Anyone else disappointed with the 12/2?

[ssgreenley]

I'm surprised by this thread. The 12mm is absolutely my favorite lens (beating out the 20 and O45). I think it provides more je ne sais quoi "character" than the 45, and gives excellent color and sharpness.

As others have said, you're not going to get the DOF subject isolation you will from a portrait lens, but there's just something intangible about it that I love. (That really turned into a line poem, huh? Maybe I'll just write a sonnet about it next time.)

 

[Chris5107]

I just sold my 12/2 today. I liked the lens and the build quality but I just did not think it was worth keeping at the price point. Plus, by selling it I was more inclined to try the 75mm which I went and ordered today using the proceeds from my 12mm sale to make it easier to digest.

I found the 12/2 similar in sharpness to the Panasonic 14/2.5 (which is not a bad thing). The 12/2 had far less vignette and was also wider and faster of course. The fact that the 14mm lens was so cheap, however, added to some of my disillusionment with the 12. I am in the camp that it is a good lens that is over priced compared to other lenses and the reviews of the lens seem overly positive.

If you need a small 12mm prime, it is the only choice and it is a good one. I have decided to cover the 12mm range with the Panasonic 12-35mm which I have found is similar in sharpness and color. Of course the 12-35 weighs a ton in comparison and is 1 f-stop slower.

 

[Savas K]

Value, brought up earlier, is in the eye of the beholder. I own the 12-35 and it ain't seen daylight all that much. Technically, I've been hosed on that purchase.

Opinions whether the 12 is wide enough has to do with subject matter and individual perception.
Kind of the similar argument that the 75mm is too long.

I read Ctein's review a long time ago and discover that my copy of the 12 must be different than the one he used for his review.

As far as the look of photos gotten from the 12, the photographer has to learn how to work the lens. The 12, and those wider, are not all about "fitting it all in."

 

[CarlB]

With any small wide-angle, I'll guess you'll have more than a bit of chromatic aberration toward the edges. This does lead to a feeling of softness. Luckily most post software can handle CA nicely.

Then, there's the Fuji 14mm (fov of a 10mm for mu43) which is effectively wider, and much lower CA, and superbly sharp for about the same price. Of course, it is much bigger and for a different mount! But I like it much more than the Oly 12mm on m43.

 

[Dalton]

Value, brought up earlier, is in the eye of the beholder. I own the 12-35 and it ain't seen daylight all that much. Technically, I've been hosed on that purchase.

Opinions whether the 12 is wide enough has to do with subject matter and individual perception.
Kind of the similar argument that the 75mm is too long.

I read Ctein's review a long time ago and discover that my copy of the 12 must be different than the one he used for his review.

As far as the look of photos gotten from the 12, the photographer has to learn how to work the lens. The 12, and those wider, are not all about "fitting it all in."

I agree that Ctein must have had a bad copy. I read that review and after seeing other good reports, I bought the lens. I have been very happy with it.
Dan
Portland, Oregon

 

[dnightingale]

As CarlB touched on, my upcoming dilema is choosing either the 12mm Oly for my E-M5, or the 14mm Fuji for my X-Pro. I think I would get a little more use from the 12mm, however the 14mm just seems to be sharper and wider for around the same price.

I have the 14mm and it's just not quite wide enough, but because I have it, and reading more here, I'm now leaning towards the 14mm Fuji. It's not exactly comparing apples with apples, mainly due to the size difference in the kits, but the choice is facing up to be difficult one.

 

[DHart]

I'm surprised by this thread.

Me, too!

I don't understand all the talk of character, bokeh, isolation and comparisons to the 45 and the 75, etc. This is a 12mm lens, folks. 24mm equivalent. Totally different category of lens! Used in a totally different way than long, fast lenses. What is this all about? Do your part stunningly well and this lens will render it beautifully.

For the most part, long, fast lenses are taken advantage of for isolation and bokeh. And short lenses are typically taken advantage of for the deep depth of focus that they allow.. and if they're fast, its for low light situations, not to create bokeh. These wide angle lenses are best when shot stopped down a fair bit to take advantage of the inherent DOF... shoot wide open just when you must, due to dim light.

People don't buy wide angle lenses for shallow depth of field and bokeh. This lens is designed to offer a moderately wide FOV and to be helpful under low light situations. Evaluating it in terms of its bokeh or its shallow depth of field, or 3D pop... as compared to 90mm or 150mm equivalent portrait lenses just amazes me.

Certainly, if one wants to select a fast wide angle lens for shallow depth of focus and bokeh, more so than for low light situations, have at it... but I'm just old school, I guess... Sheesh.

Are we at a point in time for photography where every lens needs to be evaluated in terms of how shallow the DOF can be or what the bokeh is like? If so, grow a larger sensor, folks, it'll serve that need better!

What's discussed on forums these days really surprises me, sometimes.

 

[RT_Panther]

I People don't buy wide angle lenses for shallow depth of field and bokeh. This lens is designed to offer a moderately wide FOV and to be helpful under low light situations.

Exactly why I got the 17mm ƒ1.8 - I wanted more light. :smile:

 

[cmpatti]

I agree that Ctein must have had a bad copy.

Perhaps, but my recollection is that he evaluated 3 different copies.

 

[CarlG]

Just picked up the 12 f/2.0 last week from B&H - it's going back this week. So disappointed with the edge softness, *especially* at the cost of this lens.

 

[nsd20463]

It isn't just Ctein who found the edges to be unacceptable. The measurements in reviews from the usual sources (dp, lenstip, slrgear) show the same behavior. AFAIK only lensrental's measurements don't, but they are showing averages, not edge or corner numbers, so they aren't easily comparable.

