Update 9/15/2024 - Added The Panasonic-Leica 9mm f/1.7

I recently dove back into Micro Four Thirds for the purpose of establishing a long distance and lightweight hiking kit. I sold off my M43 gear 4+ years ago after getting started in MILC systems with M43. It was an interesting journey that I think is worth summarizing for context:

• Started with an E-M10
• Got an E-m5 Mark ii for improved IBIS, custom button controls and high res mode
• Began investing in large f/2.8 zooms and F/1.2 primes to aid in low light
• Bought a G9 for better ergonomics with the large lenses
• Realized a Sony FF with small f/1.8 primes and reasonably sized f/4 zooms offered better low light capabilities than my M43 gear while offering more resolution
• Also realized for landscapes I began heavily leaning on High Res Modes in my e-m5.2 and G9 which are limited in scenes with movement, and realized a single frame on FF gave me equivalent or better results without worrying about motion or tripods.

So, what drove me to abandon M43 was wanting high resolution detailed shots without lugging around a tripod, and the system size was no different or even smaller in the case of f/1.8 FF primes. Then, I began doing night time photography and realized on many hikes here in the NOrthwest I pass waterfalls. I also found myself more and more going out for sunrise and sunset shoots where a tripod is necessary to get shots at ISO 100 with maximum shadow recovery and color accuracy. In fact, there were numerous challenges and shortcomings of my FF system that made me to get nostalgic for my M43 gear…

• During a 5,000 mile trip in the Southwest in 2021 I got exhausted cleaning dust spots from my Sony. With only one body I resorted to field lens swaps. By the end I was cleaning 50-60 dust spots per image in my RAW editor.
• I dropped my a7r2 in a river. It didn’t recover. I once dropped my e-m5 mark ii in a river as well, and it didn’t take on a single drop of water.
• If it was raining even a little bit I didn’t risk taking my Sony gear out
• At water falls I was conservative with my shots to not risk water splashing the camera mount
• I wound up using a tripod anyways for sunrise and sunset hikes where 1 second to 1/15th second shots were challenging to impossible on my Sony
• As my hiking distances increased, the weight of the tripod and camera weighed on me. I started a 11 mile, 4,500 foot ascent at 4am early this summer and left my tripod at home. I of course missed some oportunities not having the tripod and am confident I could have gotten more shots with M43 gear.

I can already here some protests for some of these complaints. For example, I could just crank the ISO on my Sony and grab some 1/30 shots at ISO 6400 that would be sharp, but even with the wonderful FF Sony sensor ISO 6400 is outside my comfort zone for landscape images and I would be unhappy with the result and still be left with regrets. Also I could use a cover or other tool to keep my Sony dry and safe in inclement weather. But I’m a simple man, less is more for me. Why carry tripods, put my camera in waterproof casings etc. when I can just carry my camera?

I quickly realized that perhaps I should have never sold my M43 gear and kept shooting two systems. M43 for long hikes, inclement weather etc. and my FF gear for planned long exposure shots or good light landscape on shorter hikes.

My final thinking in this shift, was that OM System had brought some newer capabilities to the table since my tiny, tough weatherproof e-m5 mark ii with the release of the OM0-5 tha tmight help close the gap.

• Live ND could simplify my bag by mostly eliminating ND filters
• Hand Held High Res mode (HHHR) can help close the gap on image quality for well light situations.
• New high quality F/4 weather sealed zooms offer some interesting landscape shooter options with less weight than the F/2.8 lenses I was accustomed to
• The plastic construction of the OM-5 was even lighter than before, offering an overall lighter system for my hikes.

The Comparison

So I bought an OM-5 as well as an e-m1 Mark ii as I wasnt yet sold on the combination of OM-5 ergonmics and I recall loving the G9 ergonomics. Along with that I bought a plethora of M43 lenses with the intention of doing a comparison of how these lenses compare for landscape and hiking shooting conditions to help me establish a ‘best combination of compromises’ hiking kit.

My Requirements and Wishes

What am I looking for out of my M43 system and lens selection?

• Focal range covering 16mm to 300mm equivalent, ideally with just 2 lenses.
• Excellent IBIS, good enough to get 2 second exposures with base ISO.
• An image quality that is within acceptable range at the corners. In most landscape shots I am for corner to corner sharpness, but not always (e.g. telephoto).
• Weather sealing is a must.
• I like manual focus clutches and lens function buttons.
• Weight is critical, I don’t want to lug around 10 pounds of gear.

Methodology

There are a few key areas I wanted to compare and contrast the lens options and overall M43 vs. Sony system for my use cases.

• For lenses, absolute Image quality using tripod high res mode which I will absolutely make use of with an Ultrapod II and…
• …How much do I give up in good light going to HHHR and no tripod.
• Lens handling/size/weight when paired with an OM-5 or E-m1 mark II contrasted with the Sony.
• Stabilization in low light for those 1/4 to 1-second long blue hour shots.

For tripod high res mode and comparing the maximum image quality achievable from each M43 lens I wanted to shoot indoors with controlled conditions. So I built something similar to the DPReview scene comparison board using dollar store ingredients. Behold “The Dollar Store IQ Board”(TM)…

Sharpness Testing Methodology

I will be comparing the lenses at the apertures I would shoot at primarily in the field. For full frame lenses this means F/8 or F/11, for M43 lenses f/4 to f/5.6. When necessary I will shoot above f/4 or f/5.6 if the lens won’t offer that aperture at the given focal length (e.g. 12-50mm is f/6.3 only at 50mm).

I will always be shooting at base ISO in A mode focusing on the center of my test board. This means M43 lenses exposing for about 1/4 to 1/2" given my indoor lighting conditions, and full frame exposing for 1-2".

