Micro 4/3 Startling Comparison ...

[AndyH44]

Just had to find out what all the fuss was about the Olympus 12-100 f4 Pro lens, so I rented one to compare with my Lumix 12-60 f3.5-5.6 and my Lumix 45-175 f4-5.6. Now, both my Lumix lenses possess extremely good IQ, but I didn't expect them to be as good, if not better than the Oly 12-100. Testing was done at 12mm f4; 50mm f5.6; and 100mm f5.6 (didn't include pics as they were simply backyard images for comparison testing).
Yes, the Oly is very good as a 8X zoom and has great features. BUT, for the price I paid for my Lumix lenses (total < $450), I won't even consider replacing them with the Oly. No Way!

 

[davidzvi]

I don't have the 12-60 to compare. But maybe you have really good copies of the Panasonic lenses and/or a bad copy of the 12-100? Also you're using Panasonic bodies correct?

I know for me it's the whole package including the range, Sync IS, sealing, etc. Not just the great image quality I get.

 

[AndyH44]

No Pan bodies; used on an Olympus E-M5 III. And yes, I have really good copies of the Lumix lenses!
IF, I didn't know what I know now, I would choose the Oly 12-100 f4 for it's great all-around usability.

 

[AndyH44]

Did it again; this time I rented the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 Pro lens, and guess what?
I.Q. between it and my truly awesome Lumix X 45-175 PZ are practically indiscernible.
The physical differences are astounding! 37 oz vs 9 oz!

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[mike3996]

Impressive but you do get 1-2 more stops of light with the big Olympus. Certainly not nothing if you need it.

Is the power zooming an optional feature on the Panasonic, I think it is?

 

[AndyH44]

Impressive but you do get 1-2 more stops of light with the big Olympus. Certainly not nothing if you need it.

Is the power zooming an optional feature on the Panasonic, I think it is?

Oh yes, the big Oly is an impressive piece for sure. Just not for my needs/wants. It really confirmed the great I.Q. of my Lumix 45-175. Power zooming is the only way the Lumix 45-175 zooms; either by switch or control ring. Internal (no extending).

 

[John King]

Lenstip appears to differ, considerably ...

Panasonic 12-60

Panasonic Lumix G 12-60 mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH. POWER O.I.S. review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.

www.lenstip.com

Olympus 12-100

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-100 mm f/4 IS PRO review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.

www.lenstip.com

Not that the Panasonic is a bad lens at all, but not really in the same class.

Maybe it would help us to see what you are seeing if you posted your comparison photos?

 

[mike3996]

Not that the Panasonic is a bad lens at all, but not really in the same class.

Maybe it would help us to see what you are seeing if you posted your comparison photos?

Why, you on a mission to convince him to spend more money on a heavier gear when he's very happy with "less". Sounds much like a standard FF zealot turned loose.

 

[John King]

Why, you on a mission to convince him to spend more money on a heavier gear when he's very happy with "less". Sounds much like a standard FF zealot turned loose.

No. Just stating the blunt truth, as tested by most respected lens review sites.

People often see what they want to see, not what they need to know.

Just IMO and my informed experience.

AND the 12-100 is a mFTs lens, not 135 format ....

 

[wee-pics]

I've been working with this lens for over a year now and I can't follow what you criticize either, Andy.
For me, as an all-rounder , it's a superb lens when I don't want to carry three primes with me.
I'm no pixel counter. But as John pointed out, the test results (of many tests) prove it to be a prime zoom.
But each one to their own tastes and the amount of money they want to spend (I got mine half price fom a photo shop as a presentation model, that excludes even the price argument).

 

[AndyH44]

I don't recall "criticizing" the Oly 12-100 in my post.

 

[MoonMind]

To each their own - I know I adored the 12-100mm when I had and opportunity to shoot it, but I was more pleasantly surprised when cheaper and smaller lenses performed above expectations - in fact it's still something I'm hoping to see again. One of the first such finds was the lowly Panasonic 12-32mm back in the day - great little lens, solid performer, not flawless, but great for its size and price. My latest experience didn't come from a lens, btw., though the 12-45mm f/4 certainly qualifies for the "small" part and is quite the gem - but from the Nikon Z 28mm f/2.8 (I own the SE version): small, light, optically very, very pleasing, not quite on par with its twice-the-weight and thrice-the-price siblings, but still really nice. I love it.

It's easy to enjoy a powerhouse lens like the 12-100mm f/4, and to everyone who's happy enough to own one, I say: Good on you! However, Andy's take's not only legitimate, but quite encouraging as well. We're indeed privileged to be able to safe weight and money because even our inexpensive choices are good enough in most cases. is certainly great that way.

What is perceived as "better" may vary, especially in the light of said pleasant surprises.

M.

 

[JensM]

What I like in the particular universe of M43, is that you can actually have it all.

From light and pocketable to baggable and creme de la creme and everything in between. In the light and pocketable department there are certain gems in the lens line-up offering IQ way beyond its weight class.

Sure, one can measure this and that, and "objectively" find the very "best", but does it really matter as long as the user is happy with what's captured?

