My amateur comparison 12-40/2.8 vs 45/1.8 vs 40-150 R (non pro)

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Ahoso_Vidaho, Jan 17, 2016.

  1. Ahoso_Vidaho

    Ahoso_Vidaho Mu-43 Rookie

    11
    Jan 17, 2016
    Viktor Tamayo
    little comparison -

    Camera: e-m5 mkII
    Photos: 1:1 side by side
    Soft: Lightroom

    1. Part - Olympus 12-40/2.8 vs 45/1.8

    https://www.flickr.com/gp/viktor_tamayo/S7X056

    2. Part - Olympus 45/1.8 vs 40-150/4.0-5.6

    https://www.flickr.com/gp/viktor_tamayo/U3326p

    3. Part - 12-40/2.8 vs 17/1.8

    https://www.flickr.com/gp/viktor_tamayo/L3H76u

    4. Part - 12-40/2.8 vs 40-150/4.0-5.6

    https://www.flickr.com/gp/viktor_tamayo/z54SX7
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Uncompressed photos:

    Box | Simple Online Collaboration: Online File Storage, FTP Replacement, Team Workspaces


    All Photos are JPEG from camera

    0 sharpening
    0 denoising
    Neutral picture style
    Tripod
    IBS - on (auto)


    Verdict: i expect little bit more from 12-40/2.8 ... :-(
     
  2. Ahoso_Vidaho

    Ahoso_Vidaho Mu-43 Rookie

    11
    Jan 17, 2016
    Viktor Tamayo
    Or you think 12-40 is good enough?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    Hi,
    In my tests (at close focal distance only), my 12-40mm is noticeably sharper than my 45mm Oly.

    I can't see much difference in your pics; what did you conclude?

    Barry
     
  4. AG_Alex2097

    AG_Alex2097 Mu-43 Regular

    157
    Dec 18, 2015
    Alex S.
    I think the sharpness difference, from the test pics, to me it does seem that the 40-150 is in fact sharper @ 40mm than the 12-40 PRO, however, @ the original poster, you should take sharpness across the whole zoom range into account, the PRO might be a tiny bit fuzzy compared to the 40-150 at 40mm, but the 40-150 probably gives in quite a bit going to its max zoom range, (which is hard to accurately test, since it's not the same focal lengths)
    You should also note that the PRO is a faster & constant aperture zoom, whereas the 40-150 is not, critical for some photographers who have to shoot in bad light

    It is interesting though, as i've only heard praise of the 12-40 PRO and its sharpness, i don't have either of these, so i can't tell, but maybe you have a bad one?
     
  5. Ahoso_Vidaho

    Ahoso_Vidaho Mu-43 Rookie

    11
    Jan 17, 2016
    Viktor Tamayo
    i see difference

    12-40/2.8 pro vs 40-150/4.0-5 R ED

    center picture 1:1


    f 5.6

    dům 5.6 .


    f 7.1

    dům 7.1 .

    etc ... more sharper are /in center where focus point is/ images from low cost 40-150 R

    on the corner /same images/:

    f 5.6

    dům 5.6 .

    f 7.1

    dům roh LH 7.1 .


    -----------------------

    another picture (now is 12-40 on the right and 40-150 left)

    vstup 4.0 vs 4.5.

    f 5.6

    vstup 5.6 .

    f 7.1

    vstup 7.1 .

    f 9.0

    vstup 9.1 .

    in my opinion: both images from 40-150 non pro are sharper ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2016
  6. Ahoso_Vidaho

    Ahoso_Vidaho Mu-43 Rookie

    11
    Jan 17, 2016
    Viktor Tamayo
    now images 12-40/2.8 vs 45/1.8

    f 2.8

    2.8 .


    f 3.5

    3.5 .

    f 4.5

    4.5 .

    f 5.6

    5.6 .

    f 9.0

    9.0 .

    another shots

    f 2.8

    kostel 2.8 .

    f 4.5

    kostel 4.5 .

    f 9.0

    kostel 9.0 .
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2016
  7. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Useful, but I think you've not bought the lens for the right reasons if you're disappointed.

    The 12-40 is great from 12-25mm at f/2.8. Things start degrading at the telephoto end. It's not a lens that improves upon stopping down so comparing at f/9 is not going to do much. This much all the online technical reviews agree on, which some research would have revealed.

    Why is the 12-40 compromised? Because they optimised it for very close focus, wide aperture shooting in low light and bad weather conditions, and at wide/normal range. Most f/2.8 standard zooms don't even go to 80mm equivalent, and don't focus as close.