Camera will be mounted on a tripod. The M43 camera will be in tripod high resolution mode. I found the e-m1 mark ii moves less due to it’s sturdier tripod mount when swapping lenses, so I did my indoor testing with it.

I’m interested in sharpness across the frame and detail/contrast, but not color rendition. For this reason I’m just captuing JPEGs out of camera. The highest quality JPEGs from exposures at base ISO are a perfect representation of IQ. Given even lighting the indoor testing for sharpness will not take into account lifting shadows etc. I’m already familiar with the limits of m43 dynamic range having previously done extensive comparisons here. Given I intend to shoot dual systems if i plan shots in high dynamic range scenes I will simply take my full frame.

Focal Lengths

I will be testing at the following focal Lengths

• 8mm
• 12mm
• 14mm
• 18mm
• 25mm
• 40mm
• 60mm
• 100mm
• 125mm
• 150mm

On full frame I will test at equivalent focal lenghts.

The Lens Lineup

Without further adieu here are the lenses I’ll be comparing.

• Tamron 28-200 f/2.8-5.6 Sony FE
• Tamron 17-50 f/4 Sony FE
• Olympus 12-100mm f/4
• Olympus 12-45mm f/4
• Olympus 8-25mm f/4
• Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 II
• Olympus 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3
• Lumix 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6
• Olympus 40-150mm f/4
• Lumix 25m f/1.7
• Panasonic-Leica 9mm f/1.7 (Added 9/15/2024)

Lens impressions, handling, etc.

Before the image quality comparisons, first some impressions on how each lens potentially fits within the use case of landscape shooting on my hikes. Here is an overview of lens features that are relevant to me.

Lens Zoom Ring Feel Focus Ring Fn Button Size and Weight Overall Quality / Feel Weather Sealing Tamron 28-200 f/2.8-5.6 Sony FE Excellent Poor No Excellent Acceptable Yes Tamron 17-50 f/4 Sony FE Poor Poor No Average Marginal Yes Olympus 12-100mm f/4 Excellent Excellent Yes Poor Excellent Yes Olympus 12-45mm f/4 Acceptable Acceptable No Excellent Acceptable Yes Olympus 8-25mm f/4 Acceptable Excellent Yes Average Excellent Yes Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 II Excellent Acceptable No Excellent Acceptable Yes Olympus 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Acceptable Poor Yes Excellent Acceptable Yes Lumix 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 Poor Excellent No Excellent Acceptable Yes Olympus 40-150mm f/4 Acceptable Acceptable No Average Acceptable Yes Lumix 25m f/1.7 N/A Acceptable No Average Acceptable No Leica 9mm f/1.7 N/A Excellent No Excellent Acceptable Yes

Tamron 28-200 f/2.8-5.6 Sony FE

An all around dream travel lens with f/2.8 for indoors on the wide end. Offering the equivalent DoF of a 14-100 f/1.4-2.8 lens on M43 it’s the sort of lens that made me forget all about M43 for years. Until now I’ve been impressed with the results from it, but I do rarely use it at the long end especiall since I got the 17-50 which covers me throughout most of my hikes. I have read comparisons online with it and the Olympus 12-100, which I owned for a brief time in my M43 past. I’m anxious to see how it compares given how the 12-100 is often considered one of the best ‘superzoom’ lenses ever made.

The Tamron 28-200 covers virtually every use case as a walk about lens while being relatively lightweight and small. In fact, mounted to my a7r2 it’s about the same total weight (lens+body) as the 12-100 on an e-m1 mark ii. When I previously tested it alongside my Sony 24-105mm f/4 (A favorite amongst FE landscape users) I decided it fared so well to the 24-105 that having 101-200mm was a nice neough bonus that keeping the 24-105 made little sense.. I usually carry a ultrawide lens, so having 24mm on the wide end I don’t often miss. This lens is weather sealed.

The tamron, like all Tamrons, feels a bit plasticky and cheap. Frankly I’ll take cheap feeling for the saved weight. Plastic doesn’t impact image quality. The zoom ring is nicely dampened and smooth. I don’t like zoom rings that turn too easily.

Tamron 17-50 f/4 Sony FE

Considering it covers a full frame sensor, it’s surprisingly small and light. It weighs in very close to the Olympus 8-25mm and in my hands I can’t tell a difference between the two. It offers a similar focal range as the Olympus 8-25mm, but actually yeilds a slightly wider field of view which was an interesting surprise. When swapping cameras on my tripod the Sony system with this lens yielded similar upper and lower bounds of the scene while offering a little extra on the sides versus the Olmypus @ 8mm. Right out of the gate this makes the lens slightly more appealing.

The Tamron is weather sealed, but as with all weather sealed lenses on my Sony I find I regularly acquire dust from lens swaps. I do appreciate the internal zoom (one thing I loved about the much maligned Olympus 12-50) of the Tamron, and it inspires some confidence in less than ideal weather on a system that I frankly lack confidence in. Tromboning lenses, even weather sealed ons always make me nervous once they are wet. I recall really enjoying the Leica 8-18mm for the same non-tromboning zoom design.

The Tamron 17-50 is plastic and feels ’low cost’. While I love the non-tromboning zoom, the zoom ring is not as dampened as I would like and turns far too easily.

Olympus 12-100 F/4

I owned this once before. In fact, I owned it for a short period of overlapping time that I also had my Sony with the amazing 24-105 f/4. I recall thinking this lens was too big and heasvy for my smaller M43 bodies, and if I was going to carry a lens this big on my G9 it should be f/2.8 or faster. I also recall thinking it didn’t offer the IQ of my f/2.8 zooms, but I don’t believe I did any critical side by side comparisons. I am intriqued by this lens again though given my love of the Tamron 28-200. The potential for 7 stops of IBIS with Dual IS is compelling.

