Olympus 12-100 v. Olympus 12-40 v. a Brick Wall

On the Olympus E-M1, I shot with the Olympus 12-100mm F4 zoom and the Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 zoom at 12, 14, 18, 25, 34 and 40mm, using F4 and F8. That’s twelve images with each lens. I then compared the four corners and the center of the comparable 12-100 and 12-40 images.

Because this was a brick wall experiment at about 50 feet, many might characterize it as a worthless experiment as it was not a "real world" situation. I understand this argument. After all, how often in real life is one interested in just one two-dimensional plane within a three dimensional image? Nevertheless, primarily to be sure it is working properly, I do this little experiment with any new lens during the 30-day return period when purchased from Adorama or BH Photo. 

So you can visualize the experiment, here is the brick wall at 12mm:

And here it is at 40mm:

I downloaded the twenty-four photos to Lightroom and compared them side-by-side using the X:Y feature.  Let’s make this real simple:  At 1:1 magnification I could see no difference whatsoever!  

I am so pleased with that result.  I had been ready for a small compromise in image quality in exchange for an 8X zoom range; but, it doesn’t look like there will be any loss of quality, at least when used in the F4 to F8 range.

I then compared the images at 2:1 magnification.  The first time viewing it seemed the 12-100 was sharper than the 12-40 at 40mm and that otherwise they were identical. But the second time viewing, due perhaps to somewhat different lighting in my computer room, or perhaps flip flopping the side-by-side images from the left to the right side of the computer monitor, the images this time seemed identical. Go figure! I think I’m starting to split hairs, and my eyes are beginning to cross. I think this is another case of too close to call.

Purchasing thoughts:

I think if I were starting from scratch with mFT I’d buy the 12-100 and not the 12-40.  The faster aperture of the 12-40 is appealing, but the 12-100 has a bigger zoom range.  Perhaps I’d supplement the 12-100 with a couple of the Olympus primes for those situations where a bigger aperture is desired.  If I were to pick two primes they would be the 25mm F1.8 first and the 45mm F1.8 second. On the other hand, to keep within a tighter budget, I’d buy either an Olympus 14-150 or Panasonic 14-140 travel zoom as my first zoom lens. Then, if there is any money left, I'd make the 25mm F1.8 my first prime lens.

Olympus E-M1 Journal: #10: Wide open 12-40 v 14-54

In journal entry #7 I wrote about my comparison of the 12-40 and 14-54 when shooting a brick wall.  Obviously not a real world comparison, but I do feel comfortable concluding that at F4 through F8 these lenses are (essentially) equally sharp, both in the center of the frame and in the corners.

I did not test the lenses "wide open".  So, today I went back to the brick wall to take a few more pictures. I suspected that I would see a difference when shooting wide open.  For the new 12-40 that would be F2.8.  For the old 14-54 that would be F2.8 to F3.5.

On older lenses it is often necessary to stop down a stop or two to get maximum sharpness.  But we are finding on these new Olympus lenses that they are at the sharpest right out of the chute at maximum aperture.

Well, that is exactly what happened.  I compared lenses at 14, 18, 25 and 35mm, all at maximum aperture.  On the 12-40 that was F2.8, and on the 14-54 that was F2.8, F2.8, F2.9 and F3.1 for those four focal lengths.

In all cases the 12-40 was noticeably sharper both in the center and at the edges. I won't show all 8 images but the results at 35mm (F2.8 for the 12-40 and F3.1 for the 14-54) are illustrative.

The overall scene at 35mm

To keep it simple, I am showing below 100% crops from the center of focus, and just two corners, the upper right and the lower left.  (The other two corners gave the same results.) What you are viewing are screenshots from Lightroom 5.

In the comparison screenshots below, the 12-40 is on the left and the 14-54 is on the right.  I used the X:Y comparison tool in Lightroom 5.

Center Focusing Point.
Click to enlarge this screenshot.
12-40 on left is sharper than 14-54.

Upper right corner.
Click to enlarge this screenshot.
12-40 on left is much sharper than 14-54

Lower left corner.
Click to enlarge this screenshot.
12-40 on left is much sharper than 14-54

Olympus E-M1 Journal: Entry #9: Winter (cold weather) shooting

Here in New England we've had quite a winter so far.  Since the beginning of December, Boston has received over 24" of snow total, in three storms.  I don't know what the "normal" amount is, but last year it was less than 4" during the same time frame.

This last storm dumped up to 24" all by itself, in some of the towns north of Boston and near the New Hampshire border.  Where we live, we were spared, with only 7".

Something that is unusual is the severe cold that accompanied the snow.  Obviously, one expects it to be cold when it snows.  But we've had temperatures far lower than freezing.  We woke up this morning to -6F.

Inside the house we were warm and toasty.  A comfy fire warmed us in the living room, as we enjoyed our morning coffee.

