- Aug 6, 2010
- San Jose, CA
- Real Name
I am not sure how important these tests are and if most modern lenses are just good enough. I have this lens and another slightly disparaged lens the Oly 17mm pancake, from these lenses I have prints that are excellent in quality they are 27x20" so not exactly small.Photozone has just posted their review of the Panasonic 12-32/3.5-5.6.
While the size and the range are of course impressive, I was slightly disappointed to see that it didn't quite measure up to the sharpness of Panasonic's 14-42/3.5-5.6 II or Panasonic X PZ 14-42/3.5-5.6 pancake zoom.
I am not sure how important these tests are and if most modern lenses are just good enough. I have this lens and another slightly disparaged lens the Oly 17mm pancake, from these lenses I have prints that are excellent in quality they are 27x20" so not exactly small.
It really depends on your expectations. I daresay the smeary corners of my 14-42X were visible at 16x20. The main takeaway for me though is that contrary to some of the earlier user comments, this is a middling kit-quality lens. What you're paying for is the compactness.
My thoughts were and are; 'are almost all modern lenses good enough' unless you are looking for imperfections closely how important is it? Now I have in the past an embrace the imperfections person, but I realised it was more of a love of lenses with a bit of character, being a bit of a fan of uncoated lenses especially with colour film. So my feelings on this lens and the 35mm pancake is they are good enough even if not stellar performers.
My main reference for lens reviews is slrgear.com, as their results generally tally with my own findings whereas Photozone often don't.
Agree it is best to ignore photozone. (I keep saying this.) They might be right on the 12-32, by chance, but if you can’t trust them to be right, why bother looking there at all?
IIRC there is a thread on mu-43.com with sample images showing impressive results.
My main reference for lens reviews is slrgear.com, as their results generally tally with my own findings whereas Photozone often don't. They've not reviewed the 14-42 Mk II, but the 12-32mm does well compared to the 14-42 PZ and the 14-45mm. I'll have to do some proper comparisons myself at some point between the 12-32mm and the 14-45mm.
People who are upset with Photozone review simply do not understand the relationship between input resolution and output resolution and that, the belief that as long as I can capture the highest resolution my pictures will be best!
That's a rather insulting comment. I'm not 'upset' with Photozone. My problem with them is that on more than one occasion I've owned pairs of lenses that they have reviewed, yet the lens they have rated as softer is clearly sharper when I test them. Similarly, they might rate a lens as being sharpest at or near wide open yet the lens I own is clearly better stopped down. In general my own results seem to agree with those from slrgear, which is why I prefer that site.
I'm fine with you having a different opinion, but please don't put people down to try and make your point.
And with that, I think I've said enough on this thread
bikerhiker, please settle down.
The problems with photozone tests is that they use borrowed lenses from you and me. That is a terrible sampling technique and well worth ignoring the results. Did I send my lens to them because I am proud of it? Or maybe because I suspect it is not the best? Terrible.
Try lensrentals. They use populations of lenses for their tests, plus long term familiarity, plus balanced view.
If people were to actually read and understand the actual article rather than get emotionally upset by reading the headlines; perhaps you will not call me emotional and insulting.
What Panasonic did was, their MTF chart seemed to DEFY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!
Almost all of those published MFT charts are theoretical. I guess not everybody knows that.
This is a quote from the Photozone.de website..
....Due to the small MFT sensor the peak resolution of the system is usually reached in the f/2.8 to f/4 range. ...- simply because of the increasing dampening impact by diffraction.