The lens is very high quality and feels wonderful int he hand. It has the manual focus clutch, a feature I always loved on Olympus pro lenses for macro work and wish the 12-45 included.

Olympus 12-45mm f/4

Spoiler alert: This lens is very sharp. While I don’t have the venerable 12-40 in my hands to compare side by side I have no doubt this lens would equal it. When shooting in high res mode it gives my Sony primes a run for their money while being wonderfully small and comparatively very light.

What’s missing? Focus clutch and function button. Function buttons are a matter of taste and I know many don’t use them, but i appreciate it. The focus clutch though is somethign I sorely miss on this one. With an incredible 1:2 magnification at 12mm, this lens works as a wide angle macro, and having a hard stop for focusing when doing mcaro is something I miss. The focus on this comparison isn’t macro, but I do dabble and would certainly make use of this lenses close focusing. I do wish the 1:2 magnification came in on the 45mm end, though allowing more working distance. That said, I do appreciate the interesting perspective you get from wider angle macro shots if you can find an accomodating subject.

The zoom ring is looser than I would like, but it’s acceptable. Non-tromboning zoom would be nice for use in the rain.

Olympus 8-25mm f/4

This lends offers that wonderful ultra wide to normal focal length that I loved the Tamron 17-50 for. IT feels wonderful in the hands and has a high quality feel. Inclusion of a manual focus clutch and lens function button are items I appreciate. I’m anxious to see how it stacks up.

Olumpus 14-150 f/4-5.6 ii

I previously owned the Tamron 14-150 for micro four thirds and actually enjoyed it quite a bit. I never owned the Olympus or any of the Lumix variants. The tamron did not offer weather sealing and I wanted to try out the Olympus for this reason. A 28-300 equivalent focal range in such a small package is appealing. My thinking is this could offer a wonderful companion to the 8-25 which has the 12mm range covered. I have read this is soft on the wide end, but i would likely mainly use it in the 25-100mm range anyways (Why doesn’t OM make something like a 20-100 f/4 companion to this lens?).

Olympus 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3

I owne this lens previously when shooting M43 and it was a love hate relationship. It has a lot on offer; internal zooming and weather sealing, a useful mcaro capability, 12mm on the wide end, electronic zoom for video. I recall being not happy with image quality. I’ve matured as a photographer though, and never put htis lens through controller critical tests, so I figured for $120 I’d give it another shot.

Lumix 12-60 f/3.5-5.6

When I sold all my M43 gear, this lens never sold. So it’s been in my closet for years unused. In fact, having it sit there unused made me feel bad for it, and made the pushed to hit the ‘add to cart’ button on a new M43 camera body that much easier. It was the extra justification for the cost. I recally enjoying thi slens for it’s light weight and great contrast and resolution in the 12-25 range where I mostly used it.

It’s plastic and low cost feeling with no function buttons. It is weather sealed, however and offers a very useful focal range.

Olympus 40-150mm f/4

I had the 40-150 f/2.8 previously and loved it, but it was too big. My Tamron 70-300 f/4-6.3 on my Sony offers a larger aperture through most of the zoom range at one third of the cost and close to half the weight. So I felt like the 40-150 f/2.8 was not a great value and 150mm left me wanting a bit more when I could crop my 300mm full frame to get equivalent of about 200mm on M43 with equivalent IQ.

So enter the f/4, a lens that is lighter than the full frame option with constant aperture. I’m hoping it lives up to the 12-45 offering similar IQ as it’s f/2.8 brother. MY thinking is this lens could be companion to the 8-25mm with a 25-39mm gap potentially being acceptable. Most of my shots beyond 50mm FF equivalent are very much telephoto (distance peaks or wildlife) and I think I would not miss the 26-35mm range much.

Another wonderful aspecft of this lens is it’s non-tromboning zoom…a favorite of mine! It’s bigger f/2.8 brother was fully internal zooming, and I enjoyed that I could use it in the rain and not worrry much about water entering the barrel.

Lumix 25mm f/1.7

For $99 it’s hard to pass up just having a faster prime for those moments where you find the light is low and you need to freeze motion. I figured I would use this lens as a benchmark for how other lenses are performing at 25mm. My expectation is that a 25mm prime at f/4 should outperform every other lens in this line up at 25mm and f/4 and will help inform me how far from optimal the zoom lenses are.

Panasonic-Leica 9mm f/1.7

A weak spot for Micro Four Thirds for a logn time has been a lack of weather sealed primes, and I agree. The PL 9mm f/1.7 addresses that complaint with a weather sealed (splash/dust/freeze-proof) design. This is a very welcome addition for a lens that will likely be used in harsh conditions. The build quality overall is pretty average, featuring a plastic design. I am, however, a big fan of plastic lenses. They tend to be more resistant to fogging up when moved from a warm to very cold environment (at least in my experience) and I just like touching plastic in cold weather more than metal. The focus ring is very nicely dampened (nice to have for a lens where you will very likely manually focus when shooting in the dark). It can take 55mm filters, which is an odd size being the only lens in my relatively large collection using 55mm filters so I will need a step up ring for sure. Finally, the system has really lacked fast, ultrawide lenses with autofocus. There have been third party manual options (Laowa etc. which have considerbaly sample variation in my experience), but the only real competitors for over a decade in this system has been fish eye lenses (why 8mm and 9mm fish eye lenses?). I still think the system needs a 7mm f/1.8 or similar that is rectilinear, but this 9mm f/1.7 is the closest we have to date.

Sharpness Tests

For brevity, below all full frame shots are @ f/8 unless otherwise noted and all M43 shots are @ f/5.6 unless otherwise noted. Additionally the order of lenses is listed in the image description in this order: top left, top right, bottom left, bottom right.

