Lenstip (Click here) tested the lens and writes:
The Panasonic G X VARIO 12–35 mm f/2.8 ASPH. P.O.I.S set the standards pretty high in this category but the Olympus company managed to meet them without any problem. First of all they produced a bit cheaper lens with a wider focal range. When it comes to the image sharpness the Panasonic is a bit more even but the Olympus provide a tad more lpmm at the maximum relative aperture. Apart from that you get slightly lower distortion and chromatic aberration, noticeably lower vignetting and distinctly better performance against bright light. The Panasonic, for a change, corrects the coma better and its off-focus images look nicer; it is also physically lighter and smaller, despite built-in image stabilization, and it is produced in Japan.
Focus Numerique (google translation here):
The sharpness is overall pretty good and homogeneous (even at f / 2.8) especially at wider focal lengths. Strangely 40mm sharpness at full aperture drops significantly vis-à-vis other focal lengths. Everything returns to normal as soon f / 4.
110 Responses
Great optics, bad build. 2 counts of the mount breaking is pretty bad. 1 could be a fluke. 2 not so much.
Its clearly more than just a couple. Olympus skimped on parts and labor, then passed it off as “Pro” to the faithful.
Typical of a company that has Yakuza sitting on the board.
The Panasonic 12-35 is made in Japan, smaller, has OIS and is weather repellent also. Available for $999.90 too.
I’m not an engineer, but I bet it has longer screws, too… haha!
Are you guys kidding?… 2 broken lenses… Yakuza? Get sime perspective and go and take some pictures.
Please don’t feed the trolls. They lose their independent living skills and become dependent on hand-outs…
http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=56256&page=24
http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=56256
http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=56256&page=26 <Shows the Sigma Designed 75mm with a Metal/Brass combination mount.
http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=56256&page=27 <Shows a REAL PRO LENS…. ALL METAL.
The mods there are even being questioned for moving the post to a lesser viewed area of the site.
"This thread also no longer shows up on the active threads list. It feels like the moderators are trying to kill this thread. Personally, I feel this thread should be highly visible and we should, as an interested and invested community, ask for a response from Olympus. "
So far, it's around 5-6 posters with the same problem.
Face it, the 12-40mm oly-lens is a LEMON. But if you don't believe it, BUY it.
"This thread reminds me of DPR and the 43 Rumors comments section …" <a commenter there… Lol! He speaks the truth! So many fanboys in denial!
Not entirely correct that this subject has been moved to less prominent pages on the site you refer too. The following is clearly posted on the front page as the first post by the owner / admin of the site.
“The Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO Lens is getting rave reviews from users and professional reviewers alike. However, following a report by one of our members that the mount broke off of his 12-40 with very little impact, three additional owners have posted in our forum to report similar fates for their new 12-40mm lens. In each case, the damage occurred with little to no impact.
Such occurrences aren’t unique to this lens. For example, a Google search for “Nikon 24-70 mount broken” turns up a number of similar stories of mounts breaking off with little to no cause. Still, the four reports in our forums of Olympus 12-40 mount breakage, three of which are accompanied by photos, raise the possibility of a manufacturing issue with this new lens.
I’ve notified our contacts at Olympus of these reports and will provide an update if they provide any additional information. I’m confident that if their investigation confirms that an issue is present, they will take the appropriate steps to address it as they did with the bezel crack issue on the OM-D E-M5 (also first identified and discussed in our forum).
Here are the posts from users reporting this issue in our forums to date:”
Why do they bring up Nikon? Because other lenses break, it’s ok for this one to break too?
Why r so defensive. He’s only explaining that this thing happen irregardless what company it is. Nothing in this world is perfect. If it’s defective then return the lens and get a new one. Am pretty sure whether it’s a nikon, sony, canon, olympus……lif their camera or lens has issues especially if it’s new or within warranty their exchange it.
irregardless is not a word…what does regardless mean ? It is one of my issues with words…there is no such word …though many speak it
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regardless
You read my mind.
Sven,
Irregardless is a word in the English language, see ‘http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Irregardless’.
