Magyar változat




REVIEW OF OLYMPUS ZUIKO DIGITAL TOP-PRO LENSES




Thanks to the opportunity presented by Olympus Hungary Ltd., we had a chance to test three of the „Top-Pro” range Zuiko Digital four-thirds lenses. The range as a whole, presently counting a total of 5 members, have won the EISA "European Professional Lens 2006-2007" award. It consists of the following lenses (field-of view equivalent focal lengths in 35mm terms are given in parantheses):


            Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm 1:4.0 (14-28mm)

            Zuiko Digital ED 35-100mm 1:2.0 (70-200mm)

            Zuiko Digital ED 90-250mm 1:2.8 (180-500mm)

            Zuiko Digital ED 150mm 1:2.0 (300mm)

            Zuiko Digital ED 300mm 1:2.8 (600mm)


According to the official roadmap of Olympus, a new member will arrive in 2007:

   

               Zuiko Digital ED 14-35mm 1:2.0 (28-70mm)

 

It is apparent from the focal lengths that the "Top-Pro" lenses cover the 7mm-300mm focal length range (14mm to 600mm in 35mm FOV equivalent terms), and they do that offering remarkable brightness. In the case of zoom-lenses, the f2.0 maximum aperture is virtually unparalelled. Using the EC-14 teleconverter, a reach of 424mm (848mm in 35mm equiv. terms) can be obtained using the ED 300mm 1:2.8 lens.  All the lenses share the same professional-grade sturdy, splash and dust proof finish, along with the incorporated ED and super ED lens elements, promising durability and outstanding color accuracy, respectively. Olympus marks the Top-Pro lenses with a noticable silver ring on the front. Our current review looks at the a 35-100mm, the 150mm and the 90-250mm lenses.

 

Zsombor Cseres-Gergely:

I have been using the 4/3 system as an amateur for one and a half year now, primarily to shoot people (no pun intended). I choose the system for the (to my eye) pleasing colour, the apparently outstanding optical performance of the Pro-series lenses and the professional-grade, yet affordable E-1 body (apart from a "Rebel"-ish choice, I had OM-s before, so there might be something more going on here, if you care for this detail). Introduction of the E-1 successor is scheduled for spring 2007 and before further investing into the system, I just wanted to know how much potential is there in the top of the range 4/3 lenses - being an indication of the overall system quality a lá F1 in the case of cars. I used my E-1 for the test. Although the 5 megapixel can not show the quality of such lenses completely, it does provide a way to obtain a good estimate. On the other hand, having at least one familiar element in the too-chain helps to generate reasonable results.
 

A direct motivation for proceeding with the test was the fact that there are very few tests and virtually no high quality sample images for the Top-Pro lenses - probably down to the very few items sold. Here we wanted to present the capabilities of the lenses in a fairly comprehensive way, but of course we too had to face constraints. Having had only two hours to familiarise with the lenses and do the test, we could not quite get to the level of precision and thoroughness we planned to. As this bacame increasingly clear, we concentrated only on the (to us) most important features. We only hope to be able to continue or even expand the test in the future.

 

The large (and constant) maximum aperture is one of the distinguishing feature of the Top-Pro lenses. This makes low-ligh photography less difficult, while due to the sensor size (smallest among digital SLRs), still provides relative large depth of field. Some think that this is a drawback, rather than a blessing. I beg to differ: excluding fairly rare occasions, f2.0 itself is on the limit of usability, considering (most of) the focal lengths and the bulk of the lenses in question here. I also have to mention that I have quite bad experiences with fast (prime!) lenses that claimed a maximum aperture of f1.8 or wider, but started to produce acceptable sharpness only when stopped down to f2.8, f3.5 or even more. Ressing up images and the sensor noise built up in low-level shots makes maximum sharpness a top priority for me. I also hate to think of aperture as a quality improvement tool - it should serve creativity as a means to control DOF!

