Since the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 Art lens was announced, I've been thinking about the correlation of this lens with the Olympus SHG ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 and the relationship from the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 to the Olympus SHG ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 lens.
It almost seems as though Sigma is doing this for bragging rights alone.
I have three of these lenses and I'm contemplating the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8.
Mostly, I photograph at skate parks. That requires very responsive camera bodies and lenses. So far, the Nikon D7200 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens combination has been better at wide-normal casual situations. Obviously, the lens isn't part of Sigma's Sport line but is part of their Art line.
The two Olympus lenses were part of their Super High Grade line, which meant that they could be used in any situations requiring the utmost quality and weather-sealing--and that they were very costly, somewhat above US$2000. I've used the 35-100mm f/2.0 lens for indoor high school sports such as swimming and basketball. The almost 3:1 zoom is 135 Format equivalent to 70-200mm, and not a bad range.
The trouble with the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 lens is that it has a limited range, similar to the 18-35mm f/1.8 lens. Occasionally, I switch the D7200 from DX coverage to 1.3x, to effectively extend the far end of the lens. It uses less of the sensor and therefore, less of the lens, so image quality should be improved at the edges.
Also, I find the 18-35mm f/1.8 lens to be very good, but not great. The Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 on micro Four-Thirds equipment still works better for me, but the balance is off, even with the GH4. I wish that there was a tripod collar for the 14-35mm f/2.0 lens.
My experience with the 18-35mm f/1.8 not being incredibly good, I'm not enthusiastic about spending US$1099.99 on the 50-100mm f/1.8. It's not that I feel a need to buy it, but that it would make a good companion for the 18-35mm f/1.8. I suspect that, if I got a US$200-300 discount, I'd be much more likely to buy it, as I did with the 18-35mm f/1.8 lens.
I was watching a video espousing an opinion about the lens and it was somewhat amusing. I'd never seen that person's videos or web site, but the video was mistaken, at least, on the Nikon side about the possibilities for use of the 50-100mm f/1.8 lens.
At this point, I may not buy another lens for the D7200, although a normal zoom or the Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye lens could be useful. I'd really like to see the D7200 work well.
Showing posts with label 14-35mm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 14-35mm. Show all posts
Monday, March 7, 2016
Monday, July 28, 2014
Midnight Portraits at ISO 25,600
Since I've been using Olympus digital equipment, I haven't been a fan of their auto focus or their low light capabilities. The E-5 dSLR fixed some of that and the E-M1 mirror-less camera body fixed a lot more.
Last night, I was asked to a skate park around midnight. It's not a good time for action shots no matter which camera you're using. Please, don't blah blah blah Canon blah blah blah Nikon because I know that without lights, it's not going to work well. Yes, there are a few models with increased sensitivity, but they're not perfect either and you'll still need lights to get great photos.
I got a few shots the way I used to do when I was using ASA 400/DIN 27 film. I just don't care for most of what action shots I got. Besides, at ISO 25,600, everything is better at 4x6 and not much bigger. It reminded me of using ASA 1000 or 1600 film when ASA 400 was typically high.
I decided not to make any corrections to the shots because they often make the shots look fake. Extreme conditions cause extreme problems. It's the same with winter photography and snow. I can make minor adjustments to improve the look but I generally leave them as is to enhance the feeling of cold.
Last night, I tried to use the E-M1 and 12-40mm f/2.8 lens. I didn't think that it would work, so I also had my 14-35mm f/2.0 with me, and the Leica/Panasonic Four-Thirds mount 25mm f/1.4 lens is always in my bag on the adapter. It's been very good, especially in these drought conditions to get near dark photos and in this case, it worked reasonably well to get photos at midnight. I would consider the Voigtländer 17.5 f/0.95 lens but I really have to think about that at US$1199.99 for such a special purpose lens that isn't sharp until, say, f/1.4. Having portable, battery-powered lighting would probably make more sense and allow me to work with video. The Leica 15mm f/1.7 from Panasonic looks like a good idea. I think they wasted too much making it too compact when it should have been greater for the US$599.99. It's obvious that they took plenty of space for the focusing mechanism, as the 46mm filter size covers much more than the lens elements.
You can see the results below. I was mostly pleased.
Last night, I was asked to a skate park around midnight. It's not a good time for action shots no matter which camera you're using. Please, don't blah blah blah Canon blah blah blah Nikon because I know that without lights, it's not going to work well. Yes, there are a few models with increased sensitivity, but they're not perfect either and you'll still need lights to get great photos.
I got a few shots the way I used to do when I was using ASA 400/DIN 27 film. I just don't care for most of what action shots I got. Besides, at ISO 25,600, everything is better at 4x6 and not much bigger. It reminded me of using ASA 1000 or 1600 film when ASA 400 was typically high.
I decided not to make any corrections to the shots because they often make the shots look fake. Extreme conditions cause extreme problems. It's the same with winter photography and snow. I can make minor adjustments to improve the look but I generally leave them as is to enhance the feeling of cold.
Last night, I tried to use the E-M1 and 12-40mm f/2.8 lens. I didn't think that it would work, so I also had my 14-35mm f/2.0 with me, and the Leica/Panasonic Four-Thirds mount 25mm f/1.4 lens is always in my bag on the adapter. It's been very good, especially in these drought conditions to get near dark photos and in this case, it worked reasonably well to get photos at midnight. I would consider the Voigtländer 17.5 f/0.95 lens but I really have to think about that at US$1199.99 for such a special purpose lens that isn't sharp until, say, f/1.4. Having portable, battery-powered lighting would probably make more sense and allow me to work with video. The Leica 15mm f/1.7 from Panasonic looks like a good idea. I think they wasted too much making it too compact when it should have been greater for the US$599.99. It's obvious that they took plenty of space for the focusing mechanism, as the 46mm filter size covers much more than the lens elements.
You can see the results below. I was mostly pleased.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 is in my bag (usually in use though)
Today, I took a drive to get some Asian groceries and enjoy the not-so winter weather. It was above freezing, and the snow was melting, and given how many days we had well below freezing, it was time for a break.
I first went for a fake cheese steak. I lived in Philadelphia for eight years, and there is yet to be a place 100 miles or further from Philadelphia that can produce a good cheese steak. Some of them claim to be famous even--that's just odd. Lenny's Subs has been advertising about how great their sandwiches are. The founder moved to Memphis, Tennessee and wanted an authentic cheese steak, so he had to create it.
As you probably didn't read in my earlier diatribe on getting it right, you have a roll/bun, thin steak, and mozzarella or provolone cheese or cheese whiz to top it and onions are an option, grilled or raw. These people had the meat, a too soft roll, and Swiss cheese (although I was able to order provolone) and grilled onions. It was a let down.
So, not far from the sub shop was a branch of the camera shop where I have recently enjoyed some photographically-related social activities. Well, it wasn't there any longer. They'd moved. I called. They answered, and they gave me their new address. Strangely, they seem to be on the edge of a roundabout/traffic circle/rotary, in a small strip mall.
They had quite a lot and it was displayed quite nicely. With high ceilings, it wasn't nearly as claustrophobic as their old (1920s?) store in downtown Indianapolis.
I talked to one of the people who ran the Olympus photo walk. He even remembered me. I'm not sure if that was good or bad.
We talked about FujiFilm mirror-less cameras, since they were next to Olympus' case. He really likes the X-E2, which I think is quite advanced, but not quite the right shape for me. He said that the downtown store was getting two X-T1 bodies, but they're already promised to someone. I told him that I was waiting on weather-sealed lenses and he reminded me that not everything goes as planned. The 50-140mm f/2.8 and 16-55mm f/2.8 fit me reasonably well. I'd like to see how the FujiFilm16-55mm and Olympus 12-40mm are in an optical comparison.
In the end, I bought the only 12-40mm f/2.8 lens that they had. It was made in China, if that's important to you. It feels just as good as my Four-Thirds HG and SHG lenses. These 12-40mm lenses have been selling almost as quickly as they can get them. After all the screaming about fixed focal length lenses, I'm surprised that people are buying the 12-40mm lens. I suspect people on that photo walk were thrilled with the lens, as it is better than other choices. (Yes, this is my opinion. It's my blog--practically everything is my opinion. My opinion about Panasonic micro Four-Thirds lenses may improve once my 35-100mm f/2.8 is back in my hands. My other micro Four-Thirds lens, the Panasonic 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 does not help.)
I don't buy lenses often, but I spend quite a bit on each. I almost always buy weather-sealed zoom lenses because of sports, but also because I like the flexibility in other situations, such as quick portraits, food photography, and building exteriors. Olympus' HG and SHG Four-Thirds zooms can be used wide open, unlike other brands, because they're sharp across the frame. That's another reason I've been slow to buy micro Four-Thirds equipment. The zoom lenses sucked--until now. Once again, my Panasonic 35-100mm didn't impress me except in focusing speed and that doesn't really lend much to image quality. Perhaps when it is returned to me after the repair for the ugly, nasty lens flare (with lens hood and sun out of frame), it will be a much better lens.
Of course, with a busy day, I didn't have time to photograph anything, but I brought it home, mounted it, and took a few photos of the Olympus E-5 with the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4. The 12-40mm f/2.8 doesn't seem to like the dark much (what f/2.8 lens does?), but I'm sure I'll find it extremely useful. This is the first time I've had a 24mm (135 format) equivalent available since the 1970s. I have two lenses that start at an equivalent 28mm but that's just not quite wide enough in some situations, and you can't always walk further back. Of course, 14mm (Olympus, Panasonic) or 15mm (FujiFilm) would be amazing in constant aperture zoom lenses. Given the 7-14mm f/2.8 zoom Olympus has shown as a mock up, I'm inclined to wait. It is supposedly due in 2015, but because of the aperture and weather-sealing, it's a better choice for me.
This will also be the first time I'll have a truly light lens on the GH3. Olympus' 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 isn't bad on it but the 14-35mm f/2.0 is heavy and the Leica 25mm f/1.4 is almost that heavy and it's huge for a fixed focal length lens with that 62mm filter size but not as big as the 67mm or 77mm filter sizes of the two zooms. The 12-40mm is tiny but it also has a 62mm filter size. The Four-Thirds Olympus 50mm f/2.0 macro may still be my smallest lens.
The lens hood is rather small, but I don't see it as ineffective. The lens hood for the 14-54mm is a reasonable size but shows up in the photo at some focal lengths, and the lens hood for the 14-35mm is huge but is still dwarfed by the lens hood for the 35-100mm f/2.0 lens.
The focusing mechanism reminds me of the 14-35mm lens. It extends on both ends of the zoom range.
The size difference between the E-5/14-35mm and GH3/12-40mm is amusing, much like the comparison with the E-5/35-100mm f/2.0 and GH3/35-100mm f/2.8.
I live about 70 miles northeast of San Jose, California, past the foothills, into the farm land. The sun and heat are strong through summer, and even though we've passed into autumn/fall, the light is still quite bright and during the afternoon, it is difficult to keep exposure even.
I first went for a fake cheese steak. I lived in Philadelphia for eight years, and there is yet to be a place 100 miles or further from Philadelphia that can produce a good cheese steak. Some of them claim to be famous even--that's just odd. Lenny's Subs has been advertising about how great their sandwiches are. The founder moved to Memphis, Tennessee and wanted an authentic cheese steak, so he had to create it.
As you probably didn't read in my earlier diatribe on getting it right, you have a roll/bun, thin steak, and mozzarella or provolone cheese or cheese whiz to top it and onions are an option, grilled or raw. These people had the meat, a too soft roll, and Swiss cheese (although I was able to order provolone) and grilled onions. It was a let down.
