Micro 4/3 adapted lens comparison

<p>There has been a lot of discussion about adapted lenses and their image quality. I happen to have an Olympus E-P1 body and a bunch of lenses that can be adapted to it. So I did a little comparison, not to prove any point but just to see for myself which lenses work well and which not so well. I chose mainly smaller and shorter lenses, as these fit better to the size and philosophy of the micro 4/3 system. Below are three images with 100% crops from these lenses. All images were tripod mounted, ISO100, manual lenses with magnified assistance, AF lenses on manual focus but using the AF button for focusing, 2s self timer to avoid shake and fine jpeg to get simple readily usable images. I used auto white balance, which may account for some small colour changes between some images. I took always one image wide open and then another stopped down to 5.6 or 8, depending on the speed of the lens. If maximum aperture was better than F4, then I stopped down to 5.6. For lenses that were F4 or less wide open, I stopped down to F8. All crops are from the edge of the image. All lenses were pretty good in the center, but to make maximum use of the available pixels, it is important to get good edge resolution.</p><p>The first comparison has Zuiko Digital 9-18mm zoom with Olympus 4/3 adapter, Voigtlander 4.5/15mm lens in Leica M mount with Rayqual adapter and the collapsible micro 4/3 Zuiko Digital 14-42mm zoom.</p>

<p>15mm comparison</p>

<p>Seems that I cannot upload images. I need to try again later. If somebody has a suggestion, I would be happy to listen.</p>

<p>Since I cannot yet upload any images, I will offer my brief conclusions. I was surprised to find that the collapsible kit zoom was actually the best performer. 9-18 is okay but improves by stopping down, to become as good as the 14-42 zoom at 14/15mm setting. VC15mm is not good at all, maybe to be expected from a ultra wideangle designed for film. It does improve significantly when stopped down, but is still not nearly as good as the cheap kit zoom.</p>

<p>Since I cannot yet upload any images, I will offer my brief conclusions. I was surprised to find that the collapsible kit zoom was actually the best performer. 9-18 is okay but improves by stopping down, to become as good as the 14-42 zoom at 14/15mm setting. VC15mm is not good at all, maybe to be expected from a ultra wideangle designed for film. It does improve significantly when stopped down, but is still not nearly as good as the cheap kit zoom.</p>

<p>In 25mm comparison, I had the 2.8/25 pancake, an Olympus OM3.5/21mm and the same kit zoom. The 2.8/25 is maybe the best, good already wide open. OM21 is not good, improves a bit when stopped down. This was my experience on 4/3 body as well. This lens is best left for film use.</p>

<p>In 35mm comparison, I had two Leica mount lenses. 35mm Schneider PA for R mount, using first a LR to 4/3 adapter and then the Olympus micro 4/3 adapter. This was the best performing 35mm lens in this comparison, good already wide open. I like this lens more and more. The second Leica 35mm was Summicron ASPH, and this was bad wide open but improved significantly when stopped down to 5.6, maybe even gaining second place, but more or less even with the humble 14-42 collapsible zoom.</p>

<p>the ethic behind 4/3rds was that the lenses were designed specifically for the sensor.<br>

It comes as no surprise to me that modest modern lenses about-perform the quality lenses from yesteryear. Regardless of what the fanboys protest. Regardless of test results.<br>

The best results are the pictures.</p>

<p>One point: is it not the case that the native sensitivity of the EP1/2 is 200ISO? I don't know that for sure, just read it, but maybe it's better to test the camera and lens at 200ISO for the best possible results.</p>

<p>Ilkka: I've had trouble uploading images lately. Apparently, 700 works but images bigger than that do not. Larger images used to provide a link on this site, no more!</p>

<p>Interesting...seems that the design of the film-era lenses frequently results in a rather non-optimal combination with the m4/3 sensor.</p>

<p>Individual lens design has a lot to do with suitability as well. But one would think that film SLR lenses are more or less okay because of their retrofocus design and cropping just the middle part of the image, so the more critical edges are left out anyway. The Schneider 35PA, which is even more retrofocus than normal 35mm lenses works very well. Still, it was a bit surprising that the 2/35 Summicron for Leica M was so poor wide open while it improves a lot at 5.6. It is, of course, stellar already wide open on film.</p>

<p>I will make narrower pictures so that they can be posted here.</p>

<p>Come to think of it, 200 is probably the native ISO for EP-1. But I am sure it would make no difference in this comparison if ISO had been 200 instead of 100. Anyway, I try again to enclose smaller pictures.</p><div></div>

<p>And the VC15 lens...</p><div></div>

<p>25mm comparison</p><div></div>

<p>ZD lenses</p><div></div>

<p>And finally the 35mm comparison</p><div></div>

<p>And the ZD zoom and M Summicron...</p><div></div>

<p>Some of the MF shots (e.g. LM35 @F2) look out of focus. With MF lenses at wide apertures I find that you need to double zoom the EVF display and that a tripod helps. In my own tests comparing the kit lens to top quality FD lenses I have found the opposite. The Fd lenses almost always outperform the kit lens. I think your problem is the body as the EP-1 does not have an EVF and thus you have to use the LCD with MF lenses. In previous posts I have reccomended MF lens users to only buy a body with an EVF as you can focus and stabilize the camera much easier (the LCD is fine on a tripod). When I return home I will post some FD vs Panasonic 14-45mm zoom comps from my G1. low quality FD lenses (e.g. 28 f2.8) are not great but top quality lenses (35 f2, 135 f2, 85 f1.2, 80-200 f4L etc...) work very well on the G1 and are much sharper than the kit zoom.<br>

