Featured: 'The 12-40/2.8 is the lens Olympus should have released with the E-M5' by dhazeghi

[klee]

The green "135mm" looks sharper in the second picture.

that's the image from the 12-50 kit lens. could be because focus in the second is slightly more towards the foreground. I was rushing and had to focus with a flashlight in the dark.

 

[dhazeghi]

would you mind giving a dumbed down explanation of what this means?

background; I just bought this camera/lens combination this month coming off a canon s95 which I enjoyed but wanted to upgrade. My technical knowledge is limited at this point but eager to learn. I thought I did my research and made a wise choice at my budget until I read this thread. Now I'm kinda bummed that I'm going to have to spend an extra $1,000+ to get decent pictures out of this camera = I may as well have blown the budget, starved the children for a month and bought the EM1 kit.

It's perfectly possible to get decent images with the 12-50, and I daresay for $200 or so, there's not really anything else with the combination of range, size and weather-sealing. What I'm saying is that it is simply not going to show the E-M5 (or any other 12+MP camera) in the best light, particularly if one is prone to pixel peeping. It just doesn't quite have the resolution for that (IMO if you downrez the output to ~8MP, the flaws become much less visible).

But the best way to go is to evaluate it for yourself though - everybody has different requirements and different expectations.

 

[Ross the fiddler]

Today's Australian price for the (Elite) E-M5 Pro kit (with 12-40 lens) is $1699. That would be a discounted $1000 for the lens & a discounted $699 for the body. Not bad for our prices & then some retailers will discount that too.

 

[Clicka]

It's perfectly possible to get decent images with the 12-50, and I daresay for $200 or so, there's not really anything else with the combination of range, size and weather-sealing. What I'm saying is that it is simply not going to show the E-M5 (or any other 12+MP camera) in the best light, particularly if one is prone to pixel peeping. It just doesn't quite have the resolution for that (IMO if you downrez the output to ~8MP, the flaws become much less visible).

But the best way to go is to evaluate it for yourself though - everybody has different requirements and different expectations.

Thanks. makes sense. I should have researched lenses as diligently as i explored camera options. for me living in the Pacific NW and using it mainly outdoors, the weather sealing was a huge factor and it seemed the 12-50 was a perfect fit. I didn't realize the optics of the lens would be such a weak link. oh well, live and learn. as you say, you get what you pay for. I'll play around with the 12-50 for a bit and upgrade asap.

thanks also to Klee for the example shots. heartening to know I'm not working with a total dud.

 

[Fmrvette]

... heartening to know I'm not working with a total dud...

Hi Peter!

Perhaps you've not seen Kirk Tuck's take on the 12-50mm lens?

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.ca/2013/12/lens-review-olympus.html

He does much better than I with the lens and it's not (I don't think) because he got a better copy; he's just that better a photographer than I.

I simply haven't been able to "bond" with the lens - it doesn't talk to me the way the Panasonic 20mm (for example) does. I like that the 12-50 is weatherproof (although I rarely shoot in inclement weather) and the macro mode is a bonus (I don't shoot much macro but it's good to have at least one lens that can perform the function on the odd occasion).

You may find, like Mr. Tuck, that the lens sings in your hands. It doesn't in mine, but a Stradivarius would be hard pressed to sing in my hands . Don't give up on it until you've "rode it hard and put it away wet".

I hope it serves you very well.

Regards,

Jim

 

[Clicka]

Hi Peter!

Perhaps you've not seen Kirk Tuck's take on the 12-50mm lens?

Regards,

Jim

hey. thx for the link Jim. i actually googled that up after someone earlier had mentioned it and was unable to find it. thanks for getting me there. I'll sure give it my best.

btw.. since happening upon this site last week I'm about half way through the 450 pages of the 'EM-5 images' thread. Hooked on images! I'm amazed and inspired by what I've seen. I'm afraid my little camera upgrade venture will end up being more addictive/costly than cocaine. I'm already pining for more lenses to sneak through the household budget. No biggy if the 12-50 isn't quite up to par.

This site has also reassured me that I made the right decision to go MFT over the ubiquitous Canon/Nikon dslr route. So it's all good. I'm pumped.

