Olympus 12-45/4 Pro lens details

Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,601
Location
France
In the DPR video, the 12-45 was compared with the Panny 12-35 2.8. Their conclusion was that the Oly was a bit sharper. The other obvious differences were that the Oly focused closer and had more reach but the Panny was faster. Almost exactly the same size, so we get a real choice here.
What was the body they used?
To me, focusing speed & accuracy is as important as ultimate sharpness (if not more).
 

Tywais

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
289
Location
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Real Name
Mike
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

JonSnih

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
174
Location
CZE
The combo on the left looks massive. It is a lens diameter which gives that massive look. I can tell from experience that ppl notice me a lot when I shoot with the lens. The new one will be more in MFT spirit - high IQ in a smaller package. 254 grams only.
 

shreebles

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
30
The combo on the left looks massive. It is a lens diameter which gives that massive look. I can tell from experience that ppl notice me a lot when I shoot with the lens. The new one will be more in MFT spirit - high IQ in a smaller package. 254 grams only.
12-45 vs 12-35 f2.8 is where it gets interesting...
 

davidzvi

Super Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
3,886
Location
Outside Boston MA
Real Name
David
This is where it gets interesting to me. Yes the smaller will be real handy on the my E-M1.2 as well. But I on my Pen F? MUCH better.

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

davidzvi

Super Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
3,886
Location
Outside Boston MA
Real Name
David
What was the body they used?
To me, focusing speed & accuracy is as important as ultimate sharpness (if not more).
It was an Oly OMD body, but I didn’t notice which. They didn’t talk much that I remember about AF speed.
DPR mentioned they were testing it on the trip to Costa Rita testing the E-M1.3. So it might be a leap, but I think it was the E-M1.3.
 

shreebles

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
30
He compares it directly to the 12-35.
Thank you for sharing, that is a big deal.
If you don't need low-light performance this lens will be excellent.
I shoot mostly landscape and architecture so I will take a sharper and lighter lens any day, and these genres don't really suffer at slower shutter speeds.
As I dislike having to remove purple fringing in post I will replace my 12-35 with this gem to go on my E-M1.

Also got a chuckle out of his review, the guys at DPreview seem sympathetic and they do good work.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,601
Location
France
I haven't seen it posted. Here is Chris Nicholls' video review:
He compares it directly to the 12-35.
Interesting.
He doesn't have the same opinion about the bokeh than Robin Wong.
Some examples of stabursts... not completely sure but I think I like it. I've seen much worse. Not sure how the 12-35 f/2.8 renders on this.
I'm looking for a main "landscape" zoom, so from what I've seen/read for now, it's a little ahead of the 12-35 f/2.8, as I have primes for low light.
But I still I have time to make my decision (and I may also choose the Sigma 56 f/1.4 in the end :) )
 

S-Osolin

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
40
He said bokeh is ok, he saw problems with specular highlights. In any way, I think that it's apparent now that this lens sits well in the current lineup. It gives Olympus fine and portable standard zoom, and it even has few tricks extra when it's considered next to Panasonics 12-35, even though that one is f2.8. Looking forward to seeing how it performs next to 12-40, Panasonic Leica and regular 12-60mm variable aperture zooms.
 

shreebles

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
30
He said bokeh is ok, he saw problems with specular highlights. In any way, I think that it's apparent now that this lens sits well in the current lineup. It gives Olympus fine and portable standard zoom, and it even has few tricks extra when it's considered next to Panasonics 12-35, even though that one is f2.8. Looking forward to seeing how it performs next to 12-40, Panasonic Leica and regular 12-60mm variable aperture zooms.
If it is a tad sharper than the 12-35 it should be at least as sharp if not sharper than the 12-40, as these two have been compared quite extensively, which has shown minimal differences (apart from close focus distance).

It seems Olympus doesn't want to position the 12-45 as an alternative to the 12-40 pro, but rather as the lighter more compact alternative to the 12-100 f4. The latter of which has been shown to be better optically than the venerable 12-40, despite the longer zoom range.
 
Last edited:

pake

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
2,106
Location
Finland
Real Name
Teemu
If it is a tad sharper than the 12-35 it should be at least as sharp if not sharper than the 12-40, as these two have been compared quite extensively, which has shown minimal differences (apart from close focus distance).
(Just like with almost every other lenses too) Olympus has better corner sharpness while Pana lenses are sharper at the center.
 

pake

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
2,106
Location
Finland
Real Name
Teemu
I guess that’s how Panasonic were able to minimise the size of the 12-35 and 35-100 2.8 Lumix lenses. A reasonable trade off in many situations.
And comparisons between the 12-35 and 12-45 emphasize Panasonic's great job in minimizing the size/weight. Remarkable work IMO.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom