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

[Angus Gibbins]

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]

You might need it for micro, the power zoom for video and casual shooting with lighter weight.

 

[Angus Gibbins]

Actually that's a good point. It would make a nice and light travel or hiking lens.

 

[Halaking]

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.

 

[Angus Gibbins]

The 18-40mm is weather sealed too I believe, but you're right. I might hang onto it.

 

[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.

 

[tkbslc]

I don't see why you'd ever use it again. Dump it. No use letting it sit around losing even more value.

 

[aphasiac]

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).

 

[Jfrader]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Luckypenguin]

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]

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.

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.

 

[hazwing]

I don't see any point in keeping it if you have the 12-40.

 

[Holoholo55]

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]

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]

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]

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).

 

[Angus Gibbins]

While picking up my 12-40mm I had a play with the 40-150 Pro. My el cheapo 40-150mm just isn't the same. Time to start saving again!