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
I don't know if a thread like this has ever existed, but as far as I can remember, it hasn't. Since I'm mainly using 4/3 lenses on my E-M1, Zuiko 9-18mm f/4-5.6 and PanaLeica 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5 at the moment, this is a subject that is of particular interest to me. Hopefully, I'm not the only one, since some of these lenses are great classics. Here's my first contribution, processed with Silver Efex.

E-M1 with PanaLeica 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5 4/3 @ 50mm and f/4

 

Knorp

Well-known member
Hopefully others will join this thread, for now I've got only the Zuiko 7-14/4.0 ... :salute:

Kind regards.
 

f6cvalkyrie

Well-known member
I have a 40-150 4/3 zoom that I use occasionally, but not here in Russia ...
So, in 3 months, I will be able to join this thread ...

CU,
Rafael
 

griffljg

New member
I have an Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD, Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-45mm 1:3.5-5.6, Olympus Zuiko Digital 40-150mm 1:3.5-4.5, Olympus Zuiko Digital 70-300mm 1:4-5.6, Sigma 50-500mm F4-6.3 APO DG, all of which I use on my E-M1 via an Olympus MMF-3 adaptor. Actually, the E-M1's support for 4/3 lenses was a key factor in my deciding to buy the camera.

When Olympus made it clear that there wouldn't be a 4/3 replacement for the E-5, I spat the dummy and purchased a Canon EOS 6D, together with a decent array of good lenses. Then I played with the E-M1 and tested it with my old Olympus Zuiko Digital 70-300mm 1:4-5.6. I was sold! I am now running both systems, but am using the E-M1 more and more as it is half the size and half the weight.

I find that the Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD works really well on the E-M1 through the MMF-3 adaptor. Maybe my copy is exceptional, but I find that I am getting better results with the Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD than with the Olympus M.Zuiko DIGITAL 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO.

Here is my E-M1 with the Sigma 50-500mm F4-6.3 APO DG attached via an MMF-3 adaptor:

IMG_7327 by LJGGriffiths, on Flickr
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Maybe my copy is exceptional, but I find that I am getting better results with the Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD than with the Olympus M.Zuiko DIGITAL 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO.
That wouldn't surprise me. There is still a difference between optics and software.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Maybe my copy is exceptional, but I find that I am getting better results with the Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD than with the Olympus M.Zuiko DIGITAL 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO.
Well, I'm sure the 12-60 is a fine lens, but please define "better results".
I've got only the 7-14/4.0 and I do like the results, but then I've nothing to compare it to.

TIA

Kind regards.
 

Elliot

Active member
These are a couple of shots from the US Open in 2014 with the E-M1 and non-SWD 50-200. They were from the quarterfinals. The first one is a Bryan brother (they won the match and the finals) and the second one is Tomas Berdych, who lost to Marin Cilic. Cilic went on to win the US Open.

Bryan brother 1 216.jpg
1/1000 f/8 130mm ISO250

Tomas Berdych at quarterfinals 1 223.jpg
1/800 f/3.5 147mm ISO250
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Well, I'm sure the 12-60 is a fine lens, but please define "better results".
I've got only the 7-14/4.0 and I do like the results, but then I've nothing to compare it to.

TIA

Kind regards.
This is a very interesting question that I have been speculating a lot around lately. What I've found so far is that:

- Sharpness is important, but there are other, equally important factors.
- Micro contrast and transitions are possibly more important than sharpness.
- Lens reviewers mostly measure sharpness.
- Lens reviews mostly have value for people who are more interested in camera gear than photography, although a review can be a starting point.
- High-end lenses are mostly sharp, but that is not the reason why they stand out from the crowd.

I recently received my Zuiko 9-18mm in 4/3 mount, and although it's sharp from corner to corner, it's kind of disappointing. It lacks "life" and "bite". I should have paid twice as much for the three times as heavy 7-14mm. A couple of years ago, I used to have the Panasonic 7-14mm in m4/3 mount. Although it was a very convenient lens, mostly sharp and extremely compact for what it was, I was never really satisfied with it. The PanaLeica 14-50mm in 4/3 mounts gave me totally different and much better results on the GH3 body that I used then.

Most of the m4/3 lenses are heavily software corrected. While that probably doesn't do much to the "objective" sharpness of the lens, I suspect that it takes away micro contrast and renders the images "flatter" and less interesting. This of course will never show up in a purely technical review like what one finds at DxO or Photozone, and unfortunately, those are the kinds of reviews that most photographers read. And MTF curves.

Companies like Leica and Zeiss, but to a certain degree also the best Japanese companies, have of course understood these things for decades, and there's a reason why great glass costs umpteen times as much as good glass. But I don't trust reviews anymore, and have found that to evaluate a lens, I must own it and use it over time. It's expensive, but the satisfaction is priceless :D
 
V

Vivek

Guest
The old lenses will not fare well compared to the current system lenses in terms of AF and full compatibility.

