1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Pany 12 to 60mm lens on Olympus ?

Discussion in 'Micro 4/3 News and Rumors' started by fishone0, May 19, 2016.

  1. fishone0

    fishone0 Mu-43 Regular

    52
    Jan 15, 2016
    Has anybody used this lens on their Olympus m4/3rds camera yet? if you have how is it on the Olympus camera bodies-- was wondering if I should get it for my Olympus camera--I like the range
     
  2. longviewer

    longviewer Mu-43 Regular

    128
    Oct 22, 2015
    SW Washington (Longview area)
    Jim R
    It sounds great, until I compare used 12-50 prices to $495. That is the real challenge for me.
     
  3. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    830
    Sep 30, 2013
    You can pick up the 12-40/2.8 for not much more money (used or import for ~$650). It's not much bigger, has a constant 2.8 aperture (2 stops faster on the long end) and is a better lens optically. You can crop a bit on the long end when you need to. I wouldn't bother with a F3.5-5.6 kit zoom for $500.
     
  4. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Such high hopes for this lens, such universal yawns upon first reviews and test results. Same as the Olympus 12-50 really - buy used or buy as a kit, not really justified otherwise.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  5. PakkyT

    PakkyT Mu-43 Top Veteran

    764
    Jun 20, 2015
    New England
    For anyone who owns an E-M1, I would suggest looking at 2nd hand Olympus ZD 12-60mm f/2.8-4. Yes, much bigger and heavier but an outstanding lens, can be had 2nd hand for less than the Panny is new, and is a full stop faster. Of course you will have to get the adapter as well if you don't already have one.

    If you don't have an E-M1... well just get one. ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. dancebert

    dancebert Mu-43 Veteran

    259
    Jan 18, 2014
    Hua Hin, Thailand
    But you wouldn't have 41-60.
     
  7. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    830
    Sep 30, 2013
    Eh, move a couple feet forward, crop, etc. The 12-60 doesn't have a 2.8 aperture or comparable image quality either.

    If you really need the extra range, the 14-140/150mm lenses are in the same ballpark, just as fast with comparable image quality and a lot more reach.

    I'm sure the 12-60 is a fine general purpose lens, but not for $500.
     
  8. dancebert

    dancebert Mu-43 Veteran

    259
    Jan 18, 2014
    Hua Hin, Thailand
    The OPs question was about 12-60. Not a 12-40 or a 14-140. Do you not get that?
     
  9. Rambling Sam

    Rambling Sam Mu-43 Regular

    68
    May 27, 2016
    Reading, Berkshire, UK
    Sam
    As a 'Jack of all trades' the original 14-54mm zoom was, and still is an excellent lens; The 12-40mm zoom is pretty well of the same calibre if not better. It's just that on optical designs that try and keep as wide as the 12mm, but also extend the zoom range to 60mm and above, that compromises have to be made because the optics needed for wide angle lenses are significantly different to those employed in telephoto-type optics. I have the old 12-60mm Zukio zoom and have to say it's not as good as the other two lenses I have mentioned.
    Producing zooms that encompass from the 'standard' angle of view (25mm) to 150 and quite a bit longer, don't impose anything like the same problems design-wise, because optics in this range, (and longer) are pretty similar. Unfortunately, people are demanding optics that encompass both extremes (eg. 12-200mm and even longer zooms) and get upset when these 'beasts' don't deliver the image quality they are expecting.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    830
    Sep 30, 2013
    He was wondering if he should get the lens, I do not think he should. I've suggested alternatives that are similar in many ways, and explained why I think they would be better choices. Is this so outlandish?
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. dancebert

    dancebert Mu-43 Veteran

    259
    Jan 18, 2014
    Hua Hin, Thailand
    To someone who needs a 12, a 14 is not worth considering. (Now repeat that sentence replacing 12 with 60 and 14 with 40).
     
  12. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Not quite, you can often get away with cropping from 40mm to 60mm FoV if the lens is sharp enough in the centre. There's not much you can do to increase the FoV from 14mm to 12mm though, panoramas sort of work but have their own issues.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    830
    Sep 30, 2013
    While I would prefer 12 to 14 myself as well, you're overstating the difference, and the difference between 150 and 40 is obviously much larger than the difference between 12 and 14 or 40 and 60. But the OP hasn't even replied again, so your absolute certainty that you know exactly what he wants seems a bit silly. You may be right, but on the other hand, the OP may not have known that the 14-140/150 were options that give comparable quality, or that you can get the 12-40/2.8 for a similar price since it has been out for a while now.

    In any case, parroting the focal length information isn't very helpful. Anyone who reads the product names of these lenses is aware of this. If you have any actual opinions about the 12-60mm (have you used one? did it meet your expectations? is it worth the money?), or other lenses which you think might be good options, that would be much more productive, to both the OP and others who may be reading this thread.

    As has been mentioned, you can crop to from 40mm to 60mm with minimal effort. Sure, you're going to loose some pixels, but the 12-40/2.8 at F5.6 is going to be very good stopped down two stops, while the 12-60mm is as at it's weakest wide open at it's longest focal length (Panasonic Lumix G Vario 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 Asph. Power O.I.S. Review as noted here, compare the 60mm end to the wider focal lengths). Stopping down the 12-60mm doesn't gain you much in resolution as you're starting to get diffraction limited at F8, F11, etc, which is a major reason why I wouldn't pay $500 for a 3.5-5.6 standard zoom. If you're light limited, you can use 2.8 on the 12-40/2.8, and assuming that provides enough DOF, you can use an ISO two stops lower, which means less noise and more detail, making the loss of resolution from cropping less relevant.

    At 40mm F2.8, the 12-40mm is a little softer than it is as 12-25mm, but the difference is nowhere near as severe as the sharpness dropoff on the 12-60. Stopping down to 5.6 (or even 4.0), at 40mm, the 12-40mm is just slightly less sharp than 12-25mm, where it is roughly as sharp (both in terms of resolution and evenness across the frame) as some of the best primes in the system, like the 25/1.4. I don't think these results are directly comparable to the 12-60 (shot on different bodies and MFT numbers not show for the 12-40), but you can see relative performance over the focal length quite clearly: Olympus M.Zuiko ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO Lens Review

    I doubt someone looking to buy the 12-60 is planing on making billboard sized prints (again, I could be wrong, but I'll wait for the OP to tell me so), so cropping the 12-40 would still provide very good small to medium sized prints and web-resolution images for sharing on social media.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2016
    • Like Like x 1