 

[stratokaster]

12-50 is not a mid-range zoom; it's a low-end zoom, but with some nifty features added to justify its mid-range price. In terms of optical quality it's possibly the worst lens for Micro 4/3. Even the much-maligned 1st versions of Panasonic 14-42 or Olympus 14-42 are sharper and have much less CA.

I can appreciate its weather sealing and close-up ability, but every shot from this lens I have ever seen looks like it was made with a point and shoot camera.

I'd love Panasonic or Olympus to make a high quality 12-50 or 12-60 f/4 lens. If the price is right (say, about $750), I'd buy it in an instant.

 

[dhazeghi]

12-50 is not a mid-range zoom; it's a low-end zoom, but with some nifty features added to justify its mid-range price. In terms of optical quality it's possibly the worst lens for Micro 4/3. Even the much-maligned 1st versions of Panasonic 14-42 or Olympus 14-42 are sharper and have much less CA.

I can appreciate its weather sealing and close-up ability, but every shot from this lens I have ever seen looks like it was made with a point and shoot camera.

I'd love Panasonic or Olympus to make a high quality 12-50 or 12-60 f/4 lens. If the price is right (say, about $750), I'd buy it in an instant.

A mid-grade alternative would be very nice, but personally, I'd say anybody who finds that range indispensable owes it to themself to have a look at the 12-40/2.8. Despite the slight loss of telephoto range, it really does fulfill that role, and if you're in the market for a body, well it's $800 which is almost in the price range you mentioned.

 

[Ross the fiddler]

I put on the 14-54 II lens for more quality when I need to (instead of the 12-50 lens), especially for indoor events (like orchestral concerts etc) with it being a brighter lens. As long as it doesn't need to be for any action, moving kids or dogs (close by), it performs quite well (on the E-M5).

 

[dhazeghi]

I put on the 14-54 II lens for more quality when I need to, especially for indoor events (like orchestral concerts etc) with it being a brighter lens. As long as it doesn't need to be for any action, moving kids or dogs (close by), it performs quite well (on the E-M5).

Really? I found the 14-54/2.8-3.5 looked rather unimpressive compared to the 12-40/2.8 (high CA, soft corners). My theory is that the 14-54 was designed at the same time as the original Olympus E-1, which was simply far less demanding of lenses vs. current 16MP sensors. Of course for $120 it's hard to get too disappointed, but objectively the 14-54's image quality wasn't really a noticeably improvement over the better kit lenses like the Panasonic 14-45/3.5-5.6. The 12-40/2.8 (and the 12-60/2.8-4.0) on the other hand were a noticeable step up.

 

[Wisertime]

The green "135mm" looks sharper in the second picture.

Focus point looks different in the two possibly.

***
The 12-50 is definitely not rubbish. I've gotten many good photos with it, despite having better lenses available. It's like the old Chevy vs. Ferrari argument. They both get you where you need to go, only one can do it faster and has more tricks/bells & whistles for a much heftier price tag.
For most users it is perfectly fine. It's not great indoors, unless you are using off camera flash or have plenty of avail light, but it's a decent lens, especially if you get it under $250 and not full retail. People are just spoiled with the fast Zuiko prime lenses. That said, I'm probably going to get the 12-40 once I fund it, but I'm perfectly happy using the 12-50 for walkaround stuff. I wouldn't use it for a portrait session of anything like that, but it's great for landscape and night photography IMO.

The 12-50 sample thread here has some fine examples.

 

[lotsofkids]

Your post just cost me $800....as I bit the bullet and just bought the 12-40 lens. Luckily, Olympus honored my recent purchase of an EP5 body (through Amazon no less) and gave me the $200 off promotion! I had to open an Olympus case and email them a PDF receipt of my purchase (from Amazon) and they will honor the promo price. Figured if I am going to get it....might as well do it with the promotion. They even allowed me to put in an Olympus discount code....which took off another $50 (figure it wiped out the taxes for me) so, my end cost for the new lens is going to be $801 shipped! YOUR PHOTOS ARE STUNNING! They won me over! Even though I have no idea how I will deal with my expanding credit card balance....yikes!
I am curious (and someone asked a few pages back) what is the physical length of the 12-40? I am a bit surprised at the 13.47 ounce weight and a bit nervous of its size.

