1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

What is your take on the Oly 12-50?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by xdayv, Apr 29, 2012.

  1. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    Dave
    My take is some (including me) have not been too keen for another kit lens offering, and especially with a F/6.3 max aperture at the long end. But by the samples I have seen, it's a very worthy kit lens + macro capabilities + weather sealing to go along with the E-M5.

    Will you have plans to get this lens somewhere along your roadmap?

    :biggrin:
     
  2. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    If you have an E-M5, it's a very nice way to have a competent weather-proof camera/lens combo. Otherwise I'm not sure why you'd want the lens.
     
  3. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    Dave
    Promit thanks for your thoughts...

    1. Agree, it's a nice pair to go with the E-M5.

    2. I'm keeping my eye (away) from the E-M5. So just opening up the possibilities to go with the kit lens or not.

    3. Though, I'm not too keen on having a kit lens.
     
  4. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    I have said several times if I wanted a "kit" lens, this would probably be the one.

    First, it makes a helluva lot more sense to put a weather sealed lens on a non-ws body than the other way around. It's pretty easy to protect the body if you don't have to worry about the lens.

    Second, the close focusing would make this a great "walk around" or travel lens.

    I think the bad rap is mostly to people believing this would be a native version of the phenomenal 4/3s 12-60, and it's clearly not.
     
  5. MrDoug

    MrDoug Mu-43 Top Veteran

    985
    Sep 5, 2011
    Boise, Idaho
    I tried the 12-50 that came with my EM5 vs Panny 14-45.. (comparable focal length kit zooms) the Panny 14-45 is so much sharper, there is no comparison in my mind.. not even close.. just my 5 cents.. it use to be my 2 cents.. but with inflation.. so in todays world.. it's now my 5 cents.. :smile: If you are a fisherman, the 12-50 would make a very good, large and heavy weight on your fishing line in fast water! :)
    Doug
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Armanius

    Armanius Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 23, 2010
    Houston
    Muttley
    Doug, what about 12-50 vs the current Oly 14-42?
     
  7. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Zuiko 14-54mm II > m.Zuiko 12-50mm

    That's my take. ;)
     
  8. drizek

    drizek Mu-43 Veteran

    492
    Aug 5, 2011
    By that logic,

    Canon 5D Mk.II > OMD E-M5
     
  9. MrDoug

    MrDoug Mu-43 Top Veteran

    985
    Sep 5, 2011
    Boise, Idaho
    Hi.. I don't have the Oly 14-42 anymore to compare to 12-50, I sold it.. but the 14-45 is better/sharper than the current Oly 14-42 as well... when I had them both to compare in my recollection..... just my 5 cents.. the Panny 14-45 is the sharpest of all the Kit lenses I have had so far.. that includes the Panny 14-42 as well.. bottom line is.. the 12-50 is nice, but not on par with the Panny 14-45.. the 12-50 is just kinda dull and soft and not your Bling, Bling type lens.. but who am I to say.. :smile:
    Doug
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. MrKal_El

    MrKal_El Mu-43 Top Veteran

    661
    Mar 24, 2011
    You should check the Image thread for to get a sense of what the lens is capable of...

    https://www.mu-43.com/f80/olympus-12-50mm-f-3-5-6-3-ez-image-thread-24326/
     
  11. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Sure, if you can find some logic in that statement. :rolleyes:


    Since you seem confused, maybe it should be noted that the Zuiko 14-54mm II and the m.Zuiko 12-50mm are both in similar price ranges, similar size, and similar focal ranges (similar enough for me, but I don't nit-pick over dollars, grams and millimeters)... and most importantly, they both work on the same camera bodies and are part of the same camera system. "Logic" dictates that they make a good point of comparison.

    Why bring up such an irrelevant comparison, in a thread which has absolutely nothing to do with the Canon system or camera bodies of ANY system?

    Just so you know... that whole mass brainwashing that "the Canon 5DII is the greatest thing ever invented" is now an old, worn out trend. If you're going to be a lemming, at least harp on the new 5DIII and D800 like the lemmings at the front of the pack.


    And since I'm now on the topic, I'll expound a bit on my original statement. Between the Zuiko 14-54mm II and the m.Zuiko 12-50mm, they both share a few similar advantages as well as differing in many more areas. Probably the most glaring differences between the two is that the Zuiko lens is significantly brighter and sharper, while the m.Zuiko lens has significantly faster Autofocus with CDAF. The most glaring shared advantage is that they're both weather sealed.

    To me, a sharp fast lens with excellent optics is far more important than one with optimal Autofocus. Fast apertures and sharp resolution are very basic photographic needs, whereas AF is a luxury which only helps the process along with less manual work. We were still able to take the same great photos before AF existed, using skill and technique. That is why my personal take is that the Zuiko lens is greater than the m.Zuiko lens, though they both have their own character.