 

Some might ask: why do we need all this mighty expensive brightness when we have all those forms of shake reduction/image stabilisation, etc. out on the market? Within the 4/3 system, it is only Panasonic/Leica that offers IS, but this is no reason for paying thousands of dollars for an optical solution to a seemingly similar problem. It is important to note however that brightness and image stabilisation work in different situations and that one does not preclude the other. IS/AS/SR has no benefit if you are shooting (and want to freeze) moving subjects (let us not talk about the efficiency of the different available solutions). Brightness does allow freezing motion by making a slower shutter speed possible, but it brings shallow DOF with all its benefits and problems. Since the two type of solutions are not yet merged in a modern solution, we can look only at the effect of brightness here.
 

When testing the Top-Pro lenses we used the same criteria as looking at others, only employing the most demanding criteria realistically possible. We expected spotless build quality (not testing but trusting splash- and dust proofness based on our experience with the "Pro" line) and similarly outstanding performance from the mechanical and electro-mechanical parts, such as the zoom, focus and auto-focus mechanisms. Given the outstandingly wide maximum aperture, we expected superb performance also with this set, falling short of the available maximum only marginally. We of course expct the lenses to be sharp, not only in the center, but also in the field and at the edges. Many try to save bright and unsharp lenses by arguing that they will be employed for portraiture where "softness" is desired anyway. We have to note however that this is partly an uninteded play on words. Although softness and unsharpness can mean similar phenomena in everyday English, they are by no means the same. Softness - or soft-focus - is an effect that can be created on purpose but even that needs sharpness! Sharpness is therefore needed everywhere. The lenses are also expected to be free of geometric and chromatic aberrations, vignetting and should exhibit excellent colour fidelity. Although we did look at geometric distortions, they did not recieve a great emphasis as these are the easiest to correct during post processing. Indeed, we even expected them to be present with the zooms as they represent a relatively inexpensive degree of freedom. Colour fidelity on the other hand is important as it is quite difficult to post-process. We also expected the out of focus areas of the images (the "bokeh") to exhibit a pleasing quality, with nice gradations, full bodied colours and free of secondary chromatic aberrations. Considering the large possible apertures, this quality is a surprisingly important one in building up the final impression an image generates.


It is a major question in the case of all the tree tested lenses, whether the technically available brightness can actually be used in practical shooting situations. Considering the narrow fields of view and the bulk of the lenses, stability of the photographer and the scene shot might become a critical limiting factor. Beside these, shallow depth of field adds another level of difficulty, as any movement that happens between setting the focus and pressing the shutter can kill sharpness instantly. Previous experiences with the otherwise superb ZD 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 tell me that this possibility prompts extra agility and skill (at 200mm f3.5, you have about 3mm DOF there when doing a headshot).

My main interest lies in reportage- and portrait-type photography. The 35-100mm 1:2.0 is a typical reportage lens, and the 150mm 1:2.0 is a typical tool for a type of fashion photographers. Although (or rather: because?) I have heard high praises of the quality of the 150mm 1:2.0, I was more eager to meet the 35-100mm 1:2.0. Handling the 90-250mm 1:2.8 is a physical joy, but nature photography is something I mostly enjoy, rather than do.


Krisztián Nagy:

I have been using the 4/3 system since the beginning of 2005. I shoot mostly nature, macro, but I pop up on events too.

We had two 4/3 cameras available for the test shots. One of them was the Olympus E-1, the other the Olympus E-330. Since the lenses are quite heavy, and I had a portrait grip on the E-1, I chose to use that for the practical tests. For consistency, Zsombor used an E-1 too. It is true that the E-330 has higher resolution, but I felt that lack of quality had to show up already at the resolution of the E-1. We really badly wanted to get an E-400 for the review, but we could not obtain one (and could not justify to buy one solely for this purpose). However, it seems that one of us will get hold of the E-400 (or its successor) and further tests will use that. In any case, we used the E-330 to shoot the test images.


We conducted two trials: one simulating a real-life situation, the second geared toward the perception of pure technical qualities. For the second one, I created a custom test chart with repetitive geometric patterns. The chart is computer-generated and printed on a laser printer. Considering its size (A3) and the resolution (600dpi), it poses a challenge for 20 megapixel camers too.


