Featured: 'The 12-40/2.8 is the lens Olympus should have released with the E-M5' by dhazeghi

[bye]

I asked Galen Rowell why he chose the 35-80 AFD 4-5.6 lens for most his work and while he did say it was because it was light and sharp (it is when it's stopped down as I had own one myself) that it truly shines, but he said he shoots mainly for depth of field so he would naturally stop the lens down or 2 anyhow. He agreed with me that most to all well designed lens be it zoom or primes have their sweet spot at about a stop or 2 down anyhow. So he said, why am I carrying extra grams for those fast apertures when I don't even shoot them wide open and he would use hyperfocal distance technique to squeeze more DOF! Btw, my 14-42 Olympus first version today is "sharper" than the 35-80mm @ f/3.5 or stopped down to @f/5.6 -- the beauty of MFT and DOF, so again technically I have a superior zoom lens than Galen had with his F601 or even the Nikon D100 and I'm sure if you throw in the OMD E-M10 or E-M5 or even my old trusted friend (the E-PL1), I can beat him. But will my E-PL1 with my 14-42 make me a better Galen Rowell? No. It takes more of myself, me judging my own work critically to make an effort for myself to be better than I am capable of and be as a good as Galen. In the tradition of Galen, I always carry my E-PL1 w/14-42 and my Coolpix A for low light work and had never been disappointed. I know some people in my group complained their gear is too heavy, too clumsy blah blah blah. They have to carry their 5D Mk3, D800 etc and heavy Manfrottos, Gitzos etc.. Well, thats their problem. No problemo for me!!

Galen Rowell printed his art work, so he was well aware of the format and resolution he needs to create in gallery art and that he balanced that very well. What happens is when people today who pixel peep and do not understand that for the most part and with commercial printing still @300dpi and even with the traditional RA-4 or Cibachrome that you are going to get an effective 6 to 7 bits (bit depth), so for the most part 8bit depth if all you are going to get from prints. I think the human eye can't tell the difference starting @200dpi in terms of sharpness as well as being able for the human eye to perceive beyond the 8bit depth level.
When people pixel peep @ 100% or even 200 to 400% to hunt for bokeh fringing, lateral CA or even softness in the detail, they are just looking for an excuse to buy a new lens, because more than likely that at these magnifications, you are printing bill board size prints..

I work in the industry where many of my clients pixel peep 200% to 400% level looking for dust, oil spot etc on their Canon and Nikon gear or those nasty LCA or bokeh fringing. And it's quite a crowd and they are so so unhappy that their Nikon 24-70 is such an imperfect lens with such imperfect optical characteristics. I asked them. Do you usually print your work at bill board to sky rise sizes? They all said, yeah I do that all the time!!

I guess Fine Art is not dead yet huh if people were printing bill board sizes prints like they do at Costco on their 4x6s.

On the whole, the whole photography market has been hit rather hard and this is the truth. People aren't paying top dollar for fine art because they can get them cheap either through free source or through some gear head people who would sell their photos and their rights to the lowest bidder. And then guess what, I can get a cheap Cibachrome or a Lightjet print made up. Why they heck I need to mountain climb some stupid mountain to get a shot when some fool did it for me.
See the problem?

 

[dhazeghi]

I asked Galen Rowell why he chose the 35-80 AFD 4-5.6 lens for most his work and while he did say it was because it was light and sharp (it is when it's stopped down as I had own one myself) that it truly shines, but he said he shoots mainly for depth of field so he would naturally stop the lens down or 2 anyhow. He agreed with me that most to all well designed lens be it zoom or primes have their sweet spot at about a stop or 2 down anyhow. So he said, why am I carrying extra grams for those fast apertures when I don't even shoot them wide open and he would use hyperfocal distance technique to squeeze more DOF! Btw, my 14-42 Olympus first version today is "sharper" than the 35-80mm @ f/3.5 or stopped down to @f/5.6 -- the beauty of MFT and DOF, so again technically I have a superior zoom lens than Galen had with his F601 or even the Nikon D100 and I'm sure if you throw in the OMD E-M10 or E-M5 or even my old trusted friend (the E-PL1), I can beat him. But will my E-PL1 with my 14-42 make me a better Galen Rowell? No. It takes more of myself, me judging my own work critically to make an effort for myself to be better than I am capable of and be as a good as Galen. In the tradition of Galen, I always carry my E-PL1 w/14-42 and my Coolpix A for low light work and had never been disappointed. I know some people in my group complained their gear is too heavy, too clumsy blah blah blah. They have to carry their 5D Mk3, D800 etc and heavy Manfrottos, Gitzos etc.. Well, thats their problem. No problemo for me!!

