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 #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.

Sony E 16-70 F4: Part 3: Not as sharp as Olympus 14-54ii

See also:
Part 1
Part 2

Using the 'ol brick wall technique, in this post (Part 3) I am comparing the sharpness of the Sony E 16-70 on a NEX6 and the Olympus 14-54ii on the E-M5. Due to the crop factor differences (1.5x for Sony and 2x of Olympus) the effective field of view of these two lenses is actually very similar:  24-105 for the Sony and 28-108 for the Olympus.

I shot a brick wall at five different focal lengths using F4, F5.6, F8, F11, and F16 at each focal length. That's five f-stops and five focal lengths. That's a total of 25 tests with each lens, and a overall total of 50 images.  All of these can be viewed larger and downloaded in full size here.

I used a single center focus point and aimed at the same spot in all images. They were all hand held, but all shutter speeds were "safe" speeds of at least 1/ focal length.  Image stabilization was "on".

Below is what the brick wall scene looked like at five focal lengths.  The ones shown here are the Olympus version, as is obvious by the 4:3 aspect ratio.  The Sony images are a bit wider and less tall due to the 3:2 aspect ratio. Remember, the field of view is defined by the diagonal dimension.

28mm equivalent

35mm equivalent

50mm equivalent

70-75mm equivalent

105-108mm equivalent

All images were shot in RAW and processed at default Adobe settings in Lightroom 5.  I viewed all the images in Lightroom using the X:Y comparison tool, and at 200% (2:1) on my 24" HD monitor. I compared center sharpness and then corner sharpness.

What I found:

Center Sharpness:

Both lenses were similar in the center, and I believe sharp enough for any situation.  In 23 tests I found the two lens to be identical.  In two tests, I thought the Sony was slightly better.  But remember, this is while examining at 200% and even then the center sharpness difference in those two instances was barely noticeable.

Edge Sharpness:

The Olympus is clearly sharper.  In 21 tests the Olympus was sharper, having at least three corners sharper than the Sony corners.  In one test the Sony corners were sharper. In three tests the two lenses were equal.

Example:

Here's a sample comparison with both combinations  taken at 50mm-equiv, F5.6, aperture priority, base ISO.

Below are 1:1 crops from the center. Both lenses are sharp in the center.

Olympus.  100% center crop. Very sharp.

Sony. 100%  center crop.  Very sharp.

Below are 1:1 crops from the upper right corner.  (1:1 crops are a lot kinder to the Sony than the 2:1 crops I viewed on my monitor.) Though both cameras are 16mp cameras, the compositions are a bit different due to the different aspect ratios.  At 4:3, the Olympus gets a bit taller image; at 3:2 the Sony gets a bit wider image.  

The Olympus is quite obviously sharper.  

Olympus.  100% crop from upper right corner.  Sharp.
(But more distortion than Sony... easily fixed in Lightroom)

Sony.  100% crop from upper right.  Not sharp. 

Other considerations:

I was testing for sharpness.  The Olympus was superior.  On the other hand, the Olympus has some old technology in it.  It focuses slowly on micro 43 bodies and is noisy.  It also suffers from more chromatic aberration and distortion than does the Sony.  The 14-54ii weighs nearly 16 ounces (17.5 ounces with the necessary adapter), while the Sony is smaller and weighs under 11 ounces.

It is also important not to forget about the 24mm-equiv. wide angle of the Sony. My own experience in the field is that with a lens like this one, 25%-33% of my shots would be at 24mm-equiv.

Perhaps the biggest consideration is price.  The Sony costs $1,000 while the Olympus 14-54ii can be bought on eBay for under $300.

The Sony is a "good enough" lens.  Even though it is softer in the corners than the Olympus, the corners are nevertheless sharper than what I am getting on the Sony 16-50 kit lens and on my Panasonic LX5, both of which are sufficiently sharp for 95% of my needs. I also think that you are getting a lot of lens from its 11 ounce body.  Its ergonomics on the NEX 6 body is wonderful in my opinion. And again, don't forget about that 24mm wide angle.

However, for myself, I am seriously considering returning the lens.  Yes, it is "good enough".  I love the feel of the NEX body and this is my only option for a mid-range zoom with beyond-kit quality.  The question for me is if it is worth $1,000... in light of what I already own in Olympus gear.

Sony E 16-70 F4: Part 2: Compared to Olympus 14-54ii

Also see:
Part 1
Part 3

With the new Sony E 16-70 attached to my NEX 6 (see prior post), I walked out the door with two camera-lens combinations to test against each other. The other combination was an Olympus E-M5 with my oldest digital lens, the well-respected 14-54ii designed for 4/3 cameras.  I used it with the Olympus adapter to fit the 4/3 lens onto the m4/3 mount.

The Olympus is on the left.  With the 4/3-to-m4/3 adapter the Olympus 14-54ii zoom
 weighs 17.7 ounces and is larger than the Sony lens.
The Sony lens weighs 11 ounces.

The 14-54ii has been my favorite zoom for many years, having been with me previously on an Olympus E-520 and E-620, and a Panasonic G2 and GH2.  With an effective focal length of 28-108mm it's been (almost) perfect for me for travel, landscapes and people pictures. However, the Sony is equivalent to 24-105mm, and it is the 24mm-equiv. wide angle that attracts me to it. Also, it focuses much faster and far quieter than does the Olympus combination. I didn't test either one for video.

For me to keep this lens it must be at least as sharp as the 14-54ii, both in the center and in the corners. (Otherwise, it is going back.)

Tonight I will evaluate the results of my little "shoot-out" and publish my thoughts in a follow up post (hopefully, tomorrow).