So, not far from the sub shop was a branch of the camera shop where I have recently enjoyed some photographically-related social activities. Well, it wasn't there any longer. They'd moved. I called. They answered, and they gave me their new address. Strangely, they seem to be on the edge of a roundabout/traffic circle/rotary, in a small strip mall.
They had quite a lot and it was displayed quite nicely. With high ceilings, it wasn't nearly as claustrophobic as their old (1920s?) store in downtown Indianapolis.
I talked to one of the people who ran the Olympus photo walk. He even remembered me. I'm not sure if that was good or bad.
We talked about FujiFilm mirror-less cameras, since they were next to Olympus' case. He really likes the X-E2, which I think is quite advanced, but not quite the right shape for me. He said that the downtown store was getting two X-T1 bodies, but they're already promised to someone. I told him that I was waiting on weather-sealed lenses and he reminded me that not everything goes as planned. The 50-140mm f/2.8 and 16-55mm f/2.8 fit me reasonably well. I'd like to see how the FujiFilm16-55mm and Olympus 12-40mm are in an optical comparison.
In the end, I bought the only 12-40mm f/2.8 lens that they had. It was made in China, if that's important to you. It feels just as good as my Four-Thirds HG and SHG lenses. These 12-40mm lenses have been selling almost as quickly as they can get them. After all the screaming about fixed focal length lenses, I'm surprised that people are buying the 12-40mm lens. I suspect people on that photo walk were thrilled with the lens, as it is better than other choices. (Yes, this is my opinion. It's my blog--practically everything is my opinion. My opinion about Panasonic micro Four-Thirds lenses may improve once my 35-100mm f/2.8 is back in my hands. My other micro Four-Thirds lens, the Panasonic 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 does not help.)
I don't buy lenses often, but I spend quite a bit on each. I almost always buy weather-sealed zoom lenses because of sports, but also because I like the flexibility in other situations, such as quick portraits, food photography, and building exteriors. Olympus' HG and SHG Four-Thirds zooms can be used wide open, unlike other brands, because they're sharp across the frame. That's another reason I've been slow to buy micro Four-Thirds equipment. The zoom lenses sucked--until now. Once again, my Panasonic 35-100mm didn't impress me except in focusing speed and that doesn't really lend much to image quality. Perhaps when it is returned to me after the repair for the ugly, nasty lens flare (with lens hood and sun out of frame), it will be a much better lens.
 |
| Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8, extended, with lens hood |
 |
| Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 without lens hood |
Of course, with a busy day, I didn't have time to photograph anything, but I brought it home, mounted it, and took a few photos of the Olympus E-5 with the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4. The 12-40mm f/2.8 doesn't seem to like the dark much (what f/2.8 lens does?), but I'm sure I'll find it extremely useful. This is the first time I've had a 24mm (135 format) equivalent available since the 1970s. I have two lenses that start at an equivalent 28mm but that's just not quite wide enough in some situations, and you can't always walk further back. Of course, 14mm (Olympus, Panasonic) or 15mm (FujiFilm) would be amazing in constant aperture zoom lenses. Given the 7-14mm f/2.8 zoom Olympus has shown as a mock up, I'm inclined to wait. It is supposedly due in 2015, but because of the aperture and weather-sealing, it's a better choice for me.
This will also be the first time I'll have a truly light lens on the GH3. Olympus' 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 isn't bad on it but the 14-35mm f/2.0 is heavy and the Leica 25mm f/1.4 is almost that heavy and it's huge for a fixed focal length lens with that 62mm filter size but not as big as the 67mm or 77mm filter sizes of the two zooms. The 12-40mm is tiny but it also has a 62mm filter size. The Four-Thirds Olympus 50mm f/2.0 macro may still be my smallest lens.
The lens hood is rather small, but I don't see it as ineffective. The lens hood for the 14-54mm is a reasonable size but shows up in the photo at some focal lengths, and the lens hood for the 14-35mm is huge but is still dwarfed by the lens hood for the 35-100mm f/2.0 lens.
 |
| Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 |
The focusing mechanism reminds me of the 14-35mm lens. It extends on both ends of the zoom range.
 |
| GH3 with 12-40mm, E-5 with 14-35mm |
The size difference between the E-5/14-35mm and GH3/12-40mm is amusing, much like the comparison with the E-5/35-100mm f/2.0 and GH3/35-100mm f/2.8.
 |
| 58mm vs 77mm filter size |
I am thrilled to say that I'm taking advantage of the wider angle. It's certainly been useful.
I've photographed this court house a few times but was never able to get a whole side of it at once.
As I noted during the photo walk, the flare resistance is quite good, although I tweaked this photo to dial down the overwhelming sunshine. You can't have a miserable, cloudy day and then, have sunshine, correct, when you'll just return to misery? Now, that I look again, it has a bit too much of an unnatural look to it in the smaller size. It's just great to be able to handle larger structures without stitching.
I'm liking the color, also. I've had poor luck with the Panasonic lenses and the color, although I suspect that will be the case, even if they're perfect. This is the first time that I've felt that the GH3 was giving its all with native lenses.
Just thinking about it, this is the first time since November 2011 that I have not had any image stabilization, in the lens or moving the sensor. Of course, I haven't had any terribly dark situations yet, but I never saw the E-5's IS helping me through difficult times.
 |
| Even near sunset, the color is good |
 |
| Interesting that Google's Blogger has changed the photo from silhouette on import |
Update 2014.02.26: I haven't removed the lens from the GH3 yet. I've been testing to see if there is a real problem with it breaking. It's certainly better to find the problem in the first few days, rather than after the warranty is finished. The lens continues to impress me and it feels as though the GH3 is totally different.
Update 2014.03.05: I can't express fully how happy I am with the 12-40mm lens. Ultimately, it's not a lens for the dark (could they have coaxed f/2.5 out of a lens with a 67mm filter size?), but my tripod could help with that, once it's a bit warmer outside. My feelings about the GH3 have become warmer, though. I find the lens to be extremely useful and it's so light that I don't seem to miss image stabilization, not that I knew when it was helping on the E-5 or within the Panasonic lenses.
The image quality seems to be so much better now that my regrets about buying a Panasonic body are completely gone. It really has taken me back to the days in 2004 when my Olympus E-1 was new and I only had the 50-200mm and 14-54mm lenses. I expect the 40-150mm f/2.8 to be equally engaging, so maybe work will just be joy. If the GH4 turns out to be wonderful, I may not have any need for the FujiFilm X-T1.
Update 2014.03.19: Are they sure this aperture is f/2.8? I seem to be getting clear shots that don't seem possible with f/2.8, especially since I'm doing it without any image stabilization.
Update 2014.07.27: I've been using this lens with the Olympus E-M1 (I traded my GH3 in anticipation of a GH4) for the skate park and the extra little bit of the wide angle has been great. It has some of the typical wide angle distortion, which gives close up shots something close to the skate park style that people love without the fisheye. It obviously hasn't broken and it's been a good companion. If there is a everyday problem, it's that the AF ring/clutch is too easily moved while I'm shooting, and I haven't spent a full day trying to manually focus it. The micro Four-Thirds lenses are all too tiny for me, but at least this one is a bit bigger than most. I still prefer the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 though.
Update 2014.10.02: By now, I've shot over 10,000 photos with this lens, most of them related to skate parks. It has done well, but it hasn't been quite as wonderful as it initially seemed. However, real-life problems have been few.
There have been two situations that have caused me to wonder.
- In rare strongly-lit situations, lens flare is a problem
- In mixed light, where strong light is bordered by deep shadow, auto focus with the E-M1 fails occasionally
Otherwise, the lens has been an excellent example of any lens so small. I must say that I don't feel it's nearly as good as any of my Four-Thirds HG or SHG lenses. However, it is quite amazing, especially at 12mm, a focal length I don't have with any other lens.
During a trip to Santa Cruz, the skate park's pipe was enough to channel the sunlight into a form that caused lens flare that I didn't expect. I didn't think that the lens was perfect but it was more than I'd seen from any Four-Thirds Olympus lens.
More recently, in early evening, when harsh light meets harsh shadow, the auto focus with the E-M1 suddenly changes at that moment when I'm ready to take a photo. I'm not sure whether this is a problem with the lens, the E-M1, or the combination. The only other micro Four-Thirds lens I use on the body is the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 and I use it so rarely that I can't make a direct comparison. There is a huge difference in the responsiveness, though, with the 35-100mm being significantly less responsive.''
Update 2015.09.07: It's been almost 1.5 years now since I got this lens. It has been used almost every day--on the Panasonic GH3 first but lately on the Olympus E-M1 and Panasonic GH4.
There were early warnings about the build quality of the lens, claiming that it simply fell apart without any unusual circumstances. I have tortured the lens in many situations and it has been great. The front lens cap has fallen apart. There is a little wear on the bottom, as I have put it down at skate parks. (I wish the E-M1 was as healthy. I have over the 150,000 shutter actuations apparently and it needs a replacement, along with a new eyecup mount.)
Friday, February 14, 2014
Olympus' new PRO series lenses for micro Four-Thirds
I'm really not sure about these lenses yet but they are good for Olympus. They have meaning for me because I've been using Four-Thirds equipment for 10 years this April. The weather-sealed designs of my Olympus equipment have been instrumental in keeping the equipment safe in any circumstance I've had to photograph.
I have several Four-Thirds lenses--2 Super High Grade lenses (14-35mm, 35-100mm), 3 High Grade lenses (14-54mm, 50-200mm, 50mm macro), and 1 Leica/Panasonic lens (25mm). Weaning myself from these lenses will be difficult because they're quite amazing. I've found myself time and again disappointed by the majority of micro Four-Thirds lenses. Those few that are great, are getting some reinforcements.
As they cast off their Four-Thirds line of dSLRs, they brought forth lens designs, in-between the HG and SHG lines of Olympus Four-Thirds lenses, but this time for micro Four-Thirds, and with constant maximum apertures.
The 12-40mm f/2.8 is already available and it's very good, positioned between the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and the 14-35mm f/2.0 Four-Thirds lenses.
The 40-150mm f/2.8 seems to be on-schedule and should arrive about halfway through 2014. I suspect that the image quality will be roughly the same as the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 and not that close to the 35-100mm f/2.0.
Prior to CP+ expo, they showed new mockups of a 7-14mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4.0.
The 7-14mm f/2.8 obviously has a larger maximum aperture than the current 7-14mm f/4.0 that is highly regarded by Four-Thirds users. As with any ultra-wide lens, it has a convex lens element in front, meaning that adding an optical filter is not easily possible and the lens doesn't support them directly. I've been considering the Four-Thirds lens quite a long time, as the weather-sealing is a major factor for me. I see a demonstrator available every so often for a considerable discount. However, f/4.0 is difficult to use with the older sensors, unless I carry my cheapo studio lights with me, and somehow power them in an occasional outdoor twilight shoot.
The 300mm f/4.0 has a smaller aperture than its Four-Thirds equivalent, a rather huge lens that is/was priced at US$5999.99, I believe. That could be the price of the 90-250mm f/2.8. They were within US$1000 of each other. The 300mm f/2.8, like the 90-250mm f/2.8 was built to order, rather than trying to stock something so complex and unique. The f/4.0 lens will be much less unique and won't be able to be that heavy but hopefully, won't rely on electronic tricks to fix optical flaws, due to its smaller size. I would expect that the 300mm f/4.0 will be roughly twice the price of the other three, possibly US$1999.99. If higher, I don't see it going for more than US$2999.99. Photographers of birds would surely like lighter equipment, but I wonder if the maximum aperture will cause them concern. If WiFi was enabled, they could have several of them pointed at a certain sport from different angles with the savings they got from not buying a 135 format 600mm lens.
