70lp/mm form this tiny glass and still considered not so good a performer.
and very much praised the 20/1.7 (75lp/mm)
70lp/mm form this tiny glass and still considered not so good a performer.
and very much praised the 20/1.7 (75lp/mm)
Last edited by nugat; 18th November 2010 at 22:22.
Piotr (that is the name, isn't it?), Thanks for the link!
It is an interesting site, I like the way they address the factors related to a lens. The start page: http://www.lenstip.com/273.1-Lens_re...roduction.html
Taking into account the small size of the 4/3 sensor, which makes it easier to design vignetting-free optics, it is a quite significant slip-up indeed. At the maximum relative aperture the lens loses as much as 49% of light in the frame corners (-1.97 EV).
I appreciate the plain ( i really applaud this approach, totally non dp revs ) language:
I am looking at other options. I will know how that pans out in a week.To all intends and purposes the autofocus in this lens can be treated just as a gadget.
Wow, that's a lot of vignetting.
I didn't expect that from a m4/3 lens.
There is a very long thread about this review at DPReview. The lens reviewer (Andy Westlake) at DPReview disagrees with lenstips handling of m4/3 reviews. There are a lot of very good points on this thread especially dealing with the FOV.
Not a surprise.
They exchange public accusations and deride methodologies.
I think both have some skeletons in their editorial drawers.
DPreview for a couple of years published all lens reviews with the wrong units; they gave resolution in lp/ph and should have in lw/ph. The resultant resolution was 2x overshot and many systems exceeded the Nyquist limit.
They had a funny note about that sending to Imatest for explanations.
When lenstip pointed that above-Nyquist is non-physical, they suddenly (a month ago) changed the units to lw/ph and removed the Nyquist lines from their "widgets". Only after some persistent inquiries they apologized and explained.
Lenstip on the other hand persisted in claims that their methodology using lp/mm from Imatest and non-sharpened raws from dcraw is best. They did not want to acknowledge that in fact they are testing system resolutions (convolutions of MTFs from lens, AA filter, sensor, electronics and algorithms) and insisted that lp/mm is the only objective figure.
But recently they changed the test bodies and suddenly 4/3 lenses gained in resolution from 40lp/mm to 75lp/mm (summilux 25/1.4 vs panny 20/1.7).
Funny, funny, funny--both.
That's what I mean do not trust fully manufacturers claims, photo reviews and insurance salesmen.
Both of them (almost all of the "review" outfits for that matter) have one thing in common- they are pseudo advertisers for these companies and get privileges like "production" samples or "pre-production" samples.
What would Amazon do without them.
. . . . . then in the end, some photographer picks up a lens that has been trashed by all the reviewers and produces a beautiful photograph . . . . .
. . . . . then in the end, some photographer picks up a lens that has been top rated by all the reviewers and produces a terrible photograph . . . . .
I enjoy the reviews but I know at times it is sometimes like reading a movie review, the critic gets it all so wrong, after seeing the movie myself.
Life is Grand!
So true. I have yet to see any good (or bad) photograph that has anything to do with lp/mm, lp/ph, or lw/ph.
However, are we talking about a photograph or a lens that costs $400/- here?
While on the photographs being produced by whatever means (gear wise) I also wonder why any online photos have to give details of any lens/gear used.
I like the fact that Lenstip assesses the uncorrected optics, because not everyone has a workflow which includes the intended software corrections. However, it would be better if they were to qualify their conclusions with a statement indicating that the massive distortion and vignetting are largely addressed by in-camera corrections (for JPEG shooters) as well as most of the popular RAW converters.
Lenstip have apparently concluded that the lens FOV is not that of a 28mm but after corrections of a 31mm. The dispute centers around what they used as a starting point. In the linked DPReview thread they show that after corrections the lens does indeed have the correct FOV for a 28mm lens. It is pretty well known that the m4/3 lenses are wider than indicated to take into account the reduction in FOV for the corrections.
No problems there Robert but the review Piotr linked talks about flare with samples (that dprevs do not know much about- remember their claim "flare is virtually absent with the 20/1.7"), distortions, light fall off.
The point about NyQuist frequency and lens performance that Piotr mentioned, I remember that clearly. Bob (moderator) pointed that out in one thread here and it got changed within an hour.
I don't know for whom lens tips are advertising unlike Amazon's dp revs.
Last edited by Vivek; 19th November 2010 at 05:04. Reason: spelling
. . . . . so for me when someone adds the camera, lens, and information about the photograph, I appreciate the information provided.
Life is Grand!
I was hopeful for this lens, but given the images I've seen I am not so enthused currently. Firstly, when I shoot my wider lenses I tend to shoot for DoF and thus am frequently using f5.6 - f8, so my need for a sharp 14 at f2.8 is limited --- and for now my 14-45 zoom suffices quite admirably. This new lens isn't very sharp wide open from what I've seen, but if it performed like it's bigger brother the 20/1.7 I suspect I'd be all over it.
So far, the test images I have seen, albeit jpegs and not raw images, are average to good. Certainly nowhere near as good as the results from 20/1.7.
