Micro 4/3 M4/3 superzooms: any consensus about filmlike rendering?

mike3996

Legend
Location
Finland
I think everyone agrees, when looking at MTF charts and brickwall tests the Olympus 12-100 PRO wins everything else and for a good reason.

So it's objectively the best superzoom lens to get.

But what about the subjective matters... Say one enjoys particular imperfections in bokeh, now suddenly the 12-100 Pro might be overly clinical and not one's cup of tea.

Wonder if there's an established consensus about a good enough lens (in terms of distortion, sharpness) that will also exhibit more of an exciting character?

A very remote distant dream would be a lens covering 14-100 mm (or more) with the exact character of P12-32 which must be my favorite zoom lens ever, any system.

People usually go on looking for character lenses in SLR primes or something but I feel like there could very well be a slamdunk of a character lens in a nice compact consumer superzoom lens.
 
Interesting topic - but I think I can't help you there. My :mu43: superzoom of choice, the Olympus 14-150mm II, and my not-quite-:mu43: superzoom, the Panasonic FZ1000 (yes, I know, not a lens, but the camera attached to that lens came "for free", so to speak) both render quite neutrally, not wild in any major way, especially on their long end. The 14-150mm II exhibits some green bokeh fringing in specular highlights if you're after that - I don't find it particularily interesting or appealing, though.

However, I wonder what the Panasonic 14-140mm lenses (all of them, the first, the second and the second of the second version ...) would do; there's also the Tamron 14-150mm ...

The Olympus PRO zooms are all exceptionally well behaved for what they are - I've even learned to appreciate their price; compared to other systems, they're not expensive at all.

I usually feel that the 14-150mm II is sharp enough, btw. Certainly not perceptably soft at 100% like, just e.g., the Canon G1X III's lens tends to be at the long end.

OT: My two "modern vintage" lenses aren't zooms, and they're only slightly "wild" near their closest focusing distance: The Sigma 45mm f/2.8 C and the Fujifilm 23mm f/2 WR both are distinctly "glowy" wide open and around 2ft. or closer (I'd say 0.5-0.6m and closer ...). This "overcorrection" can cost "feel". If I want "wild", I mount the 7Artisans 35mm f/1.2 on the Sony A6000 - more aberrations than anything wide open, but superbly charming images all the same ...

M.
 
µ4/3 is truly the promised land of zooms of various... erm, focal lengths.

Olympus 14-150 looks nice. Neutral and usable as you say. Perusing some shots from a review here Review: Olympus 14-150mm f4-5.6 II Weather Sealed I might say it's capable of nice punchy scenes with a little PP which I'm going to do anyway.

Panasonic 14-140 II might be a bit more on my radar because I've largely given up Olympus cameras (only for the time being!). But is it telling that browsing through reviews of the lens I can't find good examples of attractive rendering? Maybe not. The best demonstrations come from From Wide to Tele – Panasonic 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 Review and it looks like this lens is in fact a bit duller than the Olympus.

This is of course just my view.

Wow, the lens is only 265 grams. Consider Nikkor 28-300 which gets mixed reception and that is 800 grams alone.

Would love to some day take these two or three lenses and do some extended comparisons.
 
I can understand why you might not feel the 12-100 pro is worth it for what you want, but honestly if a superzoom with the exact character of P12-32 existied we would've all been aware by now, because that'd be very much good enough for most people. I'm not a fan of the Oly 14-150 for its flat rendering, the complex optical formula paired with not-so-great elements are to blame IMO and that's quite normal for superzooms, the 12-100 pro is an abnormality. Panasonic offers two 12-60s, one with 3.5-5.6 and the other 2.8-4.

If you're open to adapting, get a metabones speedbooster and I haven't tried this but the Micro-USM motor version 18-135 from Canon should be the fastest focusing lens, image quality should be definitely better than the 14-150, though not as great as the 12-100 pro. I have used the Canon 15-85 3.5-5.6 USM lens, it's better than the 18-135 and more expensive, don't mistake it for the rubbish 17-85 though.
 
µ4/3 is truly the promised land of zooms of various... erm, focal lengths.

Olympus 14-150 looks nice. Neutral and usable as you say. Perusing some shots from a review here Review: Olympus 14-150mm f4-5.6 II Weather Sealed I might say it's capable of nice punchy scenes with a little PP which I'm going to do anyway.

Panasonic 14-140 II might be a bit more on my radar because I've largely given up Olympus cameras (only for the time being!). But is it telling that browsing through reviews of the lens I can't find good examples of attractive rendering? Maybe not. The best demonstrations come from From Wide to Tele – Panasonic 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 Review and it looks like this lens is in fact a bit duller than the Olympus.

This is of course just my view.

Wow, the lens is only 265 grams. Consider Nikkor 28-300 which gets mixed reception and that is 800 grams alone.

Would love to some day take these two or three lenses and do some extended comparisons.
The Panasonic 14-140 mk II is an excellent all-round compromise, due to being light and pretty easy to leave on an EDC camera. It's great in good light. Personally, I prefer its rendering on my OMD EM10 mk II than my Panasonic GX7 or GX9, which surprises me a bit, but I think Olympus colours are generally a touch more lively. I haven't used pro lenses except O12-40 PRO, which I didn't enjoy for the extra weight and relatively short zoom range. Of the zooms I've had, the 14140 is the only one that's stuck.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top