Thom Hogan: “Short opinions about the current m4/3 lenses”
Our friend and 43rumors reader Thom Hogan posted an article sharing his “Short opinions about the current m4/3 lenses“.
Lenses that are highly recommended:
Panasonic 7-14mm f/4 -> “Expensive. But it performs quite well in almost every situation I’ve used it in.”
Panasonic 45-200mm f/4-5.6 -> “This lens was the biggest surprise of the bunch for me. Optically it delivers very good performance for a low-cost telephoto.”
Lenses that are recommended:
Olympus 9-18mm f4/-5.6 -> “As it turns out, the 9-18mm spends a lot of time on my m4/3 bodies.”
Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 -> “Optically very good, and a good match for most users.”
Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 -> “Thus, this lens really starts to shine when you’re shooting in low light, as it slows you from bumping the ISO on the body too much.”
Lenses that are qualified recommended:
Panasonic 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 -> “it’s a modestly specified lens.”
Panasonic 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 -> “The lens’ mediocre aperture specs do hurt low light use of the m4/3 bodies.”
Lenses that are not recommended:
Olympus 17mm f/2.8 -> “All you get is a smaller, less flexible lens over the kit lens, and it doesn’t really seem like that’s worth the money.”
Panasonic-Leica 45mm f/2.8 macro -> “The question becomes one of price versus expected performance, and I think this current iteration fails.”
Read the full opinions at http://bythom.com/m43lenses.htm
Thanks Marko
Share
Recent comments
Comment from Bogdan: Yes, IMO they would do just fine, as lon...
Comment from Mike: Which perfect fanboi world do you belong...
Comment from bob: Thom, I wanted to write this yesterday: ...
Comment from Voldenuit: Thom was talking about the Olympus 14-42...
Greg
2 years ago |I’m so pissed off with the 45mm 2.8… As Tom says, I try to like it… but it’ just not happening…
This lens is basically unable to focus properly
Miklos Rabi
2 years ago |I have never ever considered the 45 macro because of its focus-by-wire mecahnism. For serious macro work the accurate MF is a must, so I bought a Canon FD macro instead and use it with an adapter. 1/3 the price and has much better useability.
Check it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/miklosrabi/5211747728/in/set-72157625085757906/
Looks wierd, hah?
hd72
2 years ago |I came to the same conclusion (precise manual focus is important for macro, large aperture – not so much) and bought the Canon FD 100mm f/4 also. I’ve been really happy with it, especially considering i got it for just over $100. I love its solid feel and its 1980′s retro look. But most importantly, I’ve been really pleased with the photos it lets me take.
Miklos Rabi
2 years ago |The only reason why I choosed the 200/4 macro instead of the 100/4 is its tripod collar and 1:1 magnification.
Voldenuit
2 years ago |Weird. I have no problems with AF speed on the 45/2.8 on my GF1. Yes, sometimes it has trouble locking on at macro distances, especially if there is a high contrast background that it (well, that’s really the camera’s fault) wants to lock on to instead, but I can get around that by using the AF lock button and manually focusing, or prefocusing on something at similar distance. I’ve also found the focus by wire to be very responsive. It’s well damped and a damned sight more usable than the FBW on the 20/1.7, which lags input and is “steppy”.
I’ve tested the Oly Zuiko D 50/2 macro on both an E-PL1 and the E-5, and the 45/2.8 is about as fast as the 50/2 on the E-5 in Full AF distance mode, and even faster in Limit (when shooting portraits). Pity it has no ‘Macro only’ setting on the switch, because that would have been truly useful.
Will agree that the lens is very sharp, sharper than the MTF results might lead you to think. Some of my 1:1 crops are good enough to use as final product. Bokeh is also exceptional at macro distances even down to f/8.
It’s an expensive lens (I would say ‘overpriced’), but is by no means a bad one. I pretty much agree with Thom on the other lenses, except my experience with the 45-200 has not been as positive. It just hasn’t been acceptably sharp for me at 150mm and up.
