Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: bengeo on December 08, 2014, 12:24:34 pm
-
Thanks for the review and informative video Kevin. I'll also be interested to hear how you find C-AF with this lens.
Just one point re "In Body Image Stabilization is the newest feature being added to cameras. Olympus was the pioneer with this feature ..." - Konica Minolta were the first to feature this.
Andy
-
I'm also interested in the AFC - are there any mirrorless cameras that will track as well as the DSLRs? I had hopes for the NX1, but while I have seen unfavorable posts of people's AF tracking experiences with the camera, other than video examples, nothing I can find contradicts what users are saying about the poor tracking results with photos. I'd love to be able to leave the heavy Nikon equipment home (the D3s and 70-200 f.8) weigh over 6 lbs - and the 40-150 f2.8, 80-300 f2.8 equivalent is under 2 lbs. That is very appealing, both in the range it covers, and the light weight.
-
Hi,
A couple of things. I meant to say in my article regarding Olympus and IBIS is that they were the pioneer of 5 axis stabilization.
As far as tracking of C-AF, Olympus does a pretty good job with the pro lenses. The new Fuji lens that I am now testing not so much, however that may be firmware related.
The new Sony a II however is a different story. We are testing that camera now and both Michael and I have ordered our own systems. The AF tracking in that camera is supposed to be very good. We'll let you know once we have a production unit.
Kevin Raber
-
First of all, thanks for the informative review!
I've got one question, though: When comparing this lens to an equivalent on FF, shouldn't you also consider depth-of-field? Although the 40-150 may be comparable to a 80-300 2.8 considering light-gathering capabilities, it is comparable to a 80-300 5.6 considering the depth-of-field. (AFAIK)
For me, depth-of-field is more important than light-gathering because (in most situations) I can simply bump the ISO of my camera, but I can never get less DOF when 5.6 is too much...
Stefan.
-
Thanks for the write up Kevin. I used the EM-1 with the 12-40 lens for a few months, in the hope of lightning up my backpack. Very nice camera and lens, and indeed the new Pro lenses are fantastic.
However, I shoot a lot of seascape long exposures, and the quality of image from the 4/3 sensor in that situation is still lacking. My Canon 6D with the new EF 16-35 f4 zoom provides vastly better image quality.
I am now eyeing the Sony A7 system, but will let it mature for a few more years. As a try out, I currently use for travel a Sony A6000 with the 16-70 f4 zoom, very good quality.
Indeed zoom lenses have come a long way!
-
Kevin,
Something interesting I found on sensorgen.info re the E-M1 is that ISO 100 is measured by DxO as having the same sensitivity as ISO 200 BUT ISO 200 has both less noise AND a higher DR (by .2) than ISO 100. This would suggest that there's absolutely no loss in IQ when going from ISO 100 to ISO 200. Does that match your shooting?
Sensor data for Olympus OM-D-E-M1 (http://sensorgen.info/OlympusOM-D-E-M1.html)
-
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for offering to test the AFC (or CAF). This is a function that is pretty much ignored by most testers. Most cameras can (or should) be able to track large objects like cars moving toward the camera at a steady speed. The difficulty comes when attempting to track “erratic” motion. An especially good (difficult) subject is animals, and the easiest animal to come by is a dog who will chase a ball or Frisbee and run back toward the camera with it. Their face moves all over the viewfinder and keeping the face (and especially the eyes) in focus is critical, and exceedingly challenging for most cameras.
It is interesting to read the posts of people explaining what is important to them. It makes me realize how difficult the job of the camera designer is - and of course they also have to compete with other makes priced similarly without encroaching on the sales of their more expensive models. I was hoping the specifications the NX1 touted might jar the others, causing them to give consumers more capability in the smaller, less expensive models.
It is always interesting to note when you guys actually buy the cameras you are testing. Over the years I’ve noticed that Michael’s take on a camera is almost inevitably the same as mine. It will be (as usual) interesting to read your report.
Thanks,
Bill
-
Kevin,
Something interesting I found on sensorgen.info re the E-M1 is that ISO 100 is measured by DxO as having the same sensitivity as ISO 200 BUT ISO 200 has both less noise AND a higher DR (by .2) than ISO 100. This would suggest that there's absolutely no loss in IQ when going from ISO 100 to ISO 200. Does that match your shooting?
