1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Panasonic X MTF Charts

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by drizek, Aug 27, 2011.

  1. drizek

    drizek Mu-43 Veteran

    492
    Aug 5, 2011
    45-175: Digital Interchangeable Lenses | PRODUCTS | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic Global

    versus

    45-200: Digital Interchangeable Lenses | PRODUCTS | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic Global

    I thought these X lenses were supposed to be superior, but from the looks of this chart, it seems to not be as sharp as the 45-200mm that's already out there. In fact, it seems to be significantly softer at the edges. I am curious about what the Legend means though. What is 20S/20M and 40S/40M?

    So it weighs 210 grams, which, when combined with the fast AF and improved IS is pretty impressive, but if it is going to be less sharp than the already not-so-sharp telephoto, what's the point? Especially when the 100-300 performs so much better for only a little more money at $500, and the 40-150 from olympus will do the same job with even less weight for under $200.

    14-42 Pancake: Digital Interchangeable Lenses | PRODUCTS | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic Global
    Old 14-42: Digital Interchangeable Lenses | PRODUCTS | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic Global

    The 14-42 compares much more favorably, besting both the existing 14-42 and the 14-45. Obviously, manufacturer MTF charts shouldn't be the only metric, but at this point they are all we have.
     
  2. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    If the 12-35 and 35-100 pictures are to be believed - it sounds like the 'X' branding will have two lines: super-compact with decent quality, and decently compact with super-quality...

    So it weighs 210 grams, which, when combined with the fast AF and improved IS is pretty impressive, but if it is going to be less sharp than the already not-so-sharp telephoto, what's the point?

    Because it weighs 210g...


    Especially when the 100-300 performs so much better for only a little more money at $500, and the 40-150 from olympus will do the same job with even less weight for under $200.

    Compared to the 100-300, because it weighs 210 grams, and 45mm at the short end is a lot more practical for general use that 300mm on the long end.

    Compared to the 40-150 - it has IS. Simple as that.

    **EDIT** I had a look at the MTF data and in most cases it seems sharper than the 45-200?
     
  3. drizek

    drizek Mu-43 Veteran

    492
    Aug 5, 2011
    Is IS worth $250? If this was a $300 lens then I can see the draw in it, but at $450 it just doesn't make sense.
     
  4. drizek

    drizek Mu-43 Veteran

    492
    Aug 5, 2011
    Wide open, in the corners, it seems to be a lot less sharp. At the long end it does better, but I'm having a hard time reading the graphs.
     
  5. Sam

    Sam New to Mu-43

    4
    Apr 14, 2009
    California
    According to the charts, the new 45-175 X is actually considerably sharper overall than the 45-200 (though they are comparing 175mm to 200mm). The very corners are slightly worse with the X lens, but it's sharper across more of the image.

    The 20 and 40 are line pairs per mm. The S and the M represent sattigal (parallel to a
    line drawn through the center) and meridional (perpendicular to a line drawn through the center) lines.

    BTW the 100-300 is great but it's not interchangeable with a 45-xxx lens. One starts at 70mm equivalent field of view and the other starts at 200mm equivalent field of view. That huge range in between 70 and 200 is pretty popular (see all the 70-200 zooms on the market).
     
  6. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Ad
    Just for convenience I brought the two MTF-graphs together and enlarged them a bit.

    <img alt="MTF graphs" border="1" src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-HC5XgJg/0/XL/i-HC5XgJg-XL.jpg[/IMG]

    I'm absolutely no expert in reading these graphs, but still I'll offer some observations.
    • The X-lens has more contrast (visible in the higher percentages of both 20 en 40 lines) for a large part of the image.
    • The X-lens has a sharper central region, but the extreme corners perform slightly worse at 45mm. At 175/200mm the X-lens is better all-over (ignoring here the very small difference for 40M in the extreme corners).
    So all-in-all the new X 45-175 mm lens seems to offer a better performance over the 45-200mm, which is badly needed in my opinion. All too often my 45-200mm pics come out flat and almost always with a large degree of vignetting even stopped down. Bokeh is not the best in the world and vignetting is pronounced. On the good side: distortion is absent.

    These graphs are informative for an expert reader, but they also do not tell the whole story. The 45-200mm is known for its sample variation. I'm on my second sample, which is slightly unsharp on the right side at all focal lengths but OK elsewhere. My first one had an unsharp blob in the lower left corner which would slide out of the image by zooming beyond 75mm.
    Sam, you should mention 90mm as the starting equivalent field of view for a 45-xxx lens, but apart from that I agree with your statement: I would happily buy a 45-100mm zoom lens! In fact I might end up buying both the 45-175mm (for its zoom range, weight and size, if it's any good) and the 35-100mm (if it has supreme IQ, is around f/2.8 and under € 1500).

    I'll need to see some image samples first before I pull the trigger on this 45-175mm. In the end I want something similar IQ-wise to my Minolta legacy glass, which is a tall order to meet!
     
  7. ckrueger

    ckrueger Mu-43 Veteran

    304
    Jul 16, 2011
    My interest in the 45-175 ended when I saw that it would be the same size as the Oly 40-150. I don't care much about smooth video zooming, so the power zoom doesn't help me.

    The 14-42 on the other hand is pretty cool! A 28-84mm-e zoom about the size of a 20/1.7? I'd like very much to own that lens, even without a manual focus ring.
     
  8. Sam

    Sam New to Mu-43

    4
    Apr 14, 2009
    California
    Oops. Part of my brain was probably thinking of the 12-35 and 35-100. :tongue:
     
  9. drizek

    drizek Mu-43 Veteran

    492
    Aug 5, 2011
    Thanks for the writeup. When I looked at hteh charts last night I guess I just didn't look closely enough. Yes, the new lens does seem to be a bit sharper.

    I did just pick up a 40-150 though. The extra cost of the 45-175 isn't worth it to me. I think the real competition is going to come from the 35-100, but I have no idea how much it is going to cost. I would love to have the 35-100 and 100-300 together. It would be perfect.

    Using the 40-150, one thing I've realized is that relying on manual focus for a telephoto is just not practical. The image shakes on the screen way too much. I guess with optical stabilization MF might be possible, but that doesn't do any good for legacy glass anyway.