They're still missing a 150-300mm f/2.8 zoom to fill the gap. I wouldn't expect that lens to be US$999.99 but it shouldn't be outrageous, and being a 2x zoom lens, it could be light even with a very good optical design. Given the current micro Four-Thirds 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7, they probably wouldn't even want to make people think about a comparison with a similar focal length range. I currently use both the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 and 35-100mm f/2.0 but for different sports. I'm not sure that working with two mirror-less bodies and two lenses is convenient to complete the 50-200mm range, but that's what they're doing anyway, not going with a 50-200mm. The 40-150mm f/2.8 will certainly be close enough to the 35-100mm f/2.0 but there won't likely be a 4x zoom that will directly replace the 50-200mm, which is my most-used lens, followed by my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 lens.
It's good to see Olympus finally decisive again, after 10 years of an almost completely aimless walkabout, even if there were some interesting highlights.
Update 2014.02.20: I bought the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens yesterday. It's good to have a somewhat wider view, from 14mm to 12mm. It made quite a difference--between getting the shot and getting part of the shot. The lens feels right at home with the GH3, despite the lack of image stabilization. It's sad that it won't work on the E-5 but times change.
Update 2014.02.25: After a few days of use of the 12-40mm, I'm as much in love with it as the 14-35mm f/2.0 lens, but with slightly lower expectations. The great thing is that the lens hood is small enough to carry with me, though I can't imagine it's big enough to be incredibly effective. I'm trying to remember whether I used it during the Olympus photo walk when the sun was just over the state capitol building and the Panasonic lens gave me huge lens flare but the Olympus lens mostly rejected it, even with the sun in the frame.
Could these keep me from moving to FujiFilm?
Update 2014.03.19: The 12-40mm seems quite amazing for the price. It has brought new life to the GH3, as the color is so much better than that of the 35-100mm f/2.8. Sadly, I have to wait for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens to come from Olympus, but that should be around September, which will likely be a good time to purchase the Panasonic GH4. Since the GH3 has a larger grip than the E-M1, I doubt I'll have any trouble keeping my hands steady during sports. If I can do it with an E-1 that doesn't have stabilization, and the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 or E-5 with the 35-100mm f/2.0, I should be able to handle the GH3/GH4 and 40-150mm f/2.8.
Update 2014.12.16: I'm interested in the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens and it's available now, along with the 1.4x teleconverter, though I noticed something disturbing earlier.
I found this comment from Jordan Steele concerning his review of the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens and also concerning the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8:
Now, I'm concerned about the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, considering my previous experience with my 35-100mm f/2.8 lens and huge lens flare.
I have several Four-Thirds lenses--2 Super High Grade lenses (14-35mm, 35-100mm), 3 High Grade lenses (14-54mm, 50-200mm, 50mm macro), and 1 Leica/Panasonic lens (25mm). Weaning myself from these lenses will be difficult because they're quite amazing. I've found myself time and again disappointed by the majority of micro Four-Thirds lenses. Those few that are great, are getting some reinforcements.
As they cast off their Four-Thirds line of dSLRs, they brought forth lens designs, in-between the HG and SHG lines of Olympus Four-Thirds lenses, but this time for micro Four-Thirds, and with constant maximum apertures.
The 12-40mm f/2.8 is already available and it's very good, positioned between the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and the 14-35mm f/2.0 Four-Thirds lenses.
The 40-150mm f/2.8 seems to be on-schedule and should arrive about halfway through 2014. I suspect that the image quality will be roughly the same as the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 and not that close to the 35-100mm f/2.0.
Prior to CP+ expo, they showed new mockups of a 7-14mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4.0.
The 7-14mm f/2.8 obviously has a larger maximum aperture than the current 7-14mm f/4.0 that is highly regarded by Four-Thirds users. As with any ultra-wide lens, it has a convex lens element in front, meaning that adding an optical filter is not easily possible and the lens doesn't support them directly. I've been considering the Four-Thirds lens quite a long time, as the weather-sealing is a major factor for me. I see a demonstrator available every so often for a considerable discount. However, f/4.0 is difficult to use with the older sensors, unless I carry my cheapo studio lights with me, and somehow power them in an occasional outdoor twilight shoot.
The 300mm f/4.0 has a smaller aperture than its Four-Thirds equivalent, a rather huge lens that is/was priced at US$5999.99, I believe. That could be the price of the 90-250mm f/2.8. They were within US$1000 of each other. The 300mm f/2.8, like the 90-250mm f/2.8 was built to order, rather than trying to stock something so complex and unique. The f/4.0 lens will be much less unique and won't be able to be that heavy but hopefully, won't rely on electronic tricks to fix optical flaws, due to its smaller size. I would expect that the 300mm f/4.0 will be roughly twice the price of the other three, possibly US$1999.99. If higher, I don't see it going for more than US$2999.99. Photographers of birds would surely like lighter equipment, but I wonder if the maximum aperture will cause them concern. If WiFi was enabled, they could have several of them pointed at a certain sport from different angles with the savings they got from not buying a 135 format 600mm lens.
It's good to see Olympus finally decisive again, after 10 years of an almost completely aimless walkabout, even if there were some interesting highlights.
Update 2014.02.20: I bought the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens yesterday. It's good to have a somewhat wider view, from 14mm to 12mm. It made quite a difference--between getting the shot and getting part of the shot. The lens feels right at home with the GH3, despite the lack of image stabilization. It's sad that it won't work on the E-5 but times change.
Update 2014.02.25: After a few days of use of the 12-40mm, I'm as much in love with it as the 14-35mm f/2.0 lens, but with slightly lower expectations. The great thing is that the lens hood is small enough to carry with me, though I can't imagine it's big enough to be incredibly effective. I'm trying to remember whether I used it during the Olympus photo walk when the sun was just over the state capitol building and the Panasonic lens gave me huge lens flare but the Olympus lens mostly rejected it, even with the sun in the frame.
Could these keep me from moving to FujiFilm?
Update 2014.03.19: The 12-40mm seems quite amazing for the price. It has brought new life to the GH3, as the color is so much better than that of the 35-100mm f/2.8. Sadly, I have to wait for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens to come from Olympus, but that should be around September, which will likely be a good time to purchase the Panasonic GH4. Since the GH3 has a larger grip than the E-M1, I doubt I'll have any trouble keeping my hands steady during sports. If I can do it with an E-1 that doesn't have stabilization, and the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 or E-5 with the 35-100mm f/2.0, I should be able to handle the GH3/GH4 and 40-150mm f/2.8.
Update 2014.12.16: I'm interested in the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens and it's available now, along with the 1.4x teleconverter, though I noticed something disturbing earlier.
I found this comment from Jordan Steele concerning his review of the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens and also concerning the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8:
The Panny is way better in the flare department
Now, I'm concerned about the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, considering my previous experience with my 35-100mm f/2.8 lens and huge lens flare.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Monday, September 9, 2013
Olympus E-M1 and 12-40mm f/2.8
Well, September 10th is here and Olympus has announced their new professional-oriented equipment, the E-M1 camera body and 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.
As someone who has been using Four-Thirds equipment since early 2004 (when the alternatives were bad), the E-M1 is supposedly targeted at me. The specifications sound great (but missing 14-bit raw files and a second card slot) and I'm enthusiastic but there is a huge problem: the size.
Sure, they're not charging US$1699.99 as with the E-5, but only US$1399.99 for the E-M1 camera body. Since you have to buy the MMF-3 lens adapter (to use Four-Thirds lenses) for almost US$200.00, it's a small break. However, mounting several of the Four-Thirds lenses on such a tiny body will create a problem with balance. Certainly, the ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 was not meant to be on the OM-D series without a tripod, and the 35-100mm is hardly the biggest lens.
I understand the economics, but they had to design and create a new body to accomplish their goals. If they'd made it the size of Olympus' own E-1, there wouldn't be a problem. Plus, you have to use the lenses through the adapter, and it doesn't feel all that strong. I use the 14-35mm f/2.0 frequently and the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 somewhat less frequently. They're both fine with the GH3, but I still wonder if the adapter is going to come apart at some point while either lens is attached. I don't use my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 with it.
External size:
I've been a harsh critic of zoom lenses on micro Four-Thirds, including the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 I have. After using it, I stopped short of buying their 12-35mm f/2.8. If their high end lenses are just average, wait for the prices to drop, yes?
This 12-40mm f/2.8 lens from Olympus may be enough to make me forget that Panasonic has a 12-35mm f/2.8 lens. The slightly bigger (62mm filter size vs 58mm) barrel hopefully houses better optical elements, and gives better image quality, while minimizing distortion.
The price of the Olympus lens is less than the suggested Panasonic price by US$300 at US$999.99, I believe, but the Panasonic lens has been out long enough to gain a discount or two. If the 12-40mm is better then, the price might be justified because I feel that the 35-100mm (and likely the 12-35mm from what I've seen and read) are great US$750 lenses. They're just not very good at their list prices. micro Four-Thirds users pay too much for too little, but they have a wide selection, unlike users of other mirror-less formats.
It's likely that I'll check reviews as much as anyone else but I'll likely buy the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens sometime after its November availability. The upcoming 40-150mm f/2.8 lens may be equally interesting, though it's a bit short to replace my ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 but for indoor sports, I'm using both the Olympus ZD and Panasonic 35-100mm lenses.
MTF charts:
Update 2013.10.04: Having used the E-M1 and 12-40mm f/2.8 on Thursday for an hour or two, I have no doubt that the E-M1 and the 12-40mm f/2.8 combination is an amazing step in image quality for micro Four-Thirds.
I am less in love with the ergonomics and comfort of using the E-M1 vs the E-5 or Panasonic GH3. It seems to have been designed for casual users to hold. I can't imagine a 14 hour day using the body because of the angles in the grip vs the curves of the E-5 or GH3. The Super Control Panel, of course, makes adjustments easier, but the exposure compensation had been set and without help, I had a difficult time finding the dial combination to make it work. Once again, the GH3 and E-5 had buttons marked for this, whereas the E-M1, in order to be more flexible, has few buttons marked. Through the adapter, it focused the ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 well and the difficult ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 reasonably well but it's a gorgeous lens that requires some extra handling. If Olympus put the E-M1's guts into the Panasonic GH3 body, they'd have a sale. If the GH3 successor comes close to the E-M1's still photography functionality, guess where I'm going.
You can see my encounter here: http://nobuyukishouldknowbetter.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-few-hours-with-olympus-12-40mm-f28.html
Update 2014.12.20: I've been using an E-M1 with the 12-40mm f/2.8 since early June. It's a potent combination. However, the 12-40mm f/2.8 also worked well on my Panasonic GH3 prior to that, and more recently, my GH4. It's a good lens that has practically sidelined my dSLRs.
I have on one occasion seen nasty lens flare that was almost 100% eliminated by the automatic changes in Phase One Capture One 7 Pro. It does exhibit minor lens flare more often than I would like, but so does the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 but I rarely pull out the huge lens hood for that.
In day-to-day operations, I find the E-M1 to be good but with minor problems. It's too easy to change the auto focus point, for instance, and exposure compensation is attached to the front dial. They didn't make it work like the E-5 and that was a mistake given that they were promoting it as the replacement.
Still that 10 frames per second has been useful in skate park photos. Then again, focus goes away suddenly, even though it's already in focus but only occasionally. I've also had times when I'm ready and the camera body does nothing when I press the shutter release.
If you're not photographing sports, you'll be fine, I'm sure, and you'll be pleased.
