Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Dave in Wales, Apr 29, 2015.
Silly question, is there an alternative?
Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 is a little smaller and lighter, by about 10mm and 100g.
The other alternative is carrying 2-3 small primes. They are smaller and lighter individually, but often not as a whole set.
Yes, it's big, but not when you use it, even on the E-M10 without the extra grip.
I bought the 14-42 EZ to get the smallest kit. Now I take the 12-40 or the P20. Not only to get better IQ but because the EZ it is so small that is less fun to use.
For what camera?
tkbslc is right on.
Another option if you have one preferred focal length is to use a cheaper kit lens combined with a prime at your favorite focal length. For example, the Panasonic 12-32mm and the Olympus 45mm could make a nice pair.
The P14-42 II is very sharp, focuses fast, costs about $120 on fleabay, and ways about 100g
Why do you see it too big? The E-M1 is not so small by itself.
Dave, I had the same question. I had an epiphany that I was into m43 because it was smaller and lighter, and there I was, using lenses like the 12-40 and 75, which were just as large as APS-C lenses. I've consolidated now to two slow zooms (12-32, 35-100) and two fast primes (15, 42.5 f1.7). My photos were never great, but I don't think they've suffered since
I carry a Panasonic 14-140-II on my E-M5 and 20 and 45 fast primes in a bag or pouch. (Or my pocket, for that matter!)
If you need the 2.8 zooms, the Panasonic 12-35 is smaller, lighter, stabilized, optically on par to the olympus "pro" lenses, oh and it also takes a 58mm filter, same as panasonic's other 2.8 zoom. If you don't need 2.8 speed, the old pany 14-45 was one of the best kit lenses ever made. The oly 12-50 and pany 12-32 are also pretty decent.
To get the same quality as the 12-40, do get the Panasonic version - much smaller and lighter - the only thing you will miss is close focusing
I have the 12-40 and I do find it to be too big and heavy mounted. We were in Seattle for 5 days and I carried for part of two days for use on a boat and at the outside exhibit and glass blowing demonstration at the Chihuly Garden and Glass exhibit. Except for those two times I used my O17 almost exclusively except the O45 once. For me the option is 2 - 3 primes. I am not going to be taking on my next trip.
Like others have said, the Panasonic 12-35 gives you very similar performance to the 12-40 but in a slightly smaller package (I've used both for extended lengths of time, and I agree they are very, very closely matched). The Panasonic 12-32 and 14-42 II are very good kit lenses, and you may not notice the difference in image quality unless you are really pixel peeping.
In my experience, the only lenses that matches the 12-35 and 12-40 for absolute image quality are the best primes for M4/3...
I have an EM-1 with grip and the 12-40 and I sometimes find myself looking at Canon/Nikon users and thinking that my gear isn't that much smaller or lighter. But then I remember Nikon F2.8 lenses and realize most Canikon are just using kit lenses.
Having said that an OM-10 with Panasonics 12-35 f2.8 and 35-100 f2.8 would be tempting if I was starting from scratch again.
None of these zoomy alternatives are small. How much smaller and lighter becomes significant? Seems like in quality and fast glass, on,y primes will be a significant gain. A 15, 17, or 20mm and a 45mm might cover most situations where small and light are a priority.
An e-m1 with good glass is still much smaller and lighter than a DSLR as Geoff said above. If high IQ isn't a necessity for these small and light times, maybe just pair with a good P&S?
Ignoring the fact two of those are mounted straight onto the flange without an adapter (thus should be a bit longer already), there's a pretty big size difference.
The 12-40mm is a pretty compact lens if you've come from DSLR territory imo.
How did you get that tool to accept cross system lens mounting?
I was having a play with the camera size website and I thought it would be interesting to compare 3 cameras I've got access to with standard zooms attacched.
My EM1 with 12-40 f2.8, my daughters Nikon D3200 with 18-55 kit lens and my Nikon D7100 with 17-50 f2.8 Sigma EX, the size difference is real but it's not massive.
Where I really notice the difference is the weight of the camera bags (with gear).