What we need is a damn good 17/1.4, or even 18/2. Don't care if it is a pancake or not.
What I'd prefer is another 14 that is as good as the 20 -- and even f3.5 would be fine. I agree size is less relevant than IQ...
I appreciate my wide combo of Oly-D17/2.8 plus the Ricoh 0.75X even more now.
While definitely not as compact as the Pana 14/2.5, it works very well for me (auto focuses faster than the 17/2.8 on its own !) and I don't have to shell out $400/- on a dud.
I hear you. I'm appreciating my Oly 9-18 collapsable a lot more too
I think the amount of distortion from this lens is unforgivable. While it is corrected, it effectively changes the focal length to a less generous one. For a prime lens, distorsion levels of 6% are unheard of unless you are shooting through the bottom of a coke bottle. It is about the double the worst you get with most zooms at their very worst focal length. What were the designers of this lens doing?
I trust the designers of the forthcoming 12mm Olympus lens won't cut corners and produce a poorly designed lens lite this one. Anyone looking for conservatively wide lens may was well get the Olympus 17mm or wait for the 12mm lens and see what that is like.
For those not in need of a compact lens, stick with the kit zoom's 14mm. You only lose around 1 stop and it will cost you nothing.
It's pretty clear what they are doing...maximizing profit. It's a lot cheaper to correct via software than to correct in the glass...
A)I thought the 17mm lens had it's fair share of distortion and nor did it fare that well when tested.
B)They obviously were aiming for very small - the lens is tiny
C)I'm now pretty sure that it has been shown that after corrections the field of view is the correct field of view for the indicated focal length.
Many people look on uncorrected results and based on this - put negative opinion. But the corrections give immediately much more better results - in JPG, RAW, VIDEO.
The point is - if that end result would be crap - then fine, we can laugh from the lens. But it isn't.
It isn't as sharp as 20mm, but is much more sharper than I expected.
PS: and I am not interested in vigneting, distortions, sharpness - in area - that is ALWAYS NOT VISIBLE in LCD, EVF, JPG, RAW, VIDEO.
Last edited by Jerry_R; 19th November 2010 at 17:11.
I was about to inject exactly this point ... so thanks for taking the heat for me there :-)
actually I bet you don't wonder so much as suspect ;-)While on the photographs being produced by whatever means (gear wise) I also wonder why any online photos have to give details of any lens/gear used.
our problem is that we are clearly not late [middle aged | semi retired | dual income no kids] folks who have nothing much else to splash money on and think that $400 represents not much at all.
site, that the Oly 17mm obtains about 45mm to 50mm (with the center to edge performance remaining close to each other after f4), would this not then make that lens about equal to the 14mm, particularly when taking into account the 0.75x converter?
70 lpmm is even quite beyond the 50+ lpmm for Zuiko SHG glass
14/35-2 SHG Zuiko
50/2 macro ED Zuiko
Had not noticed that. These are from 1.5 years ago (Barcelona).
Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr
Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr
It (17/2.8 +0.75 Ricoh) works well for me and will not cost me $400/-. When it (14mm price) comes down to ~$200 or so, I will rethink this.
The "reviews" don't work for me. Their efforts are wasted, I am sorry to say.
Lenstip.com changed test bodies recently and their resolution tests' figures for (m)43 jumped almost double. You cannot compare Imatest figures from different bodies, but most test sites frequently do so. Check the bodies used at Lenstip.
To me the only integral method for resolution comparisons (for the lack of standards) is the visual appraisal of test patterns, or resolution trumpets. From those Leica glass on film bodies resolves 100lp/mm and the same glass on M9 (18Mpix FF)--63lp/mm (Nyquist at 73lp/mm, imx.nl). 24Mpix best FF systems resolve 2700lw/ph or 56lp/mm, Nyquist at 83lp/mm (dpreview.com resolution trumpet, not "widgets"). (m)43 with Zuiko 50/2 and the 12Mpix sensor gets 2400lw/ph, or 92 lp/mm (dpreview, me).
I haven't seen tests with SHG on E5, but hope to conduct them next week.
One caveat with the visual/resolution trumpet method is contrast. It should be consistent between tests.
(Traditional visual method was like 30% contrast, while with current Imatest based reviews MTF50 is more popular).
Additionally one should look at lens integrity across the frame, in the corners.
It is wrong to extrapolate center resolution into lw/ph figure when edges are fuzzy.
Finally, on digital bodies we always test the resolution of the whole system: lens, AA filter, sensor, electronics, algorithms.
Last edited by nugat; 19th November 2010 at 23:56.
I would suspect, given the small sizes of the lens elements (I am still not sure all of it is glass or there is some plastic involved), one could expect sample variations as the tolerances demand much more stricter control.
Even very large surfaced current Leica glass (for the S2) shows problems related to aspheric surfaces (see: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4730, shots posted by XPIXEL there).
What I wonder is, given all the huge light fall off and the not so stellar sharpness, why in the world would Pana make such a complicated lens design?
Wouldn't a triplet do the job? It did not stop them making the stereo toy lens.
