Olympus 12-40 2.8 or...

JohnN

JohnN

Messages
6,359
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

For those out there can you offer up you findings on the 12-40 against Sie of the alternatives, ie oly 25mm and the 45mm

From what I've seen the 12-40 has the advantages of a short mfd and the flexibility of a zoom, but how are things you can't see from stills, such as the AF speed, balance and so forth?
 
Im not sure this will help much but I had the 45mm and still have the 12-40.
Both wonderful lenses, but the flexibility of a zoom is something I still can't do without so the 45 was sold.
I can say that the 12-40 is very fast to focus, feels right on my EM-1 and is a very well made lens. The 45 felt a little small to me, but that could just be me and what I am used to.
So I would say the 12-40 has too many advantages over a couple of primes for my sort of photography and thats without mentioning the changing lenses business and close focusing !
 
Cheers, I did think for that range a zoom might be better and if it can at least compete (if not win) with the 45 then that's great.
I have the M10 so would expect to need the grip too from what I've read, but that's no biggie.
 
Again, for me the grip is an essential - can you go for a play somewhere to see how both the 12-40 and the grip feel on your camera ?
If you wait a few weeks you may also see the new 40-150 f2.8 which is the lens I have been waiting for and will replace a couple of other lenses I have (old 40-150 and 50-200 non swd) - this is meant to be similarly built to the 12-40 and I guess as well performing, though not cheap - approx £1500 with the 1.4 TC.

Sorry if I am putting temptation your way..
 
lol, I do have bad GAS from time to time, but thankfully the 40-150 is just too pricey - plus I really like the compactness and weight of the MFTs and for me its just going to be too big and heavy - I think the 12-40 will be about my upper limit - I did try the 70-300 but (without grip) found it too front heavy.
 
I've been resisting the temptation of the 12-40 for a while for my e-m5 - slowly coming to the conclusion that the smaller Panasonic 12-35's a better fit for mine. Probably less difference on the e-m1 but I use my m5 without a grip and like still being able to fit the camera in a small bag :)
 
In fairness I really should look in more detail at the 12-35, but I'd read a few posts here and there where those that upgraded were very happy they did, also isn't its MFD quite a bit further away (I like to do pseudo macro from time to time).

Grip wise I'm still trying to keep it small but after trying the 75-300 and finding it so front heavy and having just got the 75mm I suspect a grip was going to be on my list - lo and behold ordered one today, looking at it it doesn't appear to make it that much bigger - certainly it will be well under the size and weight of the 5D3.

Edit: Size wise theres not much in it looking at the M43 size simulator (link), the 12-35 is also more expensive and heavier.

Heres a couple of comparatives I found: Youtube vid + Web compare + Forum chat

Edit 2: Just seen how large the power grip makes the M5 - it goes huge(ish) - there are however third party non-powered grips which are like the ones on the M10 which are much smaller if that helps.
 
Last edited:
The 12-40 sits on my E-M1 most of the time, I do also have the 45 not the 25 but the 17, both fantastic lenses but I couldn't see them as a replacement to the convenience and quality combination of the 12-40.
I did previously have the 12-35 too and whilst that is a great little lens I do think the 12-40 edges it for image quality.
 
I have the 12-40 on my E-M5 as the default lens. It's fabulous. I haven't tried the Panasonic 12-35.

It's heavy for the system - you do need (half of) the grip.
It focuses quickly, reliably and quietly.

I also have the 45mm f1.8. The character of images produced by the two is quite different - the zoom is more contrasty while portraits often look better on the 45.
The extra stop makes a difference, too. The 45 also has a slightly shorter minimum focus distance than the 12-40 and so works better with extension tubes if that's relevant.

I also have the Panasonic 25mm f1.4, which I used to use a lot when I only had the kit 12-50 zoom. Now I've got the 12-40 the 25mm rarely comes out and then only when I want the wide aperture.

The 40-150 f2.8 looks relatively massive - and expensive. In theory it's an ideal portrait zoom.
I found with the cheap 40-150 f4-5.6 that it wasn't fast enough to be a portrait tele zoom and not long enough for anything else. 'Not long enough for anything else' will apply to the new one too for my usage, though it may be fast enough in the mid-range for nice background blur.

I'll stick with the 45mm and utterly fabulous 75mm f1.8 for portraits and staged location stuff. I'm contemplating selling the 25mm.

If I were shooting weddings or other fast moving events then I'd consider the 40-150 f2.8, but not otherwise.
 
Thanks for that, really useful info there. I currently have both the 75mm and the Sigma 60mm and will be trialling those on the weekend as so far the Sigma offers up better contrast to my eye, but I've also recently learnt how to capture moving targets better. I'm not much of a lens swapper if I can help it so see the zoom being the main lens on camera, I picked up the grip so balance should not be an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top