Sensor data for Olympus OM-D-E-M1 (http://sensorgen.info/OlympusOM-D-E-M1.html)
I used the software provided by W. Claff ( http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/ )
(https://zkjxpa.bn1304.livefilestore.com/y2pwEvwCtq4gXNyoLqwDQdfgw7QGP_ABW2dBCennPxysgX9CUT3vMb3bfztbUHiwJ8Fj_kUxGw19fPQec0EPWIRub5ZejPHYLDTd00b6FINAn-NNC5RyvJHI04GVXmirQCr/EM1PDR2.jpg?psid=1)
-
As I was testing the lens and not the camera I didn't do a test and comparison like you mention. My experience though is very favorable with higher ISO use with the EM-1. I am quite amazed that with the small pixels on a MFT sensor that they pull off such good High ISO performance. And, while I will leave the Dynamic Range testing to those with test equipment to do it, I found that with Capture One I was able to with the highlight and shadow recovery sliders pull in some amazingly fine subtle detail in shadows and highlights.
-
Something interesting I found on sensorgen.info re the E-M1 is that ISO 100 is measured by DxO as having the same sensitivity as ISO 200 BUT ISO 200 has both less noise AND a higher DR (by .2) than ISO 100. This would suggest that there's absolutely no loss in IQ when going from ISO 100 to ISO 200. Does that match your shooting?
I suspect the E-M1's "ISO 100" is actually a higher ISO overexposed & then pulled down mathematically to 100. I never use it myself.
-Dave-
-
I've got one question, though: When comparing this lens to an equivalent on FF, shouldn't you also consider depth-of-field? Although the 40-150 may be comparable to a 80-300 2.8 considering light-gathering capabilities, it is comparable to a 80-300 5.6 considering the depth-of-field. (AFAIK)
For me, depth-of-field is more important than light-gathering because (in most situations) I can simply bump the ISO of my camera, but I can never get less DOF when 5.6 is too much...
IMO this has more to do with thinking about photography than actually engaging in it. When I'm working with an APS-C/H or m43 or medium format system I don't have an imaginary "FF" system sitting on my shoulder as well telling me what I could (or couldn't) do if I were using it instead. :D I take photos with the gear I'm carrying, and part of the fun is in adapting to the strengths & weaknesses of different systems. If you can't take the photo you have in mind due to gear constraints, change your mind and take a different photo.
-Dave-
-
As I was testing the lens and not the camera I didn't do a test and comparison like you mention. My experience though is very favorable with higher ISO use with the EM-1. I am quite amazed that with the small pixels on a MFT sensor that they pull off such good High ISO performance. And, while I will leave the Dynamic Range testing to those with test equipment to do it, I found that with Capture One I was able to with the highlight and shadow recovery sliders pull in some amazingly fine subtle detail in shadows and highlights.
The pixels of the Olympus has closely the same size as the Nikon D7100 which has a very good dynamic range. The dynamic range is independent of sensor size (as you know) unless you downsize to the same output size. If you proportionally make e.g. a print with the same number of camera pixels per output PPI then the DR will be the same regardless of sensor size. ISO performance should be as good as the Nikon D7100. The files from the Olymous just makes smaller prints of comparable quality, that's assuming same lens quality. The pixels on the Panasonic NX1 are even smaller than the Olympus. What you describe doing in Capture One can equally well be done in Lightroom.
Attached is the DxO measurements per pixel for the D7100 and the E-M1 and except for the lowest ISO they are pretty much the same in DR.
-
The dynamic range is independent of sensor size (as you know) unless you downsize to the same output size.
???... readout related noise depends on technology so much (take Canon sensors for example @ low gains)... may be you mix DR with SNR above deep shadows (per unit of surface), where photon noise dominates, but even there light gathering can be played with (microlenses, filters) - so you can get a very old generation sensor and SNR will not be matching moderns sensors of the same size (or one sensel vs one sensel of the same pitch) by a noticeable amount
-
IMO this has more to do with thinking about photography than actually engaging in it. When I'm working with an APS-C/H or m43 or medium format system I don't have an imaginary "FF" system sitting on my shoulder as well telling me what I could (or couldn't) do if I were using it instead. :D I take photos with the gear I'm carrying, and part of the fun is in adapting to the strengths & weaknesses of different systems. If you can't take the photo you have in mind due to gear constraints, change your mind and take a different photo.
-Dave-
I fully agree with that, but I was referring to the part in Kevins review where he says "The 40-150mm has an equivalent 35mm full frame focal length of 80-300mm. That’s a remarkable range and with the 1.4 Tele-extender you have a reach of 420mm, all in a remarkable compact lens."
