What did your 12-35 or 12-40 f2.8 replace in your bag?

[felipegeek]

My Oly 12-40 which I bought more than 3 years ago, did not displace any primes but supplemented them on the 12mm end. It did replace the Oly 12-50 which I found quite mediocre. I still used the 25 & 45 a lot more then added the 17. Now I have an E-M1.3 and the 12-40 may get more use especially in winter weather and very rainy days. On nice days I generally prefer to have the lightweight primes.

 

[Angus Gibbins]

As my shooting style has changed, I've been eying up a Panasonic 12-35/2.8. I'd like to know what this lens replaced for you if you have one. I find lately I'm not using my prime lenses (P20 & O45)| and feel a fast zoom with dual iS could take the place of those as well as my humble 12-32. Your thoughts?

O12-40/2.8 users are also welcome to chip in.

For me it was the Olympus 12-50mm f3.5-6.3. Literally a couple of weeks after I bought it (along with my original E-M1) the 12-40mm and 40-150mm went on sale. I still paid more overall but relearnt the valuable lesson, buy nice or buy twice.

Noticed an instant upgrade in image quality and sharpness. I've never skimped on glass since.

 

[Shortsonfire79]

Thanks for all your replies. I think my problem is I've spent years trying to replicate my 35mm rangefinder outfit in a digital system. I've finally admitted that that's a futile task and have decided to embrace what digital systems can do.

The 12-35 is on the way from MPB.

Are you restricted to M43? My friend and I are film shooters and he just picked up the Fuji X100V for it's film-like replication. It's a 35mm prime digital rangefinder and apparently has dozens of customization for film replication. I think within the first hour of having the camera he had already loaded Ektar, Cinestill, Portra, and HP5.

 

[moonraker]

12-50mm and 20mm 1.7 found new homes..

 

[Markb]

Are you restricted to M43? My friend and I are film shooters and he just picked up the Fuji X100V for it's film-like replication. It's a 35mm prime digital rangefinder and apparently has dozens of customization for film replication. I think within the first hour of having the camera he had already loaded Ektar, Cinestill, Portra, and HP5.

I’ve just sold an X100 but not a V. A really nice camera but surplus to requirements when I have a GX80 and a P20.

 

[bassman]

I bought the 12-35/2.8 along with my first m43 camera, an E-M5. It replaced a Nikon 16-85/3.5-5.6 (24-120 equiv) on a D7000. I probably would have bought the 12-40 if it had existed at the time.

I bought the 12-40/2.8 this week after the 12-35 died an unexpected and early death.

 

[dave729]

As my shooting style has changed, I've been eying up a Panasonic 12-35/2.8. I'd like to know what this lens replaced for you if you have one. I find lately I'm not using my prime lenses (P20 & O45)| and feel a fast zoom with dual iS could take the place of those as well as my humble 12-32. Your thoughts?

O12-40/2.8 users are also welcome to chip in.

I traded my 12-40Pro for the LUMIX 12-35/2.8ii and love it. On my old E-M5, the 12-40 felt at home. But after replacing the E-M5 with a PEN-F, it felt very front heavy and after research, I bought a LUMIX 12-35/2.8ii. About 1/3 lighter. For comparison, it is about the same size as the Oly 40-150 f5-5.6, but a little heavier. Great balance on the PEN-F. Image quality I’d great, and focus seems as quick as the 12-40..

 

[LowriderS10]

My 12-40 Pro replaced the old 12-50. I really liked the 12-50, but got tired of the slow aperture. No regrets...the 12-40 Pro is amazing in every way!

 

[Besperus]

I started with the Oly EPL-2 that came with the 14-42 lens that I must say was a very good lens. I went with the oly 12-40 and it has been a very good lens. I purchased the Oly EM-1 and love that setup.

I switched from Canon when they went mirrorless. Olympus seemed slightly better than Panasonic. Got the 12 to 42 and a 40 to 150 and am quite happy in my retirement toting lighter (better?) equipment.

 

[CMYK]

The 12-35 F2.8 was the first lens I bought with my GX9. I hated the fact that I had to buy that camera with a kit lens. Would have preferred to buy the body separately and put the 12-35 on it instead of the 12-60 that shipped with it. I am a FF Canon shooter and the 24-70 2.8 lived on my 5DMKII, so it was natural to keep that equivalent in M43 as well. Now, the 12-35 lives on my G9 most of the time.

I love primes and shot all of my street work with them. However, I find that for what and how I shoot now, primes for as much as I love them (I have 3), don't seem to fit in. I find myself in situations now more than ever, where I can't zoom with my feet. I'm a firm believer in cropping "in camera" and not after the fact. I also tend to decide what I'm going to shoot before I shoot and only leave the house with that combo, not a fan of bringing the kitchen sink. Whenever I bring just the 15mm or just the 85mm, I find myself wishing I had the 12-35 instead.

Mirrors my experience, albeit with 12-40mm on EM1 - plenty sharp enough for me. Still have 24-70 F2.8 on full frame for most of my work (people), along with 70-200 F2.8 - slowly exploring m43 for this. I supplement FF 24-70, with 17-40 f4, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8 primes for low light, and also use as backups. For m43 currently have 17mm and 45mm f1.2 primes for trying options.
Cropping in camera is a split second decision for me, and maintains quality, whereas cropping in post (if wrong prime fitted) takes me far longer and gives varying sized files. Don’t like swapping primes, too slow and too likely to drop something important. Generally use zoom as 12mm, 25mm or 40mm, with a little tweaking for crop.
For lighter stuff, personal/hobby, travel, friends and family, I prefer to use f1.8 primes on em10.

 

[doady]

I wonder if Olympus should have made brighter 24-70mm EFL and 70-200mm EFL m4/3 lenses to appeal to more FF users and would-be prime lens users. They had such lenses for the original 4/3 SLRs.

Some wide gaps in the Olympus system: zoom vs. prime, Pro vs. non-Pro. Not a lot for the middle ground. Like, my first choice when getting into m4/3 was E-M5 mk3, but when I tried it in store, it was with 12-40mm F2.8. I found that combo too front heavy and so I opted for the E-M1 mk2 with 12-100mm F4 instead. Now there is 12-45mm F4, but how long did it take?

 

[HarryS]

I bought a used 12-35 (version 1, I believe) earlier this year and didn't really try it out til this week. OMG, I could replace my P14, P20, P25, O17, all the beater 12-42's, and the 12-32.

 

[frankmulder]

I bought a used 12-35 (version 1, I believe) earlier this year and didn't really try it out til this week. OMG, I could replace my P14, P20, P25, O17, all the beater 12-42's, and the 12-32.

Very nice. I love it too.

Of course those other lenses have advantages too: smaller size, and (for the primes) bigger maximum aperture.

 

[PakkyT]

I bought a used 12-35 (version 1, I believe) earlier this year and didn't really try it out til this week. OMG, I could replace my P14, P20, P25, O17, all the beater 12-42's, and the 12-32.

Like @frankmulder just mentioned, some of those primes are still useful for the 1.33 stop advantage and their small size. But ya, you will never use the 12-42s again. The P12-32 and the P14 do have the advantage of being tiny so they might be useful if you ever pick up a small second body you want to carry all the time. The P14 f2.5 basically lives on my infrared converted E-P2 as it makes a nice body cap lens, the 14mm is a good focal length for general IR shooting, and IR is always in daylight so the f2.5 works fine as well.

 

[dave729]

I bought a used 12-35 (version 1, I believe) earlier this year and didn't really try it out til this week. OMG, I could replace my P14, P20, P25, O17, all the beater 12-42's, and the 12-32.

I am very pleased with the 12-35ii on my Pen-F. Lighter and better balance than the 12-40 Pro. Image quality is great. When I can get the funds, I’ll add the 35-100!

 

[D7k1]

Bought it with my first Gx8 as my normal lens, Wonderful Lens, especially on the G9.

 

[AaronE]

12-50mm EM5 MKi kit lens.

 

[Lcrunyon]

I had the 12-50 kit lens (my first lens ever, which came with the E-M5). The 12-50 isn‘t a great lens, and the 12-40mm Pro directly replaced that lens and far surpassed it.

While I didn’t intend for it to happen, I also quickly stopped using the 12mm f/2, which wasn’t as sharp as the Pro zoom, and its wider aperture didn’t matter so much at such a wide angle. Other primes like the PL 25mm f/1.4 and the 45mm f/1.8 also ended up being replaced in the coming years as well, but while the 12-40 factored into those decisions, they more had to do with the introduction of the stellar Pro primes.

That all said, the 12-100 Pro has left my 12-40 Pro feeling a bit neglected... I still love and plan to use the 12-40, as I think both have their place. But I’ve been mostly doing travel photography lately, and when packing for a trip the 12-100 wins.

 

[Ghostbuggy]

The 12-40 Pro was my very MFT first lens, I got it because I bought the E-M1 kit which had it bundled. Back when I was shooting Nikon APS-C, I never really cared about primes at all, that more or less changed when I got the Pen-F and started discovering the beauty and convenience of the small and lightweight f1.8 primes. So in this regard, for me it was the other way around: The 12-40 Pro actually got replaced from having a save place in my bags to more or less mostly sitting on the shelf.

Having said that, I lately more or less rediscovered the lens and, while size and weight might not really be too convenient, the flexibility and versatility is. I especially again noticed how impressive the minimum focusing distance is, you get extremely close to any subjects and that works pretty much throughout the whole focal length, which means you can get macro-like shots on the long end or out of focus environmental shots of certain objects on the wide end.

To sum it up: Shooting habits seem to change, especially if you are new in photography, at least that's my opinion. I'm very glad about my small prime lenses and I am also glad about my 12-40 Pro, I'm not planning to sell any of them. Each one has a place in my kit, depending on my mood or what I might plan to shoot, I pack the lenses I like. Sometimes it's just my lightweight prime holy-trinity, sometimes it's my 12-40 Pro with the 75 f1.8 and/or the 9-18 thrown in. While the flexibility of a zoom is always great, I also feel by "limiting" myself with a small set of primes I start to discover different kinds of perspectives, which I wouldn't really try by just using a zoom.

 

[Markb]

Well, I've had the 12-35 for just over two weeks now. I feel the only way to answer this kind of question is really to try it for yourself and here's what I found.

Does this lens (a type 1) replace the lenses I listed in my OP? Yes and no, there are pros and cons.

Practically, taking this lens out to shoot gets me better IQ than the 12-32 at the cost of size and weight. It also allows better depth of field control and is nicer to use. A win there with the caveat of portability.

Versus the P20/O45 combo again overall it's a win for the 12-35. Convenience and IQ approaching (if not equalling) that of the primes is definitely a plus. The primes of course have the edge in depth of field control, size and weight but set against the faff of changing lenses. WRT the O45, the 12-35's closer minimum focus and consequent higher maximum magnification real narrows the gap. I realise this may not be true for everyone but it works for what I shoot.

In outfit terms I've revived my 40-150R as my long lens and the convenience of sharing caps and filters also gives an edge to the 12-35. Less stuff to carry and fewer small bits of plastic getting lost in the bag really helps.

So I'm glad I did this even though it's the second most expensive lens I've ever bought. The only issue is balance on my GX80 but this is helped by a grip I got with the camera. Time will tell on this one and I may switch to a G80 or G90 in the future.