there are a few exceptions to this behaviour - some of the old MF lenses suffer from CA - especially at small apertures (F16 F22 etc...). In addition they can suffer quite badly from flare and contrast loss when shot towards the sun. I believe this latter effect is due to the lack of an anti-reflective coating on the rear lens element and the fact that with a full frame lens the sun can be in shot (i.e. within the viewing angle of the lens) but not in the shot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Individual lens design has a lot to do with suitability as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course. I meant to imply that the design parameters for lenses for film might not result in optimal designs for digital. The only thing that I can think of is that the rays strike the sensor in too steep angles, although I'm certainly not an expert and sensor design is complicated.</p>

<p>To me the the advantage of the Voigtlander 15/4.5 is about being an inconspicuous small size wide angle with good DOF. The Oly kit zoom is almost 3-1/2 inches long at it operating position. The Voigtlander having a good focus and DOF scale is also a big plus. The Oly on the other hand has a narrow dead feeling focus band with no marking. The small Voigtlander match well with a nice Pen-F 38/1.8. Together with the Penny AF 20/1.8 has speed that either the Oly nor Penny kit zoom can match.</p>

<p>Oskar I have found that the better FD lenses generally work very well indeed - the main issue being CA (easily removed) at wider apertures with some lenses. As I said in my earlier post shooting towards a bright light (e.g. the sun) can cause a lot of problems. Except for this issue I have not had any problems - even the FD15 F2.8 fiseye works well (unusual shots - a 30mm fisheye!)</p>

<p>I do like the idea of the Voightlander 15mm for the E-P1 as a daytime street lens - good DOF and no need to be fast to be creative. Will it fit on the E-P1 with a m39 to m43 adapter or do you need the extra width of the second adapter ring to avoid the sensor hiting the back of the lens?</p>

<p>I used a tripod. I used the 10x magnified image to manually focus. I focused in the center of the image. It is possible that the field curvature is so high that the edges of the image are not in focus when the center is, but that would not improve the overall image, or change the conclusion. Out of curiosity, I will check if this is the case. But it would not make sense to focus on the edges and then leave the center misfocused. My VC15 lens is screw mount with (permanently) attached Voigtlander screw to M adapter. It works well on my M6 and fits easily on the E-P1 with the Rayqual M to m4/3 adapter. There is plenty of space between the mount and sensor, no risk of hitting the shutter, let alone the sensor. I would very much like it to work better. It is a nice, small lens that perfectly fits the philospohy of m4/3 and can easily be guess focused from the good focusing ring with proper distance and DOF scale. Unfortunately the image quality in edges is poor wide open and improves to barely acceptable when stopped down to F8. Center image quality is good, even wide open. So depending on subject, it can still work very well. For landscape and similar work where equal center and edge resolution is required, one needs to crop about 30% from the edges to get acceptable wide open image quality across the remaining image. This would turn the lens to a 35 or 40 equivalent, and dramatically reduce the pixel count. Stopping down would reduce the need for cropping, but then you have a F8 lens, limiting for available light use. Maybe best reserved for a walkaround lens in good light. F8 gives enough depth of field so there is no need to focus. Separate 28mm viewfinder works nicely, such as the Ricoh or Sigma ones.</p>

<p>My conclusions from this, and previous trials, remain: Short back focus wide angle lenses (ie. rangefinder/M mount) do not work well on M4/3 bodies. Retrofocus SLR lenses work better. Longer lenses, 50mm and above, work better than wide angles. I have used a Zuiko 3.5/135 and it seems to works well enough, but is a bit of a pain to focus and use with no viewfinder. This type of lens would benefit from a good EVF. Individual lens design makes a difference, too. Some lenses are just better than others on a m4/3 body, regardless of how good they are on film. So individual tests are necessary.</p>

<p>I am surprised by the 35mm Sumicron at F2 but perhaps as you say this is lens design. The FD 24 F2 and 35 F2 both work well at F2 and are sharper than the Panasonic 14-45 Kit lens on the G1. The Canon FD 17 F4 is not quite so sharp but this is not one of canon's best Fd lenses. Teles work much better - even the Fd 300 F2.8 delivering very sharp results (as an effective 600mm F2.8)</p>

<p>I checked the original images again. The 2/35 is very sharp in the middle, even wide open, slightly better than the kit zoom, which of course is much slower. The 35mm crops I posted are from the right edge. When looking at the left edge, the difference is very similar. 4/35 is very sharp but has a hint of chromatic aberration. Kit lens has less/no CA but is maybe a tad softer. The 2/35 again is very soft. When I get around to it, I make a similar selection from center (and left edge in some cases) just to confirm the differences. I also looked at the OM21 image again and must say that it is actually not that bad. It is a bit foggy overall but this is a 30 year old lens with I believe only single coating. But it is an SLR lens, moving it further from the sensor and thus bringing the light in more straight. </p>

<p>Ilka perhaps the rangefinder lenses do not work well on the M4/3 format. I have only used canon SLR lenses (FD series) and except for cheap lense and circumstances described above they have worked very well - much better than the kit lens. The old FD 100 F4 Macro produces great images.</p>