[Klaus]

Ok, maybe not the lens review you may have been waiting for but first things first ...

http://www.opticallimits.com/m43/780_oly40150r



by Sebastian

[Guest]

It seems pretty decent for the price; esp given that it is almost walways on sale ($100 with purchase of a new camera kit or $200 by itself). The only thing that bothers me is the clarity. Someone was showing some sample images with the 14-45; 12-35 and 40-150 and while the 12-35 might not have the best resolution the clarity was very visible when the three lens were compared (clarity might not be the right term; but the 14-45 and 40-150 seemed to almost have a haze over the image).

[ginsbu]

Thanks for the review. I hope you'll have an opportunity to test the new Panasonic 45-150mm lens soon. I am eager to find out how these lenses compare!

[Klaus]

The 75 will be next in this theater. Then the 35-100 I guess.

[Guest]

And the 60 macro ?

[Klaus]

[quote name='you2' timestamp='1356962999' post='21275']

And the 60 macro ?

[/quote]



At some stage.

[soLong]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1356947676' post='21274']

The 75 will be next in this theater.…...

[/quote]

….Wagner?……or Fillini maybe? (my preference of course :-)

[Klaus]

[quote name='soLong' timestamp='1357027809' post='21277']

….Wagner?……or Fillini maybe? (my preference of course :-)

[/quote]





I have tickets for Berlioz in the Sydney opera next Feb but that's not a theater as well. I'm already looking forward to it.

[Guest]

Strange days, but I do think that PZ should aim to do better than this….

MFT lens reviews are always IMHO very welcome but I would really appreciate a more substantial dedication to this format. The trend goes towards providing a mix of some very superficial blabla (e.g.: “The "R" model is an improved version of the initial 40-150mm” - WHAT exactly has been improved in comparison to the previous version?) with serious resolution figures. Why not mentioning the plastic lens mount and, an exquisite example of “penny-pinching”, the piece of rubber instead of a proper rear lens cap (which is in fact a downgrade coming form the previous model)? Moreover, probably the most pertinent question for MFT shooters is how does this lens compare to the newish Panasonic 45-150, of which a review apparently hasn´t even been scheduled.

[Klaus]

[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1357131235' post='21280']

Strange days, but I do think that PZ should aim to do better than this….

MFT lens reviews are always IMHO very welcome but I would really appreciate a more substantial dedication to this format. The trend goes towards providing a mix of some very superficial blabla (e.g.: “The "R" model is an improved version of the initial 40-150mm” - WHAT exactly has been improved in comparison to the previous version?) with serious resolution figures. Why not mentioning the plastic lens mount and, an exquisite example of “penny-pinching”, the piece of rubber instead of a proper rear lens cap (which is in fact a downgrade coming form the previous model)? Moreover, probably the most pertinent question for MFT shooters is how does this lens compare to the newish Panasonic 45-150, of which a review apparently hasn´t even been scheduled.

[/quote]



The plastic mount is mentioned.

We can't compare it to the 45-150 because we haven't tested it - same goes for numerous lenses from other systems. At the moment there's simply the situation that too many lenses are released so we have to priorities.