1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Anyone with any experience with the Olympus 12-35mm?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Empireme, Feb 4, 2012.

  1. Empireme

    Empireme Mu-43 Regular

    150
    Aug 25, 2011
    LA, CA
    I'm almost about to take the plunge and purchase the 12-35mm f/2 from Olympus and I wanted to see any feedback before making such a huge investment into it...

    And if you do, any pictures that you would like to share with us?
     
  2. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Probably get more help in the Adapted Lens forum as this is a 4/3s lens and requires an adapter to work on micro 4/3s bodies.

    Supposedly, Panasonic will be announcing a native 12-35 f/2.8 soon
     
  3. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    It's a 14-35mm, not 12-35mm, and it's a huge waste of money IMO. It's good enough optically, but it is more expensive than the Nikon or Canon 24-70mm f/2.8, has less reach on the wide end, is physically larger than those full-frame lenses, and will focus excessively slow on your camera. Plus, even though it's f/2.0, 14-35mm isn't really conducive to very out-of-focus backgrounds and will have a similar DOF to an APS sensor with a 17-55mm f/2.8, which is approximate to a full-frame photo taken at f/4. Given that m4/3 and 4/3 share the same sensors, look here for any image samples:
    Flickr: The Olympus: Zuiko Digital ED 14-35mm f2.0 SWD Pool
    The only differences would be that your photos would have better dynamic range, and potentially a bit better colors.

    If I were in your situation and had the money and the need for this kind of fast zoom, given the size, I would put it towards something like the Nikon or Canon 17-55 f/2.8 and a crop-sensor body like a used Canon 40D. The laws of physics and marketing that caused this lens to exist at its size and price point are factors that led to the demise of 4/3 SLRs.
     
  4. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Agreed. I used the 14-35/2 for a couple of weeks on the E-P2 and the E-30. Focus was inaccurate on both. The lens is also huge.

    IMO the 12/2, 25/1.4 and 45/1.8 make much more sense, particularly for m4/3. Wider, faster and longer respectively, and AF won't be an issue.

    DH
     
  5. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Given that the lens is such a wide angle, I think the f/2 aperture is more about double the shutter speed of those f/2.8 lenses you mention, not "out-of-focus backgrounds". I don't know why everybody always thinks that lenses are designed to put as much OUT OF FOCUS as possible... xP Keeping things in focus is a much more vital task for a photographer. When you have a wide angle lens, you are capturing a lot more varied subjects across your frame, and most likely more scattered "central subjects". If your central subject is more limited, you would be cropping in tighter to it with a longer focal length. Thus, you want a BROADER DOF, not a shallow DOF. However, that doesn't mean that you always want to stop down to make your camera SLOW and unusable for low-light and/or moving subjects. The Four-Thirds system allows you to retain that broad DOF while keeping a fast shutter through the wide aperture. How is that a bad thing? That should be exactly what you want in a wide angle!
     
  6. Empireme

    Empireme Mu-43 Regular

    150
    Aug 25, 2011
    LA, CA
    Thanks for all the great replies! This really changes my perspective on the lens. Has anyone heard details on the release date of the new Panasonic lens?
     
  7. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    If the official announcement hasn't been made yet (I wasn't sure if it had been), then it will still be a while in coming. There will be a wait period even after the official announcement. It does sound like the ideal solution for the Micro Four-Thirds system in terms of a fast zoom... along with the 35-100mm f/2.8 (and incidentally - out of the Four-Thirds SHG options, I would also go for the 35-100mm f/2 over the 14-35mm f/2... It doesn't have the complaints you hear of the 14-35mm).
     
  8. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    14-35mm isn't "such a wide angle." It's decidedly smack dab in the midrange focal lengths for our cameras, the zoom range that lends itself to 90% of the shooting situations for 90% of the photographers out there. Given that 4/3 is a more square format than 135 and APS, one could argue that it's even more telephoto than the crop factor would suggest because it doesn't capture as much across the frame, left-to-right. I think you're confusing "wide angle" and "short focal length." I don't think if you gave anyone a 35mm lens on our camera they would exclaim, "Wow, a wide angle!" Heck, even while 14mm is wide, I wouldn't say that it's "such a wide angle." It's a moderately wide angle of view, but it takes an effective focal length of 24mm and shorter to start being considered "very wide." I would clarify that some of the lens' shortcomings are because such a short focal length is used to capture such midrange angles of view.

    And people want things out of focus because it declutters a photo and emphasizes the intended subject, but you knew that already, didn't you? Especially seeing as the first few photos in your signature's link take advantage of the subject separation and rendition that is only achieved by out of focus backgrounds and small depths of field. Plus, photographers are just as likely to use a wide angle to emphasize the subject by adjusting perspective as to use the lens to fit more into the photo.