would you trade your oly 12-50 for a panny 12-32?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by kaitanium, Mar 17, 2014.

  1. kaitanium

    kaitanium Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 23, 2012
    Originally I bought the 12-50 since its pretty versatile (EZ, macro, good range) minus the slowness of the aperture. But now after using it for awhile, I want something way more compact with a manual zoom since i use my omd mostly for travel. However really desire a f2.8 constant aperture in a compact zoom but thats a dream. What do you guys think? I think at this moment, image quality is the only factor
  2. Ccasey

    Ccasey Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 29, 2011
    Austin, TX
    Real Name:
    Just a couple of points: weather-sealing, and you can manual zoom the 12-50. I haven't used the 12-32 so can't say anything about how the image quality compares. I can understand the desire for something smaller, though.
  3. alex66

    alex66 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 23, 2010
    All the reviews I read of the 12-32 were good, so I bought one as I wanted its small size etc, I sometimes miss the ability to override focus but I have plenty of others so no biggie. I think the IQ is good on a par if not better than the legendary 14-45, I sold the latter, Its the zoom I have bee most satisfied with on a prime level of happiness (prefer primes). It won't be of the quality of a 2.8 pro zoom but as a small walk around it is great.
  4. kaitanium

    kaitanium Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 23, 2012
    I think i can forgo the weather sealing. never had a problem with non-weather sealed lenses and taking it out to something like a light drizzle and in all honesty, i rather stay home on those days haha.
    and yea, im all auto focus so i can let that go too. i think if i was using tis camera for more of my pro work then i would want that manual focus.

    i think of my omd as an overglorified manual point and shoot with the capabilities of a SLR, if that makes any sense.
  5. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    I would. And may yet. But then I've never really gelled with the 12-50 and have the 12-40 for quality.
  6. Mellow

    Mellow Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2010
    Florida or Idaho
    Real Name:
    Hell yes!

    But that's because I really didn't like my 12-50mm, especially at 12mm, and I really love my 12-32mm, especially at 12mm. And because the whole reason I got into m43 was to have a small camera system and the 12-50mm is such an long and unwieldy lens, even in comparison with other non-pancake kit lenses and especially in comparison with the 12-32mm!!!!

    The only reason I'd consider keeping the 12-50mm was because either: (a) I take a lot of close-focus pictures, and the near-macro capabilities of that lens are really good; or (b) I take a lot of pictures in the rain where I need the weather sealing. The extra range doesn't really count for me because if that was important I'd choose another lens, like the 14-45mm or 14-42mm II Pannys.
  7. wushumr2

    wushumr2 Mu-43 Regular

    May 20, 2013
    12-32mm is manual zoom, but not manual focus. I think the MTF of the 12-32 is better than the 12-50, but they're definitely different lenses. The 12-50 was supposed to be a decent all-around lens with electronic zoom so Olympus could say it does movies well.
  8. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    Real Name:
    If I had a E-M5, I'd keep the 12-50. Especially if I couldn't afford the Oly 12-40 f/2.8. One might as well have at least one lens with WR to go with the E-M5 body. I'm sure the Panny 12-32 is a great kit lens. But I'm not sure the IQ it provides is in a whole 'nother class over the 12-50. But it sounds like the OP has answerd his/her own question.
  9. RDM

    RDM Mu-43 All-Pro

    Can't wait till I can afford the 12-32mm. I really want one.
  10. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 14, 2012
    New Mexico
    Real Name:
    No. But I'd trade it for the 12-40.
  11. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 20, 2013
    Not really saying anything new, but here's my take on reasons not to buy the 12-32. I bought the new 12-32 for my PM2 because I occasionally hike or go on dates where a big camera bag isn't feasible. HOWEVER, I'm realizing now that if you have the 20 and 14 anyway, that should pretty much eliminate the need for the 12-32 for this application. The only thing the 12-32 it to me an RX100-type P&S replacement. I'm not living in a big city anymore, so can you imagine the instances were a) I need something to fit on my belt and b) I would prefer a zoom over the 20/1.7. Not many. The 20 or 14 would not only suffice, but in many situations, be better.

