Comparing the new 12-40 Pro with the 12-60 SWD on an E-M1

[Ian]

Today, despite overcast weather and, at the end, spits of rain, I shot some back/back comparisons of the new 12-40 and the old favourite 12-60 SWD using an E-M1, fitting the 12-60 via an MMF-3 adapter.

The ISO was 200, and for the JPEGs the noise filter was switched off. A link to the RAW file is provided as well. Each lens was used at 12, 25 and 40mm and each focal length was used at full aperture, f/4.0, f/5.6 and f/8.0.

The JPEGs were imported into Lightroom 5.0 for inspection and selection but no image changes were made. These images were not taken under laboratory conditions - and the 12mm shots may have had some spots of rain in the lens surface. But the camera and lenses were tripod mounted and levelled as best as I could. The lenses were only focused once for each focal length on each lens photographed. A 2 second delay was used to allow the camera to settle before each exposure was made.

IMPORTANT

These images are Copyright Ian Burley. They are provided for your personal evaluation only. If you are going to post these images or part of these images elsewhere on the Web I request that you post a link back to http://fourthirds-user.com and acknowledge my copyright. PLEASE DON'T POST LINKS TO THE FILES ON OUR SERVER! If you want to post the entire file, download it and serve it from your own web space (provided you include a link back to http://fourthirds-user.com) and acknowledge my copyright).

Micro Four Thirds M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro:

• 12-40mm, f=40mm, @ f/2.8 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=40mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=40mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=40mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=25mm, @ f/2.8 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=25mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=25mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=25mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=12mm, @ f/2.8 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=12mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=12mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=12mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.

Four Thirds Zuiko Digital 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 w/ MMF-3 adapter:

• 12-60mm, f=40mm, @ f/3.8 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=40mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=40mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=40mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=25mm, @ f/3.4 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=25mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=25mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=25mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=12mm, @ f/2.8 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=12mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=12mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=12mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.

[Ian]

Re: Comparing the new 12-40 Pro with the 12-60 SWD on an E-M1

If anyone does not follow the linking and copyright instructions I will remove these files.

Ian

[dhazeghi]

Re: Comparing the new 12-40 Pro with the 12-60 SWD on an E-M1

Thanks for doing this! Interesting to see these two excellent lenses side-by-side for the first time. Looking at the 25mm shots, I wonder if the 12-60mm focused somewhat closer than the 12-40. The wall looks better to me on the 12-40 (considerably so at the edge), but going by the pavement, the 12-60 actually looks sharper closer by. At 12mm and 40mm I've having a hard time telling a difference between the two!

[Fraenzken]

Re: Comparing the new 12-40 Pro with the 12-60 SWD on an E-M1

Thanks Ian, your effort is really very much appreciated!

The 12-60 looks somewhat softer on the left side of the pictures than the 12-40 - independent of the focal length used. Could it be that your lens is decentered?

Thanks again
Frank

[Ian]

Re: Comparing the new 12-40 Pro with the 12-60 SWD on an E-M1

Thanks Ian, your effort is really very much appreciated!

The 12-60 looks somewhat softer on the left side of the pictures than the 12-40 - independent of the focal length used. Could it be that your lens is decentered?

Thanks again
Frank

It could be, I will do a DxO Analyzer check.

Ian

[Fraenzken]

Re: Comparing the new 12-40 Pro with the 12-60 SWD on an E-M1

It could be, I will do a DxO Analyzer check.

Ian

Thanks again Ian!
Cheers

[Ian]

Re: Comparing the new 12-40 Pro with the 12-60 SWD on an E-M1

OK, I have now spent some time looking at the images. Based on examination of the JPEG images, sadly, I have to put my hand up and admit two failings; the 12-60 40mm shots are very slightly mis-focused compared to the 12-40 shots and the 12-60 lens sample does look de-centred, with the top right looking sharper than the top left.

Therefore I have decided to re-shoot the entire exercise and will use a different 12-60 and hope it is a better sample. The weather today is much better and sunny although forecast to deteriorate this afternoon. I need to wait for the light to shine on the front of the building later this morning before I can start but I will publish new images this afternoon.