(great thread BTY... I appreciate everyone's input)

UPDATE: the size was boldly written in the specs on the Olympus site....but somehow I overlooked it. Diameter 2.7" X 3.3"

 

[Ross the fiddler]

Really? I found the 14-54/2.8-3.5 looked rather unimpressive compared to the 12-40/2.8 (high CA, soft corners). My theory is that the 14-54 was designed at the same time as the original Olympus E-1, which was simply far less demanding of lenses vs. current 16MP sensors. Of course for $120 it's hard to get too disappointed, but objectively the 14-54's image quality wasn't really a noticeably improvement over the better kit lenses like the Panasonic 14-45/3.5-5.6. The 12-40/2.8 (and the 12-60/2.8-4.0) on the other hand were a noticeable step up.

I don't know where you are coming from, but I don't have loads of cash at my disposal & since I have 4/3's gear that includes includes the 14-54 II lens, it is better as a brighter lens than the 12-50 (not the expensive 12-40) & sharper at the long end. Sorry if you thought I was comparing that to the 12-40. Hardly!

 

[lotsofkids]

Just a shout out for opinions as I really struggled with buying the 12-40 or the 75/f1.8 ?

Certainly can not purchase both...but keen to hear what many of you would choose if it were your choice?

Tks....diane

 

[mattia]

Just a shout out for opinions as I really struggled with buying the 12-40 or the 75/f1.8 ?

Certainly can not purchase both...but keen to hear what many of you would choose if it were your choice?

Tks....diane

The lenses are so different it's tough to compare. The 12-40, for me, is a far more versatile lens than a moderate telephoto like the 75/1.8, which is the kind of lens I use for portraiture mostly. To be clear, I don't own a 75 (yet), but owned and loved a canon 135/2.0 for years. The latter was a lens that delivered fantastic results every time it was used, but the standard zoom, despite being less 'sexy', was far more useful.

 

[Johnytuono]

I'd say go for the 12-40 and then save for the 75mm. The 12-40 is far more versatile...but really it depends on what you shoot.
JohnyT

 

[Drdave944]

Few people have commented on the nice manual clutch on the 12-40. It had helped me when you want a certain part of a closeup to be in focus ,such as flower or insect pictures,Or if you want the eye reflex of a bird.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[lotsofkids]

Drdave....amazing pics! Well, like those above said (and thank you)...they are so different (but the 12-40) is more versatile. So I did go with the 12-40 lens as it would give me more my bang for my buck and I'll keep my eye on the 75/ f1.8 for a future lens. But it sure is a "sexy" lens as mattia commented! Gosh....sure wish these toys would be at more affordable price points!

Oh and I'm keen to try that manual clutch on the 12-40!

 

[bye]

It seemed to me, unlike the good old school days, that digital had made many new and young and even some old photographers perhaps to be nothing more than a bunch of digital pixel peepers and technical photographers. All they worry about is lateral CA, spherical aberrations and bokeh fringing and how creamy the bokeh is. This is what happens when you have an unlimited amount of ammunition. You can bang your guns like you're in the middle of Afghanistan and worry more about casualties (imperfections in the lens, the sensor or the body itself) rather than appreciate what the lens can deliver FOV wise as well as versatility in terms of weight and flexibility. But photographers these days, while technically good in capturing art, are so insecure in terms of their art form that they NEED to validate themselves with more expensive and heavier gear. This reminded me of a Galen Rowell seminar I attended when he was alive with his wife Barbara Rowell and I never forget a full packed crowd in the auditorium. Many of them I know are fine capable photographers just like the OP here. Of course, it never escaped me that they would ask Galen what sort of gear he used to capture those iconic images you see today still being sold. Most of them were expecting a fine heavy Nikon camera with a 2.8 lens zoom or even a 1.4 prime right? What shocked them was he took some of those images with a light Nikon AF camera (I think it's a F601) and a 35-80 zoom lens. AND, that zoom is well known to be so crappy and full of problems that NO ONE in the room would dare to own it. And yet, Galen did and shot and made quite a bit of money using that set of equipment. In his foray into digital, he was shooting with a 6MP Nikon D100. Many of his audiences were equally disappointed when they heard this.

Someone asked him that, perhaps he could have taken a better camera and a better lens with less aberrations and his gallery photos would look more spectacular. He responded as saying.. But you're here because you liked my work or my gear? He said he dragged the camera lens for months at a time climbing steep cliffs and mountains where you may have lugged yours for a day, few days or maybe a week. They add up and he said, the photos look great on prints. Of course, you can technically see those imperfections on the prints and you can still see them today. But you see, his prints are still selling.

