Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ lens test report: Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-60mm f/2.8-4 ASPH Power OIS
#1
http://www.opticallimits.com/m43/1007_leica1260f284

#2
Sorry the images weren't working (but you may have seen them before in the gallery)

#3
Thanks, Klaus.

 

If I may make a suggestion - which may go against some of the shallow-DoF-bokeh-advocates, regarding the first paragraph in the Bokeh-section:

 

Quote:Micro-Four-Thirds may not be the hot-spot for shallow depth-of-field applications yet there's still some potential if you can keep a fairly close focus distance - so let's have a look at some details.
 
 

Bokeh is not about shallow DoF, but about the quality of out-of focus areas, both transitions and completely OOF-regions. This gets more difficult to show with smaller sensor lenses, and/or with smaller aperture lenses, but is not necessarily inherently related to large aperture lenses anyway.

 

IMO, some great examples are the Canon TS-Es, which are all mostly relatively small aperture lenses, but provide incredibly smooth OOF transitions and generally have great bokeh.

 

I haver added an example here, which I use when showing people what a tilt-shift lens allows one to do beyond the miniaturisation effect, and which was shot with an APS-C camera and the older 24 mm F/3.5 Canon TS-E, wide open, IOW, effective FF-equivalent F-stop of F/5.6 (3.5 * 1.6).

 

[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]

 

These lenses do not have problems with long, sharp-edged items either, like blades of grass in the (relative) distance, where other lenses have a very busy characteristics; these lenses still show very smooth transitions, despite being small aperture lenses.

 

In short, my suggestion would be to rephrase the bokeh-paragraph, as nice bokeh can be achieved at almost any aperture Wink, although it is easier to show at larger apertures, with larger aperture lenses designed for and used with larger sensors.

 

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#4
Well, I often use "focus transition zone" to explain it. 

I reckon I should create an article to go into more "depth" here. 

#5
So would it be correct to summarize the comparison between this lens and the Oly 12-100 F4 as having essentially identical IQ in their overlapping ranges and apertures, so choose PL 12-60 if you favor less weight, and the Oly 12-100 if you want extended range...

 

.

Quote:http://www.opticallimits.com/m43/1007_leica1260f284
#6
So between thsi and the 12-100f4 which would you buy - both, oly, leica or neither Smile

 

From the review the resolution seems very similar 'cept at 40-60mm where the leica is a bit better. On the flip side the 12-100 seems to have better rendering and less loca. Of course the big negative is the huge size.

#7
Well, you know which one got the thumbs up.... Smile

 

Quote:So between thsi and the 12-100f4 which would you buy - both, oly, leica or neither Smile
#8
Yea. I know but he gave the leica a 1/2 * more than the oly but the thumb up to oly. I figured he just forgot the thumb up on the leica or maybe this or that. Hum. One thing that i don't get is all three lenses (the slow 12-60) have very similar uncorrected distortion on the wide and as well as very large vignetting.

Quote:Well, you know which one got the thumbs up.... Smile
#9
As others have stated,  there is more reliance in modern lens design on software corrected distortion and vignetting, making it possible to create zooms with longer ranges that are still very sharp in the center. If not, we would remain restricted to 2-3x zooms with corrected lenses. If that's the sacrifice we have to make (the slightly softer corners in modern lenses) then personally I am OK with that. There's no free lunch as they say.

 

Quote:Yea. I know but he gave the leica a 1/2 * more than the oly but the thumb up to oly. I figured he just forgot the thumb up on the leica or maybe this or that. Hum. One thing that i don't get is all three lenses (the slow 12-60) have very similar uncorrected distortion on the wide and as well as very large vignetting.
#10
The Oly got a thumbs up because it delivered that performance despite being an 8.2x zoom lens ( and the IS ).


Based on my usage pattern I may lean towards the Oly but this is also taking into account that I have an Oly body (thus Sync-IS). It's a close call nontheless.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)