The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

4/3 lenses on m4/3

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
It's exactly those sorts of issues that software correction does the best job with, Jorgen. If you want yo consider it nitpicking to point that out, there's no point to this discussion.
I agree, Godfrey. The software correction that I'm skeptical about is when lenses are knowingly made with large amount of distortion to make them smaller to correct the distortion in software, like in the case of the Panasonic 7-14mm and other tiny lenses. I know from experience that this doesn't work well. The images become reasonably sharp, but often flat and uninteresting. The modest corrections of lenses like the PanaLeica 14-50mm are in a totally different class and easy to live with.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I agree, Godfrey. The software correction that I'm skeptical about is when lenses are knowingly made with large amount of distortion to make them smaller to correct the distortion in software, like in the case of the Panasonic 7-14mm and other tiny lenses. I know from experience that this doesn't work well. The images become reasonably sharp, but often flat and uninteresting. The modest corrections of lenses like the PanaLeica 14-50mm are in a totally different class and easy to live with.
IN the design of lenses that include mandatory software correction as a part of the design, it is often the case that using a design with more pronounced simple aberrations in place of complex distortions (for instance, 8% barrel distortion instead of 4% mustache distortion) produces better results because the complementary corrections are simpler and less lossy in nature.

"Flat and uninteresting" sounds like an image processing issue rather than a lens characteristic. I'd much rather have my initial capture rather flat in appearance with lots of data expressing all the variations in the scene to the limits of the sensor that I can then tune to suit my desires rather than having a more contrasty image that has already lost data in various ways. I don't expect that my exposures are exactly the way I want to render them as the lens sees them—I want the choices of what data to keep and what to lose when I do the rendering.

The biggest negative I see in lenses with software correction complements is when the corrections are poorly done and cause a level of smearing at the edges and corners of the frame. I don't know if this is the problem you're seeing with the Panasonic 7-14. I know it also produces some longitudinal aberrations on Olympus bodies that don't show up on Panasonic bodies ... likely a sensor tuning kind of problem IMO. I haven't heard of this with the Olympus M.Zuiko PRO 7-14mm, or how closely competitive it is on performance against the ZD 7-14/4 ED for FT SLR.

If you find a lens that produces final quality results to your satisfaction straight out of the camera that's a wonderful thing, and a time saver, but in essence such lenses are generally tossing away some data and limiting editability at least to some degree. This is the joy of using Leica, Zeiss, selected Nikkor, Olympus, Canon, etc lenses: you're preselecting a look and reducing the amount of rendering required, but at the same time you should also recognize that you're losing some measure of editability. In the film era, this was almost an essential thing for high quality results due to the limitations of editability in analog image processing, but with digital image processing there are a lot more options, making lenses that natively provide the rendering if not less desirable perhaps a bit less necessary.

I have found very little downside to the mFT lenses that were designed for complementary software correction in terms of final image output. I haven't had any experience using the 7-14mm lens either in FT or mFT form, but I'm just as happy with the mFT Summilux-DG 25mm f/1.4 ASPH as I was with the FT Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH: the results are as near to identical as I can imagine the word being applicable for. And I am grateful for 1/2 the size and 1/3 the weight of the mFT version.

Olympus hasn't made an mFT replacement for the 11-22 in terms of quality and rendering yet to do a comparison on; I think that's my favorite FourThirds format lens of all at this point.

G
 
V

Vivek

Guest
IN the design of lenses that include mandatory software correction as a part of the design, it is often the case that using a design with more pronounced simple aberrations in place of complex distortions (for instance, 8% barrel distortion instead of 4% mustache distortion) produces better results because the complementary corrections are simpler and less lossy in nature.


G
Good point! I like the FE Sony 28/2 for that precise reason. Simple barrel distortion.

Smaller size and better prices are added bonus.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
IN the design of lenses that include mandatory software correction as a part of the design, it is often the case that using a design with more pronounced simple aberrations in place of complex distortions (for instance, 8% barrel distortion instead of 4% mustache distortion) produces better results because the complementary corrections are simpler and less lossy in nature.

"Flat and uninteresting" sounds like an image processing issue rather than a lens characteristic. I'd much rather have my initial capture rather flat in appearance with lots of data expressing all the variations in the scene to the limits of the sensor that I can then tune to suit my desires rather than having a more contrasty image that has already lost data in various ways. I don't expect that my exposures are exactly the way I want to render them as the lens sees them—I want the choices of what data to keep and what to lose when I do the rendering.

The biggest negative I see in lenses with software correction complements is when the corrections are poorly done and cause a level of smearing at the edges and corners of the frame. I don't know if this is the problem you're seeing with the Panasonic 7-14. I know it also produces some longitudinal aberrations on Olympus bodies that don't show up on Panasonic bodies ... likely a sensor tuning kind of problem IMO. I haven't heard of this with the Olympus M.Zuiko PRO 7-14mm, or how closely competitive it is on performance against the ZD 7-14/4 ED for FT SLR.

If you find a lens that produces final quality results to your satisfaction straight out of the camera that's a wonderful thing, and a time saver, but in essence such lenses are generally tossing away some data and limiting editability at least to some degree. This is the joy of using Leica, Zeiss, selected Nikkor, Olympus, Canon, etc lenses: you're preselecting a look and reducing the amount of rendering required, but at the same time you should also recognize that you're losing some measure of editability. In the film era, this was almost an essential thing for high quality results due to the limitations of editability in analog image processing, but with digital image processing there are a lot more options, making lenses that natively provide the rendering if not less desirable perhaps a bit less necessary.

I have found very little downside to the mFT lenses that were designed for complementary software correction in terms of final image output. I haven't had any experience using the 7-14mm lens either in FT or mFT form, but I'm just as happy with the mFT Summilux-DG 25mm f/1.4 ASPH as I was with the FT Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH: the results are as near to identical as I can imagine the word being applicable for. And I am grateful for 1/2 the size and 1/3 the weight of the mFT version.

Olympus hasn't made an mFT replacement for the 11-22 in terms of quality and rendering yet to do a comparison on; I think that's my favorite FourThirds format lens of all at this point.

G
I get a feeling now that this becomes a question of priorities and to a certain degree photographic style. With all m4/3 cameras that I have used, I have been pretty satisfied with the raw file "out of the box", if the lens renders according to my liking. The PL 14-50 is such a lens. Numerous others are not. This is something we can probably never agree on, since it's a question of how we see photos and our visual priorities. Sometimes, there is no objective truth.

I agree on the 11-22 btw., and I still don't understand why I sold mine. They are cheap now, so I might buy another one.

A bit off topic:
While what I stated above holds water also for the D700, it does not for the D810, or at least not in my case. But that's also the joy with the 36MP monster, the process of making an image that looks totally "flat" out of the camera into something with depth and saturation, not unlike what was possible with the Fuji S3 and S5. Different cameras (and lenses) for different needs, and different moods. I have hopes for a m4/3 camera with similar abilities, but will probably place my bets on Panasonic in this area. Video specific, flat rendering is sometimes very useful for stills, but on the E-M5 II, Olympus only made the option available for video.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I get a feeling now that this becomes a question of priorities and to a certain degree photographic style. With all m4/3 cameras that I have used, I have been pretty satisfied with the raw file "out of the box", if the lens renders according to my liking. The PL 14-50 is such a lens. Numerous others are not. This is something we can probably never agree on, since it's a question of how we see photos and our visual priorities. Sometimes, there is no objective truth.

I agree on the 11-22 btw., and I still don't understand why I sold mine. They are cheap now, so I might buy another one.

A bit off topic:
While what I stated above holds water also for the D700, it does not for the D810, or at least not in my case. But that's also the joy with the 36MP monster, the process of making an image that looks totally "flat" out of the camera into something with depth and saturation, not unlike what was possible with the Fuji S3 and S5. Different cameras (and lenses) for different needs, and different moods. I have hopes for a m4/3 camera with similar abilities, but will probably place my bets on Panasonic in this area. Video specific, flat rendering is sometimes very useful for stills, but on the E-M5 II, Olympus only made the option available for video.
Just figure out how to tweak the image settings in camera and produce JPEGs. The E-M1/E-M5 et al have one of the best JPEG engines in the business and have a huge amount of adjustability if you want out of the camera results.

Raw files require processing ... My setup for the E-5 and E-M1 in LR actually reduces contrast and sharpening as a default to give me a better starting point.

I had Panasonic Lumix G series cameras for a while. Gave up on the line when they kept adding consumer features that made them clumsier to operate the way I wanted. The Olympus cameras produce more of what I want and are far more configurable to my taste, with more logical menu structure.

Sadly, much as I like the Nikon F6, the D750 simply didn't appeal to me at all. Clumsy, klutzy, full of buttons and knobs and stuff that just annoy me. The Leica SL came out a month after I got it and works exactly the way I want a camera to work; the D750's been sitting on the shelf since. Anyone want to buy the D750?

G
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Just figure out how to tweak the image settings in camera and produce JPEGs. The E-M1/E-M5 et al have one of the best JPEG engines in the business and have a huge amount of adjustability if you want out of the camera results.

Raw files require processing ... My setup for the E-5 and E-M1 in LR actually reduces contrast and sharpening as a default to give me a better starting point.

I had Panasonic Lumix G series cameras for a while. Gave up on the line when they kept adding consumer features that made them clumsier to operate the way I wanted. The Olympus cameras produce more of what I want and are far more configurable to my taste, with more logical menu structure.

Sadly, much as I like the Nikon F6, the D750 simply didn't appeal to me at all. Clumsy, klutzy, full of buttons and knobs and stuff that just annoy me. The Leica SL came out a month after I got it and works exactly the way I want a camera to work; the D750's been sitting on the shelf since. Anyone want to buy the D750?

G
The Panasonics to have are the GH3/4, particularly the GH4, although I've heard nice things about the G7. They need to be shot RAW though. I agree that the Olympus cameras seem much more configurable, but the GH3/4 have more buttons and the standard setup, more or less, suits me very well.