It's been a hot debate topic for years and decades and eventually, what sells is ART, your creative art and not art that you plagiarize off someone else's style like Ansel Adams and then shoot it with say the best camera and the flawless lens. While it's technically better than Adam's original "El Capitan" in every aspect of the picture if you grain peep against your pixel peep. But it's still a copy. I'm sad to say this but it seemed most people these days shot without any original ideas. They copy styles from others and then make it their own, but lacked the originality. And yet, I see great originality from people who shoot with the so called inferior lens and inferior equipment and that was what Galen Rowell was trying to say all along in his seminars. Who cares what you shoot; only what motivates you to shoot.

Btw. I will add the 12-40 Pro lens some day if I see a need.

So whether Olympus market the E-M5 with this 12-40 Pro lens is moot, because truly people in North America will want to spend that kind of money on a Canon or Nikon system of the same. It's simply reality and Olympus knows it. Which was why it was marketed with the 12-50 which is one fine kit lens, if you compare it with what Canon or Nikon has to offer. It's a STEAL!

 

[dhazeghi]

This reminded me of a Galen Rowell seminar I attended when he was alive with his wife Barbara Rowell and I never forget a full packed crowd in the auditorium. Many of them I know are fine capable photographers just like the OP here. Of course, it never escaped me that they would ask Galen what sort of gear he used to capture those iconic images you see today still being sold. Most of them were expecting a fine heavy Nikon camera with a 2.8 lens zoom or even a 1.4 prime right? What shocked them was he took some of those images with a light Nikon AF camera (I think it's a F601) and a 35-80 zoom lens. AND, that zoom is well known to be so crappy and full of problems that NO ONE in the room would dare to own it. And yet, Galen did and shot and made quite a bit of money using that set of equipment. In his foray into digital, he was shooting with a 6MP Nikon D100. Many of his audiences were equally disappointed when they heard this.

Someone asked him that, perhaps he could have taken a better camera and a better lens with less aberrations and his gallery photos would look more spectacular. He responded as saying.. But you're here because you liked my work or my gear? He said he dragged the camera lens for months at a time climbing steep cliffs and mountains where you may have lugged yours for a day, few days or maybe a week. They add up and he said, the photos look great on prints. Of course, you can technically see those imperfections on the prints and you can still see them today. But you see, his prints are still selling.

As a Californian and a beginning mountaineer, Galen Rowell has been an inspiration of mine. And you are absolutely right - he made some of the most stunning photographs I've ever seen, generally using consumer-grade equipment that most professionals would have ignored. That said, I wouldn't say that he deliberately chose cheap equipment simply because it was cheap, or because he didn't care about the optics/mechanics involved. He chose the equipment he did predominantly because it was small and light, allowing him to go places that he otherwise might not have gone with more 'professional' gear. That is actually a major reason why I chose m4/3 too, though I haven't really taken much advantage of it yet.

It's been a hot debate topic for years and decades and eventually, what sells is ART, your creative art and not art that you plagiarize off someone else's style like Ansel Adams and then shoot it with say the best camera and the flawless lens. While it's technically better than Adam's original "El Capitan" in every aspect of the picture if you grain peep against your pixel peep. But it's still a copy. I'm sad to say this but it seemed most people these days shot without any original ideas. They copy styles from others and then make it their own, but lacked the originality. And yet, I see great originality from people who shoot with the so called inferior lens and inferior equipment and that was what Galen Rowell was trying to say all along in his seminars. Who cares what you shoot; only what motivates you to shoot.

Well, these days I'm not even sure art sells the way it used to. On the whole, the fine art photography market has been hit rather hard. In fact, one of the big differentiators today is (no pun intended) printing big - a place where lens quality does come into play more than it did. I do suspect that if he were alive today, Galen would be taking that into account as well. All things are a tradeoff, and he was very conscious where he made his (after all, he didn't shoot APS or 110 format, even if they were, technically, significantly smaller and lighter. Nor did he use a digital P&S at the end). It's certainly true that we talk about gear a lot, perhaps more than we should, but what can I say - it's easier to talk about lenses and fiddle with images in Lightroom for a few minutes here and there than it is for me to get out for a half day in the Sierras.