    I think if you were planning to shoot stopped down at telephoto focal lengths for non-closeup subjects, and you prioritize sharpness over light gathering, the Panasonic 12-35 would have been a better choice. It vignettes more, is best not at f/2.8 but at about f/4, and is best towards to middle and at the telephoto end.

    In short:
    1) Don't expect excellent zooms to be better than great primes across their entire range.
    2) Don't expect excellent standard zooms to be better than very good telephoto zooms at doing telephoto.
    3) Don't expect excellent fast zooms to be sharper when stopped down than very good slow zooms.
    4) Sharpness is only one attribute. Everything is a compromise, no lens does it all equally well.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Ahoso_Vidaho

    Ahoso_Vidaho Mu-43 Rookie

    11
    Jan 17, 2016
    Viktor Tamayo
    thx for your opinion!
     
  9. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Btw, I also just bought a used 12-40 as my 'normal' and travel lens. I'm not thrilled by the IQ, but then I wasn't expecting to be for the above reasons. It sure beats the 12-50 it replaces, the 12-32 too. It's close enough to the primes that I'd not worry about the difference during the day, but I'm definitely keeping the primes for night and DoF control. And of course I'm going to switch to my 45-175 for actual telephoto :p
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
    Thanks for sharing this. I think there are a few issues with the test.
    The first is that there are big differences in focus. Sometimes the focus is on the branches "inside" the reflection, while for the other lens is on the wall plane. This is clearly visible in many shots. Check the branches in the window shot at 5.6, in the NARODNI text at 5.6, and in the VYS at f9, for example. The difference is too big to be caused only by the 5mm difference in focal length or lens sharpness.

    Second one is that you are comparing a 40 to a 45 this means that details appear bigger in the 45 shot and this makes the lens looks sharper. You should move the camera to get the same framing. I know the difference from 40 to 45 is small, but when you examine it at 100% is relevant.

    Are you using anti-shock 0? All the shot are in the shutter shock zone. Are you using a small AF box or manual focus? Are you using self timer? Pressing the shutter alone can make a difference when the balance is so much different from the 12-40 fully extended to the 45. Especially with light tripod, maybe fully extended, on soft terrain, etc.

    In the mosaic shot could again be a focus problem (especially in the 2.8 shot) or one of the above. You also have 1/3 of exposure difference: this means more saturation for the 45mm that also muddy the water. Fixing the exposure alone brings in more details in the 12-40 shot.

    When I did a quick informal handheld comparison of the 45 and the 12-40 I found no differences.

    Then yes, the 12-40 at 40mm should be in its "weak" spot but I would expect a smaller difference.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. Ahoso_Vidaho

    Ahoso_Vidaho Mu-43 Rookie

    11
    Jan 17, 2016
    Viktor Tamayo
    Yes, antishock 0, small AF point, auto focus

    image.
     
  12. Ahoso_Vidaho

    Ahoso_Vidaho Mu-43 Rookie

    11
    Jan 17, 2016
    Viktor Tamayo
    Thanks for your advice - still learning. In any case, these lenses: 45/1.8 and 40-150R surprise me ...
     
  13. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    The current Olympus image processor in the camera has different processor settings for different lenses. Only shooting RAW and using identical settings for all images gives comparable comparisons. IS should be OFF when the camera is on tripod. Comparing sharpness between one lens set to f4.5 to one set at f2.8 or 1.8, is less than useful. A couple of stops difference give the ability to use a lower ISO, higher shutter speed, shallower depth of field, or some combination of those three to good photographic effect.
     
  14. Carbonman

    Carbonman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jul 10, 2014
    Vancouver BC
    Graham
    Your tests speak volumes to me about variances between lens samples. I shot a similar test between my 12-40 and 40-150 R 18 months ago and the 12-40 was equal to or sharper across the image, particularly at the edges. The 40-150 still impresses me and was only replaced due to the need for a faster lens. It's in my wife's lens kit and still gives excellent images.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    Amateur lens testing speaks volumes about how technical and demanding lens testing is to do well.
     
  16. 50orsohours

    50orsohours Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 13, 2013
    Portland Oregon
    I also had a good copy of the 40-150, but it can't match my 12-40 2.8. Maybe I have a very good copy.
     
  17. bbrat

    bbrat New to Mu-43

    5
    Nov 10, 2014
    Massachusetts, USA
    I definitely think there are copy variances. I am currently thinking my 12-40/2.8 is soft when compared to my panny 12-35/2.8 and 45/1.8. Primes probably should always be sharper but to the panny 12-35 my panny version is super sharp?

    Most likely will send the 12-40 to the Olympus hospital for a physical.:)
     
  18. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Most of the lens tests say that the Panasonic is sharper at the telephoto end compared to the Olympus.