Ocean's reviews

  • Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 ED M.Zuiko Digital

    5 out of 10 points and not recommended
    light, small, thin, seems solid, good Near-Performance
    sometimes too light, no hood - to protect, expensive, CA, dust-problems

    Olympus FT useres have always dreamt of such a Holiday-Lens with good performance, now its real - but not for FT - too bad!
    I tested against Panasonic 14-140 mm, which is heavier, has built in OIS, comes with Sun-Shade and has a little better sharpness und no chromatic aberrations.
    Even if it is more expensive, I kept my Panasonic.
    I think Olympus can do much better (I have most Olympus FT lenses!)
    but for a E-PL1 or E-P 3 its a good and much needet lens for starters with too much money!
    small and handy but I am not used to the extreme cheap-construction Level without lens hood and every few month I got dust between the lenses
    Optics are good - the first half year, with a bit to much CA. With weekly practice it's getting worse.
    The price is much to high, it's just a cheap-starter Zoom.
    The Panasonic 14-140 mm ist by far better.
    Olympus can do much better.For best possible optical Zoom results, I would prefer the Panasonic 12-35 mm & 35-100 mm OIS!

    reviewed July 31st, 2010 (purchased for $500)

  • Olympus 90-250mm f/2.8 Pro ED Zuiko Digital

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    best Tele-Zoom since today, full compatible with extenders and wide open
    heavy, should co like 2,8/90-300 mm

    there is no better Zoom, I tested them all, even the Nikon 4/200-400 mm nor the Canon 5,6/100-400 mm can reach it.
    But the Olympus 2,8/300 mm is still sharper at f: 2,8.
    Its a little short, I would prefer it from 90-300 mm.
    But gone, Olympus should now create a 4,0/50-300 mm!

    But this Tele-Zoom is worth every cent!

    reviewed July 31st, 2010

  • Panasonic 14-140mm f/4-5.8 ASPH MEGA OIS LUMIX G VARIO HD

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    small, good build, sun shade, no CAs, very sharp for a zoom
    heavy, thick, OIS could be better, no really good near performance

    better than Olympus 14-150 mm, but heavy and expensive

    reviewed July 31st, 2010

  • Panasonic 7-14mm f/4 ASPH LUMIX G VARIO

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    simply the BEST, light, short,
    Plastic, expensive

    my Olympus 4/7-14 mm showed some better colors in the picture, but the Pana is so much lighter and smaller
    and with the fantastic G2 its a dream lens in every holiday!
    Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Sigma, Tamron have bad dreams on this lens and nothing to compete with.

    reviewed July 31st, 2010

  • Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 ASPH LUMIX G

    7 out of 10 points and not recommended
    light, seems solid, no CA
    Overpriced!, no good AF-Performance, Noise, no OIS, Flare, Vignetting, plastic, to thin

    farly overpriced, should cost around 180 !
    Good in low light, but the AF is far to slow!
    I hope for better mFT primes!!!!

    reviewed July 31st, 2010

  • Panasonic 8mm f/3.5 LUMIX G FISHEYE

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    small, light, seems solid, good performance
    to expensive

    as good as my Olympus 3,5/8 mm Fisheye
    and better then any othe Fisheye from Sigma, Canon, Sony
    and as good as Nikon Fisheye

    reviewed July 31st, 2010

  • Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 ED M.Zuiko Digital

    7 out of 10 points and recommended
    light, small, sharp
    f:6,7 only, not dust-proof, no hood, extreme high price, crappy plastics

    optics are good - small and handy but I am not used to the extreme cheap-construction Level without lens hood and every few month I got dust between the lenses
    Optics are good - the first half year, with a bit to much CA. With weekly practice it's getting worse.
    The price is extreme high, it's just a cheap-starter Zoom.
    The Panasonic 100-300 mm ist by far better.
    Olympus can do much better.

    reviewed November 22nd, 2011 (purchased for $800)

  • Olympus 9-18mm f/4-5.6 ED M.Zuiko Digital

    7 out of 10 points and recommended
    great sharpness and brilliance, very small
    crappy socket, no hood, CA, cheap plastics

    I like the small little zoom.
    but I am not used to the extreme cheap-construction Level without lens hood and I got dust between the lenses
    Optics are good with a bit to much CA. With weekly practice it's getting worse.
    The price is to high, it's just a cheap-starter Zoom.
    The Panasonic 7-14 mm ist by far better.

    reviewed November 22nd, 2011 (purchased for $600)

  • Panasonic 14-150mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH MEGA OIS LEICA D VARIO-ELMAR

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    best Super-Zoom ever
    none

    there is nothing better - its just Leica colors and metall!