 

[GRIDDD]

I like my 12mm alot, since i bought it i dont use the 20mm and 7,5 much, and i havent seen any edgesoftnes that would be any concern at all.

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

And you get some DOF even with big subjects.

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

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

 

[DHart]

Is it me or does it not have any of the character of my 45/75 lenses? I felt the same about the 17/1.8 I tried. It's sharp but its just kinda...blah. Technically it's great but its just missing ...something.

I don't think this thread is about corner or edge sharpness at all. The OP said he finds the lens to be "sharp" and "technically... great".

He feels that the lens just isn't providing enough "character". Perhaps visual excitement, wow, or the word punch might apply, for lack of a better term.

His reference lenses are the 45 and the 75, very sharp lenses which characteristically compress and create visual isolation, giving a relatively 3 dimensional look as a result. And comparing the 12 to his reference lenses, the 45 and 75, I think perhaps he was expecting to see a similar 3-dimensional pop with the 12. But that isn't generally as characteristic of a 24mm equivalent lens, unless of course one places an object very close to the lens in the foreground. That can give an exaggerated proportion leading to a sense of 3-dimensionality.

I think it really may just come down to this: perhaps he just isn't much of a "wide angle" kind of person. Some photographers just don't relate that well to wide angle lenses, for whatever reason, and this may be the simple factor in his "disappointment."

 

[Iansky]

Agree

Me, too!

I don't understand all the talk of character, bokeh, isolation and comparisons to the 45 and the 75, etc. This is a 12mm lens, folks. 24mm equivalent. Totally different category of lens! Used in a totally different way than long, fast lenses. What is this all about? Do your part stunningly well and this lens will render it beautifully.

For the most part, long, fast lenses are taken advantage of for isolation and bokeh. And short lenses are typically taken advantage of for the deep depth of focus that they allow.. and if they're fast, its for low light situations, not to create bokeh. These wide angle lenses are best when shot stopped down a fair bit to take advantage of the inherent DOF... shoot wide open just when you must, due to dim light.

People don't buy wide angle lenses for shallow depth of field and bokeh. This lens is designed to offer a moderately wide FOV and to be helpful under low light situations. Evaluating it in terms of its bokeh or its shallow depth of field, or 3D pop... as compared to 90mm or 150mm equivalent portrait lenses just amazes me.

Certainly, if one wants to select a fast wide angle lens for shallow depth of focus and bokeh, more so than for low light situations, have at it... but I'm just old school, I guess... Sheesh.

Are we at a point in time for photography where every lens needs to be evaluated in terms of how shallow the DOF can be or what the bokeh is like? If so, grow a larger sensor, folks, it'll serve that need better!

What's discussed on forums these days really surprises me, sometimes.

I totally agree with the points above.

You cannot compare a 12mm with a 25/45/75, they are different lenses with different inherent characteristics and as such will have their own rendering of images.

For many years when using analogue, I carried a Leica M with 24mm on it and it was a great lens as it allowed me to do exactly as it proclaimed it was for, capturing good coverage in limted spaces to maximise the impact of the area in a photo.

The 24 was also my favourite lens for landscapes and I mirrored that focal length in my Nikon full frame only parting company with it in March this year; I would love the 12mm but as yet cannot afford one.

For me, the lens offers a well made, small, solid, flexible lens that will be good for landscape, street, interiors and other applications but primarily a very compact lens (albeit expensive) that will compliment my other primes and not be compared to them!

 

[Savas K]

Perhaps, but my recollection is that he evaluated 3 different copies.

Regardless, fussy photographers buying copies and enjoying them obsolete whatever it is the man took the time and effort to complain about. A similar thing occurred with the fast 17mm, enjoying popularity on this board.

btw - anyone concerned about the 12mm should take a look at what peers are posting that have been shot with it. https://www.mu-43.com/f80/olympus-12mm-f-2-image-thread-14333/

 

[RickinAust]

I have the 12 and the 45 and agree that they are totally different in character. As people have commented the OP may be missing the isolation that you get with a longer focal length lens compared to the 12. It did take a bit of getting used to the FoV although the IQ was always very good. Suggest that you leave it on the camera for a few weeks and shoot with it and see if it you want to keep it after that?

 

[jnewell]

Just picked up the 12 f/2.0 last week from B&H - it's going back this week. So disappointed with the edge softness, *especially* at the cost of this lens.

At one point I had two copies of the 12/2 and two copies of the 12-35/2.8 here. Each of the 12-35/2.8s was better than either of the 12/2s at f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6. I seem to have gotten "bad" copies of the 12/2, but I didn't bother to try a third.

 

[Mijo]

Since I shoot mostly landscape, I tend to use all of my lenses for this purpose. When I made my statement, on page 1 of this thread, that the 12 and the 75 have similar character I meant when stopped down and used on a tripod. I rarely have a need to shoot wide open, unless in low light situations, so I'm probably not using the 75 the same way most people do.

I'd have to aggree with Grid, in that I don't really see any softeness at the corners with the 12 (even when almost wide open), at least with the copy that I have.

 

[Luckypenguin]

Even more so than normal or telephoto lenses, the results you get from a wide or ultra-wide angle lens are highly dependent on what you shoot with them rather than the optical effects of the lens itself. Composition, composition, composition. They aren't about isolation, narrow depth-of-field, bokeh or "character".

 

[GaryAyala]

I like my 12mm:

#1

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

#2

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

#3

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

#4

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