8mm Sharpness Results

It’s interesting to see the Tamron exhibits extreme barrel distortion in the OOC JPEG. Taking landscapes of streams, waterfalls etc. I hadn’t noticed it previously. In practical terms for my use case it doesn’t make much difference and correction is relatively straightforward, but I was surprised to find this was not correct in OOC JPEGs.

Center

At the center all of the results are quite sharp. Even wide open at f/4 the Olympus 8mm is doing quite well. I would be hard pressed to pick a winner in the center part of the frame.

Midframe

Moving away from the center of the frame to the color wheel, the tamron pulls ahead slightly with better details in the lettering.

Middle Edge

Looking at the left central edge of the frame, the Olympus offers better detail and resolution in the socks.

Exteme Corner

Looking at the corner edge of the frame, I find the Olympus lenses offering better detail in the brushess, especially at f/5.6.

PL 9mm versus Oly 8-25 (Added 9/15/2024)

I get that this is somewhat apples to oranges as 9mm a bit different than 8mm, but it’s still a comaprison nonetheless.

The PL9mm actually seems slightly sharper to me at f/4, but the differences are minute and hard to pick up @ 100% on a 80mp high resolution shot from the Lumix G9. The 9mm is absolutely sharper in the center and midframe thant he Olympus 8-25, but falls behind ever so slightly to me eye at the edges.

8mm Summary

Based on these results I have to say that the Olympus 8-25mm is quite good at the wide end and I don’t think I should ever be concerned about leaving the Tamron 17-50 at home outside of occasions where I need maximum resolution in non-static scenes.

I noticed my 8-25 shots at 8mm and 12mm were soft on the right edge of the frame while tack sharp on the left. I took numerous test shots, some better than others but can’t ever get both edges fully in focus. I notice the slightest movement of my camera left or right causing one side to be totally out of focus no matter how squarely I think I have my camera lined up. I’m pretty confident this is just field curvature as photos outside with this lens in real world conditions, including photos of a fence in my backyard don’t exhibit this. The Lumix 12-60 has similar field curvature issues at 12mm, but I wouldn’t really call them ‘issues’ unless your use case is photographing art, in which case get a lens that is tack sharp up close (see the 12mm-18mm tests below). But rest assured the right and left side are equally tack sharp in ’normal usage’.

I think it’s important in the 8mm-14mm tests in particular where the camera is fairly close to the board to keep this in mind. I’ve looked at all corners below to ensure i’m taking into account the sharpest edge to account for minor issues on my part in squaring my camera up along with potential for field curvature.

8mm (and 9mm) Lens Ratings

• Tamron 17-50 f/4 Sony FE - Excellent
• Olympus 8-25mm f/4 - Excellent
• PL 9mm f/1.7 - Excellent

8mm Reference Images

12mm Sharpness Results

Testing @ F/4

First round of results below are all taken @ f/4

Center

In the center it’s a toss up.

Midframe

Moving to the colorwheel again it’s a toss up.

Midframe corner

Moving two thirds the way towards the bottom left corner and the coins and thins don’t change that much. The Lumix is soft here, but if we go to the opposite corner of the frame…

Corner

The Lumix is now better than the 8-25. See my note in the 8mm comparison. I may re-take these images, but some quick handheld tests show it was likely high res mode issues or maybe user error on the fous point.

The Lumix is impressive for it’s price and weight at 12mm.

The 12-45 and 12-100 offer very similar performance, slightly better than the lumix or 8-25 in the corners. If i had to pick a lens to just shoot 12mm it would be the 12-45 for it’s size and weight.

I did compare the 12-50, but it performed poorly enough I didn’t feel it warranted including a comparison shot. A sample image from 12mm f/5.6 is included in the 12mm reference images below.

Testing @ f/5.6

The results are pretty much the same as at f/4, with everything sharpening up a bit at the corners. The reference images below are all the f/5.6 examples you can peruse. At f/5.6 the Olympus pro lenses are all excellent to the extreme corners.

Clearly stopping down to f/5.6 is the sweet spot for all these lenses. For the rest of this write up the comparison images and all reference images will be @ f/5.6. I’m not necessarily interested in maximum wide open performance. IF someone is really interested in that I do have the sample images available for a potential write up on that.

While writing this I see I missed a 24mm shot from the Tamron 17-50. I don’t think going back to grab a 24mm will be necessary as you will see later in this write up.

12mm Lens Ratings

Lens performance at 12mm (24mm equivalent)

• Tamron 17-50 f/4 Sony FE - Did not test @ 24mm
• Olympus 12-100mm f/4 - Excellent
• Olympus 12-45mm f/4 - Excellent
• Olympus 8-25mm f/4 - Good
• Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 II - Good
• Olympus 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 - Poor
• Lumix 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 - Good

12mm Reference Images

14mm Sharpness Results

The lens line up at 14mm becomes quite extensive, incororating nearly every lens in this comparison. This is where I’m really paying attention to which lens is a potential companion to the Oly 8-25 and how well do the M43 offerings stack up against the Tamron 28-200.

Full frame comparison

The Tamron 17-50 looks not great at 28mm and all the M43 options pretty much best it and for that reason I did not include it in any image comparison samples.

Center Midframe

The 28-200 is looking great resolving tons of detail. The 8-25mm is putting up a great fight here though biting at it’s heals. When I zoom the 8-25mm in more scaled to the same size as the 28-200, the 28-200 edges it out slightly. Following the 8-25 are the Oly 12-100 and the Lumix 12-60 which are producing nearly identical results.

Corner

Results moving to the corner are pretty well identical, with 28-200 haing the slight edge over the 8-25, followed by the 12-100 and 12-60.

8-25 vs 12-45, 14-150, 12-50…

WIth the 8-25 as the benchmark of performance for 14mm, how do the others compare?

Center Performance

Long story short, the 14-150 is quite good in the center (see reference image below) and the 12-50 is only acceptable, but not good.

Moving to the corners…

Corner Performance

The 12-50 is pretty soft in the corners, and not what I’d consider acceptable.

The 14-150 ii on the other hand is totally usable and i’d even say good at 14mm.

14mm Lens Ratings

Lens performance at 14mm (28mm equivalent)

• Tamron 28-200 f/2.8-5.6 Sony FE - Excellent
• Tamron 17-50 f/4 Sony FE - Acceptable
• Olympus 12-100mm f/4 - Excellent
• Olympus 12-45mm f/4 - Excellent
• Olympus 8-25mm f/4 - Excellent
• Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 II - Good
• Olympus 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 - Acceptable
• Lumix 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 - Excellent

14mm Reference Images

18mm Sharpness Results

All the lenses are offering good to excellent results in the center at this focal length, so I will offer up no comparisons. YOu are free to build your own from the sample shots below.

Corner Performance

Going straight to the corners at about 35mm full frame equivalent and we see the olympus pro lenses still holding up to the Tamron 28-200.

The 8-25mm is falling behind at this point, which makes sense as it’s getting to the long end of it’s range. But the 12-45 and 12-100 compare very well to the 28-200.

More Corner Performance

But how much is the 8-25 losing really comapred to the rest of the lineup?

The 8-25 is matching the Lumix 12-60 and Olympus 14-150, but the Tamron 17-50 full frame lens is out resolving them a bit.

18mm Lens Ratings

Lens performance at 18mm (~35mm Equivalent)

• Tamron 28-200 f/2.8-5.6 Sony FE - Excellent
• Tamron 17-50 f/4 Sony FE - Good
• Olympus 12-100mm f/4 - Excellent
• Olympus 12-45mm f/4 - Excellent
• Olympus 8-25mm f/4 - Good
• Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 II - Good
• Olympus 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 - Acceptable
• Lumix 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 - Excellent

18mm Reference Images

25mm Sharpness Results

Center Performance

Interesting results moving to 25mm as we now have a prime in the mix. Surprisingly at F/4 and F/5.6 the prime is actually the poorest performer.

The Lumix 12-60 comes out on top here, followed by the Olympus 8-25. The Tamron is performing more like the Lumix 25mm f/1.7. An impressive performance from the 8-25 zoomed to it’s longest focal length.

AS I look around to the edges the Tamron continues to be the worst performer. The M43 lenses are all fairly well matched. I might give corner performance from the 25mm a slight edge here.

Let’s remove the Tamron and Oly 8-25 now and add some zooms back in.

Adding the 12-45 and 12-100 to the mix the 25mm prime is still the loser in the center, but we move to the corner of the frame and things change.

Corner/Edge Performance

Looking at the socks and paintbrushes the Olympus 12-45 is the winnter, followed by the 25mm prime then the 12-60.

More Corner Performance

As we go to the opposite corner the story is largely unchanged. The 12-45 is on top followed by the 25mm prime, 12-60 then the 12-100.

With the 12-45 as our benchmark for performance now, let’s see how that 14-150 is doing.

The 14-150 doesn’t match the 12-45, but does appear to be performing right in line with the 12-100. In fact, at the paintbrushes I’d give the 14-150 a slight edge.

The Tamron 28-200 is performing in line with the 12-100 in the paintbrush corner, but the opposite corner it’s slightly sharper.

One more surprise, the Olympus 12-50 at 25mm is doing very good, giving the superzoom 12-100 and 14-150 a run for their money in the corners while matching in the center third.

25mm Lens Ratings

Lens performance at 25mm (50mm equivalent)

• Tamron 28-200 f/2.8-5.6 Sony FE - Good
• Tamron 17-50 f/4 Sony FE - Acceptable
• Olympus 12-100mm f/4 - Good
• Olympus 12-45mm f/4 - Excellent
• Olympus 8-25mm f/4 - Good
• Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 II Good-
• Olympus 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Good-
• Lumix 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 - Excellent
• Lumix 25m f/1.7 - Good

25mm Reference Images

40mm Sharpness Results

We are now adding the Olympus 40-150 to the mix. So let’s start our comparing it to the top lenses from 25mm.

Center Performance

At the center the Tamron is the loser with all M43 lenses performing comparably. This was a surprise to me, particularly being somewhat in the middle of it’s zoom range. Going to the corners…

Corner Performance

…and the Tamron performace is quite good. I would put the 12-45 on top, followed closely by the 40-150, Tamron then LUmix. But all doing quite well here. Iam disapointed in the Tamron center performance though. I consider the center moving into mid telephoto to tbe the most critical piece.

With the 12-45 as our benchmark for 40mm let’s check the other lenses.

Remaining Lenses Center Performance

In the center the 12-50 is performing poorly. Other lenses are all good to excellent.

Remaining Lenses Corner Performance

Looking at the paint brushes the 12-45 remains the obvious winner and the 12-50 the obvious loser. The 14-150 is putting in a good performance. As I pan around the entire scene there are some area where the 12-100 does a better job on some fine details and I’d give it a slight edge, but comparing a standard 20mp image instead of a 50mp high res shot I don’t think there would be any discernable difference.

40mm Lens Ratings

Lens performance at 40mm (80mm Equivalent)

• Tamron 28-200 f/2.8-5.6 Sony FE - Acceptable
• Olympus 12-100mm f/4 - Good
• Olympus 12-45mm f/4 - Excellent
• Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 II - Good
• Olympus 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 - Poor
• Lumix 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 - Good
• Olympus 40-150mm f/4 - Excellent

40mm Reference Images

60mm Sharpness Results

The playing field thins out now and we get into focals ranges where I often am focuse primaril yon center performance (portraiture/wildlife). But I do shoot telephoto landscapes occasionally where a sharp frame edge to edge is a nice to have.