Of course, there is absolutely no substitute for nostalgic value. ;)
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
The old lenses will not fare well compared to the current system lenses in terms of AF and full compatibility.

Of course, there is absolutely no substitute for nostalgic value. ;)
With the E-M1, AF with the "old" lenses works well enough for most of my current work (sports obviously not included). When it comes to image quality, the 4/3 lenses are mostly superior compared to the corresponding m4/3 lenses. There are good reasons why some of these lenses still sell for top prices. The 4/3 25mm f/1.4 sells for twice as much used as the m4/3 version sells for new. Most of the top 4/3 lenses are still current products with Olympus and Panasonic, and are indeed available new from several Japanese dealers.

??.com - ??????:??????????? ?????(OLYMPUS)???? ??????????
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I have and use my old favorite E-system lenses on the E-M1: ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5, ZD 35/3.5 Macro, ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5 (with and without EC-14 1.4x converter). At one time, I also had the Panasonic/Leica Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH and ZD 50mm f/2 Macro, but I sold them when I off'ed the E-5 to the same fellow who bought that from me.

These were excellent lenses on the E-1 and E-5; they remain excellent lenses on the E-M1. That said, the Olympus raw converter included software correction profiles for all of them (and some of them need it), and the Summilux-D 25mm includes software correction in its firmware that is automatically embedded into all Micro-FourThirds raw files—it corrects for some lateral chromatic aberration. (The Panasonic/Leica Vario-Elmarit-D 14-50/2.8-3.5*ASPH does not have this feature.)

Instead of re-buying the older FT Summilux, I bought the mFT version because it was much lighter and, in my testing, produced results that are virtually identical. I also bought the Macro-Elmarit-DG 45mm f/2.8 ASPH instead of rebuying the ZD 50mm f/2 Macro because, again, after testing them both extensively, I found the Macro-Elmarit was actually a superior performer.

The ZD 9-18mm is a consumer grade lens, like the 35 Macro, and a good performer for it's price but not up there with the 11-22 (high grade), or super high grade, lenses.

The ZD 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD is another high grade lens and perhaps a tiny bit sharper than the ZD 14-54/2.8-3.5 original lens in the system. The Mark II 14-54 has superior bokeh, however, and the ZD 12-60 in the hands is front heavy and has mustache shaped distortion at wide settings which is hard to remove ... Olympus' own lens profile does the best job of it, but it's nowhere as sweet as the ZD 14-54 or Vario-Elmarit 14-50 to my eye.

So if you're talking "optical" to "software", well, all these lenses were designed for software corrections to get the best performance out of them. The Olympus and Panasonic/Leica FourThirds SLR lenses are indeed beautifully made, superb performers (the ZD 14-35/2 SHG and ZD 35-100/2 SHG are probably amongst the finest of their focal length range ever made, as is the ZD 150/2 and ZD 300/2.8), never mind the ZD 7-14/4 SHG. These were all ultra premium, professionally targeted lenses and made the current range of mFT lenses seem rather inexpensive. They were all also double the size and weight ... The current marketplace doesn't want to spend that amount of money or carry that much weight for a FourThirds format camera, so they are disappearing.

I have great fondness for the E-System cameras and lenses, still have (and occasionally use!) my E-1 with the 11-22, 35 Macro, and 50-200. The lenses are all wonderful. As a camera on technical merit, the E-M1 runs rings around both the E-1 and the E-5, and the lenses work just as well with it as they do with the SLRs.

G
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
(The Panasonic/Leica Vario-Elmarit-D 14-50/2.8-3.5*ASPH does not have this feature.)

G
The Panasonic/Leica Vario-Elmarit-D 14-50/2.8-3.5*ASPH does not need this feature. There are many good reasons why I love this lens, this is one of them.

There are a few m4/3 lenses that have minimal software correction. The Zuiko 75mm f/1.8, the Macro-Elmarit-DG 45mm f/2.8 ASPH and the Panasonic LUMIX G Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 ASPH Power OIS :wtf: are the ones that I can think of. Coincidentally (or maybe not so coincidentally), those are also among the best m4/3 lenses when it comes to total rendering and sharpness.
 

mediumcool

Active member
I have three 4/3 lenses which work reasonably well on my E-M5 (I will probably get a used E-M1 when the mk2 comes out—still exxy here in Australia).

