A3 Prints from files taken on Zuiko 40-150 F4 - 5.6

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by Jeff Worsnop, May 31, 2016.

  1. Jeff Worsnop

    Jeff Worsnop Mu-43 Regular

    51
    May 20, 2016
    Jeff Worsnop
    Can anyone advise if prints about A3 size from the above lens are visibly worse from normal viewing distance than those taken with the 14-150 f2.8? I appreciate the build quality a nd wider aperture are significant but image quality is what bothers me.
    I am moving from Sony A system using mainly using a Zeiss 16-80mm and because money is a bit tight would have to buy the cheaper lens and because I often print to A3 the question is important to me.
    I should add that the small size of m4/3 is the main attraction so using my heavy Sony lenses is not what I want to do. Same goes for OM system glass.
    Cheers
    Jeff
     
  2. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    I once entered 4 prints (A2 size!...so twice as big as A3) in an exhibition. One was taken with a Canon 5D Mark II and 16-35L II, one was taken with a Canon 1D Mark III (APS-H) and L lens, and two with the OM-D E-M5 (one with the 9-18, the other with the 75 1.8). Not one person in over a month was able to correctly identify which print was made with which camera.

    I think you'll be fine with the E-M1 :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. PakkyT

    PakkyT Mu-43 Top Veteran

    767
    Jun 20, 2015
    New England
    I would argue that there are virtually NO currently sold cameras or lenses that could not produce great A3 sized prints. I have a bigger prints than that that look fantastic from my old Olympus 4MP camera with a fixed lens and a tiny sensor. These days large prints at normal viewing distances look great on just about everything made in the last decade.
     
    • Agree Agree x 8
  4. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    Luke
    I agree with PakkyT. We have passed the point of acceptable quality for A3 prints from most digital cameras a couple years ago
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. Ramsey

    Ramsey Mu-43 Top Veteran

    719
    Jan 9, 2013
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Kit telephoto zoom can produce relatively sharp images in daylight. For A3, it cam be used, of course depending on the actual photo and your level of proneness to pixel peeping.

    That said, i'd consider the Panasonic 45-175, for some reason they can be found cheap used. Beware of copy variation (that goes for both lenses).
     
  6. CWRailman

    CWRailman Mu-43 Top Veteran

    564
    Jun 2, 2015
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Denny
  7. Jeff Worsnop

    Jeff Worsnop Mu-43 Regular

    51
    May 20, 2016
    Jeff Worsnop
    Thanks for reply.
    I would like the possibility of owning any of the Olympus equipment referred to.
    Cheers
    Jeff
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Jeff Worsnop

    Jeff Worsnop Mu-43 Regular

    51
    May 20, 2016
    Jeff Worsnop
    Thanks to you and PakkyT for replies.
    Very reassuring.
    Cheers
    Jeff
     
  9. Jeff Worsnop

    Jeff Worsnop Mu-43 Regular

    51
    May 20, 2016
    Jeff Worsnop
    Thanks for reply.
    The word " relatively" bothers me. And I am bothered about the intangible of how the image looks. I suspect I would be tempted to do a side by side comparison with my Zeiss 16-80 and be uncomfortable if the Zeiss gave a more pleasing rendition.
    Thanks for the Panasonic 45-175 tip.
    Cheers
    Jeff
     
  10. Jeff Worsnop

    Jeff Worsnop Mu-43 Regular

    51
    May 20, 2016
    Jeff Worsnop
    Thanks for reply
    The empoyee shot is certainly sharp on screen.
    I have seen the thread you highlighted but not read all 60 pages although I have read a sample of the pages.
    However I don't think viewing images on my IPad, even with retina display, is as testing as an A3 print viewed from normal viewing distance. I have the old fashioned idea from darkroom days that a fine print is the pinacle of amateur photography so that is what I am mainly interested in.
    I have just got the EM10 plus 14-42 at a discounted price,probably because the mk2 version is on sale, and I am mightily impressed with the small size, wide range of shooting options and quality feel. I have seen the 40-150 f4 R version for sale here for £99 and am tempted to jump in while the deal is available even though I have not yet given the 14-42 a proper work out. I will probably save up money to buy a prime or two but not for some time.
    As an aside I am now selling a range of Zuiko OM and OM fit lenses for my neighbour who got them as a bequest from his uncle, and apart from the 28 and 50mm primes seem mighty big - especially the 600mm prime! But I think I may keep the 50mm macro for myself
    Jeff
     
