OMDs best comes out with the good primes

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by tl1234, Apr 16, 2013.

  1. tl1234

    tl1234 Mu-43 Regular

    37
    Feb 5, 2013
    I want to know your experience. I've shot a bit with the oly 75 .8, oly 45 1.8, Pana 25 1.4 and Pana 14 2.5 and finally the oly 12-50 kit. It seems that the very best of the OMD - colors, sharpness, overall IQ including what seems like "exposure" - comes out best w the top primes. In my case it was the 75,25, and 45. When I was shooting with these lenses I caught myself thinking "wow this is a great camera" but when I used the kit is started thinking its a middle of the pack camera in terms of IQ.

    Is this your experience too? Because I'm beginning to think that if I'm going to love this camera, it has to be shot w the primes I mentioned
     
  2. silversx80

    silversx80 Mu-43 Veteran

    229
    Apr 27, 2012
    North Carolina
    The sensors are so good nowadays, that small improvements in lenses are even much more noticeable. It's not that the lens brings out the best in the camera, it's that the camera can really capitalize on a great lens.
     
  3. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    hmm so you are comparing over 2000 dollars worth of prime lenses to a 500 dollar zoom... or a 300 dollar zoom if you bought it with the camera...

    the zoom covers roughly the same range but at several stops higher...

    go try the same experiment with nikon/canon/sony... bet their primes make their cameras look better than their kit zooms.

    the kit zoom is OK.. probably better than a lot of kit zooms... its just the m/43 primes are very good indeed.

    just for reference... here is what I got out the 12-50

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinparis2007/sets/72157631098947086/

    though I do admit I shoot the primes mainly... all of those you mentioned.

    the OMD is a great camera full stop... as good as anything in its price range...

    K
     
  4. rnagoda

    rnagoda Mu-43 Veteran

    260
    Jun 12, 2012
    Tucson, AZ
    Robert
    Agreed - with your observation and with the preceding posts - this isn't specific to the OM-D, and definitely what your seeing is the improvement inherent to the lenses you are using. No knock on the camera at all, since any camera will definitely benefit from improved optics. Still, I'd encourage you to hang onto the kit lens since it will likely have it's uses in the future and certainly is capable of taking quality pics. You'd likely also notice improvements with high-quality zoom lenses like the Panny 12-35 and 35-100 offerings.

    I had a recent debate with my girlfriend for whom I recently purchased a Canon T4i and she was very happy with her kit lens (18-55 EF-S) while I was trying to convince her of the value of the value of better lenses. She finally relented and agreed to try out Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ... and now she won't give it back! The good news is that I now know what to get her for her upcoming birthday: glass! :2thumbs:
     
  5. slothead

    slothead Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 14, 2012
    Frederick, MD
    I'm not sure that I am getting your point Kevin. Your reference is your 12-50 shots (I think), yet you are somewhat touting the primes. What IS your point anyway?
     
  6. silversx80

    silversx80 Mu-43 Veteran

    229
    Apr 27, 2012
    North Carolina
    The 12-50 kit lens is a very good "kit" lens. Considering that street price (not MSRP) is about $300 US, it's a great lens for the price. 4.16X zoom from decently wide angle to short-tele, internal focus and zoom, weather sealed, 1:2 magnification, and a few other features. Even at MSRP, it isn't a bad deal.

    The Oly 45mm is $399 US MSRP. I'd be very irritated if it didn't perform significantly better than the 12-50 set to 45mm. The PL25, again, should significantly outperform the 12-50 at 25mm. Etc, etc, etc.

    The point is that too many people expect too much from the little kit lens, without looking at it in the context that it's a multi-purpose lens at a price-point. It's good at a lot of things, great at none. The primes, on the other hand, only have to do one, or two, things. They can do those things very well, because they're focused (pun intended :wink:) to that duty.
     
  7. slothead

    slothead Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 14, 2012
    Frederick, MD
    And you should be irritated if it didn't perform better considering that it is a faster lens, but they are really two different functions: the 12-50 is a general purpose with macro (I think - I don't have one yet), while the 45 is a dedicated prime that is fast (that one I have), but at $399 it is still an inexpensive lens.
     
  8. silversx80

    silversx80 Mu-43 Veteran

    229
    Apr 27, 2012
    North Carolina
    Absolutely! :smile:

    I think Kevin's point was, however, that the 12-50 is still a very good lens considering its context.
     