I agree completely! Indeed, TheOnlinePhotographer has for their Quote o' the Day, "Micro 4/3 is better than 35mm used to be." But capabilities and standards change and what was considered sharp (and large) 15 years ago is no longer viewed in the same light. All things being equal, I usually prefer slower zooms, because they're smaller. With many slower older lenses, including Galen's 35-80, if you didn't mind stopping down, you got quality equal (or sometimes better) than the faster more expensive lenses. That's kind of my gripe about the 12-50 - if it was as sharp as the primes or the 12-40 at f/5.6 or f/8.0 I'd consider it a perfect lens, even if it were mediocre at wider apertures. But no matter how far I stop it down, it never really gets that close.

When people pixel peep @ 100% or even 200 to 400% to hunt for bokeh fringing, lateral CA or even softness in the detail, they are just looking for an excuse to buy a new lens, because more than likely that at these magnifications, you are printing bill board size prints...

There is definitely a lot of that at work. By the same token, there is a sense that if you've spent $2000 for a top-end lens, you want to be able to see how good it is!

On the whole, the whole photography market has been hit rather hard and this is the truth. People aren't paying top dollar for fine art because they can get them cheap either through free source or through some gear head people who would sell their photos and their rights to the lowest bidder. And then guess what, I can get a cheap Cibachrome or a Lightjet print made up. Why they heck I need to mountain climb some stupid mountain to get a shot when some fool did it for me.
See the problem?

Yes, there is a general problem in the photo industry due to a glut of inexpensive image sources. While digital cameras have not made people better photographers, they have made it far easier to create competent images for the average person. Most of the time that's a good thing, but it does make life a lot harder if you're trying to make a living from your craft.

 

[bye]

Part of the problem with a long zoom kit lens is that, it's gets very difficult to design a budget lens that can deliver the sharpness of the 14-42 kit lens from Olympus and Panasonic. And adding close macro with weather sealing and trying to maintain a healthy profit margin (after all Olympus needs a healthy dosage of it) is tough. I don't own the 12-50 since I don't need that kind of range, I don't know how it actually performs. But I have seen some sample shots from Robin Wong and a few others here that do showcase the ability of this lens. I am a firm believer that it is the photographer who creates stunning images. The gear is merely a tool for that and if you're looking for a sharp stylus to craft your art, then you need to buy a sharp stylus. If you look at the point of view of a kit lens, the 12-50 isn't a poor performer against the others. The Nikkor AF 35-80mm 4-5.6 in fact wasn't actually an all out great performer either. The lens I had in mind that Galen should be using was the Nikkor 24-50 3.3-4.5 D lens. It's faster and also optical better than the 35-80 and there was the Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8 that was even better but heavier. The fact of the matter is, unless you pixel peep or stick your nose close to the monitor screen, a good photographer can snap a photo with a 12-50 or a 12-40 and you couldn't even tell the difference apart from a reasonable viewing distance. The only thing that sets them apart is when the photos are enlarged. If you do fine art and you have access to a large format Epson inkjet printer or a Lightjet using an RA-4 process or even Cibachrome, you could probably tell. But you need a fine eye like myself, you and some others in this forum to tell sharp and kind of sharp. And you need clients who also need to have those sets of fine eyes too. For most of us, we just look at the photo and admire and enjoy the art, the atmosphere and the story it tells for less than $1000 bucks!