The weather forecast was for rising temps and sunshine.  Normally, I might have gone off for the day with my skis, either skiing cross country locally, or taking the short trip to southern New Hampshire.  But at -6F?  Not so much.  Even the promise of rising temperatures was not enough to move me off the couch.

Then I had the bright idea of testing out the E-M5 and the 12-40 lens, both of which are supposed to be "weather proof".  Who knows, perhaps equipped with this setup winter photography will become a new genre for me.

What I decided to do was to grab the camera, the lens, and a spare battery and head by car to the historic town of Concord, Massachusetts.  The center of the town still has an "old" feel to it, and there is a nice walk out to the Old North Bridge, where (arguably) the American Revolutionary War started.

My Little Excursion to Concord

I spent a total of two hours roaming around Concord.  As you can see, there were not a lot of people about.  When I arrived at the Municipal Parking Lot the temperature had risen to 5F.  When I left two hours later it was a balmy 15F.

The camera operated flawlessly.  It was my fingers that gave me trouble.  I used bare hands the first 30 minutes, then moved to a glove on my left hand for the second 30 minutes, and then decided I'd better learn to do winter photography wearing gloves on both hands... that is if I wanted to enjoy the activity.

Here's what else I learned:

1.  When you have no expectation for creating "portfolio" pictures, wear gloves on both hands and keep it simple.

2.  Create a customized "myset" with all your basic default settings.  For purposes of an outing like this, add 3 shot bracketing to your default settings.  I'm happy with 3-shot 1-stop bracketing.  But you also need to remember to set the drive mode to high speed sequential shooting, so that with one press (and hold down) of the shutter button you will get three bracketed shots.  If you want 2-stop bracketing, use the HDR feature instead.  Don't let the camera create an HDR image, you just want the three shots at different exposures so you can pick the best one of the three when you are home and warm.  The HDR setting is easier to use than the BKT setting because it automatically switches the drive mode to high speed  sequential shooting.  My myset default setting includes the P mode, Auto WB, Auto ISO.  I'm letting the camera do all the thinking.

3. Use the myset in "P mode".  I started out the day using EV compensation to get the "right" exposure.  Actually, this is very easy with gloved hands as EV compensation is achieved with the front dial and the forefinger.  But once I added BKT or HDR, I no longer had to even think about EV compensation.  Why fiddle in the cold trying to get the correct exposure, when bracketing will do it for me?  Basically I turned the camera into a Point  'n Shoot where I knew bracketing would give me at least one suitable exposure.

4. If you want to control depth of field, use your myset in "A mode".  I will probably use this next time now that I have some familiarity with the camera in the cold.  I didn't bother this time because I just didn't want to think about it. This was actually my first time with this camera outdoors.  As it was, the camera basically chose between F4 and F8 with the light I had to work with.  AutoISO always chose ISO 200, and shutter speeds were fast for these essentially stationary scenes, ranging from 1/200 to 1/1000.

Olympus E-M1 Journal: Entry #7: 12-40mm v. 14-54ii

I have owned the 14-54ii longer than any other digital lens.  I think it was 2008 when I bought my first digital SLR, an Olympus E-520.  Along with it I purchased the 14-54, and have been using it faithfully since then.  It has found itself on the E-520, the E-620, the Panasonic G2 and the Panasonic GH2, the E-M5 and now the E-M1, the timeline sort of in that order.  Of this group, I currently own only the E-M5 and E-M1.  As far as I am concerned the E-M1 is the best of the bunch.

As for lenses, I have always been happy with the 14-54, as far as sharpness is concerned.  It's a bit large on the E-M5 but balances reasonably well on the E-M1 with an accessory base plate from RRS (Really Right Stuff).  This base plate adds about 10mm to the height of the camera and snaps onto an Arca Swiss compatible tripod head. The required FT-to-mFT adapter adds some length and weight (adapter and lens total is 18.4 ounces with lens cap and hood).

But one thing about the 14-54 that has become annoying is the slow focus and focus noise.  Yes, the phase detection pixels on the E-M1 sensor have improved the autofocus of the FT lenses I own, and I presume they are now focusing as fast as they did on the E-520; but my FT lenses are still slow to focus (and noisy) compared with all the slick new native mFT lenses.  After experiencing the speed and quiet operation of several mFT primes and even the "lowly" kit 40-150, it's difficult to go back.

Enter: the 12-40.

The newly minted 12-40mm constant F2.8 zoom arrived last week (see prior post) and in time for some Christmas day antics.

The 12-40 is one sexy lens.  It's metal and without rubber zoom and focus rings.  I am thinking this is good, as the lens should hold its value better.  The rubber always makes a lens appear to be more "used" than it really is.