I assume by your name English is not your native tongue, therefore I accept you might not be totally familiar with the language. I would not even dream of saying to anyone that such and such a word does not exist if it is in a language I do not know myself, so please do not try to correct someone without being certain yourself.
From Festus to Cletus:
If you wasn’t so educated, I’d fer sure say “irregardless” ain’t proper Basic (English). “Ir” means “not” and “less” means “without.” I dunno about you’uns, but to me a double negative is darn close to superfluous if not outright wrong. However, I am fer sure happy as a puppy with two peckers to learn me sumthin’ new! Yee-HAWWW!
To TheEye, Have you checked the dictionary link?
And you cite the free dictionary, which basically states, “It’s slang that was made up in the United States.” The definitive source of the English language, the OED, describes it as a North American colloquialism.
The mounting plate of my M.Zuiko 12-40 PRO lens broke off, just as others have reported. Three of the four scores sheared. This happened while mounted on an E M-1(with Battery Holder) in a padded Lowe Pro Bag. The bag fell off a bed onto a heavily padded hotel carpet. It was such a minor fall that I didn’t even look inside the bag when it happened. I only realized the lens was damaged the next morning when I took the camera out of the bag.
I called Olympus and they acknowledged there was “an issue,” and assured me that warranty would cover the repair. Perhaps most troubling: The technician iI spoke with admitted that they do not have a fix. He encouraged me to keep checking the website for updated information.
The Panasonic lens shows an excessive native barrel distortion level of about 5.8% (at 12mm). I suppose the Olympus one will not be that much better.
Never seen a DSLR pro lens which such results.
And who cares if it is automatically fixed both in JPEG and RAW (with decent processors), pushing the worst-performing corners out of the image?
Correcting a barrel distortion of 5,8% has a clear impact on the image quality, it are not only the corners it’s the complete picture that needs to be corrected which such a whopping distortion
For me, it’s also to much distortion, but it seems that there are no problems in the pics because of correction, take a look at the comparison to other lenses at the bottom of this page: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.focus-numerique.com%2Ftest-1777%2Fobjectif-test-olympus-12-40-mm-f28-presentation-caracteristiques-1.html
I’m more concerned about the built quality, I hope, the lens will not break when I’m traveling…
you have to go to “technical specificities” to see the comparison 😉
At Swen….what ever you’re name is. Is that even a name. You comment on my English but you should look up what irregardless mean in the on line dictionary. Rather wasting your time correcting other peoples grammar maybe you should take up an English class as well. Clearly your just a troll in this forum. Are you frustrated by your gear. Remember if your pics sucks it’s probably not the cameras fault. It’s probably YOU!!! Hehehe
Look…I am skeptical about this lens breakage. Apparently these plastic columns are used on other smaller lenses…but not on larger ones like the Olympus 75mm. The (12-40mm) is Larger and has some weight to it and this could definitely be a design flaw not a manufacturing one (although it could be that also). But I would say that there is a significant problem here, enough to make me pause, at this point and NOT buy the lens right now.
On a positive note…I did contact Lens Rental and got an immediate, very positive response from (what I would call) a very responsible source. Here is what that sent back when I inquired about the mount breakage:
Joey Miller, Dec 19 09:30 AM (CST): Bob, We haven’t experienced any issues like that with our 22 copies. So far they all seem to be holding up pretty well. The only issue I can find online was someone on the mu-43.com forums dropping the lens while it was still attached to the camera. That’s just a recipe for disaster. And it looks like that post is making the rounds. Almost all m43s lenses are built like that on the inside, with the Oly 75 being at least one exception. The Voigtländers are also solid like tanks, with their all metal construction. Lots of Canon and Nikon lenses are also mostly plastic inside. One theory is that since plastic has more flex, lens manufacturers may be hoping for some little bit of shock resistance, and in the event of a break, the plastic is cheaper to replace than a lens element. Bottom line, though, is it’s not an issue under normal circumstances. Hope this sheds some light on things! Joey Miller
LensRentals.com
Just thought I would throw that into the mix for everyones’ general knowledge.