Having said that, I am not going to praise the 12-50 at all. It's simple too long of a zoom and too much compromise to get that range in a consumer price point. It seemed as though Olympus has redeemed itself by producing a fine pancake 14-42 EZ zoom that seemed to suggest it has the resolving power of the mid end Panasonic 14-42mm zoom lens. And if that is the case, reading Robin Wong's fine blog, I would be in line to get my E-M10 with the Pancake zoom for $100 more. That's a steal. Just the kind of medicine I need to lighten my load even more plus getting resolution out of the new lens compared to my original 14-42, plus 3-axis IBIS and 2 stops better ISO than my E-PL1 and leaving my Velbon monopod home. I'm so blessed with MFT and my Coolpix A. I have both APS-C and M43 and the new E-M10 will be a fine complement and replacement to my aging E-PL1, which is btw a fine camera. I loved it to death!! LOL.

 

[dhazeghi]

I'm not saying that the 12-50 is a stellar lens, but your example could be cleaned up quite a bit by removing the chromatic aberrations. If you then add a bit of mid tone contrast, i.e clarity in Lightroom speak, it would look pretty sharp for this particular image.

This is a good point. However, remember that the E-M5 doesn't correct CA in camera, so what most folks are going to see is a blurry red-and-green mess toward the edges of the frame. Obviously in Lightroom the CA goes away automatically and one can sharpen it to compensate somewhat. It won't ever be a sharp lens in my book, but it can certainly be made acceptable if one isn't viewing at 100%.

I guess the E-M1 sort of fixes this with CA correction and custom sharpening depending on the lens, but considering that they released the lens as the main E-M5 kit, those features really should have been implemented for the E-M5 as well. In fact, I really don't understand why CA correction has taken Olympus so long. I mean, Panasonic has been doing it since 2008!

I found the 12-50 to be pretty good at 12 with just a little post processing. It's also quite decent in "macro" mode.
The downsides for me were that it's just too dim to use indoors and the long end is really not very sharp (but still plenty good for web viewing and smaller prints).
I also have the 12-40 now and yes it's better (I really like the f/2.8), but lets not forget the 12-50 can be had for a quarter the money (and weighs half as much)...

I would be less annoyed if they didn't try to sell you the 12-50 at half the price of the 12-40. Officially the MSRP is $500! True, if you buy it with the E-M5, it's down to $300 net, but considering that Olympus sells it refurbished for $200 alone, it really should be $150-200 with the E-M5.

 

[dhazeghi]

The only thing that sets them apart is when the photos are enlarged. If you do fine art and you have access to a large format Epson inkjet printer or a Lightjet using an RA-4 process or even Cibachrome, you could probably tell. But you need a fine eye like myself, you and some others in this forum to tell sharp and kind of sharp. And you need clients who also need to have those sets of fine eyes too. For most of us, we just look at the photo and admire and enjoy the art, the atmosphere and the story it tells for less than $1000 bucks!

Agreed. And since most people just shoot JPEGs in any case, by far the best bang for the buck would be for manufacturers to improve their ASICs to produce sharper, cleaner JPEGs. I'm also very big on value lenses - when I had the D700 I shot primarily with a Tamron 24-135/3.5-5.6 for almost 3 years. It was not the sharpest lens in any objective benchmarks, but the range was right, and at f/11 and f/16 where I did most of my shooting, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between it and a $1000 f/2.8 zoom. Optically it was a fairly primitive design, but the big pixels of the D700 ensured that that really didn't matter (in fact the only thing optically that bugged me was that it was slightly decentered). Unfortunately we don't quite have those kind of options with m4/3. Our kit lenses are actually fairly competent wide open (that Tamron certainly was not), but no matter how far you stop them down, they don't really match the high-end zooms or primes.

Having said that, I am not going to praise the 12-50 at all. It's simple too long of a zoom and too much compromise to get that range in a consumer price point. It seemed as though Olympus has redeemed itself by producing a fine pancake 14-42 EZ zoom that seemed to suggest it has the resolving power of the mid end Panasonic 14-42mm zoom lens. And if that is the case, reading Robin Wong's fine blog, I would be in line to get my E-M10 with the Pancake zoom for $100 more. That's a steal. Just the kind of medicine I need to lighten my load even more plus getting resolution out of the new lens compared to my original 14-42, plus 3-axis IBIS and 2 stops better ISO than my E-PL1 and leaving my Velbon monopod home. I'm so blessed with MFT and my Coolpix A. I have both APS-C and M43 and the new E-M10 will be a fine complement and replacement to my aging E-PL1, which is btw a fine camera. I loved it to death!! LOL.