Update 2016.04.22: It's been a while since I first wrote this blog entry--about 2.5 years. Much has changed. I'm using an E-M1, along with the Panasonic GH4 and GX8. I've bought several other, native micro Four-Thirds lenses.
The E-M1's firmware updates have made it very, very good but it's typical for me to reach for the Panasonic GH4 first. I've taken so many photos with the E-M1, though, that I had to have the 150,000 actuations shutter replaced. Still, using the E-M1 with the 14-35mm f/2.0 or 35-100mm f/2.0 is difficult.
Thankfully, the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens works quite well, and so does the 8mm f/1.8 fisheye, along with a number of Panasonic lenses that I never expected to have.
As someone who has been using Four-Thirds equipment since early 2004 (when the alternatives were bad), the E-M1 is supposedly targeted at me. The specifications sound great (but missing 14-bit raw files and a second card slot) and I'm enthusiastic but there is a huge problem: the size.
Sure, they're not charging US$1699.99 as with the E-5, but only US$1399.99 for the E-M1 camera body. Since you have to buy the MMF-3 lens adapter (to use Four-Thirds lenses) for almost US$200.00, it's a small break. However, mounting several of the Four-Thirds lenses on such a tiny body will create a problem with balance. Certainly, the ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 was not meant to be on the OM-D series without a tripod, and the 35-100mm is hardly the biggest lens.
I understand the economics, but they had to design and create a new body to accomplish their goals. If they'd made it the size of Olympus' own E-1, there wouldn't be a problem. Plus, you have to use the lenses through the adapter, and it doesn't feel all that strong. I use the 14-35mm f/2.0 frequently and the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 somewhat less frequently. They're both fine with the GH3, but I still wonder if the adapter is going to come apart at some point while either lens is attached. I don't use my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 with it.
External size:
Width x Height x DepthWeight:
E-M1 130.4x93.5x63.1
GH3 132.9x93.4x82.0
E-1 141x104x81
E-M1 443gStill, if you're looking at the Canon 70D or the Nikon D7100, you might want to think a few times about your intentions. Starting fresh, the E-M1 offers loads of good stuff, especially if you like fixed focal length lenses. The Olympus 75mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8, and 12mm f/2.0, Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0 (yes, you are correct--that is a zoom!), and 8mm f/3.5 fisheye are really good lenses.
GH3 470g
E-1 660g
I've been a harsh critic of zoom lenses on micro Four-Thirds, including the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 I have. After using it, I stopped short of buying their 12-35mm f/2.8. If their high end lenses are just average, wait for the prices to drop, yes?
This 12-40mm f/2.8 lens from Olympus may be enough to make me forget that Panasonic has a 12-35mm f/2.8 lens. The slightly bigger (62mm filter size vs 58mm) barrel hopefully houses better optical elements, and gives better image quality, while minimizing distortion.
The price of the Olympus lens is less than the suggested Panasonic price by US$300 at US$999.99, I believe, but the Panasonic lens has been out long enough to gain a discount or two. If the 12-40mm is better then, the price might be justified because I feel that the 35-100mm (and likely the 12-35mm from what I've seen and read) are great US$750 lenses. They're just not very good at their list prices. micro Four-Thirds users pay too much for too little, but they have a wide selection, unlike users of other mirror-less formats.
It's likely that I'll check reviews as much as anyone else but I'll likely buy the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens sometime after its November availability. The upcoming 40-150mm f/2.8 lens may be equally interesting, though it's a bit short to replace my ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 but for indoor sports, I'm using both the Olympus ZD and Panasonic 35-100mm lenses.
MTF charts:
 |
| 12-40mm f/2.8 |
 |
| 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Mk II |
 |
| 14-35mm f/2.0 |
Update 2013.10.04: Having used the E-M1 and 12-40mm f/2.8 on Thursday for an hour or two, I have no doubt that the E-M1 and the 12-40mm f/2.8 combination is an amazing step in image quality for micro Four-Thirds.
I am less in love with the ergonomics and comfort of using the E-M1 vs the E-5 or Panasonic GH3. It seems to have been designed for casual users to hold. I can't imagine a 14 hour day using the body because of the angles in the grip vs the curves of the E-5 or GH3. The Super Control Panel, of course, makes adjustments easier, but the exposure compensation had been set and without help, I had a difficult time finding the dial combination to make it work. Once again, the GH3 and E-5 had buttons marked for this, whereas the E-M1, in order to be more flexible, has few buttons marked. Through the adapter, it focused the ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 well and the difficult ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 reasonably well but it's a gorgeous lens that requires some extra handling. If Olympus put the E-M1's guts into the Panasonic GH3 body, they'd have a sale. If the GH3 successor comes close to the E-M1's still photography functionality, guess where I'm going.
You can see my encounter here: http://nobuyukishouldknowbetter.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-few-hours-with-olympus-12-40mm-f28.html
Update 2014.12.20: I've been using an E-M1 with the 12-40mm f/2.8 since early June. It's a potent combination. However, the 12-40mm f/2.8 also worked well on my Panasonic GH3 prior to that, and more recently, my GH4. It's a good lens that has practically sidelined my dSLRs.
I have on one occasion seen nasty lens flare that was almost 100% eliminated by the automatic changes in Phase One Capture One 7 Pro. It does exhibit minor lens flare more often than I would like, but so does the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 but I rarely pull out the huge lens hood for that.
In day-to-day operations, I find the E-M1 to be good but with minor problems. It's too easy to change the auto focus point, for instance, and exposure compensation is attached to the front dial. They didn't make it work like the E-5 and that was a mistake given that they were promoting it as the replacement.
Still that 10 frames per second has been useful in skate park photos. Then again, focus goes away suddenly, even though it's already in focus but only occasionally. I've also had times when I'm ready and the camera body does nothing when I press the shutter release.
If you're not photographing sports, you'll be fine, I'm sure, and you'll be pleased.
Update 2016.04.22: It's been a while since I first wrote this blog entry--about 2.5 years. Much has changed. I'm using an E-M1, along with the Panasonic GH4 and GX8. I've bought several other, native micro Four-Thirds lenses.
The E-M1's firmware updates have made it very, very good but it's typical for me to reach for the Panasonic GH4 first. I've taken so many photos with the E-M1, though, that I had to have the 150,000 actuations shutter replaced. Still, using the E-M1 with the 14-35mm f/2.0 or 35-100mm f/2.0 is difficult.
Thankfully, the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens works quite well, and so does the 8mm f/1.8 fisheye, along with a number of Panasonic lenses that I never expected to have.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Concerned about Olympus' next Four-Thirds move
I've been using Four-Thirds equipment since around April 2004 with the E-1, 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5, and the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5, plus FL-50. At times, it's been a chore to not jump ship.
When I first bought the E-1, I was amazed at the color rendition and clarity. Outside, during the hurricanes of 2004 in Florida, I was impressed with the durability and weather-sealing. I looked at Nikon, Canon, and Pentax prior to buying into Four-Thirds and none of them were very good at the time. Certainly, I would have spent much more money but many things have changed since then.
In 2004, raw development software was almost non-existent, save what the camera maker included. Olympus put out JPEG files that were so far ahead of the competition that it wasn't funny.
Since then, I've changed to the E-5 as my day-to-day camera body with the Panasonic GH3 as a backup, but the E-1 is still there just fine. I've added the 35-100mm f2/.0 and 14-35mm f/2.0 SHG lenses and the 50mm f/2.0 macro, plus the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4. They work fine on all three bodies.
I'm considering this new Olympus body. There have been some rumored specifications, and they look reasonable, considering the micro Four-Thirds E-P5. There was a "leaked" video, supposedly from Engadget using an Olympus representative of some sort. What I saw was sloppy and led me to believe that it's fake but who knows? For the first two minutes, the Olympus representative referred to Four-Thirds and Four-Third.
While I doubt my hand is as big as his hand, I think that a camera body the size of the E-M5 with a grip reminiscent of the E-1 but sort of welded onto the body in a haphazard way will not work well, except in casual photography. micro Four-Thirds has mostly been about casual photography, except for those few professionals. I believe that the latest sensors are quite good and produce great image quality. but that's not enough when photographing sports.
If I can't get the shot, who cares how great the image quality is. I've tried this multiple times with the GH3 and I want to throw the thing. The EVF stands in the way of getting the shots.
What's the problem? To photograph runners, you need to be able to change the focus quickly and put it on a certain runner. Auto focus works willy-nilly, so it goes mostly where you don't expect it, even in high end cameras from Nikon and Canon---that's why professionals shoot so many shots rapid-fire. In order to use manual focus, which is my preference, you need to keep the assistance to a minimum. Most micro Four-Thirds cameras with generate a magnified view to help you. This gets in the way of what I'm doing, whereas an optical viewfinder just shows the view. Of course, back in the 1970s and 1980s, we had multiple focusing screens to help us.
I suppose what I will see is a huge compromise. A too-light camera body with a lens adapter with good auto focus capabilities, but otherwise, all the problems of a mirror-less camera body. It's not that the E-5 isn't a compromise over the E-1--it is--but it works well for what I do. However, it has terrible image quality as the light dims, even though with studio lighting, it's quite good.
Could they have used the E-1 or E-5 bodies and just replaced the innards? I suspect that they could have. Would the 1.8 inch rear display of the E-1 been a problem for today's video-oriented crowd? Certainly, but just give me a !@#$ stills camera that works almost as an extension of my body!! (Update 2013.11.13: Nikon has done that with the Df body. It's all about still photography, although the price and changing format is not high on my list. The technology is great, the slippery body is not.)
What I haven't mentioned is the cost of manufacturing a single, low quantity body. They showed this when they extended the E-30 production until exhaustion, without an update to an E-50.
What gets to me is how clumsy they've been since the initial E-1. Instead of a replacement in 2005, they produced several consumer-oriented dSLRs, and waited (or couldn't help a delay) until 2007 to produce a professional, 2005-level dSLR. Equally, the E-5 arrived in 2010, but would have been a great 2007 model. People blame the financial fraud, but I doubt that had anything to do with it. I believe that they had people in charge of projects who should have only been making tea.
I understand quite well about projects, deadlines, cost, and mistakes. If you're methodical, you'll do well, but if you aren't, everyone suffers. Regardless, accidents happen. The E-M1 looks like a huge accident, in opposite ways from the E-3, but just as big an accident.
Update 2013.08.24: I've seen a few more photos of the E-M1 and they look as though it's not a rough pre-production unit. It looks quite a bit better but still tiny. The 12-40mm f/2.8 looks very good, but too stylish, as if it's been made to be in photos and not made for photography. I just hope it works well, since the very average Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 doesn't appeal to me at US$1200.
Update 2013.11.13: After using both the E-M1 and the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, I'm happy for Olympus to be pushing itself further, thanks to Panasonic. Competition is a great thing. I like the E-M1 but it doesn't fit my hand well. The 12-40mm f/2.8 is a must have for me. I can only hope that the Panasonic GH3 will be replaced by a GH5 with the same sensor and some greater focusing speed.
Update 2014.05.03: It's been some time since I tried the E-M1 and Panasonic's GH3 replacement has been announced as the GH4, although the GH3 is being continued for a while, as a lower cost body.
The E-M1 has done quite well, and I've considered it time and again. The GH4 doesn't have Phase Detection pixels but it may work as well as the E-M1 when focusing my Four-Thirds lenses. The GH3 generally does well enough, except for the 14-35mm f/2.0 and 50mm f/2.0 and those can both be a handful, even on the E-5 or E-1.
Update 2015.01.10: I've had an E-M1 since June 2014, trading my GH3. It's been good but not great. Around Thanksgiving, I got a GH4, thanks to a US$200 off deal.