All shots were taken at ISO100 or ISO125. We shot RAW files and applied the following procedure for development. In the case of "real life" shots, we developed the ORF-s in Olympus Studio using "Advanced High Function" to get maximum colour performance (no low light situations here). The results were saved as 16 bit TIFF-s. Sometimes we had to apply exposure compensation. Then we went to our friend who has Photoshop and created an image we are pleased with as if we were working on our own images. We have done some "levels" adjusment and corrected saturation if needed. Finally we either resized the images or took a 100% crop. In the first case, we applied a "Sharpen edges" before resizing (using bicubic sharper), and an USM with parameters A:0.4 R:40% T:0 after. In the second, we applied USM with parameters A:0.4 R:60% T:0. The images were saved with "Save for web", given its superior JPG engine (hence the lack of EXIF data). In the case of synthetic shots, we used ACE to develop the files. Although we do not particularly like the colours it gives, it is free from the Moiré effect Olympus Studio exhibits in some cases. Sharpening was set to zero here.


As already mentioned, we had a total of two hours to test the three lenses, so we would like to apologise if the test is imperfect here and there. Criticism can be raise especially in the case of the synthetic test shots of the geometric pattern, where lack of time resulted in blurred, lost and hence missing frames as well.


TESTS

click on the images! (opens new window)

 

 ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35-100mm 1:2.0

 ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 150mm 1:2.0

 ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 90-250mm 1:2.8

 

CONCLUSION

 

Testing the Zuiko Digital Top-Pro lenses yielded a definitive and promising result. We got to know the already known about the ED 150mm 1:2.0, namely that there is possibly no match to it in terms of image quality. Its build is superb, too. If it was possible to keep its optical performance but build in an ultrasonic motor and (if the strategy of Olympus heads towards this direction) an IS/AS/SR mechanism, a real envy of the competitors would spring into life. It is iportant to note however that the lens is superb already in its present form. If I was to shoot stage shots as a pro, the compactness and its performance would make investing to it a no brainer.

 

As I have already written, the 90-250mm 1:2.8 "cannon" made me mostly only stare with astonishment. It is clear however that those deciding for this lens will not buy something overly expensive. The price is high, but the exceptional price is very well matched by exceptional quality!

 

The greatest puzzle for me however was the performance of the 35-100mm 1:2.0 and I have to say I am impressed. It seems an exceptionally good idea that Olympus exploits the benefits of the smallish 4/3 sensor in two dimensions, towards making one line of lenses extremely compact and the other of extremely high quality (with the Pro line in the middle featuring the best combination of all characteristics). The 35-100 shows perfectly the quality possible following the latter approach. I can not help noting however that being a potential reportage lens, the lack of ultrasonic motor and image stabilization is annoying. Nevertheless, if I had an immediate contract for this type of work, I would choose this lens as my standard one without hesitation (even against the otherwise excellent 50-200mm). If however there is no pressure, I would wait for PMA 2007. A tunded up version would approach what I would call perfect in this lens category.

 

It is very hard to draw final conclusions on the basis of such a brief test. Zuiko Digital Top-Pro lenses are expensive, period. All professional lenses are expensive. Comparison is made difficult by the fact that the competition offers lens-based stabilisation for the same price, but lacks the 2.0, 2.8 brightness these lenses offer. It is true, that to achieve the same field of view 70-200mm lenses offer when used on a 35mm full-frame camera, one needs shorter focal length on 4/3, which translates to a physically smaller front element and entrance pupil when holding brightness constant, there is no other companies offering zooms of 2.0 brightness except for Olympus - even for shorter focal lengths. 

 

2.0 brightness   gives faster shutter speed, but the smaller sensor makes signal/nosie ratio worse. Compared to APS-C and even considering the ever increasing quality of the sensors used by Olympus, we can consider Olympus the winner, as there is no alternative brighter than 2.8. Staying in the zoom range we looked at, one can think about the Sigma 50-150mm and the Pentax/Tokina 50-135 scheduled for next year. The situation is the same with the much expected 14-35mm 1:2.0., as all "alternative" EF-S, DX, DI, DA lenses offer a maximum aperture of f2.8.

