Further readings for the Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 45mm f/1.8: Another quality micro 4/3 lens
To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.
I have been a long time visitor to your site when I need a more 'scientific' analysis of a camera or lens that I can rely on when I'm thinking of purchasing. Your articles on the micro 4/3rds lenses could not have come at a better time as I'm considering moving (in part anyway) from SLRs to 4/3rds for conevenience/portability, particularly with the imminent availability of the OM-D E-M5. On the basis of the latest reviews I would just like to know if the Olympus 12 and 45 mm are considered part of the Olympus 'high grade' lenses? Considering how well they perform against FF lenses, if Olympus can do even better then I think they've found the philosopher's stone and photographic heaven.
Strange resolution numbers at f/2.8 (especially away from the center)
My previous message was a response to Xzeihoranth, but that's not too apparent from the formatting.
I also have one further question of my own regarding this lens test. I noticed that the measured resolution values at f/2.8 are really low, much lower than at both f/2 and f/4. Could this be a measurement error? If not, what could explain such behaviour and is it common?
Re: Strange resolution numbers at f/2.8 (especially away from the center)
Hi Simont, I agree it is strange, I would also be interested in knowing why this is.
However, it appears to occur on all the camera bodies they tested this lens with.
I was thinking it could be caused by any of the following reasons:
[list] [li]-a very 'different' testing methodology by DxO (perhaps taking into account more vertical resolution than any other lens testing site)?[/li] [li]-individual lens fault?[/li] [li]-lens design[/li] [li]-a measurement error by DxO (unlikely if it occurs on all camera bodies they tested)?[/li]
Note that the SLRGear test did not show any such behaviour: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1443/cat/14
The Lenstip review linked to by Xzei showed f2.8 to be one of the highest resolution apertures: http://www.lenstip.com/316.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_45_mm_f_1.8_Image_resolution.html
So there are some very different test results for this lens.
My guess is that there are two major factors that can account for most of the difference: 1) DxO reports '35mm-equivalent' lp/mm numbers, which are 2 times smaller than the real lp/mm numbers, due to the smaller size of the 4/3 sensor. 2) DxO appears to compute the resolution figures from the individual raw R, G and B channels, whereas Lenstip uses a demosaiced image. It seems reasonable that the Lenstip numbers exceed those from DxOmark, because information from all channels is used simultaneously.
<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Olympus/Olympus-MZuiko-Digital-ED-45mm-F18">this page on the website</a></div>Comparing this test to that undertaken by Lenstip.com I can not fail to notice a vast discrepancy between the results for image resolution. Could you explain why that is so? Because if I were to apply their values this lens would trump even to scores of it's competitors mounted on the flagship dslr's.