Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus  (Read 17461 times)

robertwatcher

  • Guest
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« on: March 01, 2008, 07:03:37 pm »

I am so pleased with my Olympus E-510 with 12-60mm f2.8-4 lens - particularly surprising (because I wasn't expecting it) is the close focus accuracy and resolution I am getting with it.

My daily working combo in Central America are this setup along with an almost identically sized (and look) Nikon D40 with 18-200VR lens. In the past I have been very pleased with the close focusing capabilities of the Nikon 18-200. When working side by side however, the Olympus is far more accurate and allows for much closer focus distance. Close up shots of flowering cactus' are an easy chore to precisely focus on with the Olympus - whereas with the Nikon, I routinely miss focus, with the senor generally finding a point behind where I had intended.

The Olympus 12-60 is very sharp and detailed - even wide open as this series shows. They are snapshots that I just threw together where I experimented with the Live View feature and easy visual manual focusing on the Live View screen - - - - things I can never do accurately with either the D40 or my D200 (manual focus that is).

These shots were with the camera set at 400ISO to 800ISO hand held by kitchen window for lighting (all uncropped):

CF cards - 60mm f4@1/50'th 800ISO  (bottom cards fall outside range of DOF with the lens wide open)


10,000 Colon - 60mm f4@1/60'th 400ISO


Coffee Bag - 60mm f5.6@1/25'th 400ISO (softening on edge is a result of minimum DOF and of the bag being curved and being much closer to the lens)


Processing done on basic Macbook ($1000 variety) using Adobe Lightroom for management and processing
Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2008, 07:47:43 pm »

Isn't the 12-60 apart from not being a super zoom also a lot brighter lens than the nikon?  More light == better AF.

That said the 12-60 is a very good lens.  Almost got me to buy it and an E-3 to go with it.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken there is a recall on the 12-60.  I don't think it was anything horrible but you might want to check it out.
Logged

robertwatcher

  • Guest
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2008, 08:16:36 pm »

Quote
Isn't the 12-60 apart from not being a super zoom also a lot brighter lens than the nikon? More light == better AF.

I wouldn't say that that is the issue. Much of what I have shot with the issues I am referring to, has been outdoors with lots of light where speed isn't an issue. I just think that the Olympus camera and lens is more accurate with the focus points in that condition, and has no perceivable back focus issues - - -  my Nikons including my D200 have always provided many shots with focus being behind where I wanted it to be (probably as much to do with my technique). The 12-60 is superior to the 18-200 when it comes to image quality in closeups, from my limited experience. Both lens were around the same price - both are around the same f4 speed at 60mm (Nikon is f5.6 at 200mm)  - - - of course they each cover a slightly different range.


Quote
BTW, if I'm not mistaken there is a recall on the 12-60. I don't think it was anything horrible but you might want to check it out.

Thanks for the heads up. Haven't heard about it. No problems on my end, but it will be worth checking into.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2008, 08:22:08 pm by robertwatcher »
Logged

robertwatcher

  • Guest
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2008, 09:20:48 pm »

Just checked - and it appears that the recalled lenses are in the range of 230005416 and 230010688. Mine isn't in that range thank goodness.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/...upport_1260.asp
« Last Edit: March 01, 2008, 09:21:20 pm by robertwatcher »
Logged

robertwatcher

  • Guest
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2008, 10:20:36 am »

Thought I would compare side by side my 2 camera setups this morning - to make sure that what I suspected (nikon not as close focusing and backfocus) is true. I know that I'm not dealing with macro lenses here - but want to maximize the use of my general purpose lenses. Here are my findings on an available carton of "leche" (milk). The first two images are both full frame from the camera.

I used the Olympus 12-60 at the 60mm setting and got as close as I comfortably could - focus may have still been available a tad closer. Shot wide open at f4 400ISO. This was shot handheld using manual focus with Live View:



I used the Nikon 18-200VR at something close to 60mm on the scale (turned out ot be 56mm) and move in close and then out again until it would lock focus and allow the shutter release to be pressed. Shot wide open at f5 400ISO. This was shot handheld using auto focus as manual focud is almost impossible to do accurately with the D40:



Conclusion - - - as I suspected, the Olympus 12-60 focuses much closer than the Nikon 18-200 at the equivalent setting.