Also…we do not have any true info about how these broken lenses on the internet posts may have actually been mishandled. Maybe one or more of these people dropped the lens or something and are not coming clean so that it facilitates a warranty repair. The whole thing is kind of disturbing for a $999 lens. That is for sure.
I totally agree with them!
Thanks for sharing. 🙂
I’m a little surprised that when assessing equipment, one still needs to identify the origin of manufacture.
Considering that a majority of quality electronic goods are made in China – and that Taiwan and Korea produce a good chunk of kit – what benefit is it that a lens is made in Japan?
(Don’t worry: I’d be making the same rhetoric if they were referring to Olympus/Sony/Nikon/Canon, not just Panasonic)
/inBeforeTheTrolls
“Considering that a majority of quality electronic goods are made in China”
WTF are you smokin?
That’s actually true nowadays.
China can make the very best stuff if the person ordering it is prepared to pay the cost. As good as anybody else.
They can also make very cheap stuff where you will have many QC issues.
They are a one stop shop for world manufacturers.
Usually problems occur when the company orders cheap items with lower quality components and quality checks, and passes it off as a high quality item.
I sincerely hope this is not what Olympus is doing.
Cheers, Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs/Dr Anonymous.
To anyone else that thinks my smoke is whack: Sony (JP), Yamaha (JP), Apple (US), Allen & Heath (UK), Denon (JP) and Akai (JP) among others manufacture a number of their products are MIC (Made In China).
And while a number of Warwick (DE) and Gibson’s (US) stringed instruments are MIK (Made In Korea) a good chunk of the internals are MIC.
Considering that the companion Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens is made in China, one wonders if it’s important to make the 12-35mm f/2.8 in Japan–or why the performance is so different.
What exactly do we mean by ‘made in Japan?’ For all we know the components are made all over Asia, with final assembly in Japan?
This.
Props to you, masterless samurai.
If it feels cheap then why the hell are you here. Go use ur finely crafted and expensive perfect camera. You clearly don’t belong in this group. You’re obviously very insecure about yourself.
One area that I have experience in is batteries. I never buy third party camera batteries that were made in China, It’s totally pot luck. Some manufacturers state that the batteries are made in Japan…and that is a whole other level. Everyone knows that there is a LOT of substandard (if not outright dangerous) manufacturing going on in China. It’ spike the wild, Wild West! ….but I think if the particular product manufacture is supervised by a reputable company with an international reputation, chances are you will get good goods.
Most camera batteries are made in China.
Again it comes down to what quality the manufacturer has specified.
Many Chinese own brand batteries are as good as the camera manufacturer’s.
Problems occur when people buy the very cheapest which are usually using poor quality components with no quality control.
Use common sense and buy third party batteries from reputable manufacturers with a reputation to uphold and you will be fine.
It’s hard to know who is reputable, though? After being burned a long time ago I usually buy Wasabi, batteries. They are manufactured in Japan. I once had an issue with one of the batteries and the distributor just sent me a new one. No questions asked.
I have used Wasabi batteries in my Nikon and Olympus cameras and they work very well…sometimes I even get more shots on a wasabi battery as opposed to the manufacturer’s battery…the only difference I have found is that the batteries do not last as long…after about a year they start to lose their ability to hold a charge.
Credit to you, for at least taking the time to state ‘third-party’ in your comment.
Too many write off MIC simply for country of origin. As Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs/Dr Anonymous rightly eluded to a few comments about this, MIC can mean meeting stringent QC or a factory making copies based on 20th-generation photocopies off microfiche.
I can’t grasp how people will spend a fortune on bodies and glass just to skimp on accessories. Buy genuine and have little care for any issues that arise.
Olympus probably sold millions of copies worldwide and 5 are totally acceptable.
do they already sold over 1mil ? for such short period I would gues something like 100k max
There are also no report from Asia with broken lens issue. Keep in mind that m43 sold much better in Asia and no one has one broken lens.
REALY? How do you know that?
