Olympus 12-45/4 Pro lens details

[PakkyT]

Olympus Pro lenses seem to be made HEAVY.
Is weight thought to be an illusion of quality?

It seems to work for Beats headphones. They literally add weights to their products to make them feel more substantial and give the illusion of quality.

 

[Panolyman]

Oh, fudge. I got one of those periodic emails from Olympus with photo tips that led me to their web site. I quick check of my rewards points revealed I had about $200 worth. As a result, a brand-new 12-45mm f/4 PRO is on its way to my home. It'll probably arrive just in time for my stay-at-home birthday.

Is this reward scheme unique to the USA or perhaps it's only if one purchases direct from Olympus?
Enjoy your new lens.

 

[Biro]

Is this reward scheme unique to the USA or perhaps it's only if one purchases direct from Olympus?
Enjoy your new lens.

One accumulates rewards points when one purchases directly from getolympus.com - which is the site of the company’s U.S. business.

 

[Chega]

https://www.optyczne.pl/504.1-Test_obiektywu-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_ED_12-45_mm_f_4.0_PRO.html

 

[JonSnih]

https://www.optyczne.pl/504.1-Test_obiektywu-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_ED_12-45_mm_f_4.0_PRO.html

In a nutshell: a very good addition to the Zuiko family. I wanted such lens when I had the 12-50mm zoom. I am glad that Oly delivered.

 

[SojiOkita]

I just bought it. There was a small price drop (500€), it's still a bit expensive to my taste, but I'm not sure I'll find much better in the coming months.
I'll compare it to my 12-32, I expect the 12-45 to be much better.

 

[nstelemark]

Really impressive results from LensTip:

Center:

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

Edges:

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

 

[RS86]

Here is the English version. What I find interesting and disappointing is the flare resistance.

With 12-40mm it was one of the pros: "Sensible performance against bright light."

Here it states in the cons: "Performance against bright light should have been better."

Ghosting and flare section:

"As a result the tested lens experiences a lot of problems with the performance against bright light. Flares can appear no matter what focal length you employ and in many different position of sources of light. The situation is perhaps not abyssmal but there is nothing to praise the tested lens for either."

Summary:

"Even though the cons list of the tested lens features as many as three positions, I still assess its performance very positively indeed. First of all it impressed me with excellent sharpness already from the maximum relative aperture. The task of Olympus optics specialists was very difficult and they managed to execute it exceedingly well. What about the flaws, then? Two of them are of a smaller calibre. A high distortion for RAW files is caused by a specific approach toward lenses in this system. It leaves distortion correction to software of a camera; in return you get more leeway when it comes to correction of other optical aberrations. Vignetting is noticeable but, compared to other standard zoom lenses of the Micro Four Thirds system, and also some instruments designed for bigger sensors, it still looks good. The only flaw that should be considered a serious slip-up of this lens and criticized more harshly is performance against bright light. I think the lens should have performed a lot better in this area.

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12–45 mm f/4.0 PRO is a very well-put-together lens and an excellent addition to the system. If you buy a Micro 4/3 camera nowadays you are really spoilt for choice when it comes to standard zoom lenses. We don't like the starting price of the tested instrument, set at 2799 PLN; still we hope it will be soon featured in different camera-plus-lens sets – then the extra charge for it might drop significantly."

https://www.lenstip.com/392.11-Lens...ko_Digital_12-40_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Summary.html

 

[PakkyT]

"As a result the tested lens experiences a lot of problems with the performance against bright light. Flares can appear no matter what focal length you employ and in many different position of sources of light. The situation is perhaps not abyssmal but there is nothing to praise the tested lens for either."

Well I hope Oly doesn't cheap out on this one and includes a lens hood.

 

[Biro]

Well I hope Oly doesn't cheap out on this one and includes a lens hood.

A lens hood is included. The LH-61G.

 

[RS86]

Well I hope Oly doesn't cheap out on this one and includes a lens hood.

Does Lenstip test lenses without hoods?

 

[PakkyT]

Does Lenstip test lenses without hoods?

No idea.

 

[RS86]

No idea.

It's an interesting thought. I would think not. I think lenses are supposed to be used with hoods.

But then it makes you think what about lenses like Panasonic 20mm, does anyone use a hood with such a lens? I think it's The only lens I don't use a hood with.

Or actually mostly I don't use a hood with macro lenses either. But flare doesn't matter there.

 

[John King]

The 12-50 was also widely criticized for flare. Highly criticized by Lenstip e.g. here

https://www.lenstip.com/334.9-Lens_...0_mm_f_3.5-6.3_ED_EZ_Ghosting_and_flares.html

I've never had a problem with it.

