M.Zuiko 12mm F2.0 vs M.Zuiko 12-40mm F2.8 pro

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by rezatravilla, Sep 21, 2015.

  1. rezatravilla

    rezatravilla Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 7, 2013
    Reza Travilla
    Hi all,

    Two days ago i tested 12mm F2.0 and really amazed with it sharpness and somehow the colour already pleasing (almost no need to post processing).

    What i want to ask, between this lens versus 12-40mm F2.8 (on 12mm)....does the 12-40mm have a small different result or still better the 12mm F2.0?

    Kinda regret when Olympus representative borrowing me EM5 Mark II with two lenses, 12mm F2.0 and 75mm F1.8. Man those two lenses really deadly poison hehehe.

    But i prefer 12mm since most of my shots either landscape or street and the focal length 24mm on FF is my favourite besides the legendary 50mm on FF.

    Need advise.
  2. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    The consensus around here from those with experience seems to be that the 12-40mm is just as sharp as the 12mm.

    But the 12-40mm is bigger and heavier, and doesn't do f/2. If those aren't very high priorities for you, you are a good candidate for the 12-40mm (as most people are, to be honest).
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  3. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 30, 2013
    I can't tell much difference between my 12/2 and 12-40/2.8 at 12mm. I haven't used the 12/2 much since I got the 12-40/2.8. The 12/2 only really comes out when I know I'm going to be shooting in very low light and the extra stop will help. I'll probably sell the 12/2 soon.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  4. DigitalD

    DigitalD Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 10, 2014
    From what Ive seen with online comparisons the 12 2.0 has a slight larger FOV then the 12-40 at 12mm believe it or not. Its slight but its there. Sharpness is the same at 2.8. But I agree with Turbo Frog. These 2 lenses can't be more different physically. The 12-40mm is even bigger then the 75mm. So you will have to decide which is more important in the end. However the 12-40mm is so versatile its hard not to at least own one. Weather-sealed, sharp, versatile, and something that many people miss, a VERY SHORT focus distance which makes it almost a macro lens as well.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 13, 2012
    David Dornblaser
    I have both, if shooting at 12mm I prefer the O12. Why? Size and weight for sure. Sharpness, a lot of the comparisons are wide open, I prefer the O12 stopped down. I find the O12-40 to be cumbersome for street or urban shooting. The main reason that I prefer the O12 is interior shots, museums, art institutes, church shots, low light, sunrise and sunset landscapes, etc. I can't live with f/2.8 for all of my shots, in fact I prefer faster.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. thisisanton

    thisisanton Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 24, 2012
    Los Angeles, CA
    I sold my 12mm after I bought the 12-40mm. I rarely used it since I got the 12-40. I just didn't see the need to keep changing the lens, also the weight of a larger lens doesn't bother me. Also being weather sealed is a big plus. I think it comes down to preference.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. tg9413

    tg9413 Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 12, 2014
    slightly off topic, but I have the oly 12mm, if physical size is not the priority for you and you don't need the zoom, you might as well go for the rokinon/samyang 12mm for half of the price. I really don't see the point in auto focus for lens this wide, and the oly 12mm is a lot of fun with manual focus so does the samyang. Sharpness wise those two are about the same with oly maybe have 1 or 2 degree wider FoV
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. rezatravilla

    rezatravilla Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 7, 2013
    Reza Travilla
    Thanks all. I think i will buy 12-40mm since the different weren't that big and more useful for all-around lens. But will test it first before buy it.

    The weight were not an issue for me. Maybe what makes me see the WOW factor on 12mm F2.0 is that it's so different result compare to 12-50mm. Yeah usually i am using the kit lens for 12mm. But this 12mm F2.0 bloody sharp on F4.

  9. Johnny The Greek

    Johnny The Greek Mu-43 Veteran

    Aug 19, 2015
    I do a lot of night photography, and the faster prime is my go to lens for that purpose--the 12-40 just wouldn't cut it for my purposes, but in terms of versatility, I think the obvious choice would be to get the zoom. But I love the 12/2 and the manual focus clutch ring is a joy to operate. If the 17mm f1.8 were as good in terms of picture quality, I'd get it in a heartbeat.

    I didn't opt for the 12-40, however, because I wanted less weight--not more--and get more joy out of my primes. Changing lenses to me isn't that big of a deal. When I need to get close, I walk towards whatever I'm shooting.
  10. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 30, 2013
    I'm curious to know what makes you think there is a big difference between the 12/2 and the 17/1.8? I owned both at the same time and to me they were like little twins, the biggest difference being the focal length.

    I sold the 17/1.8 eventually, but due to lack of use (I have the 12/2 and 25/1.4 and prefer those focal lengths), not anything to do with image quality.

    Here's the lenstip reviews for both:

    The 17/1.8 gets dogged for sharpness, but I've never understood why. At F2, the central sharpness is a little less (55lpm vs 60) than the 12/2 but the corners are a bit better (45 vs 40). The 12/2 also has a bit higher peak central sharpness, but the difference isn't big.
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2015
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.