Didn’t you know? People who own Olympus cameras are like the apostles: they speak all languages, they are everywhere, they know everything
nah. its all over the web. i want this or the panny, but its putting me off. when it breaks off you can see that there are four screws into a plastic mount.
Show me one web in Asian language with this issue.
I think he said this one https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=673335262689483&set=oa.680690841952289&type=3&permPage=1
OVERPRICED…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
$800 for 12-40 with camera is not that bad, cheaper than 17-55/2.8 from Nikon and Canon, a little more expensive than Sony DT 16-50/2.8 in a kit with A77 (should be as much or cheaper). $1300 for 12-35/2.8 is crazy talk.
Pretty sure those other lenses are not micro 4/3 format. Which means they use more cubic centimeters of finely ground optical glass, more metal, more plastic, larger tooling, have to allow for decent imaging rendering across a broader area of glass…
Micro 4/3 lenses SHOULD be somewhat cheaper in comparison. Certainly cheaper to produce, which should be one of the advantages of this format… whether or not the promised savings are passed to the consumer.
@ronin
There are certainly factors that should lower the price also, most of which you mention.
There are however 2 prominent factors working against this, which you fail to mention:
– smaller formats require higher spacial resolution, and hence require higher quality glass, which increases price
– smaller formats require higher spacial resolution, and hence more strict production tolerances again increasing price
– economics of scale work against less popular formats, again increasing price
Its certainly good to remind people of factors that can lower the price, but exclusively mentioning those will not give a very realistic view on things.
How is quality of 12-40 Pro?
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=oa.680690841952289&type=1
Interesting. Your “evidence” link is unavailable, either because I’m not a Facebook member, or … ?
It’s a bunch of pictures of a broken 12-40 (same as all those being discussed, mount snapped) from an Asian Facebook user.
El cheapo chinese made junk………..
Strange that although the European Amazon sites have the E-M1 kits with 12-40 available, none have the 12-40 lens alone on sale – in UK and Spain, for example, it’s been withdrawn even for pre-order – how to start rumours (rumors, if you insist).
maybe they change the lens mount now? 😉
There is nothing wrong with the lens mount, that a little more care in the handling wouldn’t cure.
Interesting that none of the reviews mention that the inter plastic tube of the lens wobble when the lens is fully extended. After having this issue searched the web and many other people have this problem. Too late now that I have this lens, anyway it don’t bother me until the image quality stays the same.
Mine doesn’t wobble…
Mine does.
I’d say it wobbles close to 1mm sideways fully extracted at 40mm.
But so does the 50-200 SWD, and i cannot say I have found any IQ issues due to that.
That’s what she said?
YHKPIC:
“That’s what she said?”
Hahaha! 😀
Well, to my defense, despite the embarrasing 40mm, it wobbles very little, so pretty stiff then! Yeii, bodes well for the new year at least. Cheers! 😉
The short summary of 12-40/2.8 = Exceptional, pro-grade optical performance in ridiculous plastic-crap built quality.
Well, I doesn’t touch the SHGs.
Fact is, the E-5 w/ SHGs beat the E-M1 w/ 12-40 hands down for sharpness.
The biting pr. pixel sharpness from the E-5 just seems to be unattainable w/ E-M1.
Dunno if the 12-40 is the culprit, as I still, 14 weeks after (pre)ordering the E-M1 still haven’t gotten my promotional MMF-3, so I cannot compare it w/ the SHGs mounted on the E-M1 yet. But for comparable pictures taken of the same subject with E-5/14-35 and the E-M1/12-40, the E-5 pics are far superior for sharpness. Even when the E-M1 picture is down-scaled to the same size pixel-wise. The fine details just isn’t there from the E-M1. Could be the lens, could be some kind of shutter shock (SS), although no double contours visible, neither horizontally nor vertically.
That said, nearly all my pics taken w/ E-M1 up till now are within the SS range (1/40 to 1/400), because I do need to stop down for increased DOF in my landscapes, ending within the SS susceptible range with almost all my pictures :/. Tripod or not does not influence this, nor does IS. As of now, for sheer sharpness the E-5 still rules.