Now this is where I knew that I had issues with the way I use my Nikon camera. I have shot many many tight closeups of flowers, textures etc over the last 4 weeks in Costa Rica - and the Olympus always seemed to provide consistently sharper images and nailed the focus point I was after, far more consistently than the Nikon. Up until this test, I have also used Auto focus with the Olympus 12-60 for those flower and texture shots and found that to be true. For this example I used manual focus on the Olympus to see how accurately the focus point could be held and Auto focus with the Nikon - - - by placing the Focus sensor directly on top of the "2%" text. Both camera sensors filled the frame with the "2%" text.  

Close up crop of above image taken with Olympus 12-60:



Close up crop of above image taken with Nikon 18-200VR:



Conclusion - The Olympus lens focus is nailed right on while the Nikon missed the point I was after and is slightly behind (which I have also found to be the case with my D70 and D200 Nikon cameras under certain circumstances)

-----

Don't get me wrong though. Up until I used both cameras side by side, I was totally happy with the closeup results of my Nikon 18-200 lens and I still use both cameras side by side for my daily shooting. The 18-200 is a wonderful lens for a lot of the work I do and I am finding out that the 12-60 is an awesome lens - particularly for the odd closeups that I want to capture. Only thing better would be a dedicated macro which I don't have and probably would not justify spending the money on.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2008, 08:08:18 pm »

Rob,
That's a great asset to have a camera/lens combination that does spot-on, dead accurate autofocussing. It wouldn't surprise me if reports from some quarters that the E-3 produces sharper results than the 40D and even 5D are simply due to a more accurate autofocus capability of the E-3 with whatever lens was used.

I have a problem with manual focus through a viewfinder. I'm long-sighted, need glasses for close-up reading and the diopter adjustment is at or near its maximum adjustment.

Manual focussing with LiveView is a great feature for critical work using a tripod, but most of the time I find I have to rely upon autofocus. If it's not accurate one's in trouble.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2008, 08:09:34 pm by Ray »
Logged

robertwatcher

  • Guest
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2008, 08:43:01 pm »

I agree Ray - - - I always use Autofocus for consistent accuracy with my failing eyesight. However now that that I have used Manual Focus with the zoom in feature and Live view, I will no doubt be using it more for critical  tripod work where I have the time. While I used Manual focus for this test, I was first impressed with the accuracy when shooting Autofocus in the field. Without LiveView, I was nailing the focus point more accurately with the Olympus lens than with my Nikon lens. BTW - I am using the E-510, not the E-3 as I won't be purchasing it until I return - - - but wanted to get a handle on the Olympus capabilities while I was down south putting thousands of exposures through it.


Here is the comparison of the look of my 2 setups here in Costa Rica. I am amazed at how close they look and have mixed them up many times when grabbing for the one I want. I finally took the black electrical tape off of all the logos (I don't any identification showing when shooting - and thus drawing attention to what camera I am using - - - so cover them all up in normal working conditions) so I could tell the difference.

I took this tonight with the only other camera we have with us - - - my wifes little point and shoot. I kept the flash off so holding my breath, the exposure is 1/6'th second and a little fuzzy at the back - - - but you can get the idea:




----
« Last Edit: March 02, 2008, 08:48:55 pm by robertwatcher »
Logged

robertwatcher

  • Guest
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2008, 10:01:51 pm »

Here were a couple of real life examples where I noticed that I preferred shooting with the Olympus setup.

These shots were taken first with my Nikon setup:





Even though the sensor was smack dab on the red bud, it misses and the focus shows on the lower areas which are farther away


Here is one that focused pretty well with the Nikon - so not all is bad -  - - - although I was aiming for the tip, not the green part.



--

And these shots were taken with my Olympus setup:

I took this same flower with the Nikon and it was not acceptable. I could try again, but why bother when this one is right on first crack






I set the sensor on the very small tip of the flower and that is what ended up in relative focus. Any miss ever so slight here was more a result of me not being on a tripod and shaking a little thus moving off off the puny target
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2008, 12:05:12 am »

Rob,
It would be interesting to compare an Oly 4/3rds body with 12-60mm lens and the Canon 40D with 17-55mm lens.

The Zuiko lens has the obvious advantage of a slightly wider range and the 17-55 has the advantage of being 1 stop faster at all focal lengths.

Checking out my current problems with autofocus accuracy of the 17-55, I find that this zoom is virtually as sharp at F2.8 as my Canon 50/1.8 II prime at F2.8.