It may be remarkable compact when you compare it to a 70-200/2.8, but that is comparing apples to oranges. I think you should compare it to a lens that allows you to take the same kind of photo's and when you do that, you'll see that this lens isn't that remarkably compact at all.
Stefan.
-
???... readout related noise depends on technology so much (take Canon sensors for example @ low gains)... may be you mix DR with SNR above deep shadows (per unit of surface), where photon noise dominates, but even there light gathering can be played with (microlenses, filters) - so you can get a very old generation sensor and SNR will not be matching moderns sensors of the same size (or one sensel vs one sensel of the same pitch) by a noticeable amount
??? yes, of course, technology makes a difference on the pixel level performance. I think you missed the point of the post.
-
I fully agree with that, but I was referring to the part in Kevins review where he says "The 40-150mm has an equivalent 35mm full frame focal length of 80-300mm. That’s a remarkable range and with the 1.4 Tele-extender you have a reach of 420mm, all in a remarkable compact lens."
It may be remarkable compact when you compare it to a 70-200/2.8, but that is comparing apples to oranges. I think you should compare it to a lens that allows you to take the same kind of photo's and when you do that, you'll see that this lens isn't that remarkably compact at all.
Stefan.
Yes, comparing an f/2.8 m4/3 lens to a 35mm FF f/2.8 lens is exactly comparing apples and oranges. A f/2.8 lens on a m4/3 camera is equivalent to a 80-300 f/5.6 lens on 35mm FF in terms of DOF. If you compare the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS lens to the Olympus they are close in size and weight. The Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR lens is the same weight as the Olympus lens and a constant f/4. This is the lens I now use on my Nikons and I sold the f/2.8 lens. The f/4 lens is even slightly sharper.
I have come across this in several reviews that an f/2.8 on a smaller format is compared to f/2.8 on a larger format. Clearly the larger format has a different DOF and if you are looking for shallow DOF then the f/2.8 on m4/3 is not what you will be wanting for. The equivalent on m4/3 to a 70-200 f/2.8 on 35mm FF would be a 35-100 f/1.4 lens. This would likely be as large and heavy as the f/2.8 lenses for 35mm FF. It would be great if reviews on this site could start to be a bit more objective in how different formats are compared. At the moment it sounds like a used car salesman promoting on format over the other. :)
-
Yes, comparing an f/2.8 m4/3 lens to a 35mm FF f/2.8 lens is exactly comparing apples and oranges. A f/2.8 lens on a m4/3 camera is equivalent to a 80-300 f/5.6 lens on 35mm FF in terms of DOF. If you compare the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS lens to the Olympus they are close in size and weight. The Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR lens is the same weight as the Olympus lens and a constant f/4. This is the lens I now use on my Nikons and I sold the f/2.8 lens. The f/4 lens is even slightly sharper.
I have come across this in several reviews that an f/2.8 on a smaller format is compared to f/2.8 on a larger format. Clearly the larger format has a different DOF and if you are looking for shallow DOF then the f/2.8 on m4/3 is not what you will be wanting for. The equivalent on m4/3 to a 70-200 f/2.8 on 35mm FF would be a 35-100 f/1.4 lens. This would likely be as large and heavy as the f/2.8 lenses for 35mm FF. It would be great if reviews on this site could start to be a bit more objective in how different formats are compared. At the moment it sounds like a used car salesman promoting on format over the other. :)
I wonder what proportion of readers here shoot wide open?
Because more often than not, folks doing landscape shooting are using smaller apertures (I'd wager that f/8 - f/11 are more common then f/2.8 - f/4) so whether or no the 50-140/f2.8 is a 2.8 or 5.6 lens is not so interesting.
-
I wonder what proportion of readers here shoot wide open?
Because more often than not, folks doing landscape shooting are using smaller apertures (I'd wager that f/8 - f/11 are more common then f/2.8 - f/4) so whether or no the 50-140/f2.8 is a 2.8 or 5.6 lens is not so interesting.
That can be a very viable statement, but the point is that the review seems to say that this lens is much more compact than a comparable lens on FF and that seems not to be true if you compare it with a lens that has equal capabilities.
Personally, I would love to use a camera/lens combination that delivers the same results as my 1DsII with the 70-200/4.0L in a smaller package, but it seems that with the smaller formats, you only get smaller camera's, not smaller (or cheaper) lenses.
Stefan.