    I also bought the 12-32 because I didn't have any lens that as 12mm and I wanted to get rid of the 11mm wide angle converter and the 14, but, for taking photos of home interiors, 11 is noticeably wider than 12, so I can't sell that either. Plus it doesn't do MF. Plus when you walk around with it people look at you differently. If I loiter with a lens like the 12-40, people can tell I'm out taking creative shots. If I loiter with a silver 12-32 on a PM2 they don't really see that I'm a serious hobbyist.

    So, there are still uses for the 20mm. And although the 14 by itself could pretty much be sold after you buy the 12-32, since the 11 wide angle converter is so useful for my job, I can't sell either of those. I paid only $286 for the 12-32, but I don't really even use it.

    Finally, the 12-50, for $200, is a lens I kind of want. It's big so I can walk around and be "a photographer." It has macro. It's weather-sealed for when I get an OMD. And 50mm is a lot longer than 32mm! So, it's almost as if I should be selling the 12-32 to buy the 12-50!!

    NOTES: I don't have the money for the fast zooms either, but if I did, I'd probably spend it on a couple good primes instead. Also, remember that the P14-42 version 2 is also cheap and pretty small and just as good as the 14-45 and much longer than the 12-32.
  12. kaitanium

    kaitanium Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 23, 2012
    seems like theres no real negative drawbacks from getting the 12-32.

    i mean i do love the 12-40 f2.8 but really i might as well bring around my big o canon slrs.

    looks like i should just sell my 12-50 and get that panny.
  13. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    Well, yes to the second, if tiny is what you're after, but a really big no to the first. The 12-40 is, by DSLR standards, not a big lens. Not for a 2.8 zoom (or even an f4 zoom like the 24-105, or an APS equivalent like the 17-55)
  14. kaitanium

    kaitanium Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 23, 2012
    well i have a certain threshold for "big" basically "big" is anything that cant fit in my pocket. but if somehow $800 drops out of the sky, maybe ill consider a 12-40 haha
  15. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Who cares what others think - it's the results wot count! In any case, if impressing others with the size of your equipment is what you're after, you'd be better off with a 1DX plus 70-200 f2.8L or such like.
  16. beanedsprout

    beanedsprout Mu-43 Veteran

    Apr 13, 2013
    north central Ohio
    I used my 12-50 once. If the 12-32 is compact enough for travel, by all means do it. The best camera is the one you have, but it's certainly not that 6.3 monstrosity.
  17. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 20, 2013
    Loitering without purpose is not only against the law, but unwanted individuals might approach you. I don't necessarily care what they think, however, if you want to take a photo of strangers and don't want to get punched in the nose, it might be best to look professional and not be using your cell phone! I think the word they use for that these days is the all-encompassing term "creeper." ;) Today I had a 200mm with the adapter it's like 8 inches long. I was actually ask if I'm taking photos to remodel a nearby apartment complex. Uhh, no, but thanks for asking!
  18. rfortson

    rfortson Mu-43 Veteran

    No, I wouldn't trade. My 12-50 serves a purpose on my E-M5, namely making a weather-sealed kit. Plus, IQ isn't bad for a kit zoom, the wider range is handy and the "macro" function is nice. Besides, the E-M5 form factor with the faux viewfinder hump doesn't really make for a small camera. Yeah, it's smaller than an APS-C dSLR but it's not as pocket friendly as a Pen due mainly to the hump. The 12-50 of course doesn't help, but even with a small prime, the camera isn't pocket-friendly.

    Now I just bought an E-P5 to go with my E-M5 and for that I looked at the Panasonic 12-32, but chose the 14-42EZ because it's smaller, has a wider range, and the auto lens cap is pretty handy. The electronic zoom doesn't really bother me, and I like the Pen form factor (much more pocket-friendly).