But given the above comments, at 25mm, comparing the best areas of the 12-60 to the 12-40 there is not much difference except of course the 12-40 is 2/3 or so stops brighter fully open and doesn't seem to lose much to the 12-60 at f/3.4. At 12mm wide open and this time both at f/2.8 I think the 12-40 has a very slight edge in sharpness but we'll have to see how a different 12-60 sample works out. Surprisingly, given that the E-M1 is supposed to correct Four Thirds lenses for distortion in the JPEGs there is still quite a bit of barrel distortion with the 12-60 compared to the 12-40. I should also add that the 12-40 was more consistent in focus accuracy (using CDAF) than the 12-60 (PDAF) although the conditions weren't ideal.

Finally, the previous comments elsewhere that have referred to reduced sharpness at f/5.6 - I can concur and can only think that is a diffraction issue as it appears to affect both lenses.

Ian

[Ian]

Re: Comparing the new 12-40 Pro with the 12-60 SWD on an E-M1

Here is a new set of comparison images shot today using a different 12-60. This doesn't look very sharp on the extreme right of the frame in the 40mm shots, but I think it's more representative than the first lens I tried.

Unfortunately the clouds raced in so these shots are again taken in overcast conditions.

The ISO was 200, and for the JPEGs the noise filter was switched off. A link to the RAW file is provided as well. Each lens was used at 12, 25 and 40mm and each focal length was used at full aperture, f/4.0, f/5.6 and f/8.0.

IMPORTANT

These images are Copyright Ian Burley. They are provided for your personal evaluation only. If you are going to post these images or part of these images elsewhere on the Web I request that you post a link back to http://fourthirds-user.com and acknowledge my copyright. PLEASE DON'T POST LINKS TO THE FILES ON OUR SERVER! If you want to post the entire file, download it and serve it from your own web space (provided you include a link back to http://fourthirds-user.com) and acknowledge my copyright).

Micro Four Thirds M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro:

• 12-40mm, f=40mm, @ f/2.8 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=40mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=40mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=40mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=24mm, @ f/2.8 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=24mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=24mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=24mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=12mm, @ f/2.8 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=12mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=12mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-40mm, f=12mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.

Four Thirds Zuiko Digital 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 w/ MMF-3 adapter:

• 12-60mm, f=40mm, @ f/3.8 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=40mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=40mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=40mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=25mm, @ f/3.4 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=25mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=25mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=25mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=12mm, @ f/2.8 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=12mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=12mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) - RAW file.
• 12-60mm, f=12mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) - RAW file.

[Ross]

Re: Comparing the new 12-40 Pro with the 12-60 SWD on an E-M1

I decided to try opening the RAW file (P9150179.ORF) of the 12-40 lens at 12mm, f8 in a Win8 app Foto & it did showing just how much barrel distortion there was before the correction had been applied to it (in the jpeg) which includes a fair amount of crop too, (which is how it opens in Olympus Viewer 3 (version 1.1)). Of course it shows it rather flat too without settings applied.
I just though it would be interesting to mention it.

BTW, OV3 also shows the Color Creator in the Picture Mode selection too as well as the Highlight & Shadow Control (which can't be used on E-M5 RAW files).

[dingenus]

Re: Comparing the new 12-40 Pro with the 12-60 SWD on an E-M1

Ian, thanks for this shots. As far as I can see, Olympus has done their homework very well as I see the jpegs. That means that they have done the optical formula + softwarecorrection at the wide end very good, better than any mFT lens before. The 12-60 could be old and defocussed but I can't see it going better than the 12-40. Except at 41-60mm of course.

[Fraenzken]

Re: Comparing the new 12-40 Pro with the 12-60 SWD on an E-M1

Here is a new set of comparison images shot today using a different 12-60. This doesn't look very sharp on the extreme right of the frame in the 40mm shots, but I think it's more representative than the first lens I tried.

Thanks for going through all this effort, Ian.

This is highly interesting. Not only because of the decentering issues of the 12-60. But also because the 12-40 seems so incredibly consistent across the frame.

I've developped the RAW files with PhotoNinja, though, and now I see a slightly different result: First of all, there's a massive barrel distortion on the 12 mm end of the 12-40 (not surprisingly, I'd say). Secondly, in the corners you can see huge vignetting. Luckily, they're cropped once the distortion is corrected (Olympus Viewer crops much more than PhotoNinja, b.t.w. - even after distortion correction).