Center Performance

At the center the Lumix 12-60 is fairly soft now, no surprise given we are at the end of it’s focal range. I’d call it even amongst the three Olympus lenses.

Corner Performance

Moving out to the paintbrushes and the Olympus 40-150 is an obvious winner resolving fine details with ease. The superzooms are performing admirably

Opposite Corner

Going to the other corner again I’d give the edge to the 12-100 over the 14-150. Reoslving power is similar to 40mm where there are fin eminor details the 12-100 handles better, but they are so minute I doubt you’d notice in practice. The 40-150 retains it’s lead adn the 12-60 is in last place.

What about the Tamron 28-200?

Comparing it to the 40-150 benchmark and 12-100 in the corners and the Tamron holds up well. Not as good as the 40-150, but slightly better than the 12-100.

The bad news is the Tamron once again performs only acceptablyt in the center compared to the 12-100. As a landscape shooter primarily, I want good edge performance (winner Tamron), but often at 100mm+ ranges I’m shooting wildlife or portraits where center performance is more useful than edge performance.

60mm Lens Ratings

• Tamron 28-200 f/2.8-5.6 Sony FE - Good
• Olympus 12-100mm f/4 - Good
• Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 II - Good
• Lumix 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 - Poor
• Olympus 40-150mm f/4 - Excellent

60mm Reference Images

100mm Sharpness Results

We are off to full on telephoto now, a spot where I would consider center performance most critical for my use cases. While I do have numerous examples of 200mm FF equivalent landscape shots in my catalogue where corner to corner sharpness was useful I would weight center performance here to be more critical. Often these 150-200mm telephoto landscapes have so much atmospheric haze that critical sharpness isn’t so critical so portraiture/wildlife use cases are top of mind.

Center Performance

First the shocking result: The Olympus 14-150 at 100mm f/5.6 is sharper than either of the PRO zooms. Now, the 12-100 is at the end of it’s range, but the 40-150 is in the dead center of it’s focal range where I would expect it to perform very well. Where the 14-150 falls down is the presence of CA. While CA is generally correctable in post, i prefer to have a clean image from the start and do less post processing work.

After the 14-150 I would say the 12-100 is every so slightly edgint out the 40-150 in the center. The Tamron 28-200 offers a poor performance. The 28-200 even had a mild handicap as after I chimped the result and zoomed on my camera screen I shot another at 180mm instead of 200mm, giving it the benefit of not being zoomed all the way out. I stopped down to f/11 and performance was identical (f/11 examle is what is included here).

Corner Performance

Moving to the paintbrushes in the corner and the the 12-100 and 40-150 come out on top with indistinguishable results. The 14-150 falls apart, and is in last place behind the 28-200.

100mm Lens Ratings

I’m going to offer two gradings here, a landscape and wildlife/portrait grading focused on center performnace.

100mm - Landscape

• Tamron 28-200 f/2.8-5.6 Sony FE - Poor
• Olympus 12-100mm f/4 - Excellent
• Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 II - Poor
• Olympus 40-150mm f/4 - Excellent

100mm Results - Wildlife/Portraiture

• Tamron 28-200 f/2.8-5.6 Sony FE - Poor
• Olympus 12-100mm f/4 - Excellent
• Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 II - Excellent
• Olympus 40-150mm f/4 - Good

100mm Reference Images

150mm Sharpness Results

And thent here were 2. I came into this test with very low expectations for the 14-150 which is now wide open at f/5.6.

Center Performance

I’m quite surprised, in the center at least the 14-150 is doing very well from a sharpness perspective. Once again there is some noticable CA here which I would rather not have to deal with in post, but i’d happily carry this as my only lens for the day and be happy with centrally framed subjects at 150mm.

Midframe Performance

We don’t have to move far from the center for the 14-150 to begin to soften significantly, which is no surprise. At the color wheel the 40-150 looks excellent, but the 14-150 is begining to get somewhat soft, but still usable.

Corner Performance

I ran out of room to move my tripod back, and was unable to capture the entire board at this focal length, so the coins are now the extreme corner of the frame. But as can be seen here every find detail is picked up perfectly by the 40-150, and this performance remains in every corner of the image. The 14-150 certainly offers some pixels in the corners, but they aren’t great pixels.

150mm Ratings - Landscape

• Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 II - Acceptable
• Olympus 40-150mm f/4 - Excellent

150mm Ratings - Portrait/Wildlife

• Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 II - Good
• Olympus 40-150mm f/4 - Excellent

150mm Reference Images

IBIS and HHHR low light results

For IBIS testing I went outdoors to the deck with my OM-5 and the 12-100 along with my Sony witht he 28-200. My theory being at f/2.8 and ISO 800+ the Sony will give me good results, but with a very narrow focal plane (not ideal for landscapes). Stopping down to f/8 and ISO 1250/1600 I should get something usable, but not as sharp as the OM-5. Let’s see!

I had a wall to lean against which I used to help me stabilize the Sony but i just handheld the OM-5 as usual.

Even at 1/2 second shutter speed, I managed a reasonable HHHR result from the OM-5 and have an excellent shot with great resolution and a deep focal plane. This is a great example of how HHHR can close the resolution gap and offer more dynamic range. Of course it’s use cases are limited.

The single exposure is also significantly better than the single Sony exposure at f/8 (again, trying to get a deep focal plane).

Let’s now go to f/5.6 and f/2.8 on the Sony and let the IBIS crank.

I didn’t use a constant ISO on the Sony, becuase my goal in landscapes is to keep ISO as low as possible. In sunset/sunrise or blue hour conditions I often need to lift my shadows. ISO 200 on M43 is already marginal, so on Sony I don’t like to go above 800, and prefer staying at 400 or below (which gives me better recovery than the M43 at ISO 200).

