12-35mm vs 12-40mm size and photo compare

DHart

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
3,529
Location
Scottsdale, Arizona
Real Name
Don
Looking good. The close-focus is particularly impressive.
Close focus capability with the 12-35 is dramatically better than the previous comparison photo would indicate, when at 35mm, which would be the best focal length with this lens for closest focus.

Some images I posted previously in the watch thread. These images had some cropping off the sides only. (all images created with E-M5 and 12-35 zoom lens @ 35mm). And note, these are older watches which are typically much smaller that the watches being sold today.

Personally, I rarely have the interest to photograph anything much smaller/closer than these small watches, below. And if I really need macro, I would use a macro lens.

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)


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


Now digging back to the 70's:
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)
 

Photodan1

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
157
Location
Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Real Name
Dan
The Panny 12-35 was next on my wish list until I tried it and then it got bumped down. I'm not saying it got bumped down because I didn't like it, it was because when I tried it I also tried the 35-100 and I really liked the 35-100, which wasn't even on my list.

Now I'm glad I waited because I can pick from these two after some reviews.
Same here Mike. I borrowed the 12-35 and 35-100 from a friend to try out before a wedding. The 12-35 is what I was really interested in but ended up using the longer lens more. Very impressive! I did also like the 12-35 though. The close focus on the olympus is what will probably tip me over to that one.
 

jloden

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
2,696
Location
Hunterdon County, NJ
Real Name
Jay
Nice Don... I thought that 12-35mm close focus test looked a little off based on my experience with it also. I see we share an interest in watches also :tongue:
 

DHart

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
3,529
Location
Scottsdale, Arizona
Real Name
Don
Nice Don... I thought that 12-35mm close focus test looked a little off based on my experience with it also. I see we share an interest in watches also :tongue:
Jay, yes... the 12-35 gives really good close focusing, closer than what I could get with my 14-45, 14-42, 14-140, 12/2, 14/2.5, 20/1.7, 25/1.4, 45/1.8, 75/1.8, 9-18, 7-14. I didn't compare to my 17/1.8, as I didn't have it at the time.

The 12-40 may focus even closer, but the 12-35, quite obviously, focuses very close (for me) other than going into the macro realm, which I only rarely wish to do.
 

dhazeghi

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
4,365
Location
San Jose, CA
Real Name
Dara
The 12-40 may focus even closer, but the 12-35, quite obviously, focuses very close (for me) other than going into the macro realm, which I only rarely wish to do.
Nice shots!

Looks like the 12-40 should have around 1.5x the magnification of the 12-35. Probably still not enough for small insects, but I think enough for small flowers (obviating the need for me to have a macro lens at all).
 

DHart

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
3,529
Location
Scottsdale, Arizona
Real Name
Don
Nice shots!

Looks like the 12-40 should have around 1.5x the magnification of the 12-35. Probably still not enough for small insects, but I think enough for small flowers (obviating the need for me to have a macro lens at all).
Dara... for you, the 12-40 might very well be a better choice for that need.

I'm looking forward to a good objective and detailed comparison of the two lenses optical performance. I'm not expecting to see a dramatic difference in image quality between the lenses, but if there happens to be a dramatic difference, I would be happy to swap lenses. I like to print large images (around 50" in the long dimension) of my favorite landscapes and to me its important to eek out every bit of optical and sensor performance that I can. I have a few too many images that I captured with less than optimal cameras/lenses (my own damned shortcoming in equipment selection) which in hindsight I would like to print very large, but cannot due to compromised quality.

I've made a decision to use m4/3 for my main camera system due to small size and light weight.. but for many of my image captures, I don't want to accept any more compromise in IQ than I have to... thus my desire to use the best sensors and lenses that the system has to offer. As a general use zoom lens, the 12-35 has given very good IQ. If the 12-40 offers a significant improvement in IQ over that, I would be a bit surprised, but of course... interested in it.
 

deang001

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2013
Messages
233
Location
Hong Kong
Real Name
Dean
Nice shots!

Looks like the 12-40 should have around 1.5x the magnification of the 12-35. Probably still not enough for small insects, but I think enough for small flowers (obviating the need for me to have a macro lens at all).
The close focusing is very appealing.

Like yourself, I don't do much macro so the 12-40 would probably be enough for me and just ads to it's versatility. 0.60x equiv. Vs 0.34x equiv. is quite impressive.

I'm really in two minds. I own the GH3 & 12-35 atm, but will be getting the EM1 next week. I'm kind of thinking that the 12-35 will sit nicely on the EM1 and be even more compact & weigh less than my current GH3 & 12-35 config. After all ... every mm & gm counts and is why I got into M43 in the first place !!

The added weather sealing of the 12-40 will probably get me across the line though ... I love shooting in the rain but do it with heavy Nikon gear. I don't trust the GH3 & 12-35 enough.
 

tjdean01

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
862
I am very interested in the Olympus because of the manual focusing mechanism with a scale and hard stops. The inability to focus by wire on the Panasonic when trying to do some Astro photography with an Astrotrac is a pain. One has to prefocus to infinity in twilight, switch to manual, and wait a long time till it is dark and hope you do not bump the focus. So that implementation, if done right would be really nice. Looks promising, but I would like to test one. Ming Thein's review looks promising and the bokeh looks good.
You mean I can't manually focus to infinity?
 

orfeo

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
673
Location
FR
You mean I can't manually focus to infinity?
True, if you manually focus all the way to the infinity side, even though you don't hit no limit, you know you are focusing at infinity... I am missing something? For astro shoot, you only focus to infinity anyway..
 

tjdean01

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
862
True, if you manually focus all the way to the infinity side, even though you don't hit no limit, you know you are focusing at infinity... I am missing something? For astro shoot, you only focus to infinity anyway..
So you mean I focus past infinity? No problem I'm used to that with nearly all my lenses
 

wjiang

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
7,185
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
I've found with my fly-by-wire lenses they tend to focus just past infinity.at one end (to account for drift/offsets?). If I just blindly focus all the way out, stars appear as blurry blobs rather than points, so I actually have to focus manually to infinity on something specific.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom