45mm vs kit

Plumballs

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2014
Messages
484
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
Real Name
Phil
Hi All,

I just thought you might appreciate something I noticed the other day.

I posted on the EM10 picture thread a top and bottom cropped picture I took with my new 45mm lens.
<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/128595981@N07/16144219191" title="aPC300050 by Phil Plummer, on Flickr">
16144219191_5c76cf85d7_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
"1024" height="533" alt="aPC300050"></a>

I took this picture more than once using both my new lens 45mm and kit lens at 42mm. I have been very happy with the pictures from my kit lens, but the 100% crops show the difference in sharpness between the 2 lenses.

14-42mm IIR was shot at 42mm \ ISO 200 \ F5.6
<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/128595981@N07/15971623148" title="Kit 14-42 IIR by Phil Plummer, on Flickr">
15971623148_6b0e201e18_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
"809" height="594" alt="Kit 14-42 IIR"></a>

45mm \ ISO200 \ F5.0
<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/128595981@N07/16157160651" title="45mm F1.8 by Phil Plummer, on Flickr">
16157160651_e1d5015b95_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
"837" height="618" alt="45mm F1.8"></a>

Both pictures are taken from RAW straight into Photoshop (No post at all) 100% view and then used the sniping tool to create JPG's. I appreciate this is not an unexpected result but thought people might appreciate my findings.

Happy New Year

Phil
 

fotomatix

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
33
Location
Canada
No denying the crisp quality of that little dynamo 45mm. Oly knows how to make a prime lens.
 

SkiHound

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
444
Yep, huge difference. Not really surprising when comparing a prime (not an expensive prime but certainly pricier than the kit) to a kit zoom. I had the 12-50 and was never very happy with the IQ. Wasn't awful, especially wide, but I'd used the 12-60 quite a bit and it just disappointed in comparison.
 

Klorenzo

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
1,905
Real Name
Lorenzo
In the the long half of the lens shooting at f/8 should really help the little zoom, you know, on stop over the maximum rule. Thanks for sharing.
 

LowriderS10

Monkey with a camera.
Joined
May 19, 2013
Messages
2,529
Location
Canada
The 45's definitely an excellent lens...I must have a freak copy of the 12-50, because mine actually comes close to the 45's sharpness...significantly closer than your 14-42!!

Just out of curiosity, what was your shutter speed?

Also...nice photo! :) Happy New Year!
 

LowriderS10

Monkey with a camera.
Joined
May 19, 2013
Messages
2,529
Location
Canada
I hope you don't mind me posting this...but since we're discussing kit lenses vs. 45 (and someone mentioned the 12-50 up above), I think it's somewhat relevant...here's my 12-50 vs. the 45 comparison...definitely much closer than the 14-42 vs 45:

16163515051_12d06d5833_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
1250vs45 by canonzenit, on Flickr
 

Ulfric M Douglas

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
3,711
Location
Northumberland
I am actually surprised at the OP's results and I think he's just got a 14-42 (of unspecified model) which is soft at 42mm and that aperture.
I didn't see such differences in various tests over the years ... except some examples of the second Lumix kit lens, the plastic-skinned 14-42 which came out with kits after they stopped shipping the 14-45, although I never owned one of those particular Lumix 14-42 I saw numerous threads of disappointment.
(There are sharp examples of that lens too)
 

Plumballs

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2014
Messages
484
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
Real Name
Phil
Hi Again,

The object of my post was not to disrespect my Olympus Digital M.Zuiko 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 II R kit lens in any way. Unless I am pixel peeping with it the results are very good and I have posted quite a few pictures onto the EM10 picture site. These examples in this post are 100% crops and I was amazed at the 45mm results, as you can count every tile and brick on that house and pick out the blades of grass in the border. I think I could blow these pictures up to a very large scale and it still be very good.

The 12-50 example does look a lot closer than mine, but unfortunately there is not the same level of detail in the shot. Looking at the blades in the air-con fans I would say my shot with the 45mm is actually a little bit sharper but I could be wrong.

When I get the chance I will do some proper testing and post the results as I feel my kit lens should do a little better than it has done. But we shall see.

Have fun

Phil
 

Ulfric M Douglas

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
3,711
Location
Northumberland
Heh :smile: I just popped out the back door to take a few test photos of the big old streetlamp at the corner of my garden,
but the light is so awful ... my 45mm did indeed beat this 14-42MkIIR at f5.6, but ironically I got even more detail at f1.8 simply because of the horrible light levels.
 

Plumballs

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2014
Messages
484
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
Real Name
Phil
Hi All,

Today in my dinner break I did a similar test as before with a similar result, so I am happier now. I do prefer the framing of the 14-42 picture, but there is no denying the bricks on the building with the 45mm at 100% are a heck of a lot clearer.

14-42mm Church Pic.1/200s / F11 / ISO200
<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/128595981@N07/15557973293" title="P1020076.14-42 by Phil Plummer, on Flickr">
15557973293_c12285b554_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
"1024" height="768" alt="P1020076.14-42"></a>


14-42mm left house at 100% crop
<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/128595981@N07/15557958073" title="Church House Kit 14-42 IIR by Phil Plummer, on Flickr">
15557958073_45ea163749_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
"611" height="600" alt="Church House Kit 14-42 IIR"></a>

45mm Church Pic 1/200s / F10 /ISO200
<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/128595981@N07/16175896421" title="P1020059 by Phil Plummer, on Flickr">
16175896421_990f1c91b7_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
"1024" height="768" alt="P1020059"></a>

45mm left house 100% crop (love counting them bricks)
<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/128595981@N07/16151944726" title="Church House 45mm F1.8 by Phil Plummer, on Flickr">
16151944726_efe2d2c7c1_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
"713" height="630" alt="Church House 45mm F1.8"></a>

Thanks all

Phil
 

Growltiger

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
2,166
Location
UK
At f/11 you are at the diffraction limit. Try again at f/5.6 so you are sure you are well short of it.
 

Plumballs

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2014
Messages
484
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
Real Name
Phil
Hi Growltiger,

I was trying to give the kit a better comparison as it was wide open at F5 on the first post. Will F5.6 be the 45mm sweet spot then and so that's why the difference was more striking on the first comparison?

I will try same again at F5.6 to compare.

Thanks

Phil
 

LowriderS10

Monkey with a camera.
Joined
May 19, 2013
Messages
2,529
Location
Canada
Hi Growltiger,

I was trying to give the kit a better comparison as it was wide open at F5 on the first post. Will F5.6 be the 45mm sweet spot then and so that's why the difference was more striking on the first comparison?

I will try same again at F5.6 to compare.

Thanks

Phil

I understand what you were trying to do, but the one or two stops from wide open rule doesn't really hold up with slower M4/3 lenses. Many of our slower lenses hit their peak resolution wide open, as anything less than that is the diffraction limit. I usually try to keep it around f4-5.6 regardless of the maximum aperture (whereas with my old DSLRs, I'd try to stop down a stop or two from wide open).

Your second example certainly looks better...I don't think it was ever answered, so I'll ask again, if you don't mind...what was your shutter speed for the first set of pictures?
 

ronk

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 26, 2014
Messages
99
Location
Twin Cities, MN
Real Name
Ron
Assume you're relating to Oly lenses here, and the sharpness of the 45 1.8, right? What about the panasonic 14-45 vs. the panasonic 14-42? I swapped one out for the other, because reviewers said the former is sharper. Mainly, though, it's the smooth zooming on the panny 14-45 that's better to me.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom