back from Oly Australia (runs out today). Not only was the buying price nice but so is the performance & output. I also have the heavy Sigma 150mm macro lens & while I can add a teleconverter to that (& on my E30), the small, light 60mm M4/3′s lens is a pleasure to use. I may get the Kenko extension tubes eventually & be able to get a little closer too.
JimD
4 months ago |That’s the only criteria Ross. Being happy with it, and if you can get a double discount that’s even happier. Good shooting.
Es
4 months ago |When you test two different lenses on the same camera in the same environment, who gives a crap?
bart
4 months ago |People who have a different camera? People who intend to replace their camera with a newer one 2 years from now but keep their lenses?
Testing the combination of camera + lens IS very useful, but, you are testing the combination, and how a lens and camera interact can be highly specific for that combination, and may not give a good impression at all of how the lens interacts with another camera. That is due to optics, but electronics (or lack thereof) can also be a huge factor in this (think 20/1.7 on an E-M5 or GH3 versus that same lens on a G3 for example)
‘raw’ resolution (not this perceived resolution crap) and mtf charts don’t depend on specific interaction, and give an idea of what to expect from a lens, will tell you if a lens is likely to still perform well when upgrading from an older 12mp to a newer 16mp or who knows a future 20mp camera etc.
So.. 2 different things that you should look at when buying lenses:
- what is the future potential of the lens (ie will it be limiting when upgrading bodies)
- how does it interact with the specific camera you have or plan to buy
Crap
4 months ago |This is a typical example of “internet expertise”: it’s junk but it has a couple of keywords in it that weakly suggest a link with science. Plus, it’s long, so it looks more credible.
JimD
4 months ago |What is your point? You have not stated what your complaint is, what it is about or what is wrong. Its just niggle waffle. A typical example of “internet expertise”. Niggle waffle.
yuoyuo
4 months ago |@JimD an abstract lens test without being on a camera is of little use, I use camera + lens to take photos as does everyone so that is what interests me. Where the fanboys types get upset is that these numbers very clearly demonstrate the advantages of a FF sensor + FF lens regarding output resolution . So why not save yourself some grief and stop comparing your toys with someone else’s toys.
I bought my mFT gear because it suits my needs perfectly, I don’t care what FF cameras or MF cameras do or don’t do. The angst and abuse seen in camera forums is almost entirely down to folk comparing systems { which is why most of the reputable test sites specifically tell you cross system results are not compatible } Just to compete with a lens on FF a mFT lense needs to have double the resolution. Worry about what the lens does on the gear you own , the rest is just fluff.
bart
4 months ago |@yuoyuo
If comparing cross system makes no sense then DXOs way of determining lens performance makes absolutely no sense because it is on a ‘cross system scale’.
Either they do an abstract test, and also specify what results are needed for the various resolution sensors for the system a lens is intended for, or they do an ‘in-system’ comparative test between lenses intended for the same system. Their current test is just rubbish as it does exactly the one thing that about everyone with a clue says you shouldn’t be trying to compare.
JimD
4 months ago |A lens test without the lens being on a camera is absolutely critical. It defines the compatibility of the lens design and or manufacture of the lens to the intention of the designer and the quality of manufacturer. That is the real test of the lenses ability to meet specification as a lens. These tests are objective.
The test of a lens on a camera is indicative.
The reality is, the test of a lens in use is subjective.
yuoyuo
4 months ago |@BART
Camera plus lens is the only sensible test to make as that is all that concerns a photographer as that is how we take photos. The results from the G3 – GH3 and E-M5 would be all but identical they are all 16mp sensors the only sensor factor that makes a difference in the results [ resolution} but considering the fact that to double resolution we need four times the MP count the differences are not too huge between say 16 and 20 . I think they have to mention the faults that are corrected in some cameras as not all mFT cameras correct the same flaws with software.
bart
4 months ago |First of all yuoyuo, yes, camera + lens is what matters when taking pictures, but for that, resolution charts, mtf charts etc don’t matter either, the pictures matter.
That is a good enough test for most practical purposes also. If however you want to go ‘measure’ things, then having a factor in your setup that seriously affects your measurements, but that isn’t accounted for in the results, makes for bad testing. That really is a very basic thing.
If same megapixel count would mean identical results, then a G5 would do as well as a GH3, there would be no difference between an E-30 and E-5, or between an E-P1 and E-PL2, or between a D800 and D800E. However, for those 3 ‘pairs’ the differences can be quite visible on real pictures.
There are many reasons for this, different or lacking AA filter being the most obvious one. Different reflectivity, cut-off frequency for the hot mirror, different micro-lenses etc are some other factors that play a role here.
Far less obvious, but a much bigger factor then you’d expect is how well especially the analog part of the sensor is shielded from interference by electronics in lenses.
As I mentioned before, you need to look at both aspects, how does this lens perform when doing controlled measurements, and how does it combine with my camera of choice.
NerdBuster
4 months ago |You fart don’t know squat do you? Why do you waste our space with your nonsense?
bart
4 months ago |Your arguments are really good, especially the misspelling of my name makes for a totally convincing one.
JimD
4 months ago |Camera + lens is a nice way of showing indicative results. But it is NOT a lens test. It can be stated that certain criteria is met or not met by the combination.
But the relevance of the criteria is subjective.
MarcoSartoriPhoto
4 months ago |As I wrote somewhere else, the test I prefer is looking at pictures. If I see good pictures taken with a lens on a body camera I own then I know what kind of results that combo can give. Charts are boring to me. And I have never bought a lens because it scored a good ranking on some test.. I read so much complaining about the last Zuiko17mm f1.8, but every word was blown away by Robin Wong pictures. And now I’m enjoining it a lot, that’s what matters most.
Garypen
4 months ago |It’s refreshing and encouraging to see so many professionals and enthusiasts voicing their disdain for these lens benchmark tests, and their factual and compelling explanations as to why these tests are not accurate or relevant to the actual quality and capabilities of the tested lenses.
The initial trend of various forums and blogs jumping on the DxO lens test bandwagon was worrisome. I’m so glad that logic and common sense is still alive and well in the photography community.
Millsner
4 months ago |*claps*
Anonymous
4 months ago |yet , time to be cynical !
Dave
4 months ago |Clasps
Anonymous
4 months ago |“99.99 percent of the time when I go out and shoot, which is everyday, and not here looking at this site.”
Please, by all means, go out & shoot, yourself.
ronnbot
4 months ago |“and not here looking at this site”.
And yet you’re here to leave a useless and sarcastic comment. Bravo!