Any reason to not sell my 12-50mm F3.5?

Angus Gibbins

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
602
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Real Name
Angus
Howdy, I got a M.Zuiko 12-50mm kit lens with my camera about a month or so ago (which is my first 4 3rds and my first interchangeable lens camera), however I got a good price on the 12-40mm Pro lens on Boxing Day sales.

Would there be any reason to keep my 12-50mm? Or would I be better off just flogging it on eBay?

I can't see myself ever using it again, but it could be handy to keep around as a spare I guess.
 

Halaking

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
673
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Morris
Used price is around $150 for the past 2 years, not selling if I don't have plan to use that $150. It's also weather sealed, I still have mine over 3 yaers.
 

siftu

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
780
Location
Bay Area, CA
Real Name
siftu
12-40 has x0.3 magnification and 12-50 has x0.36 for near macro. I don't think there is much in it. And yes the 12-40 is also weather sealed, has faster aperture and is sharper. Personally I would never use the 12-50mm again.
 

aphasiac

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
176
Location
Taiwan
12-50 is a great lens, very under-rated (most people sell them off cheap after buying the camera). But honestly it doesn't do anything the pro doesn't do; the 50mm long end isn't sharp, and the macro isn't real macro just close focusing, which the 12-40 pro does too.

No point keeping lenses as "spare", it's a waste of time and resources. Sell it and keep the money, and then wait to decide on your next purchase (portrait prime, normal prime or telephoto).
 
J

Jfrader

Guest
My EM5 came in a combo kit with the 12-50 EZ. I still have that lens in the original box so that if/when I sell off the EM5, I can sell it as a "complete camera kit" rather than a body only. Hopefully that will get me a bit more in resale than I would get selling the lens alone on the used market. I don't see any point in selling it now for a few dollars.
 

Angus Gibbins

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
602
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Real Name
Angus
Lots of valid arguments here.

If I'm going to sell it, now's the time. Better resale value, 22-23 months warranty and I'll likely keep my E-M1 as a second body when the mk2 comes out. I also find selling on eBay to be extremely onerous so would like to get it done sooner or later.

Since starting this thread I've had a few Xmas beers with my dad so will think about it a little more but leaning towards selling.

Only advantage I can think to keeping is rough adventure/hiking trips when it might get a ding on the way up. The only thing that's depressing about it is I've bought an aftermarket lens hood and filter, but everyone has a shoe box of spare parts anyway.
 

wjiang

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
7,112
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
There's never much resale value in the 12-50 even when mint, everybody seems to get it in a kit and promptly disown them. The internet isn't thrilled with it either, I think the only other lens more maligned is the Olympus 17mm f/2.8. I've kept mine because I like the fact that it doesn't extend (don't have to worry about sand so much) and the fact that it does macro. If I got either the 12-40 or 12-35 though I'd probably sell it.
 

Angus Gibbins

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
602
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Real Name
Angus
What I'll probably do is list it on eBay Buy It Now for a price to be determined. If it doesn't sell I'll keep it or see if a friend can use it.

I saw the 40-150mm Pro on sale too. Only bought the standard variant a couple of weeks ago!

If anyone on here is in Australia and wants to make an offer, feel free to message me.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
7,397
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Real Name
Nic
I held onto mine because it was my only weathersealed lens for a time, but sold it straight after I bought a 12-40mm in 2014 (for $AUS200 I think).
 

Atom Ant

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
374
Location
Melbourne, OZ
Real Name
Adam
I found it useful enough, although I tended to carry a couple of primes around rather than the 12-50. I used it occasionally as a travel lens - it weighs nowt, covers a generous range of focal lengths and is weathersealed so I didn't need to be paranoid about a little rain. Its cost also helped to allay paranoia. It felt quite okay on my E-M5.

Then I bought the 12-40/2.8 with my E-M1. :dance3:

Shortly after that a local guy was looking for a 12-50 so I flogged it to him at a price we were both happy with.

I'm happy and (AFAIK) so is he. I suppose I can see which lens(es) he brings along on Monday when a few of us catch up for a post-Xmas stroll.
 

Holoholo55

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
2,869
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
Hi Angus, I have the 12-40 Pro with the EM1, but still keeping the 12-50 to sell or give away with my EM5. It's light, still a pretty good lens, and has reasonably good close-up ability as well as weather resistance. Makes a good travel kit. I take it out to use occasionally. That doesn't help you, though, sorry.
 

davidzvi

Super Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
3,597
Location
Outside Boston MA
Real Name
David
The 12-50 has a little longer reach, is lighter, and I believe in macro mode is more than 0.36x. I may be mistaken as the wording on the specs is a little confusing but the slightly long focal length and closer minimum distance could be notable for macro like shots.

12-50 - Macro mode boasts the maximum image magnification of 0.36x (35mm equivalent maximum image magnification: 0.72x). Closest focusing distance = 0.35m / 13.78 in.(0.2m / 5.43 in. in the macro mode)

12-40 - Macro shooting is possible up to a maximum image magnification of 0.3x (35mm equivalent: 0.6x). Closest focusing distance = 0.2m / 7.87 in.

So if these would make a difference or if you're regularly in an environment where you're rather have something less expensive to replace if damaged than keeping it might be worth it.
 

EarthQuake

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
934
Once you use the 12-40mm you'll likely see no point in using the 12-50mm. I've owned both and the biggest advantage the 12-50 has is lighter weight, but it's not exactly a small lens, it's only a little smaller than the 12-40mm, so there was never I point where I took the 12-50 out instead of the 12-40. If you want a compact zoom for light weight travel, the Panasonic 12-32mm makes more sense.
 

Ross the fiddler

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
3,718
Location
Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Real Name
Ross
Everybody has overlooked the other use the 12-50 lens has & that is its power zoom with variable speed for video use. The 12-40 doesn't have that!
Also, everybody keeps quoting the macro specs of the 12-50 lens but not what the lens is really capable of. I can photograph a ruler using AF at the closest distance possible & I end up with an image of the ruler showing 36mm. The sensor being 17.3mm wide & the image showing 36mm (wide using the 12-50 lens at 43mm Macro Mode) that would be 17.3/36 = 0.48 X magnification. That to me says it is a fair bit more capable than the actual specifications listed (& more than the 12-40 lens).
 

Latest posts

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