We can see here at f/8 and ISO 800 things are a blurry mess. At f/5.6 they improve a lot and with ISO 1250 I could probably raise the exposure in post and get a usable result, but the focal plane is getting narrow and not everything is in focus. At F/2.8 the focal plane is so noarrow (this is like f/1.4 on M43 remember) that I wouldn’t use the shot or be happy with it. I would aboslutely need a tripod.

The single M43 frame though is perfectly usable quite sharp edge to edge and the body actually did a better job metering the scene (I was in A mode).

Ergonomics and Portability

A final thought. When hiking around iwth a camera ergonomics can be important. I’ve used a knock off of the Peak capture clip pro fort he past 10 years. My e-m5 mark ii with a smaller zoom worked really well on it, but larger and heavier bodies+lenses are akward to straight up uncomfortable with such a system. The OM-5 works well in my brief testing, but the plastic body has me feeling cautious about mounting anything larger than the 12-45 (and I keep the strap aorund my neck just in case). The e-m1 mark ii is a tad bulky as is my Sony with just about any lense. As such once I sold my e-m5 mark ii about 4 years ago I stopped using the capture clip and threw it in the closet. I took it the other week on a hike and was reminded at how wonderful it was to have a camera always at the ready. Huge bonus points to the OM-5 here, so long as the base plate holds.

A downside to the OM-5 is once you take it out of the clip the grip is not great. This is the compromise to achieve it’s dimunitive size and weight and I accept that. Usng the capture clip, I don’t hold the camera for extended periods so it’s not a major strike against it.

The Sony ergonomics are fairly bad when taking photos, but the grip works surprisingly well for carrying. The rubber used on the body is excellent and the metal body inspires confidence when carrying it with a large lens. I’d actually argue the Sony is much easier to hold in my hand while walking (with arms swining by my sides) than the Olympus is. The Olympus wins when holding it to my eye. A strike against the E-M1 Mark ii though is that it is as large and heavy as my Sony.

Based on size and weight, I wish I had simply bought two OM-5s, but the e-m1 mark ii I got for almost half the price of a OM-5 ($425 versus $800).

Conclusions

I made this table to help visualize the results above. It’s obvious the small f/4 Pro lenses are a cut above and meet my expectations. I do wish there was a 25-100 or something along those lines to compliment the 8-25.

Since I shoot wide often, the 8-25mm f/4 will without a doubt be my primary lens. The decision is what shoudl compliment it. It’s a tough choice, but if i focus on the 25mm-100mm range I think the Olympsu 14-150 ii seems like an excellent pairing with good IQ in that range and very manageble size and weight for it’s focal range. In a pinch it works for some basic wildlife as well.

Next I would probably lean towards the Olympus 40-150 as it provides incredible resolution across the frame.

Finally I think the 12-100 is the next best option. It’s excellent performance from 12-100 is surprising, but it’s heft is unfortunate. That is the price you pay for high IQ across such a zoom range. I honestly wish Olympus had mad it a variable aperture lens and kept hte size down while focusing on image quality.

Finally, the 12-45 is an incredible optic for it’s size. If i were to head out on a backpacking trip overnight the OM-5, 12-45 and an Ultrapod II all together would weigh about as much as the 12-100 alone while offering up incredible image quality. For inclement weather I wish the zoom was non tromboning.

I started out expecting to decide to keep 2 lenses and sell off the rest. I am thinking now that each lens fits a specific niche and use case and it would make sense to keep most of them, so perhaps it makes most sense to recap each lens, where it wins or loses and how it fits in to the use cases of a landscape/hiking setup. So in no particular order…

Olympus 12-45

This one surprised me a bit. I had read it performed favorably compared to the 12-40 f/2.8, but it’s performance corner to corner through the entire range was surprisingly good. It’s without a doubt the sharpest lens in this entire comparison while being very lightweight and small. My only wish is that is zoomed internally for use in rain or snow. But you can’t have it all and I’ll gladly settle with only having a lightweight, small lens with excellent image quality. Will absolutely not sell this one, and anyone looking for a lightweight sharp lens to take on their travels should look no further.

Lumix 12-60

The Lumix is a fantastic lens, but it doesn’t make sense along side the 12-45. The Lumix is weak 50-60mm, so it doesn’t practically offer much range over the 12-45, particularly given I could crop the difference while maintaing or having better IQ. It doesn’t make sense to keep both. If I were just starting out in M43 on a tight budget though, I would recommend the Lumix 12-60 to anyone looking to do landscapes. It performs really well from 12mm-40mm giving lenses twice it’s price a run for their money. Even at 12mm it’s really good. I’ve never had purple blob issues on my Olympus bodies with it (a common problem with certain Lumix lenses). If you pair it with a LUmix body with IBIS, like the G9, you get dual IS as well. Having dual IS in a standard zoom lens on the Olympus side is an expensive proposition, requiring the 12-100 lens.

I think if you are a landscape shooter you can treat this lens as a lightweight 12-40 alternative costing 1/3rd as much and be rather happy. If you want to pixel peep and stay lightweight, look at the 12-45.

My son has gotten into video and i’ve been letting him use my e-m1 mark ii recently. I might keep this lens as a cheap lens he can potentially beat up.

Olympus 12-50mm

This lens is everything I want from an all around hiking lens, except for image quality. It’s lightweight, internal zooming, has high manigifcation, 12mm on the wide end and weather sealed. I don’t mind the dim aperture, in fact I prefer lenses that use this as a trade off to achieve smaller size. The problem is the IQ isn’t good enough and is poor where it counts; at the long end for macro mode, wide end for landscapes. The 20-35mm range where it performs in the ‘good’ range is where I shoot the least.

An update of the 12-50 with better glass would be welcomed, even if i twere slightly heavier. It’s already only 211g (compared to the 254g of the 12-45). I would find 250-300g weight and slightly larger diameter acceptable to have a lens with this design and feature set offering ‘good’ IQ through the zoom range around f5.6.