 

I think it is fairly clear that no matter which manufacturer one chooses these days, it is easy to find equipment suitable to create images of almost any kind. The difference lies in the small details. One manufacturer offers a little more in one feature, the other in the other. The decision to buy into a system has to depend on whether a set of features meet the needs of the specific project one has in mind. To me, these distinguishing features of Olympus are the followings:

 

    - hassle-free operation, full compatibility of bodies and lenses - complete lack of front- and back-focus problems

    - the 4:3 proportion feels ideal for portraiture and macro-photography to me

    - macro photography benefits from the greater depth of field inherent in the 4/3 system and there exists a 1:2.0 macro lens set-up for the system

    - a very useful set of combinations in terms of lens size, brightness, quality and coverage

    - a proven dust-reduction system

    - Live-View

    - exceptional ergonomics in the case of the E-1, which I hope will remain the case with its successor, too

 

The 4/3 system has room to improve on lens stabilisation, speed of the AF system and extra bright prime lenses. Although we expect to see the Leica D Summilux 25mm 1.4 ASPH. to sell in 2007, this lens is probably not only of extraordinary quality, but will most certainly carry a hefty price tag. This will be the first true standard lens for the 4/3 system (although the Sigma 30mm 1:1.4 EX DC HSM is quite close to being one). The 35mm full frame lens sharing its construction to a great extent (see construction images of the Leica R Summilux 50mm 1.4 ASPH.) is considered to be one of the best fast lenses available. The real break-through would be the availability of fast lenses with 85mm and 135mm equivalent FOV (portraiture classics), meaning 45mm and 70mm 1:1.4 or 1:1.8. But Olympus also has to deliver the 100mm macro show in its roadmap for 2 years now! The faithful of the 4/3 system have another treasured dream: a 300mm 1:4.0 lens at affordable price, probably included in the "Pro" line. Considering the design and the price point of the 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5, we estimate this lens could be made available at around $1000-$1200. At this price, it would sell as hot cookies to nature photographers (and with a different feauture set, it would not cannibalise the sales of the 300mm 1:2.8 either). Considering the apparent "demand" articulated in Internet forums, it is quite difficult to understand, why this lens is not yet available, if not from Olympus, from Sigma or Tamron. Although there are many who argue, I firmly believe that adapting lenses designed for 35mm lenses is not a solution to the problem. We need at least "DC" class lenses to produce outstanding quality in general and to enable the use of a teleconverter. There is also a set of images on the web showing an Olympus-developed ultrasonic motor along with a modified Zuiko Digital 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5.
  

In september 2006, Olympus demonstrated a concept model of the E-1 successor on Photokina. We can only hope that 2007 will be a year to reveal fact on this new body. The concept model shows clearly that the new body was designed to be slightly narrower and taller than its predecessor, the rear LCD showing signs of tilting capability. All of these suggest Live View built in the camera!.A professional body with Live View is a dream come true for macro photographers and those using manual telephoto lenses! There have been a staggering amount of guesswork going on concerning this camera. Considering the E-400, we can be almost sure that it will feature (at least) a 10 megapixel images. The sensor is Kodak-built, which shows that Olympus using a non-Kodak sensor in the E-330 was a mere swing. Given their extreme resolution, we expect the Top-Pro lens lint to spring into life when mounted on this new generation of camera bodies. Based on the interviews made during the past 1-2 years, we can also speculate on an increased number of AF sensors. The E-500 was already a great leap towards more precise exposure with its 49 zone metering and the new pro body will surely incorporate this development, if not an improved version of it, similarly to the steadily improving AF system.

 

All in all we can safely conclude that the lenses met my expectations, which were fairly high to begin with. Sharpness was excellent at all apertures and focal lengths, and distortion is nothing to talk about. It is especially the 150mm 1:2.0, already a favourite of mine, to which I developed a connection that, I fear and hope, will conclude in a purchase. I would also like to repeat this test in a more relaxed and professional manner. It is rather amazing, where the developments of the past three years took the lens selection of the 4/3 system. Let us hope that this trend continues for some time to come!


Note that results of the review are available on a CD as original RAW (ORF) files. Please contact us via email if you are interested.




We would like to thank Kamilla for lending her face for this unusual series of test shots!

 

copyright © 2006-2007 by Zsombor Cseres-Gergely & Krisztián Nagy, all rights reserved

This content, including all text and images is provided for personal use only. Replication by any means is not permitted without explicit written consent.

 

you can reach us at:

 

e-mail to Zsombor - see Zsombor's photos

e-mail to Krisztián - see Krisztián's photos