Lightmancer
Legend
- Location
- Sunny Frimley
- Name
- Bill Palmer
So, I have one; one of the first in the UK.
First impressions - it is incredibly light. Powered off it is about the same in length as a 35mm f2. In use it extends by about an inch and a half. The mount is plastic. It has two rings, one narrower for focus and the wider for the power zoom. This has two zoom speeds, depending on how far you twist the ring; it only rotates about 20 degrees in either direction. On my X-Pro2 in EVF mode it is stepless, but with the OVF the framelines judder a little as they try to keep up. There is no indication of focal length set on either the lens barrel or in the viewfinder. Aperture is set by the rear thumbwheel. It does not come with a hood, nor is there a bayonet for one. Filter size is 52mm.
I had no time today to give it a good outing, and the rain this morning was biblical, but here are a few quick test shots comparing the 15-45 with my trusty old 18-55.
15-45 @15mm
18-55 @ 18mm
15-45 @ 45mm
18-55 @ 55mm
15-45 @ 45mm 100% crop
18-55 @ 55mm 100% crop
Focus in every shot was on the bridge of the Angel of Lens Testing's nose. Exposure was by spot-metering on the same point. These are all handheld SOOC jpgs; the only processing they have received is the 100% crop. Both lenses were shot wide open at their respective focal lengths.
To my eye and unsurprisingly the 18-55 delivers more, and more pleasing, bokeh at the long end. This is entirely to be expected given that it has a wider aperture and a longer focal length on its side. It still manages to throw the background out a bit at 55mm but the 15-45's smaller aperture and shorter focal length delivers a sharper background image.
The 100% crops are interesting in as much as although there is a difference in sharpness and in microcontrast, the 15-45 acquits itself remarkably well. I suspect that like the 50-230 and the 27 XC lenses, it will prove to punch a bit above it's weight and price bracket.
I have bought it specifically to use as a travel lens, and as a handy backup to my primes. I don't expect to use it a lot - I haven't used the 18-55 since last Summer - but it is there if I want something a bit wider or I can't be bothered to zoom with my feet. In that regard is it better than the 18-55? It is certainly lighter and more compact. I need to do more testing to get the measure of the performance and whether or not it is acceptable.
I don't like not knowing the focal length, I don't particularly like the power zoom (it makes a high-pitched whine that is quite disconcerting) and I am concerned that it may damage itself if the camera is turned on in my bag. I have had this problem with the 27 and it is not a cheap fix. I do like the compactness, the lightness, the slightly wider angle of view.
So. At this stage, I'd say jury out. Time will tell. I won't sell the 18-55 just yet...
First impressions - it is incredibly light. Powered off it is about the same in length as a 35mm f2. In use it extends by about an inch and a half. The mount is plastic. It has two rings, one narrower for focus and the wider for the power zoom. This has two zoom speeds, depending on how far you twist the ring; it only rotates about 20 degrees in either direction. On my X-Pro2 in EVF mode it is stepless, but with the OVF the framelines judder a little as they try to keep up. There is no indication of focal length set on either the lens barrel or in the viewfinder. Aperture is set by the rear thumbwheel. It does not come with a hood, nor is there a bayonet for one. Filter size is 52mm.
I had no time today to give it a good outing, and the rain this morning was biblical, but here are a few quick test shots comparing the 15-45 with my trusty old 18-55.
15-45 @15mm
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
18-55 @ 18mm
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
15-45 @ 45mm
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
18-55 @ 55mm
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
15-45 @ 45mm 100% crop
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
18-55 @ 55mm 100% crop
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Focus in every shot was on the bridge of the Angel of Lens Testing's nose. Exposure was by spot-metering on the same point. These are all handheld SOOC jpgs; the only processing they have received is the 100% crop. Both lenses were shot wide open at their respective focal lengths.
To my eye and unsurprisingly the 18-55 delivers more, and more pleasing, bokeh at the long end. This is entirely to be expected given that it has a wider aperture and a longer focal length on its side. It still manages to throw the background out a bit at 55mm but the 15-45's smaller aperture and shorter focal length delivers a sharper background image.
The 100% crops are interesting in as much as although there is a difference in sharpness and in microcontrast, the 15-45 acquits itself remarkably well. I suspect that like the 50-230 and the 27 XC lenses, it will prove to punch a bit above it's weight and price bracket.
I have bought it specifically to use as a travel lens, and as a handy backup to my primes. I don't expect to use it a lot - I haven't used the 18-55 since last Summer - but it is there if I want something a bit wider or I can't be bothered to zoom with my feet. In that regard is it better than the 18-55? It is certainly lighter and more compact. I need to do more testing to get the measure of the performance and whether or not it is acceptable.
I don't like not knowing the focal length, I don't particularly like the power zoom (it makes a high-pitched whine that is quite disconcerting) and I am concerned that it may damage itself if the camera is turned on in my bag. I have had this problem with the 27 and it is not a cheap fix. I do like the compactness, the lightness, the slightly wider angle of view.
So. At this stage, I'd say jury out. Time will tell. I won't sell the 18-55 just yet...