At F2.8, the prime is 2 stops down. The zoom is at maximum aperture, so this is an impressive result. Edge resolution is also very similar despite the fact that the 50mm prime is designed for a larger format. Don't be fooled by the slightly different lighting conditions between the shots below. However, in this extreme pixel peeping situation at 200% enlargement, the Canon 50/1.8 prime has the edge by a very small margin of complete insignificance even in a large print.

When I buy a new camera, I want some clear and definite improvement that matters, whether it's resolution, autofocus capability, lower noise, higher ISO performance or faster frame rate.

The 40D has a faster frame rate and the manual focussing facility of LiveView. I intended to buy the 17-55/2.8 IS for use with my 20D, but ended up buying a 40D body as well because the price was so good.

But the only reason I even considered such a purchase was as a result of a very pleasant experience walking around with a 20D and 50/1.8 prime at night in Chiang Mai taking shots without flash. Flash seems to me to have a very harsh effect on photos at night, outdoors. You can't bounce the flash off a white ceiling, you get unwanted shadows like the shadow of a nose against a cheek, an inky black far background and a noisy near background. If it's possible to refrain from using flash, I'd prefer it.

The 17-55/2.8 IS on the 40D increase the options of being able to do this. When I recently attended a Chinese New Year dinner, I brought along my 40D and 17-55 zoom to take the obligatory snapshots. The first shots I used flash, then discovered flash wasn't necessary. ISO 3200 at F2.8 or even F4 allowed for a shutter speed plenty fast enough. I much prefer the shots without flash.

I think anyone with an E-3 and 12-60/F4 would be struggling to get good shots in these circumstances, just as they would walking around at night in Chinag Mai or any large city, simply because the 12-60 is a stop slower and the E-3 is a stop noisier at high ISO. That's 2 stops difference. Quite significant.

On the other hand, if Canon can not get my 17-55 to autofocus accurately and, if the 12-60 is simply a sharper lens, system-wise, bearing in mind that it needs to be sharper because of the slightly smaller sensor of the E-3, then such advantages of the 40D/17-55 would be offset.

The following shots were focussed at or near infinity. The precise focus point was the landscaped wall immediately below the car. From left to right:

(1) The over all scene.

(2) Manual versus autofocus of the 17-55 at 51mm.

(3) The 50/1.8 prime at F2.8, auto focus, versus the 17-55 at 51mm and F2.8, manual focus.

(4) Left side edge comparison between the 2 lenses.

[attachment=5384:attachment]  [attachment=5385:attachment]  [attachment=5386:attachment]  [attachment=5387:attachment]
Logged

robertwatcher

  • Guest
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2008, 04:52:51 am »

Quote
I think anyone with an E-3 and 12-60/F4 would be struggling to get good shots in these circumstances, just as they would walking around at night in Chinag Mai or any large city, simply because the 12-60 is a stop slower and the E-3 is a stop noisier at high ISO. That's 2 stops difference. Quite significant.

I'll agree with that. For such extreme shooting, I'm sure that the new Nikon and Canon cameras would have an edge, using that caliber a lens.

I hope that you are able to resolve your focusing issues. You've got a fairly serious investment in that body and lens. That looks a little different than the back focus and slight misses issues I experience with my Nikons in certain situations.

The new zooms with their ED elements appear to be almost equaling prime lenses anymore. I saw a similar comparison with a 50mm Zuiko prime and a new breed of Olympus 4/3 zoom and the results were similar to yours, with the zoom beating it out in certain circumstances.


My recent choice to invest in some Olympus gear again has much to do with my previous experience with Zuiko lenses from my OM days - and also the fact that while the new 4/3 lenses are expensive, I can have similarly spec'd expensive lenses from Nikon (probably Canon too but I have no experience) for much less in most circumstances. Also from my first experience a couple of years ago with an E-500 and still holds true with the new E-510 - the out of camera images are very pleasing and I have not had this experience with other dslr's I have used or tested (I am a JPEG shooter exclusively).

When I get the E3 it will be as much for the solid build and weather sealing. In camera image stabilization appeals to me, as does sensor dust cleaning, and increasingly Live View for shots where I can take my time - particularly with the articulating screen.