I agree about the D750, I never liked it. Many do though. The little secret in the Nikon range is the tiny, little D5500. It really needs to be shot RAW too, but then it runs circles around any m4/3 camera, particularly when shot in low contrast mode. The viewfinder is a joke though, and ergonomics rather terrible.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
GM1/GM5- cameras that fit the size of the sensor. :)
There's also the size of fingers to consider. It's a sweet, little camera, but it would have been much better if my fingers where smaller. I guess my parents didn't think about tiny, little cameras when I was designed ;)
 

Knorp

Well-known member




Lens: OLYMPUS 7-14mm Lens Shot at 14 mm
Exposure: Manual exposure, Aperture priority AE, 1/100 sec, f/8, ISO 200, Compensation: -0.3
 

Knorp

Well-known member
first full size, second crop 100%





Lens: OLYMPUS 7-14mm Lens Shot at 14 mm
Exposure: Auto exposure, Aperture priority AE, 1/125 sec, f/5.6, ISO 200
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Thanks Bart. Terrific images.
I assume these are shot with the 7-14/4 and not with the 7-14/2.8 PRO, correct?
If so, how would those two lenses compare? TIA.
I noticed the 7-14/4 for DSLRs is quite a bit more expensive.
 

mazor

New member
Coming in late into the conversation, I have some "purposely" bought 4/3 lenses to use on my E-M1. The 50-200 non ED and a EC-14 works wonders on my E-M1 and was the only faster aperture tele zoom lens available prior to the 40-150 2.8 pro and the 300 pro. AF with 4/3 lenses is nearly as good as m43, and focus tracking for moving subjects has a high success rate.

The other lens I have is the 40-150 f3.5-4.5. It is half a stop faster than the than the mzuiko ED and the Digital Zuiko version and sports outstanding image quality even with the EC-14 combo. What I like about this little zoom lens is it's size.
 
Last edited:

Knorp

Well-known member
At current used prices, the 4/3 7-14/4 is actually considerably cheaper than the m4/3 7-14/2.8.
:grin: ... exactly one of the reasons for me buying the 4/3 7-14/4
But then I still had to get that adapter ... :banghead:
However, even compared to grey-import prices overall still a 'cheaper' deal :)

Kind regards.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Thanks Bart. Terrific images.
I assume these are shot with the 7-14/4 and not with the 7-14/2.8 PRO, correct?
If so, how would those two lenses compare? TIA.
I noticed the 7-14/4 for DSLRs is quite a bit more expensive.
Hi there K-H,

yes, this is the 4/3 lens and honestly I've no clue how it fares against the m4/3 latest and greatest, but I do know I'm pretty impressed what it does.
New it is (probably?) more expensive, but there are excellent s/h copies to be found for reasonable prices.
I guess AF is a bit slower (but so am I) and hunts a little at times.

Kind regards.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
:grin: ... exactly one of the reasons for me buying the 4/3 7-14/4
But then I still had to get that adapter ... :banghead:
However, even compared to grey-import prices overall still a 'cheaper' deal :)

Kind regards.
I had my adapter for many years and luckily never sold it, the Panasonic not weatherproof version. For a while, I considered buying one adapter per lens, but I've found that I'll let the adapter sit permanently on the E-M1 and use other m4/3 bodies for m4/3 lenses when I buy one or more of those. At the moment, I've only planned to buy the 75mm f/1.8.
 

Annna T

Active member
I had my adapter for many years and luckily never sold it, the Panasonic not weatherproof version. For a while, I considered buying one adapter per lens, but I've found that I'll let the adapter sit permanently on the E-M1 and use other m4/3 bodies for m4/3 lenses when I buy one or more of those. At the moment, I've only planned to buy the 75mm f/1.8.
I remember seeing great pictures you took with that 75mm F1.8.. From my experience with the E-M5 and E-M5II it can be very prone to shutter shock at some speeds I often wanted to use. The silent electronic first curtain shutter happily took care if that after a while (E-M5II is OK and the E-M5 got it too through firmware update, if I remember correctly, but for a long time I used the 1/8th second shutter delay to take care of it). What this means is that you will have to choose your second MFT body carefully : I don't know Panasonic bodies very well, but I remember reading that some of the lighter bodies were exhibiting that problem too.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I remember seeing great pictures you took with that 75mm F1.8.. From my experience with the E-M5 and E-M5II it can be very prone to shutter shock at some speeds I often wanted to use. The silent electronic first curtain shutter happily took care if that after a while (E-M5II is OK and the E-M5 got it too through firmware update, if I remember correctly, but for a long time I used the 1/8th second shutter delay to take care of it). What this means is that you will have to choose your second MFT body carefully : I don't know Panasonic bodies very well, but I remember reading that some of the lighter bodies were exhibiting that problem too.
I used the 75mm on the GH2 and the GH3. The GH3 is a substantial body and one of the best that I have used. It will be interesting to see what the GH5 will be like. If it features phase detect AF, I'm very interested.
 
Top