I'm curious about the new 14-42EZ as well. Unfortunately, I had a bad experience with the Panasonic PZ 14-42X. I'm fairly certain the problem was shutter-induced blur, but unless/until we get electronic shutters in the Olympus lineup, I'm going to be extra careful around ultra-small lenses.

Regarding the cost, the 14-42EZ kit is not available here, and going by the prices in Europe, it's going to be a $250+ premium for the pancake zoom over the E-M10 body alone.

The Coolpix A is a really neat camera, although personally I'd probably go with the Ricoh GX1, once it gets updated to the 24MP APS-C sensor. However, I'm really a 24mm EFL kind of guy, so if I ever get a fixed lens compact, it will need to have a wider lens.

 

[CPWarner]

Well dhazeghi, apparently Olympus listened to you:

http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2014a/nr140129em5e.jsp

They are planning on releasing a new version of the black EM-5 with the 12-40mm f/2.8.

 

[dhazeghi]

Well dhazeghi, apparently Olympus listened to you:

http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2014a/nr140129em5e.jsp

They are planning on releasing a new version of the black EM-5 with the 12-40mm f/2.8.

Yes, I saw the rumor for that before posting the thread. All they need now is a time machine to go back to February 2012!

 

[Ross the fiddler]

I didn't buy the 12-40 lens (yet) or an E-M1, but I bought a useful lens that would be the same as using the 14-150 & with a constant f2.8 but in a nice compact form in the Stylus 1. It has produced some lovely images & Robin Wong has shown some lovely results with it too. That will have to do me to add to my kit for the time being. It's actually going more places & getting photos than I would otherwise with my present E-M5 kit.

 

[bye]

Agreed. And since most people just shoot JPEGs in any case, by far the best bang for the buck would be for manufacturers to improve their ASICs to produce sharper, cleaner JPEGs. I'm also very big on value lenses - when I had the D700 I shot primarily with a Tamron 24-135/3.5-5.6 for almost 3 years. It was not the sharpest lens in any objective benchmarks, but the range was right, and at f/11 and f/16 where I did most of my shooting, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between it and a $1000 f/2.8 zoom. Optically it was a fairly primitive design, but the big pixels of the D700 ensured that that really didn't matter (in fact the only thing optically that bugged me was that it was slightly decentered). Unfortunately we don't quite have those kind of options with m4/3. Our kit lenses are actually fairly competent wide open (that Tamron certainly was not), but no matter how far you stop them down, they don't really match the high-end zooms or primes.



I'm curious about the new 14-42EZ as well. Unfortunately, I had a bad experience with the Panasonic PZ 14-42X. I'm fairly certain the problem was shutter-induced blur, but unless/until we get electronic shutters in the Olympus lineup, I'm going to be extra careful around ultra-small lenses.

Regarding the cost, the 14-42EZ kit is not available here, and going by the prices in Europe, it's going to be a $250+ premium for the pancake zoom over the E-M10 body alone.

The Coolpix A is a really neat camera, although personally I'd probably go with the Ricoh GX1, once it gets updated to the 24MP APS-C sensor. However, I'm really a 24mm EFL kind of guy, so if I ever get a fixed lens compact, it will need to have a wider lens.

I really suspect that the 14-42EZ zoom is a new design, possibly to compete against the GM1's 12-32 stock zoom lens which I heard is A GEM in its own right. I really like the Coolpix A being portable and more than often just leave the DSLR and MFT home on our vacations and carry the Coolpix AW110 as the companion because it has telephoto zoom, VR, macro capabilities and underwater capabilities. I find that 16MP is just fine, but I know the Nikkor 28mm prime lens on the A can resolve more and begging for it. But I suspect the only reason Nikon stick a 16MP in there is probably due camera blur. Higher megapixels encroaching medium format require pristine super handling skills or you'll get camera blur from the slightest hand or body movement. I'm already having a hard time getting pristine shots using my Nikon D800 and a lot of my colleagues would testify to the fact that it is not easy to get super sharp images from the D800 without some patience and really high shutter speeds and handholding skills.