-
That can be a very viable statement, but the point is that the review seems to say that this lens is much more compact than a comparable lens on FF and that seems not to be true if you compare it with a lens that has equal capabilities.
Personally, I would love to use a camera/lens combination that delivers the same results as my 1DsII with the 70-200/4.0L in a smaller package, but it seems that with the smaller formats, you only get smaller camera's, not smaller (or cheaper) lenses.
Stefan.
Have you considered the full frame Canon 6D? It weighs 770g (about 300g more than the Olympus) and is rather compact and much smaller than the 1Ds II. IQ is much better also.
-
I wonder what proportion of readers here shoot wide open?
Because more often than not, folks doing landscape shooting are using smaller apertures (I'd wager that f/8 - f/11 are more common then f/2.8 - f/4) so whether or no the 50-140/f2.8 is a 2.8 or 5.6 lens is not so interesting.
You are right that for landscape apertures like f/8 or larger would be the choice on 35mm full frame. On an APS-C sensor that would be f/5.6 or larger and on m4/3 the equivalent would be f/4 or larger for similar DOF. So yes, if you are shooting landscapes on 35mm full frame and you can find sharp lenses at f/5.6 then enjoy the weight savings. More realistically you can find very good f/4 lenses which in size and weight are very reasonable in weight. The challenge on any format is if the lens is sharp enough wide open. The other thing is when diffraction starts to hurt resolution. Was that your point too? As I pointed out some time ago a full set of f/4 zoom lenses from 16mm to 200mm using 3 lenses on either Sony A7(R) or Canon 6D the weight difference was 20%.
When not shooting landscape I enjoy shooting at f/2.8 or even less with more shallow DOF. I also shoot landscapes with flowers at f/2.8 or f/4 to have shallow DOF and nice bokeh.
-
Hi,
Lots of good postings…
In my view this is exactly the same discussion as MFD vs 135 FF. Very clearly, the larger format has some benefits when put in optimal use. In real world, the differences may be smaller.
Lenses for the smaller formats are often sharper and DoF is generally a bit wider with smaller formats.
Smaller formats collect a smaller number of photons so they will show more shot noice. But, due to the wider DoF it may be possible to use a larger aperture.
The way I see it, smaller formats offer more DoF in general, and equipment optimised for smaller formats is more cost efficient than equipment optimised for larger formats.
Best regards
Erik
-
technology makes a difference on the pixel level performance.
and on sensor level too if you are talking about DR... because at some gain the bigger readout noise can't be compensated by bigger light gathering surface even for current sensor vs current sensor (Canon FF vs Sony smaller sensor format), for deep shadows that is
-
…but I was referring to the part in Kevins review where he says "The 40-150mm has an equivalent 35mm full frame focal length of 80-300mm. That’s a remarkable range and with the 1.4 Tele-extender you have a reach of 420mm, all in a remarkable compact lens."
It may be remarkable compact when you compare it to a 70-200/2.8, but that is comparing apples to oranges. I think you should compare it to a lens that allows you to take the same kind of photo's and when you do that, you'll see that this lens isn't that remarkably compact at all.
Hmmm…as I see it this falls into the same 35mm-centric take on photography that I try to avoid. Though maybe Kevin's review does as well to an extent, so in that context I can see your point. But IMO m43 gear should be owned & used for its own sake. I personally don't care what focal length & aperture range I'd need on a 35mm camera to match Oly's 40–150mm. 'Cuz I'm not trying to "match" anything. I just care how the lens behaves on an E-M1 or other m43 camera.
-Dave-
-
Yes, comparing an f/2.8 m4/3 lens to a 35mm FF f/2.8 lens is exactly comparing apples and oranges. A f/2.8 lens on a m4/3 camera is equivalent to a 80-300 f/5.6 lens on 35mm FF in terms of DOF. If you compare the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS lens to the Olympus they are close in size and weight. The Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR lens is the same weight as the Olympus lens and a constant f/4. This is the lens I now use on my Nikons and I sold the f/2.8 lens. The f/4 lens is even slightly sharper.
I have come across this in several reviews that an f/2.8 on a smaller format is compared to f/2.8 on a larger format. Clearly the larger format has a different DOF and if you are looking for shallow DOF then the f/2.8 on m4/3 is not what you will be wanting for. The equivalent on m4/3 to a 70-200 f/2.8 on 35mm FF would be a 35-100 f/1.4 lens. This would likely be as large and heavy as the f/2.8 lenses for 35mm FF. It would be great if reviews on this site could start to be a bit more objective in how different formats are compared. At the moment it sounds like a used car salesman promoting on format over the other. :)
But if I am shooting hand held, you will be at 1/75 when I am at 1/300 which could be at least as important as the DOF. So the comparison is valid if amount of light is important over DOF.