Frame rate has no bearing in my usage - I have always had motor drives on my cameras, but only for the purpose of advancing the film/whatever it does with digital. I have always only taken one frame at a time. With the tech sheets, I think that the D300 and 40D probably beat out the E3 in many areas, but they are all pretty even in general with each having appealing features. Based on my style of shooting and what I want from a camera, my choices tend to be based on other things than resolution, lower noise and frame rate.

I like to have an AF system that focuses reasonably fast and accurately in normal lighting conditions - indoor night scenes with my people photography are always bounced flash and so I can make use of the AF assist on my flash unit and don't have the same need for high ISO settings. I really need lenses and bodies that are protected from the elements I regularly work in. I have blown out 2 Nikons within a year of purchase, as a result of dirt and grime and moisture getting in through buttons - and have a couple of grindy and clunky soundiing lenses from dirt and sand and moisture working their way in. I change lenses in all kinds of conditions and so do not want to deal with all the black spots from sensor dust that I end up with with my Nikons. I don't want the camera to be too big, heavy or hard to hold comfortably for my handheld and fast moving style of shooting. I don't want to spend any more than I have to on gear that suits my needs. Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax and what not would most definitely satisfy most of my needs with their new offerings - - - I just happen to be really comfortable with my current choice of Olympus and the comfort level is growing as I fire off hundreds more shots each day and become more familiar and confident in it. I'm not ready for the investment in full frame yet and that or medium format digital may be the only formats that fully satisfy my resolution and ISO needs.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2008, 05:47:57 am by robertwatcher »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2008, 06:37:04 pm »

All good reasons, Rob, for sticking with the 4/3rds system.

As regards absolute image quality, it does seem that all the current DSLRs at the 10mp to 12mp level have very similar performance, depending on lens quality. Issues such as fast and accurate autofocussing, robustness, waterproofing, in-camera image stabilisation and wide choice of lenses which are all effectively image stabilised, are likely to be deciding factors for those who are not already locked into another system with heavy investment in lenses.

I'm still curious though, to see if there is any noticeable image quality difference between the Zuiko 12-60/F4 and Canon 17-55/F2.8. I believe PhotoZone will soon start publishing test results for Zuiko lenses. I imagine the 12-60 will be amongst the first tested.
Logged

robertwatcher

  • Guest
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2008, 09:23:33 pm »

Quote
I'm still curious though, to see if there is any noticeable image quality difference between the Zuiko 12-60/F4 and Canon 17-55/F2.8. I believe PhotoZone will soon start publishing test results for Zuiko lenses. I imagine the 12-60 will be amongst the first tested.

That would be valuable for sure.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2008, 03:08:59 pm »

Quote
Manual focussing with LiveView is a great feature for critical work using a tripod, but most of the time I find I have to rely upon autofocus. If it's not accurate one's in trouble.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=178750\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agreed, and so you might be interested in the news that Olympus has added 11 point contrast detection AF to LiveView mode in the new E-420, as already offered in the Panasonic L10. So this seems likely to be offered in the LiveView modes of all future FourThirds bodies. CD AF is not so fast, but can be quite accurate, so could be a useful addition. And with four brands now offering some kind of reasonably speedy AF in Live View mode (Panasonic, Nikon, Sony and Olympus), Canon cannot be far behind: in the "5DMkII" perhaps?
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2008, 06:55:33 pm »

Quote
Agreed, and so you might be interested in the news that Olympus has added 11 point contrast detection AF to LiveView mode in the new E-420, as already offered in the Panasonic L10. So this seems likely to be offered in the LiveView modes of all future FourThirds bodies. CD AF is not so fast, but can be quite accurate, so could be a useful addition. And with four brands now offering some kind of reasonably speedy AF in Live View mode (Panasonic, Nikon, Sony and Olympus), Canon cannot be far behind: in the "5DMkII" perhaps?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=179373\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

BJL,
With regard to contrast-detection autofocus in LiveView mode, I think Canon is actually ahead. The 450D, due out in April, has it. This is the camera I had my eye on. However, now that I have a 40D because I was seduced by the low price in Bangkok, it would seem like over-indulgence to buy a 450D.

The E-420 looks like an attractive alternative to some of the larger P&S cameras, but once again, when I look at the size and weight issue of specific combinations of lenses and bodies, the 4/3rds system usually seems to trade off at least some image quality features in order to achieve that saving in bulk and weight. Whether or not such features are important to one is another matter.

For example, the new Zuiko 28/f2.8 lens is amazingly light. The E-420 with prime lens attached (equivalent to a 50mm prime on 35mm format) weighs a mere 500gms. But the Canon 50/1.8 II is only 20gms heavier than the Zuiko 28/2.8. This lens is also amazingly light as I recently discovered walking around with it attached to a 20D.

The 450D with 50/1.8 is a mere 100gms heavier than the E-420 with 28/2.8. Whilst it's true that we're comparing different effective focal lengths here and that the weight disadvantage would only increase if we were to attach a 30/1.4 to the 450D, the converse is also true. The weight advantage of the E-420 (compared with the 450D/50/1.8) would disappear if we were to use a Zuiko 50/2.
Logged

Er1kksen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2008, 08:58:44 pm »

At the same time, the zuiko 50mm is made for macro and is of a much higher build quality than the Canon 50mm 1.8 or Zuiko 25mm 2.8. Given the difference in focal length it might be more fair to compare to, say, the Canon 60mm f2.8 macro.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2008, 01:14:46 pm »

Sine the 25/2.8 FourThirds lens offers a "normal" FOV of about 49ยบ, the only lens-body combinations that it makes sense to compare it to are others offering roughly that normal FOV. That excludes 50mm lenses designed for normal FOV in 35mm format but used with a 1.5x or 1.6x crop. None of Canon, Nikon or Sony/Konica-Minolta has introduced a normal prime for their mainstream "APS-C sized" DSLR formats, so the only options from them involve cropping the image from lenses designed for moderately wide angle coverage in 35mm format, which are them far bulkier and heavier than the 95g, 25mm thick Olympus 25/2.8 pancake. The alternatives that come closest are the Pentax pancakes of 21mm and 40mm, or using a 35mm format body.


P. S. There is a small irony here: overall the FourThirds lens system is dominated by zoom lenses (like most modern lens offerings), for example offering high quality 2x zoom in places where zooms used to be used, and has been criticized by some for its paucity of primes. But FourThirds now has two very different normal primes, the Panasonic-Leica 25/1.4 and the Olympus 25/2.8, while the Canon EF-S, Nikon DX, Sony DT and even the Pentax DA lens systems offer no prime with a traditional normal FOV, which would require about 28-35mm. (Perhaps this is because there is actually rather little demand for such lenses anymore, despite a lot of nostalgic forum talk.)
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2008, 07:30:40 pm »

Quote
P. S. There is a small irony here: overall the FourThirds lens system is dominated by zoom lenses (like most modern lens offerings), for example offering high quality 2x zoom in places where zooms used to be used, and has been criticized by some for its paucity of primes. But FourThirds now has two very different normal primes, the Panasonic-Leica 25/1.4 and the Olympus 25/2.8, while the Canon EF-S, Nikon DX, Sony DT and even the Pentax DA lens systems offer no prime with a traditional normal FOV, which would require about 28-35mm. (Perhaps this is because there is actually rather little demand for such lenses anymore, despite a lot of nostalgic forum talk.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=179618\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That would appear to be true. The Canon 50/1.8 is by far my lightest lens (weighing a mere 115gms) and is also one of my sharpest lenses, probably the sharpest. It's sharper than my 50/1.4 which, incidentally, I bundled off to Canon yesterday with my new 17-55 IS for calibration.

To the extent that camera weight and image resolution are important, I should be using that feather-weight 50/1.8 a lot. But I don't. I used to use it a fair bit with my D60 and 20D as a portrait lens. I recently used it with my 20D for night shots without flash, principally because of its wide maximum aperture. The lightness of this camera/lens combination around my neck was immediately noticeable but was a secondary issue.

Within reason and without resorting to extremes, I try to use the best tool (that I possess) for the job; not the lightest tool for the job which might be second best.

If the best tool for the job (within one's budget) also happens to be the lightest tool, then so much the better.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2008, 07:39:33 pm »

Quote
At the same time, the zuiko 50mm is made for macro and is of a much higher build quality than the Canon 50mm 1.8 or Zuiko 25mm 2.8. Given the difference in focal length it might be more fair to compare to, say, the Canon 60mm f2.8 macro.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=179439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, it might be more fair but not necessarily sensible unless you have a use for such a lens. I have bought lenses which I thought at the time were a good idea but found later that I rarely used  them because other options were more flexible and more convenient.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up