Lack of respect for the 12-50mm

[thinkcooper]

The 12-50 is gonna be a great walk-around crappy condition snap shooter lens for me. Yep, it's a tad soft with a slow aperature. But man - it focuses fast and has a great range...

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

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

For the full flip series shot in burst with 12-50: my flickr photostream

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

 

[Luckypenguin]

The M Zuiko 12-50mm is over-priced? Someone go and research the price of any interchangeable lens for a system camera that starts at 24mm equiv and then get back to me.

 

[Joe777]

So many picky people.

Glad we didn't worry about all this tech stuff in the old days, we just took that old Kodak box camera, or the Kodak Pony etc etc out and shot pictures. Or a wind up Mansfield Cinemax 8EE I had for movies. it's wonder how we did it !!!! Surprise we actually got some great shots. Even all those great old war photo journalists managed to get award winning images, how did they do it ? I will tell how, they were first and foremost great photographers.

 

[DeeJayK]

I'm not sure why the 12-50 or any lens or piece of equipment needs or deserves "respect". It's a tool that can be used to take good photographs; it's the photographer who produces quality images (using the camera and lens) and to a lesser extent the images themselves that are worthy of respect.

It seems to me like the OP has set up a bit of a straw man argument. I'm not sure I've gotten a sense from this forum that there is any huge groundswell of negative emotion regarding the 12-50.

I don't own nor have I used the lens, so I can't speak to the particulars, but in reviewing the specs it would definitely seem to have some distinct advantages (e.g. weather sealing and macro mode) and disadvantages (e.g. it's size and bulk compared to the other available kit zooms). It's just a TOOL folks, we don't need to "respect" it, we just need to "use" it.

 

[dixeyk]

The M Zuiko 12-50mm is over-priced? Someone go and research the price of any interchangeable lens for a system camera that starts at 24mm equiv and then get back to me.

That's a good point. The 24mm equivalent end of it is pretty nice. That said, I think the reason folks aren't getting all worked up about it (like say the 45/1.8) is probably more for what it is not than what it is. Being a long time Olympus user I was wanting the OMD to have something like an m43 version of the ZD14-54/2.8-3.5 as it's kit lens. When I first saw the specs of this lens I thought..."weather sealed, standard kit lens speed and looks a bit long". I figured it would focus fast but it didn't wow me. If the 24mm equivalent is important to you then it becomes a lot more interesting.

 

[Luckypenguin]

That said, I think the reason folks aren't getting all worked up about it (like say the 45/1.8) is probably more for what it is not than what it is.

You might be somewhere close to the truth with this point.

 

[lowincash]

At first when looking at the E-M5 I had no intention of getting the 12-50mm kit lens as I felt it was too slow so I just ordered body only. However, wanting the 12mm f2 but was stuck at the high price tag, I decided to get the 12-50 with the E-M5 so I can at least have it fully weather sealed, just in case. I don't really care much for the power zoom as I don't take much videos. This lens is growing on me tho.

Here's a pic I took with the kit lens and it looks pretty sharp to me.

View attachment 201553

Here's one at 12mm testing out the dramatic tone filter =P

View attachment 201554

It's a good enough lens to use during the day and I've even used it on cloudy overcast dark days and had no problem. It's a slow kit lens and I think that's where most of the complaints come from. I would not get this lens if I were to pay the full $500 price for it. But for $300 I can't complain. I'll just say that I'm glad I went with it looking forward to using it more =]

 

[Vyeow]

I havent had a chance to play around with the lens much yet but will when winter really starts to set in..
I think this lens was primarily designed for outdoor daytime use hence the weather sealing. For the price and tech crammed into that lens, I cant complain..

 

[LeeOsenton]

This lens doesn't do anything that you can't do with another lens; but you will need several to match all of its tricks. Overall, I like mine and carry it with my Panasonic 20mm for day outings.

Lee

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

 

[asaulo1]

here's my dilemma, would it be better to get the 14-42 kit and then order the 40-150 lens? with the discount, it comes out to the same $1299 of the 12-50 kit... of course, not weather sealed on either lens. I had the 14-42mm II R lens and except for the annoying "turn to lock" feature, I felt it was pretty good for the money. Any thoughts?