I still don't think that the E-M1 is a true successor to the E-5...or E1, but it is what the company decided would be available. It works well enough but I don't see that it's good enough with Four-Thirds lenses. The balance is off, starting with my 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5. Obviously, the 35-100mm f/2.0 is not a good lens for balance with the E-M1--or the GH4. It is good with the E-5 and nearly as good with the E-1.
I still believe that they should have used the E-1 body as the basis for the E-M1. The video capabilities of the E-M1 aren't great, so they should have just given us a stills camera body.
After all this time, I still go back to my E-1 and E-5 when I want to use my Four-Thirds lenses, except for the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4, which fits nicely on the GH4 and is more than acceptable with the E-M1.
Update 2016.12.14: The E-M1 Mk II is more-or-less available at this time. It is the successor to the E-5, in most every way. I still don't like the grip. I felt that the grip from the E-5 was comfortable, as is the grip on the GH4. The GH4 seemed as the physical successor to the E-5 or E-1 bodies.
The E-M1 Mk II supposedly handles every situation well, although low light situations are never easy. I'd like to see how the auto focus works around 10 in the evening. I don't have trouble with the GH4, but the E-M1 tends to hunt.
Since the Mk II has 121 cross-type sensors, both PDAF and CDAF, it should be just short of phenomenal.
When I first bought the E-1, I was amazed at the color rendition and clarity. Outside, during the hurricanes of 2004 in Florida, I was impressed with the durability and weather-sealing. I looked at Nikon, Canon, and Pentax prior to buying into Four-Thirds and none of them were very good at the time. Certainly, I would have spent much more money but many things have changed since then.
In 2004, raw development software was almost non-existent, save what the camera maker included. Olympus put out JPEG files that were so far ahead of the competition that it wasn't funny.
Since then, I've changed to the E-5 as my day-to-day camera body with the Panasonic GH3 as a backup, but the E-1 is still there just fine. I've added the 35-100mm f2/.0 and 14-35mm f/2.0 SHG lenses and the 50mm f/2.0 macro, plus the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4. They work fine on all three bodies.
I'm considering this new Olympus body. There have been some rumored specifications, and they look reasonable, considering the micro Four-Thirds E-P5. There was a "leaked" video, supposedly from Engadget using an Olympus representative of some sort. What I saw was sloppy and led me to believe that it's fake but who knows? For the first two minutes, the Olympus representative referred to Four-Thirds and Four-Third.
While I doubt my hand is as big as his hand, I think that a camera body the size of the E-M5 with a grip reminiscent of the E-1 but sort of welded onto the body in a haphazard way will not work well, except in casual photography. micro Four-Thirds has mostly been about casual photography, except for those few professionals. I believe that the latest sensors are quite good and produce great image quality. but that's not enough when photographing sports.
If I can't get the shot, who cares how great the image quality is. I've tried this multiple times with the GH3 and I want to throw the thing. The EVF stands in the way of getting the shots.
What's the problem? To photograph runners, you need to be able to change the focus quickly and put it on a certain runner. Auto focus works willy-nilly, so it goes mostly where you don't expect it, even in high end cameras from Nikon and Canon---that's why professionals shoot so many shots rapid-fire. In order to use manual focus, which is my preference, you need to keep the assistance to a minimum. Most micro Four-Thirds cameras with generate a magnified view to help you. This gets in the way of what I'm doing, whereas an optical viewfinder just shows the view. Of course, back in the 1970s and 1980s, we had multiple focusing screens to help us.
I suppose what I will see is a huge compromise. A too-light camera body with a lens adapter with good auto focus capabilities, but otherwise, all the problems of a mirror-less camera body. It's not that the E-5 isn't a compromise over the E-1--it is--but it works well for what I do. However, it has terrible image quality as the light dims, even though with studio lighting, it's quite good.
Could they have used the E-1 or E-5 bodies and just replaced the innards? I suspect that they could have. Would the 1.8 inch rear display of the E-1 been a problem for today's video-oriented crowd? Certainly, but just give me a !@#$ stills camera that works almost as an extension of my body!! (Update 2013.11.13: Nikon has done that with the Df body. It's all about still photography, although the price and changing format is not high on my list. The technology is great, the slippery body is not.)
What I haven't mentioned is the cost of manufacturing a single, low quantity body. They showed this when they extended the E-30 production until exhaustion, without an update to an E-50.
What gets to me is how clumsy they've been since the initial E-1. Instead of a replacement in 2005, they produced several consumer-oriented dSLRs, and waited (or couldn't help a delay) until 2007 to produce a professional, 2005-level dSLR. Equally, the E-5 arrived in 2010, but would have been a great 2007 model. People blame the financial fraud, but I doubt that had anything to do with it. I believe that they had people in charge of projects who should have only been making tea.
I understand quite well about projects, deadlines, cost, and mistakes. If you're methodical, you'll do well, but if you aren't, everyone suffers. Regardless, accidents happen. The E-M1 looks like a huge accident, in opposite ways from the E-3, but just as big an accident.
Update 2013.08.24: I've seen a few more photos of the E-M1 and they look as though it's not a rough pre-production unit. It looks quite a bit better but still tiny. The 12-40mm f/2.8 looks very good, but too stylish, as if it's been made to be in photos and not made for photography. I just hope it works well, since the very average Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 doesn't appeal to me at US$1200.
Update 2013.11.13: After using both the E-M1 and the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, I'm happy for Olympus to be pushing itself further, thanks to Panasonic. Competition is a great thing. I like the E-M1 but it doesn't fit my hand well. The 12-40mm f/2.8 is a must have for me. I can only hope that the Panasonic GH3 will be replaced by a GH5 with the same sensor and some greater focusing speed.
Update 2014.05.03: It's been some time since I tried the E-M1 and Panasonic's GH3 replacement has been announced as the GH4, although the GH3 is being continued for a while, as a lower cost body.
The E-M1 has done quite well, and I've considered it time and again. The GH4 doesn't have Phase Detection pixels but it may work as well as the E-M1 when focusing my Four-Thirds lenses. The GH3 generally does well enough, except for the 14-35mm f/2.0 and 50mm f/2.0 and those can both be a handful, even on the E-5 or E-1.
Update 2015.01.10: I've had an E-M1 since June 2014, trading my GH3. It's been good but not great. Around Thanksgiving, I got a GH4, thanks to a US$200 off deal.
I still don't think that the E-M1 is a true successor to the E-5...or E1, but it is what the company decided would be available. It works well enough but I don't see that it's good enough with Four-Thirds lenses. The balance is off, starting with my 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5. Obviously, the 35-100mm f/2.0 is not a good lens for balance with the E-M1--or the GH4. It is good with the E-5 and nearly as good with the E-1.
I still believe that they should have used the E-1 body as the basis for the E-M1. The video capabilities of the E-M1 aren't great, so they should have just given us a stills camera body.
After all this time, I still go back to my E-1 and E-5 when I want to use my Four-Thirds lenses, except for the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4, which fits nicely on the GH4 and is more than acceptable with the E-M1.
Update 2016.12.14: The E-M1 Mk II is more-or-less available at this time. It is the successor to the E-5, in most every way. I still don't like the grip. I felt that the grip from the E-5 was comfortable, as is the grip on the GH4. The GH4 seemed as the physical successor to the E-5 or E-1 bodies.
The E-M1 Mk II supposedly handles every situation well, although low light situations are never easy. I'd like to see how the auto focus works around 10 in the evening. I don't have trouble with the GH4, but the E-M1 tends to hunt.
Since the Mk II has 121 cross-type sensors, both PDAF and CDAF, it should be just short of phenomenal.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Panasonic GH3 + Olympus MMF-3 + Olympus SHG = greatness
I suppose I couldn't be more wrong about those micro Four-Thirds lenses, could I? The fanatics seem to think that there are no better lenses.
Since I got the Olympus MMF-3 adapter, I'm pleased to say that the Olympus SHG ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 works very well with the GH3. The lens is very heavy for a bit more than a 2x zoom but at the wider angles, you need more work to get a great lens. That's why you see so few of them. I'm leaving the adapter attached to the 14-35mm, while I can use the ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 with the Olympus E-5 and it's better balanced as a combination.
Notably, there is a problem if you insist on auto focus but it's similar to the problem on Four-Thirds bodies. The 14-35mm lens will hunt far too much, similar to the 50mm macro. Sadly, this is the revised lens that arrived in 2007 with the Olympus E-3 body and not the original lens that was supposed to be available in 2005. That was apparently an optical masterpiece but somehow flawed in that it had to be redesigned. The current, available 14-35mm lens is still an optical masterpiece but extends on both ends of the zoom range.
In any case, the 14-35mm can auto focus with the GH3 through the adapter, and it's faster than the experience with the Olympus E-1. I often use manual focus so I'm sure about the details. Focus assist/pinpoint focus is useful but as I'm turning the ring, it can be a bit bouncy. Carry Dramamine, if necessary. Since manual focus eliminates the automated hunting, I can get precise focus more quickly.
The 35-100mm f/2.0 is nearly perfect and the combination is a bit unbalanced, a bit more than it was with the E-1 but it works quite well, once again, it can be auto focused by the GH3 more quickly than with my E-1, but it's much faster with my E-5.
The optical quality of the two lenses is extremely high and I'm quite pleased with the results with the GH3. Even in dim light, the combinations work much better than with the E-5. I'm looking forward to buying and using the 7-14mm f/4.0 SHG lens. If you're wondering why I wouldn't buy the much less expensive, much smaller Panasonic version, it's very simple: weather-resistance.
Why, oh, why would you spend nearly US$1000 for a lens if some driving rain or dust storm could affect the insides? That said, I have the excellent Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 for Four-Thirds. I'm concerned about taking it outside and really using it, unless it's a perfectly clear day or night. It focuses quite quickly with the GH3, as well as the E-5.
I'm surprised to have made the (half a) leap to micro Four-Thirds, although the MMF-3 adapter is my very good friend. For now, the Olympus SHG zooms continue to rule my world, with the HG zooms a close second and I've had the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 since 2004. Further behind would be the premium Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 (which I don't have) and 35-100mm f/2.8 lenses.
Update 2013.09.16: Obviously, the same lenses will work wonders with the newly announced E-M1. Of course, with the somewhat useful Phase Detection Auto Focus, they'll even work similarly to the E-5 but at a slower pace, and I suspect will work poorly in lower light, but that's not been shown that I can see. The GH3 can auto focus to -4 EV, which is like starlight--something the opposite of intense. There is no such specification that I can find for the E-M1, so maybe Olympus are re-working the firmware already to improve the performance of the auto focus.
Update 2014.02.11: The other day I had to laugh. Someone had posted a comment on an article about the soon to be released Panasonic GH4, calling it an utter failure because with Nikon, Canon, and Sony mirror-less system cameras you could mount dSLR lenses, and you couldn't do that with FujiFilm (you can't but the official adapter supports Leica M-mount) or micro Four-Thirds.
Given that Olympus produces some of the finest dSLR lenses in their High Grade and Super High Grade lines, I can't imagine how deep ignorance goes. I'm still not happy with micro Four-Thirds lens selections although Olympus has upped the game with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens and their intended 40-150mm f/2.8 lens that has not arrived yet. I'm getting ready to send off my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens because of huge lens flare but it hasn't been totally bad or good. It's just not very good for the price--Olympus HG line was a steal in comparison.
Update 2014.02.25: The other day, I bought the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 micro Four-Thirds lens for my Panasonic GH3. I am surprised at how much better it makes the GH3 photos look, as compared to the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens, even though it was less expensive. You'd think Panasonic would work incredibly well with Panasonic. I sent that lens off to be repaired, due to a rather huge problem with lens flare, something I saw documented about the time I bought mine, but didn't expect that there would be a problem. Getting a repair seems to be a problem in the U.S.A.
