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
    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
    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
    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
    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).
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.