    reviewed November 22nd, 2011 (purchased for $1,100)

  • Olympus 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 EZ M.Zuiko Digital ED

    6 out of 10 points and recommended
    Macro Mode, fast AF
    cheap construction, only f:6,3, no IS, no Lens hood

    small and handy but I am not used to the cheap-construction Level without lens hood
    Optics are good with a bit to much CA.
    Olympus can do much better.

    reviewed December 30th, 2012 (purchased for $300)

  • Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 ED M.Zuiko Digital

    4 out of 10 points and not recommended
    ???
    to expensive for the quality, CA, no metall, cheap plastics

    small and handy but I am not used to the extreme cheap-construction Level without lens hood and every few month I got dust between the lenses
    Optics are good - the first half year, with a bit to much CA. With weekly practice it's getting worse.
    The price is to high, it's just a cheap-starter Zoom.

    Olympus can do much better.

    reviewed December 30th, 2012 (purchased for $250)

  • Olympus 75mm f/1.8 ED M.Zuiko Digital

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    good construction,
    only silver, no hood, very pricey

    without lens hood and only ugly silver
    Optics are very good - but for me it's not a keeper - I like the 1,8/45 mm by far more!

    reviewed December 30th, 2012 (purchased for $1,000)

  • Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital

    7 out of 10 points and recommended
    outside-Metall construction, sharp and fast
    pricey, only in silver, only f:1,8, no hood

    without lens hood
    Optics are very good - but I like the 1,7/20 mm Panasonic or the 1,4/25 mm Leica even more.
    The price is much to high.
    There should be a black one!

    reviewed December 30th, 2012 (purchased for $600)

  • Olympus 17mm f/2.8 M.Zuiko Digital

    5 out of 10 points and not recommended
    ???
    AF; f:2,8; cheap plastics, no hood

    Don't know for whom is it good for.
    Not very sharp, not fast.
    Not my lens.
    At last, to pricey for the construction.

    reviewed December 30th, 2012 (purchased for $250)

  • Olympus 300mm f/2.8 Zuiko Digital

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    extreme sharp, solid construction, even very good with converters
    to heavy, no SWD-SF

    the best 300 mm I've ever used, even better the the newest Canon and Nikon stuff.
    But it is very heavy for a 300 mm.
    Optics nearly perfect!

    reviewed December 30th, 2012 (purchased for $8,000)

  • Olympus 150mm f/2 Zuiko Digital

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    extreme sharp, good construction, even very good with converters
    no SWD-AF, cheaper plastics

    very sharp - even with converters - much to like about it - but I would prefer SWD-AF
    we will need this lens for mFT!

    reviewed December 30th, 2012 (purchased for $2,500)

  • Olympus 15mm f/8 BCL-1580 Body Cap Lens

    6 out of 10 points and recommended
    good & small joke
    no AF, no Aperture, no electronics

    nice idea - the most expensive camera-cap.

    reviewed December 30th, 2012 (purchased for $80)

  • Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 PZ OSS SELP1650

    5 out of 10 points and not recommended
    nice idea, small, black
    very weak plastics, not really sharp, no hood

    My first one made noises while Zooming.
    The second got cracked by letting it fall from 4 inches on the table.
    Third wasn't sharp enough.
    I would love to have a good 16-60 mm - but this isn't!
    It has the quality from cheapest compact-cameras.s
    The price is much to high, it's just a cheap-starter Zoom.
    Even Panasonic can do it much better.

    reviewed December 30th, 2012 (purchased for $300)

  • Sony E 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS SEL1855

    7 out of 10 points and recommended
    solid, good hood, sharp in black version
    large

    i experienced with silver and black Versions - the black ones are by far better - optical (but only with Nex 7) - maybe selected.
    it's not very small but I like it a lot more then my new 16-50 mm pancake.
    After 18 months it is better then expected and with the new AF from Nex 6 - most pics are now sharp.
    Not so good with Nex 5n or Nex 3.

    reviewed December 30th, 2012

  • Sony E 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 OSS SEL55210

    5 out of 10 points and not recommended
    ???
    long, not very sharp, CA, silver

    I tested against my Tamron 18-200 mm NEX - which was sharper at 200 mm, had better AF and feels much more solid.

    reviewed December 30th, 2012 (purchased for $300)

  • Sony E 10-18mm f/4 ED OSS SEL1018

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    sharp, small, feels solid, good hood, black
    large hood, not cheap

    one of the best Nex-Lenses so far. I have tested it against Panasonic 7-14 mm an different other ww-zooms.
    feels solid, no massive distortions - great lens.

    reviewed December 30th, 2012