Oops – should read:
“Well, It doesn’t touch the SHGs.”
RAW samples from the various Test sites using the 50mm FT macro show a small but clear detail advantage to the E-M1 { 12 vs 16mp is a very small difference}
The 12-40mm is between the 14-54mm and the 14-35mm lenses in most every aspect, except possibly build quality–or perhaps we should call it strength of design.
I found no problems with the 12-40mm when I used it, but I would prefer that the 14-35mm would work natively on my GH3 since the balance is better, and I’m a bit concerned about the MMF-3 breaking from the stress. It doesn’t seem as fortified as the 12-40mm. I wouldn’t dare use the 35-100mm f/2.0 for a non-trivial length of time.
Haven’t even seen the MMF-3 yet (still awaiting my promo), but I will have to use it with all my SHGs, incl. the 35-100 and the 90-250. I never hold these by the camera alone of course, but they do hang from the neck-strap sometimes when swapping lenses. Have no idea of the build quality of the MMF-3. It’s allegedly made of plastic, while the MMF-2 is metal. But I do need the sealing, so MMF-3 it is. Gotta be careful I guess. The 90-250 is 3270 grams after all. Sometimes I also use the EX-25 or the EC-20 on it as well, and closer to 3.5 kg on an adapted and stacked micro mount isn’t likely the best of solutions. But I cannot avoid it, so let’s hope for the best…
Hi Eric, I don’t have either lens, the biggest I tend to use on an mmf-3 is the 50-200 with EC14, or at times a 4/3 adapted Elmarit-R 180/2.8 optionally with EC14.
Either way, I don’t carry those by the body only typically, but may do so for a short time when changing lenses or such (in which case they’ll be hanging from the neck strap). So far no issues with this.
With regards to build quality of the mmf-3, I own both the mmf-1 and 3. The 1 is significantly heavier then the 3. The 3 feels light, but seems pretty solid still. It has metal bayonets, but otherwise seems to be made of plastic. I’ve used the mmf-2 also, and its certainly not better built then the 3. The 1 might be better built, but that could also be heavier material without adding any strength.
Whoops, erik, sorry for mistyping your name.
plastic crap built quality? omg, I’m tired to read such stupid comments…
You must love cheap quality stuff? You chinese by any chance chump??
It would be good on olympus to issue some statement in the lens mount construction to reduce damages – the alledged claims of broken mounts are starting to become viral.
It’s hard to imagine that the part has not been properly engineered and tested. At most the resin used was not up to spec. Some reviewer might be able to test the shear force required…
i brought the lens i am very good getting very good pictus
lenses brake, it is a fact of life i have seen the same horror storys with other lens
(try dropeing $50,000 worth of gear in a river, seen it happen)
all you can do is have good insurance
that said the back of the lens looks like it was designed by a 2 year old
i wll be thinking a lot more before buying the 40-150 f2.8
but there is not any other option
I had 2 OM lenses spontaneously self-destruct on me. I loved the OM4t cameras, loved the image quality, but began to distrust the robustness of the lenses, ended up switching back to a competitor where I never had lens issues.
sorry
i brought the lens and i am getting very good pictures
Its a shame this lens had problems with sharpness and bad build quality and sells for a big overated price. And this is what M43 calls pro? Pleas M43 go back to youre roots and try to sell small quality camera’s which can compete with point and shoot. Calling youre products pro does not make them pro only expensive.
The Panasonic 12-35 lens shows an excessive native barrel distortion level of about 5.8% (at 12mm). I suppose the Olympus one will not be that much better.
Never seen a DSLR pro lens which such results, even within less expensive mid-range lenses.
Software correction of such a huge distortion has an impact on image quality.
@Viezevure: your credibility in assessing photo equipment remains zero. Tim Ashley (http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/11/olympus-12-40mm-f2-8-pro-m-zuiko-review-the-hammer) is hardly an Olympus fanboy. Go publish your name and an url to your photo exhibition — then people *may* start to take you seriously — if your comments also start to make sense.