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

 

[Biro]

A word about Lenstip. It's a good site and I'm glad they provide objective reviews. But they've always been a bit flummoxed by micro four thirds.

I remember when they reviewed the then-new Panasonic 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 (the original kit zoom on the G1). They reviewed it like it was a film SLR lens in 1985. They talked about the zoom's "monstrous distortion."

They had no idea what the system was all about - that smaller size and low weight were top priorities and that micro four-thirds users understood that in-camera correction was part of the deal.

Lenstip sort of understands this now. I say sort of because even in the review of the new Oly 12-45, they still kind of grumble about in-camera corrections.

I'm not saying they are wrong about the flare (I have yet to test my example in this manner but haven't noticed any issues yet). But I would tend to take their conclusions with a grain of salt.

 

[John King]

^ in common with a lot of reviewers, Steve. Maybe most, if not quite all.

Funny how many people at the photo club were blown away by a selection of my A2 prints. The largest they displayed in competitions was A3. Most of the competition prints did not meet my basic standards, although some were superb. Many taken with 135 format cameras, about half with top shelf APS formats.

I was one of two members (out of over 80) who used FTs at that time.

 

[Reflector]

A word about Lenstip. It's a good site and I'm glad they provide objective reviews. But they've always been a bit flummoxed by micro four thirds.

I remember when they reviewed the then-new Panasonic 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 (the original kit zoom on the G1). They reviewed it like it was a film SLR lens in 1985. They talked about the zoom's "monstrous distortion."

They had no idea what the system was all about - that smaller size and low weight were top priorities and that micro four-thirds users understood that in-camera correction was part of the deal.

Lenstip sort of understands this now. I say sort of because even in the review of the new Oly 12-45, they still kind of grumble about in-camera corrections.

I'm not saying they are wrong about the flare (I have yet to test my example in this manner but haven't noticed any issues yet). But I would tend to take their conclusions with a grain of salt.

Distortion tends to hurt performance in the corners if it gets real wild. If you go to some of the specific Sony APS-C lenses they have such monstrous distortion and darkening in the corners (I believe this is one of the pancakes) that the corners outright look funky. Christopher Frost has some examples of this and you'll see it in at least one Canon lens for lens review videos (along with said Sonys that I can't think of right now, I swear one of them is a prime pancake and another is a zoom pancake, zoom being on the WA side where this happens) where the corners are just pitch dark and heavily distorted due to the image circle being pushed.

Lenstip is pretty fair and I mostly rely on them for the resolution/CA/bokeh quality information and for having a large, consistent database of lenses tested across the 12 and 16mp sensors. You can skip on the summaries if you feel like it.

 

[11GTCS]

Distortion tends to hurt performance in the corners if it gets real wild. If you go to some of the specific Sony APS-C lenses they have such monstrous distortion and darkening in the corners (I believe this is one of the pancakes) that the corners outright look funky. Christopher Frost has some examples of this and you'll see it in at least one Canon lens for lens review videos (along with said Sonys that I can't think of right now, I swear one of them is a prime pancake and another is a zoom pancake, zoom being on the WA side where this happens) where the corners are just pitch dark and heavily distorted due to the image circle being pushed.

Lenstip is pretty fair and I mostly rely on them for the resolution/CA/bokeh quality information and for having a large, consistent database of lenses tested across the 12 and 16mp sensors. You can skip on the summaries if you feel like it.

That stuff is definitely invaluable. I usually read only those sections, though, because I agree with the above talk about how dark ages complaining about distortion in a lens and file that you basically have to hack into to see the distortion. For the rest of us it’s a nonissue, since even in a normal raw it’ll be corrected before we see it. I do love reading the tech report style format though. I also have a feeling the flare will be fine. The reviewer seems to be pretty sensitive to flare, most of what I saw was perfectly usable.

 

[Holoholo55]

FWIW, I like Opticallimits for lens reviews. https://www.opticallimits.com

 

[RS86]

The 12-50 was also widely criticized for flare. Highly criticized by Lenstip e.g. here

https://www.lenstip.com/334.9-Lens_...0_mm_f_3.5-6.3_ED_EZ_Ghosting_and_flares.html

I've never had a problem with it.

View attachment 827474

"In sunny days we strongly recommend using a hood – unfortunately that piece of accessory you have to buy separately."

Wouldn't this suggest they don't use hoods for tests? I hope they tell it somewhere on their page as it is pretty important information regarding flare performance.

Another thing I wonder is if that sun behind an edge of a building makes the flare worse. I think photons can behave differently there than when coming straight from the sun?