39 of 43 people found the following review helpful
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Olympus MSC ED M. 60mm f/2.8 Lens (Electronics)
I hate to merely parrot what others have already said here, but it's really all I can do.
In my experience the lens is sharp right from 2.8, with stopping down grabbing you a bit more. But the reality is it's sharp right from jump.
I've not noticed any particularly glaring defects or aberrations of any kind. The bokeh is good. The build quality is good, though it is a plastic lens (and I'm so glad, as metal would have been $300 more), and the weather sealing merely adds to an already fantastic presentation.
I will echo one reviewer here by saying that the af is not the best. It's not terrible by any means, but I've definitely experienced hunting in situations I wouldn't expect it. The focus limiter absolutely helps with this and is an invaluable inclusion, but it doesn't fix it. Often we're manual focusing with macro anyway, so it's not a big problem. I love the 1:1 option on the dial, but I wish you could simply click it and have it stay there.
The fact that it doesn't include a lens hood is simply inexcusable. I think this is an unfortunate move by Olympus. That and the sometimes odd af issues would have forced me to give the lens 4 stars, were it not for the price. You could buy a lens hood for this lens and still (imo) be making out like a bandit, with a fabulous piece of glass for far less than the cost of a macro lens in a similar range for any larger dslr. I used the Sigma 150mm macro, and that thing is twice the price. Not only that, it weighs 1150 grams; this lens weighs less than 200. Ridiculous.
All things considered I have to, without reservation, provide this lens with its 5-star rating.
This lens continues to impress. Frankly at this point I'm shocked at the pricing vs quality equation regarding the lens. I firmly believe that this is a perfect example of the type of lenses both Olympus and Panasonic should be focusing on for this system. Who cares about metal lenses? You can make a lens plenty sturdy out of plastic while keeping cost and weight down. I think it's obvious from all the pro reviews and the growing base of user reviews that this lens is one of the most exceptional pieces of glass ever produced in its category, for any system, including the big guys. Absolutely stellar image quality, and in a package that is, when compared to the much larger and heavier competition, simply astounding.
Keep making lenses like this, and m43 is here to stay.
With regards to the AF; while it can be slow at times, and I stand by my original statement, it should be noted that macro lenses generally focus slower than normal lenses, due to the increased focus range. In the category of macro lenses this lens is plenty fast. I merely think this is an area where there is still room for improvement.
That said, I am obviously exceedingly happy with the lens; it is the best lens in my bag, without question.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 6, 2012 3:18:12 PM PST
Frank Paris says:
"I will echo one reviewer here by saying that the af is not the best. It's not terrible by any means, but I've definitely experienced hunting in situations I wouldn't expect it."
I haven't found this much of a limitation at all, at least for the static subjects I try to capture. It doesn't keep seeking and seeking. It may run to an end of the focus limiter but when it comes back it settles reliably on the focal point. I've found autofocus of the 60mm extremely reliable and I have a much better than 90% success rate.
"Often we're manual focusing with macro anyway, so it's not a big problem."
For me, the beauty of this lens is I don't have to contend with manual focus, which is extremely problematical for me with the Olympus E-M5, virtually useless. Autofocus on the E-M5 is a marvel.
"The fact that it doesn't include a lens hood is simply inexcusable."
I have taken thousands of images with the 60mm at all focal distances and every possible kind of lighting and I have never once experienced flaring. The only purpose I can possibly imagine for a hood with this lens is for mechanical protection. Optically, it would be completely superfluous.
I was an avid Nikon SLR user from the old Nikon-F days (1967) and DSLR's (through 2009) and over the years have had dozens of different Nikon lenses, and this 60mm is perhaps the most amazing lenses I've ever had.
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 6:38:33 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 7, 2012 6:39:47 PM PST
Z. Wagner says:
I'm glad you are happy with the AF. I don't see why one wouldn't be. My point was simply to say that while it works fine, it isn't perfect by any means. I felt it worth mentioning; if you think it's great, then that's great!
My point in the statement about the lens hood was meant in two ways: one is that yes, this lens doesn't come with a hood and I think that (regardless of how good it is) every lens (especially lenses in this price range) should come with one; and secondly, that Olympus doesn't include lens hoods with their lenses in general, and I find this simply to be an inappropriate move on their part. I shouldn't be forced to buy a lens hood separately for any of my lenses, again, especially the lenses in this price range and higher. Panasonic doesn't have a problem including lens hoods... my 45-200mm came with one and it was only $200. You may think this is fine given the optical qualities of the lens and its resulting resistance to flare, but I just think it's, to be blunt, a dick move by Olympus.
That said, I did go on to say that it wasn't as much of a big deal on this lens as it only costs $499, which I stated as being far more than reasonable.
That also said, I stand by my statement that yes, it's inexcusable to not include a lens hood, especially with regards to lenses in this price range.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›