43hk
2 years ago |Also found the 45mm to be quite excellent for macro. At it’s best with flash to get decent DOF with higher f number. The trick is to use the MF Assist, get the AF to focus on roughly the right plane and then focus in or out to fine tune, use a hood loupe in bright conditions.
It’s certainly not a lens for snapping with like the 20mm but it is perfect for set up and close portrait. Contrast is beyond good and it weighs nothing. Takes a bit of thinking before use that’s all.
He’s right about the 7-14mm Vario, simply stunning. Use if for interior and architectural work with a tripod in low light and it performs very well.
Kevin
2 years ago |I’m surprised to see the oly 14-42 kit being rated above the panny 14-45 kit…it’s always the panny being praised on and selling for ridiculous prices, while the oly kit can be bought for dirt cheap prices
Voldenuit
2 years ago |Thom seems to be mainly criticising the 14-45′s size. He did say that it “performs near the top of one’s expectations for a kit lens.” I guess the question is how much the smaller size of the Oly 14-42 is worth in one’s mind.
tgutgu
2 years ago |Yes, it is becoming insane, how small size dominates everything right now. An already small lens (the 14-45 mm *is* small) is not good because the competition has a smaller one (notwithstanding that the smaller size could only be achieved by a collapsible design, which many find rather awkward, because you have to decollapse in order to use it). It is now mandatory for a prime to be a pancake, although with larger, more reasonable designs the optical characteristics (faster, sharper, less distortion) could likely be better, the handling more comfortable (broader focus ring, lens hood bajonet included, lens caps thicker), and functionally more sufficient (IS).
The new Lumix G 2.5/14 mm shows this wrong trend clearly.
I hope that Panasonic and Olympus concentrate their development efforts on non-pancake fast primes.
At least the size is certainly not a disadvantage of the discussed 2.8/45 mm macro lens.
Chris
2 years ago |Hear, hear! I think the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 made everyone believe you can cram great optics into a pancake design at any focal length and aperture specification.
I’d rather see lenses with out-of-the-ballpark quality than a crummy pancake lens I can slip into my “coat pocket.”
Michael Meissner
2 years ago |In terms of size, the size of the 14-42mm lens when it was folded up WAS one of the reasons I went for the Olympus E-P2. I already had a full-size kit (E-3, medium level lenses, etc.), and I wanted something smaller when I didn’t want to carry the whole kit. When I compared a G-1/14-45mm to an E-620/14-42mm, and they were roughly the same size, it was a turnoff. I suspect if it was my only camera, the size issue would be different.
Greg
2 years ago |Well this is why most of us went for m43. It’s my case at least: light portable quality stuff…
tgutgu
2 years ago |You said portable not pocketable. To my standard a kit lens of the size of the 14-45mm *is* portable (I would even consider all m4/3 lenses as of today portable, given their respective focal length and intended use).
I bought m4/3 for portability (not pocketability). In my view a 2.5/14mm lens needed not to be designed as a pancake. I would have preferred a larger aperture, larger focus ring, and a bajonett for a lens hood.
Sure the very small design of the 14mm has its merits too, but would I have sacrified fastness for ultimate smallness?
Thom Hogan
2 years ago |> Yes, it is becoming insane, how small size dominates everything right now.
The mirrorless cameras succeed because of their smallness, not because of their quality. When you measure an E-P2 or GF-1 against a D7000, they fail to come close in almost any performance parameter, and the D7000 isn’t that big a camera itself. Thus, if we’re going to start putting very large and heavy lenses on these bodies, they need to be compared against small DSLRs.
My assessment is this: the Olympus kit lens is mighty close to the Panasonic in terms of quality, perhaps even equal overall. But it makes for a different camera kit than the Panasonic. I can pocket the Olympus, but not the Panasonic. The minute a camera isn’t pocketable, I’ll resort to a small DSLR, thank you.