In any case, by the end of 2014, Olympus will have the 12-40mm f/2.8 and 40-150mm f/2.8 lenses available. Some time in 2015, they'll also have 7-14mm f/2.8 and a 300mm f/4.0 lenses. I haven't seen anything about a 150-300mm f/2.8 lens but it needs to be part of the plan.
While the 12-40mm f/2.8 isn't as great as the 14-35mm f/2.0, it is great for the price, and appropriately positioned between the SHG 14-35mm on the high end and the HG 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 at the middle position, above the standard kit lens. I'm also pleased that they've finally addressed the 12mm focal length. I know it's more difficult to control the distortion, but it's worth having. The new for 2015 7-14mm f/2.8 will be great for landscapes and also for indoor real estate, which too often is left to a point-and-shoot camera.
Update 2014.03.25: I'd like to add that all of my Four-Thirds lenses work well on the GH3, especially the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 that was meant for the Digilux 3. It seems to be meant for Contrast Detect Auto Focus, so it moves quickly. Since the GH3 has a top shutter speed of 1/4000th of a second, the f/1.4 in full sun is close to being overwhelmed, so a Neutral Density filter could be a good idea. The GH4 will fix this problem as it has the 1/8000th shutter speed. How did we manage in the old days with f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses and 1/1000th of a second shutter speed?
I'm happy to say that my experience with the new Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, I have found renewed respect for Olympus and I am certain to buy the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, though I feel a bit ambivalent about micro Four-Thirds still, especially after my ordeal with the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens and finding that it supposedly didn't need repair. If Olympus would produce a somewhat bigger body, like a downsized E-5, or the E-1 with modern innards, I'd be very happy. I'm not yet a hybrid shooter, though I'm going there and the GH3 and GH4 are on the right path, but Olympus does so many things right with the E-M1 that I wish they'd finished it properly.
Update 2014.10.17: I've been shooting with the E-M1 for roughly 4 months, having traded the GH3 before the trade-in value dropped. The 12-40mm has been working well, though I've found one instance where it produced nasty lens flare. It's rare that I've used any of my Four-Thirds lenses on it, save the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 because of the E-M1's small size. I'm looking at the 40-150mm f/2.8 very seriously, along with the matching 1.4x teleconverter. The combination is still cheaper than my Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 lens, and the effective f/4.0 maximum aperture is only a bit slower than my 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 on the long end where I use it most.
Update 2015.03.11: I've had the Panasonic GH4 since December and it reminded me how good the design of the GH3 was. It's much easier to use my Four-Thirds lenses than it is with the Olympus E-M1.
While I love the 12-40mm f/2.8 as compact as it is, they should have made it a bit bigger and made it uncompromisingly wonderful. The 14-35mm f/2.0 is amazing in ways that the 12-40mm f/2.8 can't be but the lack of those 2mm on the wide end does make it somewhat incapable when taking architectural photos. Olympus had a remedy for this problem with the 7-14mm f/4.0 but using it without artificial light indoors was difficult. Now, they're bringing a 7-14mm f/2.8 to market for micro Four-Thirds, which seems perfect for higher end real estate. I'm planning to use it for skate park photos mainly, along with the 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens.
micro Four-Thirds has come a long way, and there are a few good lenses now, but Olympus' Four-Thirds lenses are still much better and an easy way to get great image quality.
Update 2015.08.07: Since I have the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8, Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7, Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8, and 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lenses, the adapter doesn't get as much use on either my Panasonic GH4 or Olympus E-M1. Occasionally, I will mount the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 on it, as it can be difficult to get lower light photos, but then, I'm finding the new Nikon D7200 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens more difficult in such conditions, despite their supposed technical superiority. Firmware updates will likely help.
Except for the 35-100mm f/2.8, the micro Four-Thirds lenses are very, very good. They're not as good as my Olympus SHG lenses and on occasion, my HG lenses are more useful, but it's rare for me to use the adapter. The best reason I can see to use it is to mount the Panasonic GM5 to my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 and watch people be shocked at the appearance.
Update 2016.01.19: With the Olympus 300mm f/4.0 lens, supposedly there is a micro Four-Thirds lens that has exceeded the possible image quality of its Four-Thirds equivalent. I'm not in a position to judge. The micro Four-Thirds lens is about half the price of the Four-Thirds lens. While the maximum aperture isn't as big, the sensors of the Four-Thirds' bodies aren't very good in lower light. In the case of wildlife and bird photography, a thin depth of field is as difficult as it is helpful.
Since I got the Olympus MMF-3 adapter, I'm pleased to say that the Olympus SHG ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 works very well with the GH3. The lens is very heavy for a bit more than a 2x zoom but at the wider angles, you need more work to get a great lens. That's why you see so few of them. I'm leaving the adapter attached to the 14-35mm, while I can use the ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 with the Olympus E-5 and it's better balanced as a combination.
Notably, there is a problem if you insist on auto focus but it's similar to the problem on Four-Thirds bodies. The 14-35mm lens will hunt far too much, similar to the 50mm macro. Sadly, this is the revised lens that arrived in 2007 with the Olympus E-3 body and not the original lens that was supposed to be available in 2005. That was apparently an optical masterpiece but somehow flawed in that it had to be redesigned. The current, available 14-35mm lens is still an optical masterpiece but extends on both ends of the zoom range.
In any case, the 14-35mm can auto focus with the GH3 through the adapter, and it's faster than the experience with the Olympus E-1. I often use manual focus so I'm sure about the details. Focus assist/pinpoint focus is useful but as I'm turning the ring, it can be a bit bouncy. Carry Dramamine, if necessary. Since manual focus eliminates the automated hunting, I can get precise focus more quickly.
The 35-100mm f/2.0 is nearly perfect and the combination is a bit unbalanced, a bit more than it was with the E-1 but it works quite well, once again, it can be auto focused by the GH3 more quickly than with my E-1, but it's much faster with my E-5.
The optical quality of the two lenses is extremely high and I'm quite pleased with the results with the GH3. Even in dim light, the combinations work much better than with the E-5. I'm looking forward to buying and using the 7-14mm f/4.0 SHG lens. If you're wondering why I wouldn't buy the much less expensive, much smaller Panasonic version, it's very simple: weather-resistance.
Why, oh, why would you spend nearly US$1000 for a lens if some driving rain or dust storm could affect the insides? That said, I have the excellent Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 for Four-Thirds. I'm concerned about taking it outside and really using it, unless it's a perfectly clear day or night. It focuses quite quickly with the GH3, as well as the E-5.
I'm surprised to have made the (half a) leap to micro Four-Thirds, although the MMF-3 adapter is my very good friend. For now, the Olympus SHG zooms continue to rule my world, with the HG zooms a close second and I've had the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 since 2004. Further behind would be the premium Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 (which I don't have) and 35-100mm f/2.8 lenses.
Update 2013.09.16: Obviously, the same lenses will work wonders with the newly announced E-M1. Of course, with the somewhat useful Phase Detection Auto Focus, they'll even work similarly to the E-5 but at a slower pace, and I suspect will work poorly in lower light, but that's not been shown that I can see. The GH3 can auto focus to -4 EV, which is like starlight--something the opposite of intense. There is no such specification that I can find for the E-M1, so maybe Olympus are re-working the firmware already to improve the performance of the auto focus.
Update 2014.02.11: The other day I had to laugh. Someone had posted a comment on an article about the soon to be released Panasonic GH4, calling it an utter failure because with Nikon, Canon, and Sony mirror-less system cameras you could mount dSLR lenses, and you couldn't do that with FujiFilm (you can't but the official adapter supports Leica M-mount) or micro Four-Thirds.
Given that Olympus produces some of the finest dSLR lenses in their High Grade and Super High Grade lines, I can't imagine how deep ignorance goes. I'm still not happy with micro Four-Thirds lens selections although Olympus has upped the game with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens and their intended 40-150mm f/2.8 lens that has not arrived yet. I'm getting ready to send off my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens because of huge lens flare but it hasn't been totally bad or good. It's just not very good for the price--Olympus HG line was a steal in comparison.
Update 2014.02.25: The other day, I bought the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 micro Four-Thirds lens for my Panasonic GH3. I am surprised at how much better it makes the GH3 photos look, as compared to the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens, even though it was less expensive. You'd think Panasonic would work incredibly well with Panasonic. I sent that lens off to be repaired, due to a rather huge problem with lens flare, something I saw documented about the time I bought mine, but didn't expect that there would be a problem. Getting a repair seems to be a problem in the U.S.A.
In any case, by the end of 2014, Olympus will have the 12-40mm f/2.8 and 40-150mm f/2.8 lenses available. Some time in 2015, they'll also have 7-14mm f/2.8 and a 300mm f/4.0 lenses. I haven't seen anything about a 150-300mm f/2.8 lens but it needs to be part of the plan.
While the 12-40mm f/2.8 isn't as great as the 14-35mm f/2.0, it is great for the price, and appropriately positioned between the SHG 14-35mm on the high end and the HG 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 at the middle position, above the standard kit lens. I'm also pleased that they've finally addressed the 12mm focal length. I know it's more difficult to control the distortion, but it's worth having. The new for 2015 7-14mm f/2.8 will be great for landscapes and also for indoor real estate, which too often is left to a point-and-shoot camera.
Update 2014.03.25: I'd like to add that all of my Four-Thirds lenses work well on the GH3, especially the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 that was meant for the Digilux 3. It seems to be meant for Contrast Detect Auto Focus, so it moves quickly. Since the GH3 has a top shutter speed of 1/4000th of a second, the f/1.4 in full sun is close to being overwhelmed, so a Neutral Density filter could be a good idea. The GH4 will fix this problem as it has the 1/8000th shutter speed. How did we manage in the old days with f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses and 1/1000th of a second shutter speed?
I'm happy to say that my experience with the new Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, I have found renewed respect for Olympus and I am certain to buy the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, though I feel a bit ambivalent about micro Four-Thirds still, especially after my ordeal with the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens and finding that it supposedly didn't need repair. If Olympus would produce a somewhat bigger body, like a downsized E-5, or the E-1 with modern innards, I'd be very happy. I'm not yet a hybrid shooter, though I'm going there and the GH3 and GH4 are on the right path, but Olympus does so many things right with the E-M1 that I wish they'd finished it properly.
Update 2014.10.17: I've been shooting with the E-M1 for roughly 4 months, having traded the GH3 before the trade-in value dropped. The 12-40mm has been working well, though I've found one instance where it produced nasty lens flare. It's rare that I've used any of my Four-Thirds lenses on it, save the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 because of the E-M1's small size. I'm looking at the 40-150mm f/2.8 very seriously, along with the matching 1.4x teleconverter. The combination is still cheaper than my Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 lens, and the effective f/4.0 maximum aperture is only a bit slower than my 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 on the long end where I use it most.
Update 2015.03.11: I've had the Panasonic GH4 since December and it reminded me how good the design of the GH3 was. It's much easier to use my Four-Thirds lenses than it is with the Olympus E-M1.
While I love the 12-40mm f/2.8 as compact as it is, they should have made it a bit bigger and made it uncompromisingly wonderful. The 14-35mm f/2.0 is amazing in ways that the 12-40mm f/2.8 can't be but the lack of those 2mm on the wide end does make it somewhat incapable when taking architectural photos. Olympus had a remedy for this problem with the 7-14mm f/4.0 but using it without artificial light indoors was difficult. Now, they're bringing a 7-14mm f/2.8 to market for micro Four-Thirds, which seems perfect for higher end real estate. I'm planning to use it for skate park photos mainly, along with the 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens.
micro Four-Thirds has come a long way, and there are a few good lenses now, but Olympus' Four-Thirds lenses are still much better and an easy way to get great image quality.