For now though, I will likely sell this lens. If I keep it, I will be mindful of using it from about 15mm-30mm where it performns int he acceptable to good range.

Lumix 25mm f/1.7

I am doing more video lately and having a fast prime is useful to keep the shutter speed at 2x frame rate. For stills this lens is pretty ‘meh’ in it’s performance. It’s nice to have a very lightweight bright optic for dark conditions where an average shot is better than no shot and for that reason I’ll probably hang on to it.

Olympus 12-100

This one is a mixed bag for me. On the one hand it’s performance from 12 to 100 was mostly excellent. Never does it produce an image that is below a ‘good’ rating, and it’s mostly excellent. So while I would love for this to be my one and only lens, I can’t put it on my OM-5 and slap it on my peak design knockoff clip. Even if I had confidence the OM-5 tripod mount would handle the heft, it’s just too much weight dangling around on my chest. Even if i put it in my bag, I could carry the 12-45 and the 40-150 with me and get better IQ from 12-100, while having the 12-45 on the clip for quick access. Then there is the Sync IS which I value and showed int he IBIS tests to give me great results. An extra 1 stop or so of stabilization is very useful.

This one I need to take out into the field with me more so I can decide what to do with it.

Tamron 28-200

The other revelation from the 12-100 is that my Tamron 28-200 is maybe not as great as I thought it was. It’s very good from 28-50mm, and I think that is where it gets used the most. I replaced my 24-105 with it becuase it performance similarly from 28-100. I never really compared it at the long end with a telephoto lens. It is still lighter than the 24-105, so if nothing else I’ve saved myself some weight and have a lens I can comfortable shoot up to 120mm with. I’ll probably keep it, and just take along a 75-300 when I know I will need telephoto. Having f/2.8 at the 28mm end (essentially 14mm f/1.4 on M43) makes it super useful when I want some shallow depth of field.

Tamron 17-50

I am surprised by the performance from this lens in the fact that the Olympus 8-25 readily outperforms it. I wish the Olympus could mount to my Sony so I could shoot at 42mp in a single click with it all day long. I hate to say it, but it’s possibly ‘wasted’ on the M43 sensor. I’ve used a lot of ultrawide primes and zooms at this point, and they almost always best at their widest and quickly degrade zooming in. The 17-50 is an anomaly in this regard, actually being sharper in the middle of it’s zoom range, but the 17mm end is where I use it most.

The 17-50 is better than my Zeiss 16-35 was, which is interesting as I recall testing the Zeiss 16-35 on may a7r2 against high res shots from my G9 with the Leica 8-18mm and found the Sony+16-35 combo to be slightly better. If a>b, and b>c, then a>c, right? I dont’ have the Leica 8-18 on hand, but based on this math the Olympus 8-25 will equal or mildly outperform it at the wide end, and blow it away in the 14-18mm range.

Olympus 14-150

This lens cost more than I thought it would be worth and was certain I’d hate it. REality is it exceeded my expectations, and if I think of this lens as a 25-100mm compliment to my 8-25mm it makes a ton of sense. It fares well against the 12-100 in the 25-100 range while being a fraction of the size and weight. Knowing I could go to 125mm-150mm to grab a shot of a Marmot, Deer etc on a hike is also a nice to have. I actually am looking forward to taking this one out on more adventures where I know there will be both landscapes and wildlife to see.

Olympus 8-25

I had high expectations for this lens and am pleased that is met and even exceeded them. I loved what the Tamron 17-50 was…an ultrawide to normal lens for hikes to eliminate most of my lens swapping. IT has done that for me on my Sony setup but the IQ from the Olympus is good enough I won’t feel like I am really missing out on anything when using the 8-25. This lens is aboslutely going to be in my bag for all of my adventures.

Olympus 40-150 f/4 pro

I had high expectations for this lens as well. IT mildly disappointed…at 100mm I assumed it would make the 12-100 and 14-150 look bad. Of course it didn’t work out this way. I’m happy to see it’s performance from 100mm to 150mm remained static. I also appreciate the lack of tromboning zoom. It’s a lens that I could take on hikes for wildlife and telephoto landscapes when the weather is less than Ideal and I could feel confident carrying it. For this reason I’ll likely keep it, but I’m honestly on the fence. I will probably pick up the Lumix 100-300 ii (which I previously owned and used with my G9) and do a comaprison of the two. The 40-150 f/4 will definitely win on size and weight, but having another 150mm of range for wildlife is a lot.

Final Thoughts

Overall I’m pleased to be shooting on the ‘micro four thirds’ again, even if it’s not all micro. This testing has been both fun and eye opening. It’s confirmed some of my assumptions while challenging others.

I think there is some more testing to do, and I will likely amend this blog when I have time to take a few of my favorites from this test out into the field.

I assumed initially that I would keep my full frame setup for planned shots. For example, a short 5 mile hike to a destination sunrise/sunset spot with my tripod. This test has me wondering how the M43 equipment would perform in high res mode (both tripod and hand held) with longer exposures against the Sony, particularly when lifting shadows etc. I mostly shoot sunsets/sunrises where it’s not terribly windy (calm waters with reflections etc.). So I think it’s reasomable to assume M43 will hold up well here.

The final use case I don’t think M43 will take over any time soon is night sky shooting. Unfortunately, living in Oregon, I don’t get to do this as much as I’d like, but it is one of my favorite things to shoot. Possible I will unload some of my full frame lenses to fund things like the Viltrox 16mm f/1.8 I’ve been eyeing or maybe the Sony 16-35 f/2.8 G Master, a combination for which M43 really has no equivalent.

Enough clinical measuring for now, time to hit some trails!