 

[wee-pics]

I don't recall "criticizing" the Oly 12-100 in my post.

Well, I did hear a touch of criticism in the phrase "if not better".
If I misunderstood you Andy it's all on my side, no harm meant.

 

[Brian]

The thing about lenses and testing: Lab conditions, MTF charts, distortion measurements, etc- often just do not mean anything when using a lens "in real life" on a digital camera. That's what lens profiles "even out". The big difference in these two lenses that "is useful" is the larger aperture of the lens that costs 4x as much. That is expensive. Absolute resolution using a camera hand-held, not so much. Distortion, CA- digital post processing. All the work that the Optical Engineers put into it to make an incredible image that drive the cost way up- "equalized" by some digital signal processor. "20 years ago", I had two optical engineers working for me. I miss watching them fret over every aspherical surface going in to a new lens.

 

[Brian]

What I like in the particular universe of M43, is that you can actually have it all.

My u43 camera has been used with the first "lens of extreme Rapidity", a Zeiss 4cm F1.4 Biotar made in 1928. I gave that lens to the owner of Skyllaney- my intentions, help them out in the pandemic. It sold for much more than this Olympus lens cost. My 85/4.5 Ultra-Achromatic Takumar, perfectly suited for my full-spectrum u43 camera. Fifty Years Ago: it sold for more than the Olympus lens (Looked it up, $1400 in 1971, adjust for inflation, is $10K now). These days- could trade it for a Leica Summilux easily. I can understand why the Olympus cost what it does, and why a much less expensive lens gives great results in everyday use.

 

[jhawk1000]

I can add my thoughts here. I worked for the early Nikon importer and Nikon was in my veins. In 8/2018, we went to Ireland. I had broken my right wrist 5 months earlier and could not carry all the weight of the Nikons so my wife took the D750 and D800 along with 24-70 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8, 12-24, chargers, batteries, and cards in a backpack. I had bought an Olympus OM-D EM 10 for the trip. I had an old Panasonic G5 and carried three lenses with me, a 25mm1.7, a Sigma 60mm 2.8, and the lens I used the most, a lowly 40-150 kit lens. I enjoyed the Olympus very much and came home with some great shots. I even had several from the Olympus and kit lens enlarged to 20X 30 on canvas. The kit lens did a good job but when enlarged to this point, you could see some lack of details which I assumed was because of the 16mpixel sensor and the kit lens. I gave one of the Sigma images to my wife to send to her favorite processor which she uses for her studio and it was just a tad sharper at 20X30 than the kit lens. To further muddy the water, I have extreme enlargements from our 20mp Olympus OM-D EM-1 ii cameras with the 40-150 2.8 Pro and 12-40 2,8 pro and a 45mm 2.8 Leica/Panny macro, and there is definitely a noticeable difference. I am not that critical but my wife shoots nothing less than the pro lenses since she stakes her income and reputation on her final product.

She has done large enlargements using the EM-1 ii which have been used for banners and posters but I really doubt she would have had the same results with the kit lenses. I had an Olympus 14-42 Kit lens until it got destroyed and I was pleased with the results but I am ecstatic over most of the results with the 12-40mm 2.8 pro.

 

[Brian]

I worked for the early Nikon importer and Nikon was in my veins.

In my veins too. How early?
Nikon used to encode the year and month of manufacture in their products, up until 1951.

Nikkor 1940s Set by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Five Nikkor lenses and a finder- The collapsible is a 1948 batch, all others are from 1949 batches. When David Douglas Duncan and Horace Bristol visited Nikon, these are the lenses that were in production. DDD bought a Nikkor 5cm F1.5 and 13.5cm F4 for his Leica, same batch as the lenses here.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Nikkor5cmF15_135_F4 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Took me 20 years to collect these.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Nikkor5cmF15_Sonnar by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Leica - Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5, the lens that got the attention of the World

I believe this is more than anyone else has written about this lens. I've looked for one of these for 20 years, after reading the March 1991 Pop Photo article on "How the West was Won". This is some history of the Nikkor-SC 5cm, F1.5, and a comparison with a "true" Zeiss 5cm F1.5 Sonnar "T" made...

cameraderie.org

I did a write-up on the Nikkor and wartime Sonnar. I also bought a first edition copy of "This is War" to go with the lens,

 

[jhawk1000]

Brian, a little before my time. I worked from 1971-1975, some part-time while in law school. My first Nikon was the Nikkormat FTN, followed by NikonFTN Photomic, F2a, F3, F4, F5, 8008s, 8008, N90, FE, FM, with all the accessories. I still have a few film bodies and quite a few MF lenses. In digital, I bought a D70, D1, D2x, D3200, D700, D 750, D800 S600, D 610, and I still have the D2x, D750. In my last year in law school, I worked there as well as freelancing as an aerial photographer for several real estate companies. Loved Nikon but that broken wrist and too many years caught up to me and told me lighter was better.

 

[Brian]

Some quick numbers for resolution of a 20MPixel u43 camera:

The sensor is 18mm on the longest side, and 5000pixels on the longest side. The lp/mm requires 2 pixels, the sensor can "theoretically" resolve about 140lp/mm.