Update 2015.08.07: Since I have the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8, Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7, Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8, and 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lenses, the adapter doesn't get as much use on either my Panasonic GH4 or Olympus E-M1. Occasionally, I will mount the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 on it, as it can be difficult to get lower light photos, but then, I'm finding the new Nikon D7200 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens more difficult in such conditions, despite their supposed technical superiority. Firmware updates will likely help.
Except for the 35-100mm f/2.8, the micro Four-Thirds lenses are very, very good. They're not as good as my Olympus SHG lenses and on occasion, my HG lenses are more useful, but it's rare for me to use the adapter. The best reason I can see to use it is to mount the Panasonic GM5 to my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 and watch people be shocked at the appearance.
Update 2016.01.19: With the Olympus 300mm f/4.0 lens, supposedly there is a micro Four-Thirds lens that has exceeded the possible image quality of its Four-Thirds equivalent. I'm not in a position to judge. The micro Four-Thirds lens is about half the price of the Four-Thirds lens. While the maximum aperture isn't as big, the sensors of the Four-Thirds' bodies aren't very good in lower light. In the case of wildlife and bird photography, a thin depth of field is as difficult as it is helpful.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Disappointed with Olympus' micro Four-Thirds lenses? 2014, 2015 much better
I don't know how not to offend the fanboys with this one. I'm really disappointed with Olympus' lenses for micro Four-Thirds cameras. While I can appreciate the desire for small equipment, compromise is better left to other companies that have more fanboys.
This may seem nonsense to someone who had never used the Four-Thirds High Grade and Super High Grade lenses. Their standard series was, shall we say, sufficient for many people.
I'm not a snob about equipment, but I'd rather not risk my equipment on weather or dust. When I originally bought my Olympus E-1 in April 2004, Olympus only had weather-sealed lenses for Four-Thirds. I bought the ZD 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and the ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5. Those aren't huge maximum apertures but they worked well enough, and the lenses used a 67mm filter. I used the 50-200mm during three of the four hurricanes in 2004 and never bet against the seals. I shot, I dried and repeated as necessary. The lenses work quite well to this day, and so does the E-1.
The only Four-Thirds lens I have that is not weather-sealed is the fairly expensive Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4--the normal lens. You figure US$500 for a normal lens with an f/1.4 maximum aperture and twice as much for one that can be used wide open, unlike those from Canon and Nikon that have to be stopped down to get good sharpness. This one comes around US$1000 and works well wide open, as do the HG and SHG lenses from Olympus. It works as expected, except that I'm concerned that it might rain.
Now, with my journey into micro Four-Thirds, I have to pick lenses much more carefully, as though I was shopping for Canon or Nikon equipment. I prefer simpler choices. Currently, Olympus offers a great 60mm macro lens and the craptacular 12-50mm zoom. Yes, I get it, at 12mm any lens will distort more than a lens at 14mm. You have to use a more expensive lens design to get around it. The 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 Four-Thirds lens distorts apparently terribly but they were more concerned with the focusing speed than the optical characteristics, it seems.
Panasonic offers two weather-sealed lenses at the moment: the 35-100mm f/2.8 (US$1499.99) that I have and the 12-35mm f/2.8 that I don't need. Both are rather expensive for the plastic-y bodies, Made in China, compromises that they are. (Supposedly, the 12-35mm isn't a Made in China product but are they all from one country or the other?) As I've been saying, the 35-100mm doesn't really seem too much worse than what you get from Canon or Nikon--you stop down the aperture to get good sharpness. Since many people are switching from those brands, they'll probably be okay with the compromise. Given that the sensor in the GH3 is better than the one in the E-5, I can live with that under low light circumstances. However, compared to the ZD SHG 35-100 f/2.0, Panasonic's lens is not very good at all but then, I don't really have much faith in the Canon or Nikon 70-200mm either, though my opinion of the Nikon lens is more positive.
Olympus recently created a second generation of a 75-300mm lens that needs very bright light to be useful. The maximum aperture is f/4.8-6.7. If I was using it to photograph birds, I'd hope that they'd be out in the open sunlight. More likely, I'd be using the ZD 50-200mm lens with the 1.4x teleconverter and the E-5. I just don't understand where Olympus is going. Several people have brought up the point that Olympus is no longer including lens hoods. Most of their fanboys probably won't need them, even though they should be using them. I don't carry the 35-100mm f/.0 lens hood with me because I need another bag for it and for the lens hood for the 14-35mm f/2.0. They're that big. I'm actually carrying both in the lens bag for the 35-100mm since I don't dare use it for the lens.
If Olympus would deliver the 12-40mm zoom lens (September 2013 announcement?) for which a patent was recently shown, and the aperture was sufficiently large, I would likely buy it, given that it was better than the 12-50mm they already have. I've seen professionals do good work with that lens, but getting around its flaws may be too much work for me. The 12-40mm is a larger range to my current ZD 14-35mm but if they stick to their "small and light" philosophy, it will have too many compromises, most likely. Should you pay over US$1000 for compromises?
Update 2013.07.08: DxO does testing on certain lenses to help with their raw development software. They just profiled the m.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 lens. As many reviews have already stated, it's not very good, but it's nearly half the price of the great lenses. It's somewhat better than the 17mm f/2.8 lens but that was really horrible from what I've seen. If the Chromatic Aberration is so strong that you don't have to look for it to find it, that's a lens that should never have been made--Quantaray, anyone?
I guess that makes me think about a new Four-Thirds body or at least one that will use the lenses to full capacity. It's been rumored to be announced and/or available in the autumn of 2013. I'll keep hoping.
Update 2013.08.20: How about a craptacular, tiny, Frankenstein's creature of a camera body for Four-Thirds users? I'll look at the E-M1 but at this point, I cannot see wasting money on something that will not be well-balanced with my 35-100mm f/2.0 lens. I'm not asking for something the size of the E-5, but the size of the GH3 or E-1 would be appropriate, not the size of the E-M5. I'm not looking to replace an E-410 or E-510, or E-620. They were too small and they weren't meant for what I do. They were casual camera bodies, which is why they were replaced with micro Four-Thirds. Those people seem pleased with the performance. I wish I could be. The GH3, like the E-M5 is good enough for professionals, who aren't in a serious hurry. Still, with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, things are looking up.
Update 2013.10.30: Looking back on this, I need to say that I'll have a 12-40mm on order. The E-M1, while good, was not a replacement for my E-5 or my E-1. Yes, the image quality is wonderful, but the handling is completely wrong for me. It's about the same size as the GH3 but the grip was completely uncomfortable and it's not enough to easily allow me to use my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 with it. I can't take a tripod or monopod everywhere I have used the thing handheld. The E-M1 looked better in person than the original photos I saw that seemed to show something cobbled together out of the parts bin. If they'd put the goodness in the GH3 body, they'd have a sale.
The 12-40mm f/2.8 gives me hope for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, as the 12-40mm f/2.8 was wonderful.
Update 2014.04.10: I got the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 not quite two months ago, and it has been attached to the Panasonic GH3 almost all the time. I have been quite happy with the combination, and it has given me hope that Olympus has found their way again, and that the GH3 is good for still photography. The color of the 12-40mm is much better than Panasonic's problematic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens that I also own. I'm sure I'll be replacing the GH3 as soon as I can trade it for the GH4. I have two Four-Thirds bodies and don't wish to repeat this with micro Four-Thirds.
The only problem with the "PRO" model lenses from Olympus is that they'll be slow in delivering them. The 40-150mm f/2.8 will arrive later in 2014, but the 7-14mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4.0 will arrive in 2015. That still leaves a hole for a 150-300mm f/2.8, which is a lens I would truly like to have--a lightweight 2x zoom with a lot of reach. It could be the sharpest lens Olympus will have made for micro Four-Thirds, somehow looking toward the Four-Thirds 90-250mm f/2.8 but without the down-payment-for-a-house price.
Update 2014.11.14: As the 40-150mm f/2.8 is available, along with its 1.4x teleconverter, things are moving along. In previous years, I'd be buying this lens, and possibly the combination of the two, very early to support photographing swim meets. I haven't been photographing typical high school sports this year, but have been at skate parks.
There are times when I need a longer lens. I have occasionally used my Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 on my Olympus E-5. (It's too much for the E-M1 and even for the Panasonic GH3 or GH4, which handles many Four-Thirds HG lenses well.) Using the 40-150mm f/2.8 could be useful when not able to move from a spot but it's not all that a wide angle. Using either the Olympus or Panasonic 35-100mm lenses, I find that there is no perfect lens for what I'm doing. Are two small bodies hanging from my neck a good idea?
I'm even more interested in the 7-14mm f/2.8 that's supposedly coming in 2015. I'm not a landscape type of photographer, but there are several occasions when I don't have enough of an angle to get everything. The 12-40mm f/2.8 has been good but it's not always enough. My typical thoughts were to buy a camera body with a larger sensor for occasional needs such as this. How many occasional needs will I have that I should spend US$4000 for a 135 Format combination or even US$3000 for a FujiFilm X-Mount combo?
In any case, Olympus has finally come to the table with some better than good options. Similar to the Four-Thirds days before the E-5.
This may seem nonsense to someone who had never used the Four-Thirds High Grade and Super High Grade lenses. Their standard series was, shall we say, sufficient for many people.
I'm not a snob about equipment, but I'd rather not risk my equipment on weather or dust. When I originally bought my Olympus E-1 in April 2004, Olympus only had weather-sealed lenses for Four-Thirds. I bought the ZD 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and the ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5. Those aren't huge maximum apertures but they worked well enough, and the lenses used a 67mm filter. I used the 50-200mm during three of the four hurricanes in 2004 and never bet against the seals. I shot, I dried and repeated as necessary. The lenses work quite well to this day, and so does the E-1.
The only Four-Thirds lens I have that is not weather-sealed is the fairly expensive Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4--the normal lens. You figure US$500 for a normal lens with an f/1.4 maximum aperture and twice as much for one that can be used wide open, unlike those from Canon and Nikon that have to be stopped down to get good sharpness. This one comes around US$1000 and works well wide open, as do the HG and SHG lenses from Olympus. It works as expected, except that I'm concerned that it might rain.
Now, with my journey into micro Four-Thirds, I have to pick lenses much more carefully, as though I was shopping for Canon or Nikon equipment. I prefer simpler choices. Currently, Olympus offers a great 60mm macro lens and the craptacular 12-50mm zoom. Yes, I get it, at 12mm any lens will distort more than a lens at 14mm. You have to use a more expensive lens design to get around it. The 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 Four-Thirds lens distorts apparently terribly but they were more concerned with the focusing speed than the optical characteristics, it seems.
Panasonic offers two weather-sealed lenses at the moment: the 35-100mm f/2.8 (US$1499.99) that I have and the 12-35mm f/2.8 that I don't need. Both are rather expensive for the plastic-y bodies, Made in China, compromises that they are. (Supposedly, the 12-35mm isn't a Made in China product but are they all from one country or the other?) As I've been saying, the 35-100mm doesn't really seem too much worse than what you get from Canon or Nikon--you stop down the aperture to get good sharpness. Since many people are switching from those brands, they'll probably be okay with the compromise. Given that the sensor in the GH3 is better than the one in the E-5, I can live with that under low light circumstances. However, compared to the ZD SHG 35-100 f/2.0, Panasonic's lens is not very good at all but then, I don't really have much faith in the Canon or Nikon 70-200mm either, though my opinion of the Nikon lens is more positive.