  11. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    i've own both 40-150s, and have a larger than A2 print made from the cheap 3.5-5.6 version, it's quite good as long as you've got accurate focus, the 2.8 version is always better though.
     
  12. Jeff Worsnop

    Jeff Worsnop Mu-43 Regular

    51
    May 20, 2016
    Jeff Worsnop
    Thanks for reply.
    As I suspected there is a compromise on quality. The words " quite good" set alarm bells ringing. Need to do some serious saving.
    Jeff
     
  13. Ramsey

    Ramsey Mu-43 Top Veteran

    719
    Jan 9, 2013
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Well, to be brutally honest, you can't honestly expect to have premium quality on a lens which is (new) often sold at $100.

    I'm not going to go into the argument of viewing distance of images that large. You probably know that.

    While the A3 is roughly 30x40cm, I normally print 20x30cm. Those are sharp taking into consideration the viewing distance and the subject matter. One print i do have in 40x50cm (so, larger than A3) is plently sharp where it needs to be. Even at the viewing distance of 10-20cm, the eyelashes are tack sharp. Picture was taken with the Oly25mm wide open and since it is a portrait, i don't care about the sharpness across the frame.
    Why i'm saying that is bcs i didn't catch in the original post your intended subject. Only you know whether the sharpness across the frame is critical at the lens wide open.

    Most lenses, including the 40-150 kit, are performing their finest stopped two stops, center frame, with the zooms getting softer at longer end (from my experience, that softness with 40-150 starts around 130mm).

    Also, I don't know why in the beginning of the thread people seem hesitant to say that certain bodies in m43 outresolve the lens used. It is the fact in all the other systems. Whether this is the case for 40-150 kit lens, i wouldn't know, it was plenty useful to me, and as i said, in daylight it was relatively sharp.

    I think this picture was taken with the 40-150 kit lens (i'm not sure, will have to check when i get home).

    20987012866_298c5d2b67_b.

    I have worse example, but those can be a subject to my poor technique used on that day, wrong settings and whatnot. Example.

    20392180503_06f66fdfcb_b.


    Why i used the word "relatively", bcs i feel that is the word that describes it the best. It is not as sharp as the Oly 60mm macro, nor as soft as some of my examples i've seen of Oly 25m at certain lengths. So don't be alarmed. It depends on a lot of factors. If you already have the picture, only you can tell, though a pixel peep at critical spots at100% would be my first idea on whether it is usable at that size or not. If you don't have the picture, go take it and see for yourself :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
    I'm going to repeat most of what @Ramsey@Ramsey said. I think there is no doubt that the PRO lens is a better lens. It costs about ten times more, of course there is a compromise. But what you are asking here is if it is "good enough" for A3 prints so it seems to me that you are looking for a compromise.

    The 40-150 R is very good on the wide end and loose something on the tele side. Like about any lens, stopped down it gets better. So the comparison with the PRO lens, as usual, is more complex. What focal lengths and what apertures do you expect to use most? Are you shooting at base ISO? Otherwise if you go from f/2.8 to f/5.6 the ISO difference alone can make a difference. Do you shoot mostly wide open on stopped down? Do you need the faster AF and other features of the PRO lens?

    I think an A3 print is quite forgiving, much more than a 100% pixel peeping on a computer screen. Of course looking at the image scaled down to 8 inches or the like is even less revealing.