Dave S
-
Yes, comparing an f/2.8 m4/3 lens to a 35mm FF f/2.8 lens is exactly comparing apples and oranges. A f/2.8 lens on a m4/3 camera is equivalent to a 80-300 f/5.6 lens on 35mm FF in terms of DOF. If you compare the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS lens to the Olympus they are close in size and weight...
I don't think there can be an apples to apples comparison.
The cheapest/lightest Canon FF body (6D) + 70-300/4-5.6L IS costs ($1599 + $1349) = $2948 and weighs (770g + 1050g) = 1830g.
The most expensive/heaviest m43 body w/IBIS (E-M1) + 40-150/2.8 costs ($1299 + $1499) = $2698 and weighs (497g + 880g) = 1377g.
The m43 does have a real cost and weight advantage over the Canon FF system. I personally don't consider the weight difference to be small, but others might.
Another thing to consider is what Dave S brought up. If you need shutter speed, then you would need to boost the ISO on the Canon FF 2 stops higher to achieve the same SS at F5.6 as the Olympus at F2.8. That pretty much eats away the 2 stop DR/ISO advantage of the FF over m43 sensor (and I'm not even sure the Canon sensor has a 2 stop advantage to begin with).
Of course you can use a 120-300/2.8 lens for the Canon and get back the 2 stops, but then the price and weight gap gets much bigger.
-
I don't think there can be an apples to apples comparison.
The cheapest/lightest Canon FF body (6D) + 70-300/4-5.6L IS costs ($1599 + $1349) = $2948 and weighs (770g + 1050g) = 1830g.
The most expensive/heaviest m43 body w/IBIS (E-M1) + 40-150/2.8 costs ($1299 + $1499) = $2698 and weighs (497g + 880g) = 1377g.
The m43 does have a real cost and weight advantage over the Canon FF system. I personally don't consider the weight difference to be small, but others might.
Another thing to consider is what Dave S brought up. If you need shutter speed, then you would need to boost the ISO on the Canon FF 2 stops higher to achieve the same SS at F5.6 as the Olympus at F2.8. That pretty much eats away the 2 stop DR/ISO advantage of the FF over m43 sensor (and I'm not even sure the Canon sensor has a 2 stop advantage to begin with).
Of course you can use a 120-300/2.8 lens for the Canon and get back the 2 stops, but then the price and weight gap gets much bigger.
You are absolutely right about the weight difference in this comparison. A 6D and a 70-200 f/4 brings them closer on range giving up a little on reach, but there is still some to crop from the 6D on the long end, so the difference is less than what one would think.
Regarding DR as I mentioned in a previous post, the DR is not depending on the sensor size as long as out ouput (like print) with the same DPI. And yes, the Canon is not known for DR, however the pattern noise is much less on the 6D than previous Canons except 1Ds mkIII. The quality of lenses from Canon in the last couple of years has been class leading. On the other hand the resolution from the larger formats are benefiting from the larger sensors. The same advantage you have going to full frame 645 format with a Phase One digital back. The DR is not better but the resolution definitely is. If you don't need the resolution, high ISO and autofucus performance of the best DSRL's, then benefit from the smaller form factor of the m4/3! Simple as that.
Here is what Dpreview wrote on the conlusions on the review of the E-M1: The E-M1 provides the excellent image quality that you'd expect from a camera of its semi-pro level. Its Four Thirds sensor is smaller than the APS-C imagers of its Nikon D7100 and Canon EOS 70D peers, but we think the difference it makes in real world shooting is hard to spot. You need to put the E-M1 up against a full frame camera to really see a significant difference in image quality. And thankfully, the image shake issue that has plagued some Olympus cameras does not appear to be a problem in the E-M1 as compared to the E-P5.
But still: my main point of view on the review on LuLa, especially on the recent ones on smaller formats is the lack of proper comparison with pros and cons relative to larger formats and apples to apples comparison.
Statements like: Remarkably light and compact with high end DSLR performance. and I am left to wonder what Nikon and Canon are doing as the mirrorless revolution seems to be leaving them in the wake. Maybe, they will surprise us all.
