Olympus 12-45/4 Pro lens details

b_rubenstein

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
1,447
Location
Melbourne, FL
I really don't understand Olympus logic.
It's an issue of optical design, not Olympic's logic. A more significant issue for me is that there is a non-trivial difference in DOF field between f2.8 & f4.0 in the 40mm - 45mm range. I have no interest in this new 12-45 lens.
 

BrentC

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
291
Location
Brampton, Ontario
And make it BIGGER than the f/2.8 lens.

IS will probably be in an update to the f/2.8 lens.

All the Pro f4 lenses are IS. This is why I am surprised. I thought the point of the Pro f4 line of lenses would all be IS. I highly doubt they will come out with a 2.8 IS lens.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,601
Location
France
It's an issue of optical design, not Olympic's logic. A more significant issue for me is that there is a non-trivial difference in DOF field between f2.8 & f4.0 in the 40mm - 45mm range. I have no interest in this new 12-45 lens.
No it's not. It's an issue of priorities when designing the lens.
I'm sure there were some compromises that could have been be done to get a shorter lens.
 

Gonewest

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
55
Location
Cornwall, UK
Real Name
Paul
Well, it looks great to me. The 12-40 feels too big (62mm filters, yuk) and too front heavy for my Pen F. And I didn’t like it on my em5 much either. For a standard zoom I currently switch between my 12-32/3.5-5.6 (tiny but slow with no manual focus) and 12-35 (big but beautiful). Neither has very good close-up abilities so the new 12-45 could provide all I want from such a lens. Except a low price, so it could be a while before I get one.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,002
Location
New England
the 12-45mm's size will not be a deciding factor over either f2.8 zooms as it's almost as big as the 12-40 and essentially the same size as 12-35.
If lenses were only two dimensional like your illustration. But they are not, so they have volume and weight. As an example calling a new lens that in only 66% of the weight of the Panny "essentially the same size" is clearly incorrect.


As long as it fits in the same space in your bag it is the same.
That is an excellent point. If you remove a larger lens from your bag and replace it with a smaller one, if that smaller one still occupies the same amount of space in that you didn't really free up room for additional lenses or accessories, then you kind of didn't downsize unless your intent was purely to reduce weight.


All the Pro f4 lenses are IS. This is why I am surprised. I thought the point of the Pro f4 line of lenses would all be IS. I highly doubt they will come out with a 2.8 IS lens.
On the release of the 12-100 PRO people made the exact same argument against it in that they thought the point of the PRO lenses were constant f2.8 (in fact at the time Oly's marketing web pages indicated that their Pro line were f2.8 lenses because that is what they had at the time). But with the released of the 12-100 PRO they moved the goal posts a bit. Now no OIS on an F4 and the goal posts have moved again. Proving that none of these things were ever defined as being what a PRO lens is other than in users minds. With each new released with the PRO label, I am sure everyone is going to cry about how it somehow deviates from the previous undefined/unwritten PRO requirements.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2018
Messages
492
Location
Covina, California
If lenses were only two dimensional like your illustration. But they are not, so they have volume and weight. As an example calling a new lens that in only 66% of the weight of the Panny "essentially the same size" is clearly incorrect.
Hey, if your eyes deceive you there's really nothing I can do to help you. If you really think the new 12-45 is that much smaller and not in the same ball park as the other two F2.8 zooms, then the marketing hype train has succeeded here.
As far as weight, I never said anything about weight so why did you?
 

ooheadsoo

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
608
If lenses were only two dimensional like your illustration. But they are not, so they have volume
I was thinking about that, so I mocked up the relative diameters in word. 12-40 in blue, 12-45 in gold.
IMG_20200130_132622.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Sorry for the quality.
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
5,972
Location
Knoxville, TN
Hey, if your eyes deceive you there's really nothing I can do to help you. If you really think the new 12-45 is that much smaller and not in the same ball park as the other two F2.8 zooms, then the marketing hype train has succeeded here.
As far as weight, I never said anything about weight so why did you?
Just speculating here: Since the lenses are actual physical objects, they have mass and weight. That seems like a very valid thing to include when talking about holding the lens. :p
 

ralf-11

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
1,393
Which begs the question: why on earth did we choose micro four thirds???
because M34 has not been invented yet

there are limitations on lenses, incl. zooms - ask not what can this lens do for me, but what sacrifice will I make for smaller size
 

RichDesmond

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
577
Location
United States
To be honest, the smaller size is completely irrelevant. Lens size always needs to measured in bag space. No one uses perfect custom sized bags for lenses, so lenses that are similar in size effectively are the same. As long as it fits in the same space in your bag it is the same.

Weight is a bit different, but I don't think there are that many people that count every gram. To me this lens seems completely pointless. Just get the f2.8 version...
You're making assumptions that, while I'm sure that they are valid for you, aren't valid for everyone. Some of us are very sensitive to both size and weight, for various reasons.
 

Equable

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
251
Location
Jersey. Channel Islands
Real Name
Rod
Thank goodness that people with superior knowledge of all things camera related, (whether or not the items are actually on sale yet,)
are here to save us from ourselves.
I have learnt that this lens is : too big, too slow, too dense (?!) Not wide enough, unstabilised and certainly a concoction of the evil marketing department, eager to separate fools and their money.
At the risk of being branded a heretic, I think I’ll wait for the actual reviews. :hiding:
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2018
Messages
492
Location
Covina, California
Thank goodness that people with superior knowledge of all things camera related, (whether or not the items are actually on sale yet,)
are here to save us from ourselves.
I have learnt that this lens is : too big, too slow, too dense (?!) Not wide enough, unstabilised and certainly a concoction of the evil marketing department, eager to separate fools and their money.
At the risk of being branded a heretic, I think I’ll wait for the actual reviews. :hiding:
You forgot to mention that this lens has mass and weight, otherwise people would be deceived into thinking this lens is full of hot air.;)
 

Equable

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
251
Location
Jersey. Channel Islands
Real Name
Rod
You forgot to mention that this lens has mass and weight, otherwise people would be deceived into thinking this lens is full of hot air.;)
I thought that was what this post consisted of, mostly, I just couldn’t resist adding a little more. We only have to wait ‘til early to mid February,and some genius contributor will be able to say “ I told you so! “
Or not.😉
 
Last edited:

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