I shoot landscapes 90% of the time and my most used lens is the Olympus 12-40 pro. I will make this review more about my personal eperiences with the lens rather than technical specifics which are easy enough to find in youtube and across the web.
It has often been said that the best lenses for landscape are the 16-35 and 70-200 (full frame equivalents) zooms. The first, to get those wide expanses that are oh so common in landscape photography; and the second to focus on particular subjects and to bring farther objects into better framing and composition. I did not know this general tenet however when I started doing landscape photography in 2016. I bought a used 12-40 pro based on glaring reviews and the versatility of the standard zoom.
Upon using it a couple of times, I felt that it was not wide enough for certain scenes. I solved this by learning how to stitch panoramas, and for the most part, it worked. But since my preferred style of photography was long exposure, it was often a tedious and technical process. I decided to experiment and, as they usually say, make do with what I have. So I started recomposing scenes that would fit into the 12mm range of the lens instead of opting for a wider, all encompassing photo. This exercise taught me the lesson that sometimes less is more and that careful composition and placement of elements often matter more.
My next big concern with the lens was how sharp it was in the corners, and I was happy to note that the online reviews were correct in stating that it's corner sharpness at 12mm is almost as good as its center sharpness from f4-f9. I also shoot a lot in f/2.8 and although there is a slight degradation in sharpness, its something I can fix in post. I dont shoot as much in the long end, but during those times that I do, 40mm seems a little less sharp than at 12mm in the normal f4-f9 range. Again not anything significant. Ive printed images up to 30 inches in fine art papers, and sold a couple of them, and me nor my printer see any perceptible softness in corners .
I'm not sure if this lens is telecentric, but Ive had very little issues with CA on the 12-40 even while shooting wide open.
So all in all, and considering its metal build, it is indeed an excellent lens. I can easily recommend this lens for anyone, even for landscape photography.
However, I also got myself a Laowa 7.5/2 and have noticed that I use it more often now. It wasn't because the Laowa was wider, brighter, or sharper (slightly). It was mainly because the Laowa, like any ultrawide can produce foreground distortion, and this is something that I just cannot replicate in Photoshop.
So these two, the 12-40pro and 7.5mm make up my two punch landscape kit. I still shoot the 12-40 quite often, since its weather sealed; some scenes are not as great when captured too wide; and it has much less flare and CA compared to the Laowa. So it is still an indispensable lens for my kit.
It has often been said that the best lenses for landscape are the 16-35 and 70-200 (full frame equivalents) zooms. The first, to get those wide expanses that are oh so common in landscape photography; and the second to focus on particular subjects and to bring farther objects into better framing and composition. I did not know this general tenet however when I started doing landscape photography in 2016. I bought a used 12-40 pro based on glaring reviews and the versatility of the standard zoom.
Upon using it a couple of times, I felt that it was not wide enough for certain scenes. I solved this by learning how to stitch panoramas, and for the most part, it worked. But since my preferred style of photography was long exposure, it was often a tedious and technical process. I decided to experiment and, as they usually say, make do with what I have. So I started recomposing scenes that would fit into the 12mm range of the lens instead of opting for a wider, all encompassing photo. This exercise taught me the lesson that sometimes less is more and that careful composition and placement of elements often matter more.
My next big concern with the lens was how sharp it was in the corners, and I was happy to note that the online reviews were correct in stating that it's corner sharpness at 12mm is almost as good as its center sharpness from f4-f9. I also shoot a lot in f/2.8 and although there is a slight degradation in sharpness, its something I can fix in post. I dont shoot as much in the long end, but during those times that I do, 40mm seems a little less sharp than at 12mm in the normal f4-f9 range. Again not anything significant. Ive printed images up to 30 inches in fine art papers, and sold a couple of them, and me nor my printer see any perceptible softness in corners .
I'm not sure if this lens is telecentric, but Ive had very little issues with CA on the 12-40 even while shooting wide open.
So all in all, and considering its metal build, it is indeed an excellent lens. I can easily recommend this lens for anyone, even for landscape photography.
However, I also got myself a Laowa 7.5/2 and have noticed that I use it more often now. It wasn't because the Laowa was wider, brighter, or sharper (slightly). It was mainly because the Laowa, like any ultrawide can produce foreground distortion, and this is something that I just cannot replicate in Photoshop.
So these two, the 12-40pro and 7.5mm make up my two punch landscape kit. I still shoot the 12-40 quite often, since its weather sealed; some scenes are not as great when captured too wide; and it has much less flare and CA compared to the Laowa. So it is still an indispensable lens for my kit.
Attachments
Last edited:
. I never considered the 7-14 cause of the need for custom made filter holders. I tried the 8-18, and as good as that lens is, I'd rather have a constant f/2.8 cause our smaller sensors need all the light they can get. 