The 12mm wide angle is something that I have been missing on the 14-54.  On the other hand, I really enjoy that 54mm long end.  I'm thinking the trade off is about equal.  A bonus for owning the 12-40 will likely be that I can sell the oldie but goodie FT 11-22.  We'll see about that.  I did take a couple of 12mm shots indoors with the 12-40 and there seemed to be significant distortion.  I'll have to do some controlled comparisons with the 11-22.  Distortion at that wide an angle may just be the nature of the beast.  See image below:

Flash, 1/60th, F4, ISO 1600, OOC jpg, 12mm wide
Seems like a lot of distortion on the right side but perhaps this is
the nature of the beast.  Regardless, edges are very sharp!

Which lens is better: the new 12-40 or the old 14-54?

Well, I already reported above about the operation of these two lenses.  The 12-40 definitely has the advantage here.  Plus it is smaller and lighter.  Plus it has a nicer manual focus feature.  Plus it has a customizable function button.  Plus it is weatherproof.  And, like my 14-54, it came with a pouch and lens hood.

14-54ii on left with adapter weighs 18.4 ounces if hood is used
12-40mm on right weighs 14.8 ounces if hood is used.

To check out lens sharpness, I took both lenses outdoors to do some brief comparisons.  Nothing too complicated.  Just aiming toward a forest.  I shot both lenses at F4 and F8 at four common focal lengths, 14, 18, 25, 35.  There was a little breeze but I shot at very high shutter speeds.  The old 14-54 definitely held its own.  Using the X:Y comparison tool in Lightroom at 1:1 (100%), I could not tell the difference between these two lenses, both in the center and in the corners.  No difference in CA, either.  I need to find a brick wall somewhere; but regardless of the results of a brick wall test, I doubt there is any real world difference in the image quality coming from these two lenses.

This tentative conclusion on my part is supported by the data on slrgear.com.  Lenses are rated for sharpness from 0 to 12 with "1" being "tack sharp", and anything above "4" being "soft".  Personally, I have found that anything between "0" and "2" represents differences in sharpness that I can not detect with my eye, at least not in normal viewing situations.  Both of these lenses score between "0" and "2" at essentially all focal lengths that I tested, and from center to edges.

One potential difference might be wide open.  It appears from slrgear that the 12-40 is sharper wide open at F2.8 than it is at F4; while the 14-54 is softer wide open than at F4.  Wide open on the 14-54 starts at F2.8 and reaches F3.5 at 54mm.  I feel another test coming along soon!

One nice feature I appreciated with the 14-54 is its closeup feature.  When you don't have a macro with you, it works nicely in a pinch.  The 12-40 does even better.  Both of the images below were shot fully zoomed in.  The working distance doesn't leave much room for light or stinging insects, as it is just an inch or two between the front lens element and the subject.

Close up capability: 14-54 @ 54mm
about 2 1/8" across

Close up capability: 12-40 @ 40mm
about 1 5/8" across

The close up capability of the 14-54 came in handy here.

Olympus E-M1 Journal: Entry #6:12-40 zoom arrived Dec 24

What a great Christmas gift to myself.  The 12-40 arrived by overnight mail on Dec 24, just in time for Christmas photography!

I had preordered the lens from Adorama in the beginning of December so that I could take advantage of a $200 rebate.  Unexpectedly, it arrived just in time for some Christmas fun. Our celebration presented my first opportunity to use this new zoom.

F4, 1/60th, ISO 1600, flash

Holy moly.  The 12-40 is awesome.  Our grandchildren, at ages 5 and 1.5 are moving faster now, even when indoors around the Christmas tree, so fast focusing is important for "getting the shot".

F2.8, 1/60th, ISO 1600, flash

The focus speed of this mFT lens was highly desirable as I know I caught opportunities I would have missed using my only other Olympus standard zoom, the slower focusing FT 14-54 zoom.

No flash, 1/13th, F2.8, ISO 1600

This was definitely low light focusing and the lens performed effortlessly.  All shots shown here were at ISO 1600 and all but one was with flash.  For the flash images shot at 1/60th, I was focusing in ambient light that would have required ISO 3200 or 6400!  This would challenge almost any focusing system.  I didn't use the LED focusing light.  I also turned off the focus confirmation beep for a bit more stealth... stealth at least until the flash went off.

Two images below at

1/60th, F2.8 ISO1600 with Metz AF-1 50 flash

I love the addition of a function button on the lens.  I have it set right now for one-touch white balance.

The pull-snap focus ring adds some nice functionality to manual focusing. Though the focus ring will work on a fly-by-wire basis like all the other Olympus lenses (I have my menu set for S-AF-M), when the pull-snap is engaged instead, the ring feels like a mechanical focus ring. With the pull-snap engaged, the ring will move over a 90 degree range only, with a hard stop at "0" when the ring is turned all the way one way, and infinity when the ring is turned all the way the other way.

As is the E-M1 this lens is weatherproof.  I can't wait to try this kit outdoors this winter.