 

[lotsofkids]

dhazeghi...... I ordered the 12-40 and as I mentioned some posts back and Olympus honored the $200 promo as I bought an EP5 body....which brings me to my question: Do you feel this will overwhelm the EP5? (ergonomics) Seems like the grip of your EM5 is better designed to handle it. Does anyone here pair a PEN with the 12-40 and have any input?

I have no doubt the lens is absolutely amazing....but if it doesn't function well with the body I just purchased .... I might have to cancel the order before it ships out or flip it here at a great price.

Maybe I am over thinking.....I tend to do that a lot.

 

[mattia]

I don't have an E-P5, but I do have the 12-40. It's really not that big. It's not a lens to shoot one-handed (few if any really are, in my opinion), and it will be a little more front-heavy than you're used to, but the image quality is worth the (relatively) larger size.

 

[snaimpally]

I bought the 12-50mm because I find 14mm (=28 equivalent) too wide. Over the years, I have learnt that I need at least a 24 equivalent. However, I agree that the IQ of the 12-50 is mediocre.

Given the problems with the mount on the 12-40mm, I expect a bucket load of refurbs to available soon. BTW, have you experienced any problems with the mount?

 

[Ross the fiddler]

I bought the 12-50mm because I find 14mm (=28 equivalent) too wide. Over the years, I have learnt that I need at least a 24 equivalent. However, I agree that the IQ of the 12-50 is mediocre.

Given the problems with the mount on the 12-40mm, I expect a bucket load of refurbs to available soon. BTW, have you experienced any problems with the mount?

That so called problem has been blown out of proportion with only two reported cases (as far as I know) having a problem. I can understand you being wary, but just because two failed out of all the ones sold, don't be put off it as it is a lovely lens as reported by many people.

 

[dhazeghi]

I don't have an E-P5, but I do have the 12-40. It's really not that big. It's not a lens to shoot one-handed (few if any really are, in my opinion), and it will be a little more front-heavy than you're used to, but the image quality is worth the (relatively) larger size.

Agreed. You can get an approximate view using the camera size simulator. I don't have the HLD-6 on the E-M5, so my grip is basically no larger than the one the E-P5, and I find the handling to be fine.

I bought the 12-50mm because I find 14mm (=28 equivalent) too wide. Over the years, I have learnt that I need at least a 24 equivalent. However, I agree that the IQ of the 12-50 is mediocre.

Given the problems with the mount on the 12-40mm, I expect a bucket load of refurbs to available soon. BTW, have you experienced any problems with the mount?

I've experienced no problems at all. Every product has its proportion of defective samples, but IMO 2 or 3 out of the hundreds of people who've gotten the lens and frequent these forums is hardly something to be concerned over. For any item of this price, I would of course recommend purchasing from a reputable dealer, in case an exchange/return is necessary. If one is particularly worried about such things, the extended warranty may also be a good idea (I'll probably get it, but then I was burned multiple times by the Olympus 12-60).

Oh, I just noticed an Olympus manager addressing the question in an interview on Imaging Resource. They claim the failure rate is 2 out of 5000+.

 

[Clicka]

So I snagged a 12-40 in the latest refurb sale. stoked :smile:.

Question - Is there any reason to now keep my 12-50 or is it totally redundant?
I know 'what should I do' questions are kinda dumb; but as a newb I'd like to hear opinions of the experienced -

The $150 I may get is neither here nor there to me, however I may as well put that towards something useful if I'll never use it again.
I do enjoy playing around with the macro on the 12-50. Is the macro reason enough to keep it or is the 12-40 just as good for close ups?

(I don't think it's relevant, but in case it is, I've also picked up the 25, 40-150 & 75-300 since I dove into m43 back in January. Loving them all!)

 

[Harvey Melvin Richards]

So I snagged a 12-40 in the latest refurb sale. stoked :smile:.

Question - Is there any reason to now keep my 12-50 or is it totally redundant?
I know 'what should I do' questions are kinda dumb; but as a newb I'd like to hear opinions of the experienced -

I can think of a couple of reasons to keep the 12-50. It does shoot a more magnified Macro (although not as good as the Oly 60 Macro) and it also will directly mate to the Nikon ES-1 slide copying adapter. I am also a hoarder, and I can count on one hand all of the extra tools and equipment that I have ever sold.