[Klaus]

Decent but not really hot 

 

http://www.opticallimits.com/m43/983_pana1260f3556

[longbowswift]

The test data seems similar with G14-42II  G14-45 ,but only get 2.5 verdict stars 


M43 raw coupled with digital correction in most software,  is the 6% original distortion led
 to such a low conclusion.

As I see, 12-60 is better than its opponent——MZD 12-50 


 

Please reconsider the final stars. 

[Rover]

ZOMG teh distortion & teh vignetting. But that's not breaking news anymore...

[Klaus]

The test data seems similar with G14-42II  G14-45 ,but only get 2.5 verdict stars 


M43 raw coupled with digital correction in most software,  is the 6% original distortion led
 to such a low conclusion.

As I see, 12-60 is better than its opponent——MZD 12-50 


 

Please reconsider the final stars. 

 

You are right - I downrated the 12-50mm to 2* and the P14-42 to 3*.

I have to admit that MFT confuses me in terms of rating because of the auto-correction. The rating for the 12-50mm was certainly incorrect.

[Brightcolours]

Do you take MTF measurements from uncorrected or corrected files?

[Klaus]

The MTFs are from the corrected files.

[Rover]

Boy, I'm glad I never bought into MFT (got my wife a NEX-3 back in the days of yore). Woulda chosen Sony or Fuji if I had been dabbling into the world of mirrorless now. I checked out a few more reviews and the lineup is a damn mess... (not that there isn't an occasional very good lens, of course). That said... a pal of mine working for one of the country's two biggest news agencies makes due with an Olympus camera (I forgot which one) and the 9-18, 12-40, 40-150 lenses. Only whips out the big Canon gear when he has to shoot sports or something in very challenging lighting.

[longbowswift]

You are right - I downrated the 12-50mm to 2* and the P14-42 to 3*.

I have to admit that MFT confuses me in terms of rating because of the auto-correction. The rating for the 12-50mm was certainly incorrect.

:o  :o OMG

[Klaus]

:o  :o OMG

 

See what you caused. 

 

Seriously ... we are not here to do advertising for manufacturers. If we don't put our fingers into the wound nothing will happen.

It just cannot be in your interest if we rated them better just for the good feeling. Remember that manufacturers give a damn s about you. You are merely a statistical number for them no matter what they tell you. We should treat them in the very same way.

 

Our aim is to have a bell/gauss curve for our ratings with a hot spot at 3*.

(2*) 4* are a (negative) privilege and 1* & 5* are near impossible.

[Rover]

Oh, the 1* are very much possible... but mostly among older designs or those that are intentionally "retro" not only in appearance / function but also in performance.   Canon for example had a boatload of lousy film kit zooms a decade ago (or a little more) - it's a good thing you haven't started to test those, or you probably would have been dispensing 1* or ½* ratings left and right. Though I've been suggesting for years that you do one such review for April 1st... 

 

It's by far not as easy to have a 5* lens, of course. I've been an avid reader for many years now but right off the bat I can remember only one 5* review. Unsurprisingly it's of the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II (on APS-C; I thought it was more like 4.5* on FF). Have there been more? It looks like something always gets on the way, and it's darn near impossible on FF because the vignetting is always higher there and that inevitably shears off anywhere between Â½* and 1*... Most wideangles are also out because they have barrel distortion as a rule... Ditto all the ultrafast lenses because of the CA...

 

EDIT: Aha! I've found one more 5* review but I knew where to look - it's one of those rare lenses to own a system for, and reviewed on APS-C to boot. Everyone here probably knows what lens I'm talking about.  I was a bit surprised that the Sony 135/1.8 didn't make it but as I've said... the CA present did it in.