IQ issues aside, I don't understand the choice of 14mm focal length. Panasonic already has three other optics covering 14mm (14-45mm, 7-14mm, 14-140mm) and now they have four. Had this lens been a 12mm f/2.5 with good IQ, it would have been a lot more useful. A fast prime system consisting of 12mm/f2.5, 20mm/f1.7 and 45mm/f2.8 would be a great road warrior kit (and not very heavy).
Last edited by Paul_Kerfoot; 20th November 2010 at 03:59.
...when a 10mm/1.8 Schneider is available...
Last edited by nugat; 26th January 2014 at 22:10.
But I like the focal lengths in your proposed series, and if the IQ could be a notch better I wouldn't mind the lenses to be a tad bigger. Let's hope Olympus (for once) make a real good 12mm lens. Unlike Peter I don't trust in Olympus.
Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
I actually found a 20mm Tessar that does amazingly well on a G1 (more than full coverage and acceptable light fall off, no CA). I am yet to mount it permanently so, can't give more details. Overall thickness including the mount would be ~1cm.
Still striving for wider lenses and I am confident that I would find one soon. I am more focused on APS-C coverage nowadays (on a slim hope that Sony's NEX would get better and become a usable camera system).
I still think of that software corrections in u43.
All u43 native lenses - give wider picture on the 4000x3000 sensor.
Then it is being corrected, what means cutting off external sections.
It means loosing resolution from pixels closer to borders, what remains is smaller than 4000x3000.
But it must be interpolated - as RAW opened in LR shows full 4000 x 3000.
(at least ofr Lumix G)
So, having heard that - people would expect mediocre sharpness and quality.
But it is not a case... What you think?
We all know 14-45mm kit as excelent kit. Much more better, sharper than C, N or S kits.
Photozone.de wrote that it is weak in fact, but after corrections it behaves quite well.
What you think?
From real life - me and Nugat made some tests not long ago.
We compared sharpness of new clinic Leica lens attached to GF1 vs 20mm f/1.7.
Then we opened RAWs in LR and simply could not find any significant difference.
It would mean that software corrections are perfectly designed and done.
Im not so sure anymore about incamera correction
maybe it depends on how well its done
from where I sit optical correction costs resolution too
those stretchy corners are not a good look
and hey it saves buying PTLens
Although m43 is supposedly one platform, using cross-brand combos is no certain thing. Is there an official statement from 43.org on what is exactly corrected in jpegs by Oly bodies with Panny lenses? And the other way round?
How about raws? Does LR3 apply any action on cross-brand combos? What exactly?
I have (or had) two lenses that were so much better in the center than any other lens I tried; the Pentax C-mount 25/1.4 C22525KP, and the Kern Switar 26/1.1. If we don't count for the mount they have one thing in common and that is heavy distortion.
Seeing modern lenses costing a lot of money never reaching the IMA-test values, or per pixel definition, as those two lenses it is pretty clear to me that optical correction doesn't come for free. The price seem to be decreased resolution, stretched corners, weight and money.
Sometimes one can see comments like "optical corrections perfectly performed" when the new µ4/3 take on the lens and the camera as a system is discussed.
There are some arguments I agree with; Panasonic shouldn't ask all that money for their products, the lenses could have been a either a notch better or a little bigger and faster. There are limits to how what software correction can achieve and now that it is in use I would like to see either 0% of CA and 0% of distortion, or much less LoCA or something else showing the system was taken to its limit, for the photographers to benefit from in image quality.
Bashing either optical or software correction tricks doesn't seem very productive.
That is my major issue with Pana/Oly. Look at the prices of the 17/2.8 now.
That should have been the case in the beginning.
I will wait for the 14/2.5 to reach ~$200 mark.
These are lenses that can not be focused manually (without battery power from the cam) nor do they have a manually adjustable aperture. Had these two things been different, I will not have any problems with the asking prices.
If they want to cut costs (and weight!), they can chuck the electronics out and start making real lenses.
AFAIK, none of them and only Cosina have made one lens (25/0.95).
There is a 35/1.7 "lens magic" as well.
Then you had this opinion:
Anyway, it's a year later and I still would like to see Panasonic and Olympus making a series of premium lenses for those so inclined.
Selective reading (a trait of yours?) always is a problem.
What i said then, AFAIC, does not conflict with what I look for now either.
I have several dozen manual focus lenses (most c-mount) that I use on my G1s and only two plastic primes from Oly and Pana.
I wrecked the kitzooms from both Pana and Oly and they stay wrecked.
Realistically, is there any chance of that? I do not think so, not from Pana or Oly. It took nearly 2 years for Pana to come up with the $400 wonder.
I don't expect Panasonic to do this, no.
OTOH, Pentax had some success with their limited primes. I believe it is their build quality making people rave about them more than their optical performance (which is not bad but also not the best ever). Photographers using other brands are also looking at those limiteds with the "want-to-have" look on their faces.
So, it all depends on what way the responsible folks at Panasonic look at this. By now they should be used to the fact that their G series of cameras actually are used for serious photography (as opposed to the commercials showing the three shopping Tokyo ladies).