Thirdly, an that's for me the most interesting part: In the developped RAW file, the corners and edges seem to be notably softer than the center. There seems to be some selective sharpening going on: the soft outer part of the image is sharpened more than the center. That's why the results are so consistent.

If you shoot jpgs, it doesn't matter - the results are beautiful! But for RAW-shooters this may pose a problem (if you don't use a RAW converter that accounts for the lenses' weaknesses as well as e.g. DXO does).

Have a look at these comparisons:
developped from RAW, uncorrected:
http://www.wissenschaftsgeschichten....rected_ORF.jpg

left side of the picture, jpg to the left, RAW to the right:
http://www.wissenschaftsgeschichten...._ORF_right.jpg

center of the picture, jpg to the left, RAW to the right:
http://www.wissenschaftsgeschichten...._ORF_right.jpg

right side of the picture, jpg to the left, RAW to the right:
http://www.wissenschaftsgeschichten...._ORF_right.jpg

P.S.: Selective sharpening seems also to be applied (by Olympus Viewer or the camera's jpg engine) to the 12-60, albeit to a smaller degree.

[Graham]

Comparing the new 12-40 Pro with the 12-60 SWD on an E-M1

Just by way of interest, where is the 12-40 mm manufactured?

[Ian]

Re: Comparing the new 12-40 Pro with the 12-60 SWD on an E-M1

Thanks for going through all this effort, Ian.

This is highly interesting. Not only because of the decentering issues of the 12-60. But also because the 12-40 seems so incredibly consistent across the frame.

I've developped the RAW files with PhotoNinja, though, and now I see a slightly different result: First of all, there's a massive barrel distortion on the 12 mm end of the 12-40 (not surprisingly, I'd say). Secondly, in the corners you can see huge vignetting. Luckily, they're cropped once the distortion is corrected (Olympus Viewer crops much more than PhotoNinja, b.t.w. - even after distortion correction).

Thirdly, an that's for me the most interesting part: In the developped RAW file, the corners and edges seem to be notably softer than the center. There seems to be some selective sharpening going on: the soft outer part of the image is sharpened more than the center. That's why the results are so consistent.

If you shoot jpgs, it doesn't matter - the results are beautiful! But for RAW-shooters this may pose a problem (if you don't use a RAW converter that accounts for the lenses' weaknesses as well as e.g. DXO does).

Have a look at these comparisons:
developped from RAW, uncorrected:
http://www.wissenschaftsgeschichten....rected_ORF.jpg

left side of the picture, jpg to the left, RAW to the right:
http://www.wissenschaftsgeschichten...._ORF_right.jpg

center of the picture, jpg to the left, RAW to the right:
http://www.wissenschaftsgeschichten...._ORF_right.jpg

right side of the picture, jpg to the left, RAW to the right:
http://www.wissenschaftsgeschichten...._ORF_right.jpg

Thanks for your observations

It's well known that the size of the glass elements in a lens can be reduced if you don't mind some distortion as a by-product. This is why Panasonic lenses are usually more compact than similar specification Leica-branded Panasonic lenses; Leica does not permit excessive distortion, whereas Panasonic is not so fussy and corrects it in the camera.

When I was in Tokyo last month I asked Eiji Shirota, one of the senior lens designers at Olympus, if some size reduction had been at the cost of basic geometric distortion and reading between the lines he said yes.

I am not so sure about selective sharpening - it's something I wlll have to ask them! Resolution can't be re-invented, of course.

Ian

[Ian]

Re: Comparing the new 12-40 Pro with the 12-60 SWD on an E-M1

Just by way of interest, where is the 12-40 mm manufactured?

Interestingly - there is no place of manufacture indication on my sample!

But I will try to find out for you.

Ian

[Fraenzken]

Re: Comparing the new 12-40 Pro with the 12-60 SWD on an E-M1

I am not so sure about selective sharpening - it's something I wlll have to ask them! Resolution can't be re-invented, of course.

You're certainly right there, Ian. Maybe my comparison is a bit misleading as PhotNinja doesn't crop so much of the picture as Olympus Viewer does (and the most blurred parts are at the extreme edges). Still, if you could ask your sources, I'd be very interested in their answers.