  9. slothead

    slothead Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 14, 2012
    Frederick, MD
    That's good because mine's in the mail! And I want the ability to shoot pseudo-macro with the same "everyday" lens. I also think it will fit my E-PL5 very well too (because of its diminutive size).
     
  10. tol1l1yboy

    tol1l1yboy Mu-43 Veteran

    290
    Jan 12, 2013
    Chicago
    I love the images I get with my omd until I compare pics with my xe-1. The images just arent as good. BUT...and I think this is a big but...the OMD is a joy to shoot with except in really low light settings. I am finding the more I shoot with both that they almost complement each other.

    If you havent already tried them I highly recommend the Panasonic 7-14 and the 12-35 lenses. The pictures really are spectacular...as good as I get with the primes I shoot with :)
     
  11. ice_man

    ice_man Mu-43 Regular

    158
    Dec 19, 2012
    Socal
    Z
    So the XE-1 wins with regards to image quality?


    Tapatalk.
     
  12. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Slow doesn't have to mean soft. I've used several slow zooms that outresolve 12 and 16MP sensor at medium apertures, making them indistinguishable from primes at those settings. Unfortunately, the 12-50/3.5-6.3 is clearly not such a lens.
     
  13. Blastop

    Blastop Mu-43 Regular

    92
    Jun 20, 2011
    I think they'd have a hell of a time selling primes if they didn't have a performance advantage over zooms, especially kit zooms.
     
  14. Rudy

    Rudy Mu-43 Veteran

    449
    Jan 24, 2013
    Oakland, CA
    They actually do have a hell of a time selling primes (other than to people like us):happy-084:
     
  15. kevwilfoto

    kevwilfoto Mu-43 Veteran

    294
    Sep 23, 2011
    Colorado
    I agree with the OP, but the 12-50 is still excellent, depending on your subject.
     
  16. tol1l1yboy

    tol1l1yboy Mu-43 Veteran

    290
    Jan 12, 2013
    Chicago
    Personally I think it does. I think the larger sensor makes a difference but I know that plenty of people dont think so. I think the larger sensor adds just a little bit to quality but I dont know that you will really see it unless you are shooting with the primes. I love the 35mm f/1.4. Just got the 18 so havent really been able to shoot with it enough yet.

    I definitely see a difference in noise. The EM5 is one of the noisier cameras at iso:1600 and higher. It is actually pretty disappointing to me because it isnt easy to clean up in lightroom unless you are willing to add in significant noise reduction at 3200 and 6400.
     
  17. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    My point is... that from my perspective, the OMD performs very well as a camera regardless of the lens... I am not one who obsesses over the mythical 'IQ' or indeed noise at high ISO - though it is way better than what we had anywhere just a couple of years ago.

    Yes now that I have the primes I shoot mainly with them, I like the wider apertures for a bunch of reasons..but if they were stolen tommorrow and I was back to the kit zoom I would still be taking shots that satisfy me.

    There is too much obsession on IQ on forums... to me quality of image... ie the subject, the composition, the story it tells is much more important to me than sharpness in the corner or barrel distortion.

    cameras dont take photographs... photographers do

    cheers

    K
     
  18. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Vin
    Yeah this is like saying OMG my car drives so much better with sport tires and tuned suspension.
     
  19. tl1234

    tl1234 Mu-43 Regular

    37
    Feb 5, 2013
    Hi thanks for the replies. What I gather is that the 12-50 has some unique characteristics and can be a good lens under certain occasions. That has been my experience too.

    On sensors and possibly sensor-lens mating, I also own the X100 and overall I think just on image quality alone, it wins. However it's not as versatile as the OMD (that's why I got one) AND where i see the IQ of OMD come close to it is when I'm shooting the primes.

    I think I'm keeping the kit for the macro, the motorized zoom, the silent operation (no hissing / rattlesnake sound), and weather sealing. Again, unique qualities that I'm not finding in the primes whose IQ like very much - I have the 14 and the 25 1.4 is in mail (after shooting it on loan for a week). It will be there for one of those occasions when the unique qualities is needed but I don't figure it would get much action. In fact I'm considering the smaller / shorter 14-42 II R but that's my last priority.

    And yes photographers make pictures some of my favorites were made by a non-constant aperture zoom lens.
     
  20. tl1234

    tl1234 Mu-43 Regular

    37
    Feb 5, 2013
    It kinda does, right? Sorry about that. I'm new to the M43 system and I'm trying to get a rig that I'm happy with. So I've chosen the camera now I'm trying to get to the lenses. The kit lens came with the camera so I've been shooting (as well as borrowed primes) with it and have formed an opinion.