    This is with the small 40-150 R unprocessed (40mm, f/4, download from flickr for full size):

    26785689144_7e2e061bda_b.

    Then there is size: are you really willing to bring around the big lens for something that you may not even notice?

    Have a look here too: Olympus OM-D & Lens System Summer Promotion

    As a side note you may keep some OM tele lenses too: there are still few for the m43 system.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Jeff Worsnop

    Jeff Worsnop Mu-43 Regular

    51
    May 20, 2016
    Jeff Worsnop
    Qiute right. I should have said good rather than good enough.
    I rarely go more than 200mm 35mm equivalent. Also I usually shoot around f8/f11 with a tripod when using for my usual landscapes although I would probably use the lower end of the zoom range when shooting things that are just a bit too far for the 14-42 to reach easily eg people in bands playing on the streets of villages around Saddleworth a couple of weeks ago.
    Thanks for your advice.
    I'll take the plunge and get one and save up for the better quality lenses as I can.
    Cheers
    Jeff
     
  16. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    Speaking from experience with both the R and Pro versions, there's no doubt I love the latter more, but at the end of the day, whether I find the result good enough for an A3/A2 print is almost (or definitely) not related to sharpness or how well a lens scores in lab tests.

    I made the A2 print from whichever lens that gets the job done, 16MP files printed at A3/A2 sizes aren't going to be super print (300dpi+) anyway, and besides the perceivable sharpness from the two is not that much different either because you'll be looking at the print as a whole piece, there's no pixel peeping on a print, there really is no one better than the one gets you what you want, I've shot a few memorable photos with one lens that I can't replicate with the other.
     
  17. Jeff Worsnop

    Jeff Worsnop Mu-43 Regular

    51
    May 20, 2016
    Jeff Worsnop
    Thanks for your thoughts.
    I have decided to go for the cheaper lens and see where that takes me. I appreciate your point about 16mp. I have been very satisfied with some of my prints at A3 using my 16mp Sony A580 although with an expensive Zeiss 16-80 lens.
    Cheers
    Jeff
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    If you are happy with the resolution and sharpness of your Zeiss 16-80 on the A580, rest peacefully knowing you'll be able to achieve similar results with the 40-150 kit lens as long as you get a decent copy.

    Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 ZA DT ( SAL-1680Z ) - Review / Test Report - Analysis
    Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 ED R MSC - Review / Test Report - Analysis

    This is only tested on a 12.2MP sensor of the A700 rather than the 16MP your A580 has, but the 40-150 comfortably outresolves the 16-80 at every aperture, often by 25% or so, so you can expect that the resolution bump on the A580 would largely equalize things.
     
  19. Jeff Worsnop

    Jeff Worsnop Mu-43 Regular

    51
    May 20, 2016
    Jeff Worsnop
    Thanks for info. I should have been able to find it myself.
    I shoot raw files in which case the barrel distortion is similar for the lenses. LR corrects the distortion for the 16-80 so should do so for the 40-150.
    The infi. is reassuring and with any luck be able to give it a work out this weekend.
    Jeff
     
  20. Ramsey

    Ramsey Mu-43 Top Veteran

    719
    Jan 9, 2013
    Zagreb, Croatia
    I was right, the dog pictures above were from the 40-150mm R. Taken at 89mm at f5,6. With the image at 100%, i think it is one of my sharpest pictures with this lens. No, not every single hair is visible, but it's right up there. Whoever needs more center or corner sharpness, i think they should be ready to pay for the PRO version (so 10 times more).

    I did find also one panorama i've taken with the 40-150mm also at 40mm f5,6 (not sure why i didn't stop down). Go to the flickr link (i promise i'm not trying to increase my traffic but the full resolution is there) and download full resolution pic, i think for landscape purposes it is sufficient (especially if i did remember to stop it down). Then again, i'm not a landscape guy so i could be wrong. YMMV.

    15632370411_9643688a3a_b.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2016
    • Like Like x 3