In design there’s a concept called consistency with goal (or sometimes consistency with purpose). Olympus seems to be designing to that. Panasonic seems to violate it fairly often.
The problem is compounded by the fact that these companies are trying to satisfy multiple audiences simultaneously, and that shows, too, in the design decisions. Not a single one FULLY succeeds as a “compact user moving up” or “DSLR user wanting small” product.
tgutgu
2 years ago |Thom, I believe you do not get the m4/3 concept right. It is not *only* about pocketability it is about portability. And certainly a Lumix G system is much more portable that their DSLR counterparts even the small end of them.
Additionally, m4/3 is not only about small size, but to exploit live view to its maximum potential, which means better integration of video and stills in a hybrid package.
So to disqualify everything, which is not pocketable as not fulfilling the goals of m4/3 is absolutely wrong. It would mean that developing any lens larger than the collapsible kit zoom of Olympus is not according to the m4/3 goals because it is not pocketable.
Everybody who carried a APS-C system with a focal range from 14 to 400 mm (35mm equiv.) with it on travel, feels the relief immediately after switching to a GH1-based system of equal focal length. Everything, camera bags, lens bags, tripods and other accessories can be significantly lighter and smaller.
To limit m4/3 to pocketability is doing the system injustice.
tgutgu
2 years ago |Why does a GH1 not fulfill the DSLR user wanting something small? In fact, with this regards the GH1 hits the target just in the middle.
Jules
2 years ago |Yes, the Nikon D7000 outperforms m43 in general in IQ, ISO, pdaf AF speed, etc, not to mention lens catalog. There are many perfectly valid reasons why one would choose Nikon.
But how good is good enough? D7000 may be small, the unpocketable G1 is significantly smaller, and to me, enough to outweigh the benefits of the Nikons. I picked my priorities and I live with them.
I absolutely dislike GF/EP form factor. On the other hand, I am happy with my G1 (soon GH2) which can pack a phenomenal focal range in a small bag.
Vlad
2 years ago |Tgutgu, the GH1 can surely fulfill them, but I think what Thom is saying is pretty clear – if you are going to lug something relatively big than just opt for the better IQ. And I do think that most sensors out there outperform the m43.
Vlad
2 years ago |Jules, I think you agree with Thom – it is all about smallness. And about how good is good enough, well, if we take everything down to size and IQ, I am pretty sure that everyone will go for the IQ if the size is similar.
The Okram
2 years ago |I am firmly with tgutgu and Jules on this one. While my set consisting of G2, 20/1.7, 7-14 and 45/2.8 truly isn’t pocketable, I would not call it “relatively big” and most definitely it is insanely light – you can carry this around all day and not feel it at all.
I bet no equivalent DSLR kit comes close in (small) size/bulk. I for one am gladly giving up any increase in DSLR IQ (whatever it may be) and happily keep the Panasonic, which I use as a DSLR substitute.
The Okram
2 years ago |Certainly the perspective on this from users with multiple systems (Thom Hogan being a prime example) is different, which is perfectly fine. I just wanted to point out that obviously the “DSLR user wanting small” segment, as Thom put it, is already here and happy. Well, at least we are three that we disclosed ourselves
Voldenuit
2 years ago |Thom, while I value your opinions greatly, I think you are looking at it from the perspective of a pro-DSLR user who wants a compact secondary body.
m43 is “good enough” that many users are choosing it as their primary camera. While compactness is one of the main reasons people are picking this format, it’s also not the only one. When designs compromise optics for the sake of minimal gains in portability (Lumix G 14/2.5), that is a sign that they’ve lost perspective. You criticised the 17/2.8 for subpar performance and neglibible gains in speed over the kit zoom, and the current obsession with pancakes (which are usually slower and inferior optically to traditional designs) is germane to this discussion. Back to the Panny kit zoom, OIS is also important to videographers (another key market area for m43), so the comparison with the collapsible Oly zoom is not as clear-cut.
Yes, m43 does try to cater to many markets and usage models, that is one of its potential strengths. I think that the spread of the lenses reflects this, and while it is good that a range of users is catered for, what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. In the end, it’s nice to have choice. I just wish prices would come down on the lenses.
Lumix
2 years ago |I have both a D300s, a LX5 and a GF1. The only pocketable of them are the LX5, but to be thruthful the only P&S I can fit in my pockets are the S90 (too bad it always decides to selfadjust +/-EV and are either two stops over or under exposed).
I mainly use primes with my GF1. The 20mm or 14mm. I also have the 14-45mm and think it is very sharp. Way better than the Oly, which I never liked. Bjørn Rørslett just praised it in a review (but most m43 got the feedback of being “too small for my hands”). When I carry the GF1, I carry i like my D300 – over my shoulder or around my neck.
I don’t want ant big zooms for it, so the 45-200 is really a miss in my eyes. Then I might as well carry my DSLR and big glass. Not that it isn’t lighter, but I can’t get a sharp picture handheld and I never carry a tripod.
So, I guess what’s small for me isn’t pocketable for everyone. It’s not that I think the D300 is so big either, but everyone else seems to think so. Whoever I point it at turns away – even my dog! (Ok, so she does it with any camera…).
Btw, I really enjoy reading your reviews and opnions, but this one I just don’t quite understand.
Lumix
2 years ago |Several surprises here leads one to wonder whether sample variations are common.
When I got the Pana 14-45 I was surprised that it was nearly as sharp as the 20mm. Which is excellent (however, noisy when focusing).
Thom Hogan
2 years ago |Sharpness is only one aspect of lens quality.
frosti7
2 years ago |I wonder how good is the new E-PL1S smaller kit lens is, interested in that lens as compact companion to my 14-140
Haralampi
2 years ago |What about Oly 14-150?
Federico
2 years ago |The 45 macro is a very good lens, IMHO
No focus issue (using with a GF1) , and it works very well , even @ f2,8
Love it
As Thom says sharpness is only aspect of lens quality
Well , this little macro own many qualities
Just to understand my perspective….I usually shot with D3 and a Zeiss 100 mm F2,0 Makro (a great lens and a great camera)
CKDexterHaven
2 years ago |I’m surprised to see the 45-200 so highly rated, given its pronounced, unfixable-in-post-processing, chromatic aberration.
Contrary to the reviewer, I find the 20mm to be tack-sharp with pleasing bokeh.
I think the 14-42 Oly kit is pretty soft. I avoid carrying it. The lack of a decent, fast standard zoom is the fail point of m43 for me right now.
Goes to show it takes horses for courses, I guess.
Steve H
2 years ago |I’m surprised at the rating of the 14-140, especially since the “negative” for this lense of the aperature being 3.5+ is the same aperature or better than every other lens on the list. Is it because you’d expect better for the price of this particular lens?
frosti7
2 years ago |its slower then the normal 3.5-5.6, AND the aperture drops to 5.8 Really fast!
faster then equillant canon/nikon
I forgot where i’ve seen that
Voldenuit
2 years ago |Fred Glickner on m43photography graphed the aperture behaviour of the 14-140 a while back.
http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2009/12/lumix-14-140-zoom-lens.html
http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2010/05/lumix-g-45-200mm-f4-56.html
It’s also worth noting that the 14-140 is a pretty hefty lens in addition to the bulk.
It’s really geared towards video shooters, but videographers who want shallow DOF and/or shoot in low light may want to look elsewhere.
Parci
2 years ago |I wonder what Thom would say about the Olympus 14-150… I was very pleasantly surprised by that lens, it is very light (280g), focuses reasonably fast and much, much better optically than expected.