12-40 is overpriced, compared with Pana 12-35.
12-35 is made in Japan with highest Japan QC standard and features OIS.
12-40 is made in China with plastic-crap inside.
But both offers nice IQ in the same league.
Hmm, and that 12-35 doesn’t have plastic inside?
Silly fanboy
“Plastic crap” most likely refers to the poor construction of the Olympus lens where plastic that attaches the lens mount breaks/separates, likely poor design/engineering/construction, and not something expected for a “PRO” lens and priced accordingly. Sounds like it’s built more to kit lens quality. It’s on the web if you bother to check before you start calling names.
While on the subject of poor quality control, I have to return my E-PM2 as it shuts off randomly–takes a photo, LCD goes black, then shuts off. Usually the first shot. It’s like it woke up groggy, then went back to sleep. My second Olympus Pen, and my second Olympus with a problem (my EPM1 randomly forgets time/date after battery change). I’m batting 1.000 (baseball reference)!
And I have owned at least 10 Olympus digital cameras over the years, one of which needed a repair (which was done with no fuzz and no cost). Matter of statistics and luck.
I suggest doing some digging into mass produced items, failure rate and quality control. Sucks, but it happens, unless you are prepared to pay a very significant additional amount for quality control, as anything beyond simple inspection is going to cost. If you go buy the Leica M lenses, you can rest assured they’ve had thorough manual and machine inspection and testing, which is a significant part of why they cost as much as they do.
Certainly you can expect higher-grade items to have somewhat more strict quality control then low-cost items, but that isn’t the same thing.
Currently we simply don’t know if this is the result of a production issue, a design issue or something else, beyond that we don’t know the exact conditions other then from hearsay.
My comment to mrallcrap was about the simple fact that the 12-35 also uses lots of plastic, and that the amount of plastic used is not in itself an indication of build quality, nor is it in itself an indication of any issues.
Just like with metal, the actual quality of the material is what determines those things.
The 12-35 uses hi – grade plastic. It’s much better built than the 12-40. It doesn’t go around, saying it’s a metal lens, when. In fact, it’s plastic, with a metal shell.
It’s like they were trying to deceive people all along. If the 12-40 was all plastic, I’d bet we wouldn’t even be talking about this lens in a bad light.
and I bet Olympus is going to act like they did nothing wrong.
For the record, the 74mm is fastened to a metal ring with brass threading.
The 12-40 is plastic.
“The 12-35 uses hi – grade plastic.”
So, its actually plastic, and it being plastic isn’t an issue as such. Ergo, the 12-40 could be plastic inside, while also being well made.
“It’s much better built than the 12-40.”
Says you based on what? Oh, on a few reports of people that might very well be a production issue with a specific series and might be caused by all kinds of factors we don’t know.
Generally, thats called jumping to conclusions, and isn’t regarded a sign of being very smart.
There are also reports of the 12-35 and its weather sealing being total crap.. guess what, I own one, and despite those reports, I feel totally confident now using it in the rain, and haven’t had any issues with this.
As long as you have absolutely no clue whatsoever about how often a certain issue occurs in comparison to total use and about the conditions in which it occurred, you lack the information to make any kind of informed statement here.
“It doesn’t go around, saying it’s a metal lens, when. In fact, it’s plastic, with a metal shell.”
Right, that is the only reasonable objection I can see in this discussion. Metal clad, not all metal construction.
Another oly fanboy. I bet you have no idea what you are talking about. 12-35 lens is well and highly respected among Japan’s photography forum.
12-40, on the other hand, is now infamous as “PRO” price tag with “kit-lens” built quality. Get it?
“Another oly fanboy. I bet you have no idea what you are talking about. 12-35 lens is well and highly respected among Japan’s photography forum.”
Given that I own one, and didn’t feel like replacing it with the 12-40 when I got my E-M1, I think I quite know what I’m talking about.