The lenses are the 11–22, 14–54 and the superb 50mm macro; I find that the better the lens, the less work its pictures require in Capture One. The great levellers for me, however, are the Clarity sliders, particularly Structure—with a bit of work, many lenses can be made to look about as crisp as better samples. I shot an architectural job early this year, and borrowed a friend’s μ4/3 9–18 for pix that the 11–22 couldn’t quite manage, and the diminutive wonder worked very well, its results having no apparent differences, apart from the wider view (I don’t know anyone with a 7–14 and can’t afford to buy one).


Not a 4/3 lens BTW!
 

griffljg

New member
Well, I'm sure the 12-60 is a fine lens, but please define "better results".
I've got only the 7-14/4.0 and I do like the results, but then I've nothing to compare it to.

TIA

Kind regards.
That's a difficult question to answer. The 12-40 is a wonderful, compact lens and I am very pleased with it. But the photographs that I am getting out of the 12-60 appear to have more "life" in them. It is a difficult thing to describe, but the 12-60 photos appear to be more "real".

I am not a photographic artist. I take photos for my own enjoyment and to remind me of places I have been and things that I have seen. I get more "Wow! I really like that photo!" from the 12-60 than from the 12-40, which generally tends to evoke a "Nice pic!" feeling.

The other lens which has much the same effect on me is my Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II USM lens that I use on my Canon EOS 6D, which cost me about twice as much.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
That's a difficult question to answer. The 12-40 is a wonderful, compact lens and I am very pleased with it. But the photographs that I am getting out of the 12-60 appear to have more "life" in them. It is a difficult thing to describe, but the 12-60 photos appear to be more "real".

I am not a photographic artist. I take photos for my own enjoyment and to remind me of places I have been and things that I have seen. I get more "Wow! I really like that photo!" from the 12-60 than from the 12-40, which generally tends to evoke a "Nice pic!" feeling.
Exactly!
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
The Panasonic/Leica Vario-Elmarit-D 14-50/2.8-3.5*ASPH does not need this feature. There are many good reasons why I love this lens, this is one of them.

There are a few m4/3 lenses that have minimal software correction. The Zuiko 75mm f/1.8, the Macro-Elmarit-DG 45mm f/2.8 ASPH and the Panasonic LUMIX G Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 ASPH Power OIS :wtf: are the ones that I can think of. Coincidentally (or maybe not so coincidentally), those are also among the best m4/3 lenses when it comes to total rendering and sharpness.
I disagree. It is a wonderful performer, but suffers a small amount of light mustache/barrel distortion at the wide end, a little pincushion distortion at the long end, and varying lateral chromatic aberration throughout the zoom range. Never obnoxious, but always candidates for correction.

I have maybe 40,000 exposures made with this lens in my photo repository (I had two of them for several years, I used it so much) using the Panasonic L1, Olympus E-1 & E-5, and Panasonic G1. It was a particularly excellent match to the E-1, L1, and G1 as it supplied OIS for these bodies with no IBIS. It's a lovely lens, but it's not perfect.

(In fact, it's much like the current Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90/2.8-4 ASPH for the SL in its handling dynamics and overall rendering, although the SL lens is intended for 24x36mm format and has a higher-end build quality. The SL24-90 includes correction parameters injected into the camera which optimizes its performance beautifully; it outperforms most prime lenses in the focal length range.)

G
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I disagree. It is a wonderful performer, but suffers a small amount of light mustache/barrel distortion at the wide end, a little pincushion distortion at the long end, and varying lateral chromatic aberration throughout the zoom range. Never obnoxious, but always candidates for correction.

I have maybe 40,000 exposures made with this lens in my photo repository (I had two of them for several years, I used it so much) using the Panasonic L1, Olympus E-1 & E-5, and Panasonic G1. It was a particularly excellent match to the E-1, L1, and G1 as it supplied OIS for these bodies with no IBIS. It's a lovely lens, but it's not perfect.

(In fact, it's much like the current Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90/2.8-4 ASPH for the SL in its handling dynamics and overall rendering, although the SL lens is intended for 24x36mm format and has a higher-end build quality. The SL24-90 includes correction parameters injected into the camera which optimizes its performance beautifully; it outperforms most prime lenses in the focal length range.)

G
You are nit picking, Godfrey, and only the fact that you mention this lens and the new, $5,000 24-90mm for the SL in the same post tells something about its qualities ;)

Yes, of course it isn't perfect, hardly anything is, but it's close enough.

I actually do consider buying another copy to be on the safe side. This kind of lens confirms that there's goodness in this world (Or should that be Godness?).
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
You are nit picking, Godfrey, and only the fact that you mention this lens and the new, $5,000 24-90mm for the SL in the same post tells something about its qualities ;)

Yes, of course it isn't perfect, hardly anything is, but it's close enough.

I actually do consider buying another copy to be on the safe side. This kind of lens confirms that there's goodness in this world (Or should that be Godness?).
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.
 
Top