Arkady
2 years ago |I’m hoping someone has had experience with the Panny 8mm Thom left it out of his guide. It’s tuff to find any opinion out there and with the new price drop I’m interested in adding this one over the 7-14 mainly for the fun effect and the ability to crop and correct in post and still be left with a reasonably wide shot. What do you think?
Bogdan
2 years ago |Funny, the 45mm gets derated because it doesn’t autofocus well for macro
Who uses autofocus for macro shots? Sorry Thom, but I’m surprised to see that comment. The DOF for high magnifications is so thin (even at f 16 FF equivalent) that no autofocus system does the trick. You just have to focus manually and then fine tune by moving the camera.
Better off, you should use a tripod or a focusing rail, if you really want good results.
Now, you could have said the lens has OIS for no apparent purpose (it’s not good for macro anyway, and the focal length is pretty short) and that i would’ve agreed with.
Kevin
2 years ago |wouldn’t a legacy macro that’s 1/8 the price do the trick then? like say the vivitar 55mm 2.8 or sigma 50mm 2.8 which also has 1:1 macro magnification
Voldenuit
2 years ago |I use the AF on the 45/2.8 for macro all the time. The AF + small body + OIS lets me take hand-held macros that I do not have the time or convenience of setting up a tripod/rail setup for.
Just took this today with the ME 45/2.8 at f/11 (hand-held). If I had tried it with a tripod, I would have scared the fellow off. With the GF1 + 45/2.8, I was able to get in low and hold the camera out at arms’ length to compose the shot. The moment I stood up, he flew away. This would have been alarmingly difficult with a manual macro lens (although a DSLR with trap focus might have been able to do it).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48040151@N06/5243640334/
The OIS is not great compared to Canon’s, but it’s still let me get shots that I wouldn’t have been able to with a manual macro lens. And it’s great for video (macro or otherwise).
Bogdan
2 years ago |Yes, IMO they would do just fine, as long as macro is your interest.
Voldenuit
2 years ago |Also, I notice that the criticism for the AF seems to center around the AFC mode. This is going to be a weak point for any CDAF system, and you have to set up the camera properly (Focus priority on) to get any usable results out of it (which I’m sure Thom has done).
Still, AFC for macro is a big ask. I recommend sticking to AFS mode where possible.
M43Photo
2 years ago |Arkady asked about the 8mm fisheye lens above here.
The fisheye lens is a perfectly fine lens. No problems with it at all. It is probably not as useful from day to day as the 7-14mm zoom, due to the fisheye perspective.
The 8mm also has the advantage of being very compact.
http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2010/11/lumix-g-8mm-f35-fisheye.html
adrian
2 years ago |I have to disagree with Mr Hogan findings. Maybe Panasonics quality control is poor/variable. My 14-45 is a very sharp lens, whereas my 45-200 is a poor performer. These are accurate judgements of mine as I judge these 2 against top brand other lenses I use including 2 Voigtlander lenses and a Sony ‘G’ lens.
Bradley
2 years ago |Maybe already mentioned but he says the 14-42 doesn’t have OIS. Perhaps some old ones didn’t, I don’t know, but mine certainly does! It’s written across the front of the lens. What is missing is an OIS on off switch. This has to be done in the camera.
Voldenuit
2 years ago |Thom was talking about the Olympus 14-42, which does not have OIS.
I think you’re referring to the Panny 14-42, which does.
bob
2 years ago |Thom, I wanted to write this yesterday: welcome to 4/3-m4/3 fanboi-world, where its fans bend and/or dismiss the laws of physics and common sense in their never-ending quest to prove m4/3 is equal or better than other DSLRs, using self-referential standards, fantastical theories, and other methods of denial and obfuscation. To wit, the “equivalency” theory–where ISO and f/stops are not measured on absolute terms, but relative to sensor size.
I’m glad you write for people with common sense, not for those that maintain that the e-5 can keep up with the D3s!
Mike
2 years ago |Which perfect fanboi world do you belong to bob? So that we can weigh your opinions appropriately?