Oh, and funny for you to call someone a ‘fanboy’ when you are the one overreacting to me pointing out the 12-35 uses a lot of plastic while missing that I’m also pointing out how that doesn’t seem to be a problem at all. Maybe you should just spend a little more time reading what you reply to?
Panasonic 12-35 with much CA if you use it with a camera that doesn’t correct CA? Omg… 😉
I’ve used it for quite a bit on an E-M5. Sometimes CA is an ‘issue’ indeed, but easily corrected in pp. Most of the time its a non-issue for me, probably helped by using prime lenses for situations where optical quality is very relevant.
here you can see the result of CA corrected and not corrected with the 12-35 http://www.photozone.de/m43/766_pana1235f28?start=1
and there was a comparison at the site dslr-check.info, unfortunately not online at the moment :-(, with indoor shots with different lenses (FT Oly 12-60, mFT Oly 14-40, mFT Pana 12-35, and another Pana lens), where the results of the Pana lenses concerning CA was absolutely terrible.
Sure CA can be corrected with one click in LR, but 1. I don’t want and don’t have the time for post-processing and 2. If Panasonic would make a good job it wouldn’t be necessary that I have to correct the CA in LR (especially if I take a look at the price of the 12-35).
Maybe other people can live with this, I can’t and I don’t want.
Ok, with the new Olympus bodies CA of the Pana lenses are also corrected, then it’s not such a problem. 😉
Owning the 12-35, an e-m5 and e-m1 and a lumix g2, I’m quite aware of the ca it has, but if that is a real issue quite depends on the scene and purpose of the picture.
Where it is, its easy to correct, but that indeed requires pp making it a nogo for some uses unless you have an e-m1 or lumix body.
Beyond the ca, its a very nice compact lens with pretty good performance.
12-35 has good reputation in M4/3, but M4/3 isn’t the world. It’s optically mediocre overall and essentially a joke compared to Olympus SHG 14-35mm 2.0f.
ImageResource proved 12-35 only has better sharpness in limited range and aperature. In most measures it is an inferior lens to 12-40mm, get it?
Like I have said, every brand has arrogant fans I am okay with them, but I can’t stand Panny fanboys’ stupidity 🙂
Yaa…I agree with you..Olympus’ page is TOTALLY misleading. That is one fact that we do know!
I am in the market for one of these two zooms…but I am now (because of this breakage issue) going to sit on the sidelines for a while and not purchase either. I favored the Olympus and was waiting for it to be available (in-stock) at B&H …but this whole situation is very disturbing.
YOU are the fanboy chimp!
With plastic crap inside”…… Is it a design issue?
I shoot with good old 14-45 on a trip to India and far east..3 months already, a lot of dirt and bumps and it works fine .. I can’t believe the oly is worse in any building aspect .. So for avarge user it will be fine
Stop looking for extream reports, the m43 gear is fine, I’m glad we have more to choose from, do your own math and get what you need or what you can afford.
Happy shorting 🙂
http://forum.mflenses.com/cutaways-and-transparent-cameras-t28075,highlight,cutaways.html
here’s a bunch of cutaway lenses and bodies. Note the ALL METAL lenses and the All plastic ones. Looks to me that the Olympus 12-40 mm was a design error. They’re only hope is to replace the plastic ring with a metal one, to prevent breakage.
All metal constructions are either old manual lenses (that’s how you made them then) or the FF beasts (resin would flex too much on such a size). All Olympus lenses have the mount screwed onto a plastic component. So this is standard design and NOT a design error.
A lens is a precision instrument and should be handled as such. No one should expect a lens to perform as before after dropping or banging it, unless it is the lens cap lens.
My FT 9-18 dropped to a marble floor from about 1 m height when I changed the lens. I was thinking, omg, that was it, it’s broken now. But, what a wonder, absolutely no defect, it works like before. 🙂
My Olympus m4/3 14-150 has survived falling from a table to the floor at least 3 times without ill effect, but it had no camera mounted to it.
My first Lumix 14-42 on the other hand didn’t survive a very short drop, the ring of the bayonet broke, but, it did have a G2 mounted. Not going to blame Panasonic for that, as they aren’t advertising the thing as being drop proof, let alone providing any kind of drop proofing certification.