I find not only misleading but also not substantiated. Has LuLa been commenting or reviewing on Canon or Nikon products lately? No! Especially Canon has not been commented on other than in condecensing ways and in fact Canon has brought a number of great improvements to the market.
-
Hans . . . if you want apples to apples reviews there are plenty of sites that do that. We never even say it is a review. W give our experience using the products and our impressions. These impressions and images we show are how and what we saw. Yes, both Micahel and I are spending a lot of time with mirrorless these days. As I have said clearly while I still have the Nikon D800e system, I am leaving it behind more often. You mention the size and weight and try to find a comparison to Canon FF. What you are not comparing is overall size of a whole kit. The Olympus or for that matter the Fuji X-T1 kit is so light compared to comparable full frame kits that there is no comparison. There is nothing misleading in any of our reports. And, what is not substantiated? Have you looked at mirrorless options? The Sony A r II ships today. That a beautiful full frame mirrorless system. The Fuji X-T1 (my report coming soon) is an incredible system. Has Nikon or Canon offered anything close? I thought the statement I made at the end of the article was very accurate in that I am really hoping that both Nikon and Canon surprise us. I have not seen anything but incremental changes in their systems. And, I was and am a loyal customer of both. Another fact, walk into any camera store right now and ask them. They are taking FF systems in trade for mirrorless lighter weight options everyday, and at surprising rates. Look at the number of pros and press photographers that are moving to mirrorless. There are dozens of stories about photographers migrating to mirrorless. Mirrorless is here whether you like it or not. At LuLa we move and adapt with the market. When I make statements it based on my experience and using the products. You know I own and use cameras from micro 4/3rds all the way to medium format technical cameras and Phase One backs. Michael does the same and he is now using medium format Pentax. This is our passion and we share it with our readers.
So, your point is?
Kevin Raber
-
So, your point is?
Kevin Raber
Thanks for the response Kevin. Did I expect you to agree on anything I said? No ???
-
Cool...I still like you!
-
I am curious how the 40-150 compares to the Olympus 50-200 /2.8. This is a 4/3 (not M4/3 lens) and must be used with an adapter. It has been a favorite of mine for a while now on the E-M1, it is extremely sharp. The 2 lenses weigh about the same. Is there some non-trivial reason one might prefer the 40-150, more expensive with a smaller focal length range?
-
I am curious how the 40-150 compares to the Olympus 50-200 /2.8. This is a 4/3 (not M4/3 lens) and must be used with an adapter. It has been a favorite of mine for a while now on the E-M1, it is extremely sharp. The 2 lenses weigh about the same. Is there some non-trivial reason one might prefer the 40-150, more expensive with a smaller focal length range?
The two reasons I can think of are: the 40–150mm doesn't change its physical length as you zoom in & out; and it (based on reports I've seen so far, and as I'd expect) focuses quicker and with less tetchiness than the 50–200mm. I'd rate the former reason as trivial(-ish) but not the latter one. I also have & like the 50–200, and have a 40–150 on order. We shall see…
-Dave-
-
My 40-150 comes tomorrow and I have the 50-200 which I love and use almost as my main lens. I got the lens because I am 74 and have the means and want to scratch that itch and I would appreciated better focus (faster and focus box covers more of the sensor area). I doubt that I will be able to check it out to thoroughly because the weather is crappy. I don't do comparisons, I just use the lens normally for awhile and if I like the results I keep it.
Larry
-
How about edge and corner performance stopped down?
I'm a landscape photographer and my one pet peeve with m43 is that I've yet to find a telephoto zoom with good sharp corners at around F/5.6 when shot near infinity. Many of the less expensive zooms have great center sharpness but then get poor in corners.
From what I've seen of some user samples it appears the 40-150/2.8 suffers the same fate despite being amazing in nearly every other regard :(
But I noticed in your review those shots of the building all shot at F/5.6. Any chance of seeing full resolution versions of those or 100% crops of the edges or corners? That would be very helpful for my particular case!
Oh, and one thing I've seen from other reviews not mentioned in yours. The lens flares very badly. Being a telephoto with a good lens hood less of an issue than with a wider focal, but it appears the flare performance is truly awful. Make sure the sun is never in the image or just out of frame.
Thanks for the review!
-
What you are not comparing is overall size of a whole kit.
This is the key issue, I think. I don't mind carrying a backpack with FF DSLR gear up a hill; I really hate carrying it round airports and wondering if I'll find room for it in the overhead bins on a plane.