Olympus recently created a second generation of a 75-300mm lens that needs very bright light to be useful. The maximum aperture is f/4.8-6.7. If I was using it to photograph birds, I'd hope that they'd be out in the open sunlight. More likely, I'd be using the ZD 50-200mm lens with the 1.4x teleconverter and the E-5. I just don't understand where Olympus is going. Several people have brought up the point that Olympus is no longer including lens hoods. Most of their fanboys probably won't need them, even though they should be using them. I don't carry the 35-100mm f/.0 lens hood with me because I need another bag for it and for the lens hood for the 14-35mm f/2.0. They're that big. I'm actually carrying both in the lens bag for the 35-100mm since I don't dare use it for the lens.
If Olympus would deliver the 12-40mm zoom lens (September 2013 announcement?) for which a patent was recently shown, and the aperture was sufficiently large, I would likely buy it, given that it was better than the 12-50mm they already have. I've seen professionals do good work with that lens, but getting around its flaws may be too much work for me. The 12-40mm is a larger range to my current ZD 14-35mm but if they stick to their "small and light" philosophy, it will have too many compromises, most likely. Should you pay over US$1000 for compromises?
Update 2013.07.08: DxO does testing on certain lenses to help with their raw development software. They just profiled the m.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 lens. As many reviews have already stated, it's not very good, but it's nearly half the price of the great lenses. It's somewhat better than the 17mm f/2.8 lens but that was really horrible from what I've seen. If the Chromatic Aberration is so strong that you don't have to look for it to find it, that's a lens that should never have been made--Quantaray, anyone?
I guess that makes me think about a new Four-Thirds body or at least one that will use the lenses to full capacity. It's been rumored to be announced and/or available in the autumn of 2013. I'll keep hoping.
Update 2013.08.20: How about a craptacular, tiny, Frankenstein's creature of a camera body for Four-Thirds users? I'll look at the E-M1 but at this point, I cannot see wasting money on something that will not be well-balanced with my 35-100mm f/2.0 lens. I'm not asking for something the size of the E-5, but the size of the GH3 or E-1 would be appropriate, not the size of the E-M5. I'm not looking to replace an E-410 or E-510, or E-620. They were too small and they weren't meant for what I do. They were casual camera bodies, which is why they were replaced with micro Four-Thirds. Those people seem pleased with the performance. I wish I could be. The GH3, like the E-M5 is good enough for professionals, who aren't in a serious hurry. Still, with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, things are looking up.
Update 2013.10.30: Looking back on this, I need to say that I'll have a 12-40mm on order. The E-M1, while good, was not a replacement for my E-5 or my E-1. Yes, the image quality is wonderful, but the handling is completely wrong for me. It's about the same size as the GH3 but the grip was completely uncomfortable and it's not enough to easily allow me to use my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 with it. I can't take a tripod or monopod everywhere I have used the thing handheld. The E-M1 looked better in person than the original photos I saw that seemed to show something cobbled together out of the parts bin. If they'd put the goodness in the GH3 body, they'd have a sale.
The 12-40mm f/2.8 gives me hope for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, as the 12-40mm f/2.8 was wonderful.
Update 2014.04.10: I got the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 not quite two months ago, and it has been attached to the Panasonic GH3 almost all the time. I have been quite happy with the combination, and it has given me hope that Olympus has found their way again, and that the GH3 is good for still photography. The color of the 12-40mm is much better than Panasonic's problematic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens that I also own. I'm sure I'll be replacing the GH3 as soon as I can trade it for the GH4. I have two Four-Thirds bodies and don't wish to repeat this with micro Four-Thirds.
The only problem with the "PRO" model lenses from Olympus is that they'll be slow in delivering them. The 40-150mm f/2.8 will arrive later in 2014, but the 7-14mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4.0 will arrive in 2015. That still leaves a hole for a 150-300mm f/2.8, which is a lens I would truly like to have--a lightweight 2x zoom with a lot of reach. It could be the sharpest lens Olympus will have made for micro Four-Thirds, somehow looking toward the Four-Thirds 90-250mm f/2.8 but without the down-payment-for-a-house price.
Update 2014.11.14: As the 40-150mm f/2.8 is available, along with its 1.4x teleconverter, things are moving along. In previous years, I'd be buying this lens, and possibly the combination of the two, very early to support photographing swim meets. I haven't been photographing typical high school sports this year, but have been at skate parks.
There are times when I need a longer lens. I have occasionally used my Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 on my Olympus E-5. (It's too much for the E-M1 and even for the Panasonic GH3 or GH4, which handles many Four-Thirds HG lenses well.) Using the 40-150mm f/2.8 could be useful when not able to move from a spot but it's not all that a wide angle. Using either the Olympus or Panasonic 35-100mm lenses, I find that there is no perfect lens for what I'm doing. Are two small bodies hanging from my neck a good idea?
I'm even more interested in the 7-14mm f/2.8 that's supposedly coming in 2015. I'm not a landscape type of photographer, but there are several occasions when I don't have enough of an angle to get everything. The 12-40mm f/2.8 has been good but it's not always enough. My typical thoughts were to buy a camera body with a larger sensor for occasional needs such as this. How many occasional needs will I have that I should spend US$4000 for a 135 Format combination or even US$3000 for a FujiFilm X-Mount combo?
In any case, Olympus has finally come to the table with some better than good options. Similar to the Four-Thirds days before the E-5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
If you really believe that anything is going to break just from sitting in a bag, then 100% of the mobile devices should have failed already.
I’ve seen plenty of people claim that nothing happened to their devices, while the insides show anything from a mere bump to an impact from being tossed. Others claim that they didn't get their devices wet, yet there is internal corrosion.
You may have seen this article from Lens Rentals already that sheds light on various lenses.
I would certainly like to believe that all equipment is designed correctly. I've seen plenty from the inside out, that is not designed correctly.
Laptop computer hinges make for an easy failure. Most are designed so that even distribution of stress occurs--i.e., your hand goes to the midpoint of the cover and push it with even, light force until it closes. Many people grab a corner and slam the cover closed causing the hinges to fail over time. Is this a design flaw, a part flaw, or abuse? In my opinion, it's abuse, but exactly the kind of abuse a case designer should expect, for which they should try to compensate. If IKEA didn't test their inexpensive chairs for people plopping in them, would they be negligent? Of course, although people shouldn't expect much, if they didn't pay much.
Back to lenses, I've been using two lenses (Olympus ZD 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5) quite a lot since April 2004. They've been used out in hurricanes, in construction areas, spent 14 hours a day attached to a camera body. My Crumpler bag holding them fell from a seat to the floor, as well the bag was tossed into the back seat of my car by some idiot. I've yet to need service on them.
My Olympus E-5, 35-100mm f/2.0 lens, FL-50 flash fell from a seat to a pool deck in-between swimming races. I picked them up, and used them just fine, although the flash became less reliable, but then, it's almost all plastic, and later, it failed.
One of the first experiences I had with dSLRs was my buddy's Canon 300D/Digital Rebel. The lens was mostly plastic and a high percentage of them broke while still mounted to the body. No, you can't just drop something like that on a table or the ground and expect them to survive.
Besides this, "plastic" is a very general term that people put to acrylic, nylon, polycarbonate, and more. You've probably used any number of materials that are loosely defined as plastic, but that don't have similar characteristics. Strength is a matter of the material's design. Anything can be broken, given enough and the correct kind of force. Perhaps, you've seen the recent IIHS vehicle crash test ratings where 5 star rated vehicles were reduced in their ratings because of new crash tests that simulated real life better. If you don't plan for it, it's only luck between you and circumstance.
I've yet to have a lens break and while I've had a few phones replaced because of failure, I've never had to have a display replaced. I suppose I'm just more careful, but buying a proper bag or case never costs too much. My iPhone 4s was dropped 20-30 times while it was in my Otterbox Defender case. The case had minor scratches but the phone was like new after two years, although I only held it bare maybe five times. For that matter, my original diskette drives from the early 1980s still work. My 75 MB Seagate drive from 1990 still works.
In any case, the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lenses that I have used were shared among a group. They were all available a couple of months ahead of availability to be sold. In the case of a photowalk, we traded lenses quite often. Obviously when walking and talking and checking for traffic, you're not as likely to be careful with equipment. I used the 12-40mm lens on the supplied Olympus E-M1 as well as my own Panasonic GH3.
Were the lenses different than what you can buy? I don't believe so. Did they have an extra inspection to make sure that they wouldn't fall apart during a demonstration? I would believe that.
The lens felt better than my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens. It may all be perception but Panasonic made their lens feel cheap in their use of materials and finish. Optically, it's not very good either. I understand that there are measured flaws with the 12-40mm lens, which is to be expected. Fitting between my 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and my 14-35mm f/2.0 in both price and performance, I would expect the flaws to be in accordance with its positioning.
Unfortunately, I don't have the 12-40mm yet, due to my having to replace my water heater for a similar amount. If the 12-40mm could have produced hot water, you know what I would have chosen.
So, after all this blah blah blah, I don't believe that there is any huge flaw with the 12-40mm lens. They may not have designed and tested for unintentional abuse, which is a flaw in their operations. (You think this is bad? I have a horror story about a company making aircraft parts not testing them correctly, only to receive them later because they did not pass inspection by the airline.) Olympus probably should have put the 12-40mm on each current Olympus and Panasonic body and dropped it a few inches to see the results. If they did not, they were not designing for the real world.
Update 2014.02.05: This interview with Olympus executives seems to point to there being any widespread problem with the lens. Whether it's correct or whether they're untruthful is unknown. As a Japanese, I know that getting a straight answer on an unpleasant subject means that they're answering truthfully because Japanese people will talk around the subject otherwise.
Update 2014.02.20: I bought mine yesterday. I tend to treat my Four-Thirds lenses harshly at times, so we'll see what happens. (My Olympus E-5 and 35-100mm f/2.0 fell from a poolside seat onto the pool deck, and I picked them up and kept shooting, and one year later, still haven't had a problem with eitther.) I'm taking it out in the weather today, although it's becoming warmer at the moment, we're supposed to have thunderstorms later.
Update 2014.02.22: The combination of GH3 and 12-40mm f/2.8 have been together since the 20th. They've been in some odd positions in my car, not usually in the bag because I wanted them ready. If there was to be some stressful position, I'm sure they've already seen it.
Update 2014.02.24: It still hasn't broken. I guess I'll have to be ruthless, which is reasonable, since I don't know anyone named Ruth lately, so I'm definitely Ruth-less.
Update 2014.03.09: Still no luck in breaking it accidentally. The lens has been in the bag a bit of the time, but generally, it's attached to the GH3 and is somewhere near the floor of the car when I'm driving. While I'm walking with it, I haven't taken any more care than I do with the 14-35mm or 14-54mm lenses. The combination of the 12-40mm with the GH3 seems quite light but sturdy. If I had dropped these from a seat to a pool deck, I'm not sure either would survive. The GH3 feels relatively strong but I could hammer nails with the E-1 or E-5 bodies. The 12-40mm lens feels so much stronger than the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens that I'm shocked that the Panasonic lens was more expensive. I would expect that the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 lens is equally dainty, though its image quality is reportedly better than the 35-100mm.
Update 2014.03.20: The 12-40mm has been attached to the GH3 and when it's not out, it's in my sideways-opening LowePro bag, facing inward. I haven't been overly careful with it.
Update 2015.09.22: Still not luck breaking the lens, but the front lens cap fell apart, and apparently, it happens with regularity for some, according to a review on the GetOlympus site.