One of my friends broke the bayonet of a m4/3 9-18 in exactly the same way, his e-pl3 was mounted, and the combination made a short drop.
Anecdotal evidence, as its all a matter of chances, and not of any guarantee of such equipment surviving such drops. Having a camera mounted significantly reduces the chances of a lens surviving a drop.
There exist shock and drop proofing tests and standards, and cameras (and other equipment) complying with them for a reason.
They call that “luck” if you think its anything to do with build quality why not try it again.
Good news, since I have one, and I’d really like to keep it 🙂
Plastic really is not the difference: I fell from an escalator on top of the 17/2.8. The internal cylinder was askew, but i just straightened by hand, and the AF was as sound as before!
Since I have changed some mount I know that even metal screws can be extremely fragile, you must know the amount of torsion they can have so the 12-40 might be a case of hasty assembly, probably like the E-M5 was. Mine so far never gave me any problem.
Manufacturing has changed in that it has become so fast that we are all guinea pigs.
I remember that the 12-60 had the front part falling off in some samples and yet nobody thought that Oly was plagued by bad assembly, especially since it was a metal lens. An all metal lens however would weigh like a coffin, and not do much else 🙂
nice link!
Many pro-grade lenses have their mounts screwed into plastic bosses.
Also the mighty Zuiko 14-35/2.0 SHG is made that way (image courtesy Lenstip.com):
http://www.lenstip.com/upload2/34834_oly_1435_1.jpg
Being a far heavier (and longer) lens that the 12-40 (915 vs 382 grams), it should be far more prone to break than the 12.40. But still I have never heard of one single mount breaking off the 14-35 (or any other SHG for that matter). So I tend to believe it is not the use of plastic as such that is the problem here. Oly knows how to make that right, so provided the alleged 12-40 weakness is real (and not just two random mishaps), I suspect this to be caused by some design or assembly flaw, rather than from the materials used. Anyway, Oly should verify/qualify their construction, and especially the screws – their fit, length, torque and depth. If even the slightest mismatch there, it will introduce some stress/fatigue, that can cause a shear or break to occur…
I’d wager the Zuiko 14-54 MkI is also made like this.
I once lost my slingpack w/ the 14-54 and E-1 inside it, while standing high in a mountain wall. The bag took off like a shot, fell 400m along a steep, icy and stony slope, and ended up falling vertically 8m into a glacial crevasse, and landed on some rocks at the bottom. I descended to pick it up, expecting to find just shattered pieces left of the kit. But guess what – it both looked and worked like new!
So the plastic held up, even in -10°/14°F.
So again, Oly should look into this, performing thorough QC on their assembly line, with a keen eye on the screws and their fit…
1) Oly has slightly longer FL
2) Oly weighs 25% more than the Panny
3) IQ of both is similar (like DxO showed)
4) Panny is stabilised on any camerabody
5) There are more than 1 or 2 reports on the Oly build quality where I cannot find something similar for the 12-35 mm which has been sold much more than the Oly.
With this I would go for the lens I already have. The 12-35 mm f2.8.
back in 2000 a Canon 400mm L series from my old job fell apart into two pieces while picking the lens out of its storage case. The barrel interconnecting design was to blame here. So it happens in real prograde stuff too.
This is indeed very disappointing news. Defects happen. To even the best manufacturers. What sets the best apart is transparency. Hopefully, Olympus will quickly and openly address this issue and show that there is no design defect and that these are isolated incidents, or cop to it, and fix it quickly, while recalling units and pulling them from the shelves. Either way, it seems like some sort of statement is warranted. These reports seem are frequent to ignore.
I don’t think we have enough data to make a call on the 12-40’s built quality. Caution yes, substantiated negative claims, no.
Chinese made schite….zzzzzzzzzzz
Hey dude, many people had responded to your comments and proved you wrong. Why are you spamming the board instead of arguing?
It’s hard not to look at you as a coward.