 

[songs2001]

here's my dilemma, would it be better to get the 14-42 kit and then order the 40-150 lens? with the discount, it comes out to the same $1299 of the 12-50 kit... of course, not weather sealed on either lens. I had the 14-42mm II R lens and except for the annoying "turn to lock" feature, I felt it was pretty good for the money. Any thoughts?

You can just leave it unlocked. Unlocked and it'll still be smaller than the 12-50. All you miss out is 12 and the 40-150 can focus pretty close, although not as close as the 50.

An alternative plan would actually buy the 14-42, sell it and buy a 14 2.5 Panasonic for 160 and the 45-200 for 200.

 

[Sammyboy]

Why did you find that annoying? Locking it in the collapsed position is only a convenience for storage, nothing says you must lock it in the park position when not in use.

 

[asaulo1]

You can just leave it unlocked. Unlocked and it'll still be smaller than the 12-50. All you miss out is 12 and the 40-150 can focus pretty close, although not as close as the 50.

An alternative plan would actually buy the 14-42, sell it and buy a 14 2.5 Panasonic for 160 and the 45-200 for 200.

I actually already have the panny 14mm 2.5. I really would like a small zoom as an all rounder type of lens for travel. I think with those two (14-42 & the 40-150) I should be covered.

 

[sdsyver]

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

Took this one using the dramatic filter I think this will be a great walk around lens.

 

[allenrowand]

View attachment 8549

Took this one using the dramatic filter I think this will be a great walk around lens.

Nice shot!

 

[sdsyver]

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

Here is one more. Again using the dramatic filter.

 

[MrKal_El]

You guys should really post these pics in the Lens thread....Really great pics in here!

https://www.mu-43.com/f80/olympus-12-50mm-f-3-5-6-3-ez-image-thread-24326/

 

[jasjb]

Just to revive an old thread.

This lens is quite cheap now, and it's very useful.

Rather than shining in IQ, it is very handy as a carry-round for the macro + video + wide combo.

Fun.

 

[tino84]

I ask here a question about a wide lens. (no, I don't think a panorama could be taken with a zoom, and no, I won't stik image)
It has to be cheap, and obviously, good.

12-50 can be found for 180-200€ used and seems to have a good quality
than we have, or better, when will be available in EU, kodak 12-50
and 9mm f8 (to de-fish). (100€ )
panasonic 14-45. (ca 150€ used)

It has to be good at wide, and if possible, until 30-35mm.
9mm is good is wider, but I never de-fished anything.. but it is also very small. than it comes olympus, that also has macro, and then panasonic, the biggest I think.
wich one would be better?
or could I stay with my just purchased 17mm 1.8?

 

[rich9cinti]

I ask here a question about a wide lens. (no, I don't think a panorama could be taken with a zoom, and no, I won't stik image)
It has to be cheap, and obviously, good.

12-50 can be found for 180-200€ used and seems to have a good quality
than we have, or better, when will be available in EU, kodak 12-50
and 9mm f8 (to de-fish). (100€ )
panasonic 14-45. (ca 150€ used)

It has to be good at wide, and if possible, until 30-35mm.
9mm is good is wider, but I never de-fished anything.. but it is also very small. than it comes olympus, that also has macro, and then panasonic, the biggest I think.
wich one would be better?
or could I stay with my just purchased 17mm 1.8?

Very subjective when asking which is better.

Your 17 1.8 is a very good lens and fast.

As for the 12-50, to answer your question, it is inexpensive and offers a much wider aspect than the 17. If you can snag one for cheap, it's a winner. You asked for good quality, it's easily rated at very good from 12 to 35 range. When traveling, the weather sealing is a must obviously on a weather sealed body, too. Just finishing my travels at Panama City Beach, Florida with high humidity, wind and of course sea water spraying around... the 12-50 is a great choice in such conditions especially for an inexpensive lens. If I was going wider than a 17, I prefer the 12 vs 14.