I spotted the very first Olympus 12-50mm weather selaed Olympus lens at Foto Hans Keuzakamp in Holland. It’s certainly a nice looking lens despite the not so stellar specs. Wonder how it will look on my next digital OM camera 🙂 If you are not from Holland you can rpeorder the lens at Adorama (Click here) and Amazon UK (Click here).
USA Deal: There has been another price dorp on the 12mm Olympus lens which is available at Amazon for $704 (Click here).
MISSING in USA: After four months the 14-42mm X lens still has never been in Stock in US stores! No way to find it at Amazon (Click here) and I guess you can wait even longer for the new GX1+14-42mm X kit (Click here). Really don’t knwo why Panasonic USA is that slow. It’s available since months here in Europe!
92 Responses
Definitely their best MFT kit lens to date, but a kit lens nonetheless….
It’s really big and really slow. What’s so great?
The only good Oly lenses are the 12mm, 45mm and 9-18mm.
Great is the internal zooming and the macro ability. I just love lenses that never change in length regardless of zooming or focusing.
All the Olympus m43 lenses are relatively good; however the m9-18 is excellent and the 12 and 45 are stellar! This lens is obviously about versatility and being a general all round performer with weather sealing.
Not all lenses will weigh 130g, have an f2 aperture and be sharp open wide.
On a holiday this lens mounted to a digital OM m43 as the walk about lens with
the leica/lumix 25 f1.4 on my ep3 for low light and speed and the 40-150 in my backpack will cover almost all general types of travel photography except for wildlife, ultra telephoto and specialised types of photography.
m9-18 is excellent and the 12 and 45 are stellar!
+1
I wouldn’t be surprised if most people who say bad things about this lens haven’t even bothered to look at some samples. We must not forget that ‘maximum’ aperture doesn’t say anything about lens quality. It’s the low budget that makes kit lenses perform badly, not the max aperture. This isn’t low budget. And thus the performance is not as such.
So you are claiming that the 12-50 is not even diffraction limited wide open at the long end?
I’m also wondering why it’s a bit oversized for M4/3 relatively dark lens…
There’s a very thorough technical evaluation of this lens by pekka potka. You can find it here, so there’s really no need to speculate.
http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2011/12/30/olympus-mzuiko-12-50mm-f35-63-in-comparison.html
At most focal length and apertures it is slightly worse than the 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 II. You can decide for yourself if it makes it a good lens or not.
The lens is nice looking…but it is big (looks about as big as my Pany X 45-175…and its its f/stop range is about the same?)…and I certainly do not get the point.
@Reese – Well, what kit lens is better? This lens is weather sealed and will beat out the 14-42 mm I and II. What else is there? I wouldn’t buy this, nor would I buy the subpar Oly primes… Olympus has a lot of work to do with their lenses, as the FourThirds glass still reins supreme…
Thankfully Panasonic has made some nice glass, 20 mm and 25mm specifically. Their upcoming zooms should be good as well.
So the Oly primes are subpar, but the Panny primes are better?
Please explain. Most people find the 12 and 45 to be fantastic and NOT worse than the 20 & 25.
I have the 20 and 45, both great.
The P/L 45, f2.8 macro is a great all-round lens, too, as is the Panasonic 8mm fisheye.
Regarding the 9-18 you are wrong Mr. Reeee, It is one of the worst olympus lenses. Check its blur index in slrgear.com. I have it and don’t compare with other M4/3 lenses. The las 14-42mm kit lens is much much better.
Marcelo
1. The original Panasonic 14-45 kit lens is better than both of those AND it has a metal lens mount. (find it on eBay). That Pany 14-42 is a piece of JUNK! Truly.
2. If you want to compare the 9-18mm…compare it to the Panasonic 7-14mm. The Pany wins hands down. It has some distortion…but a constant aperture of f/4 and great sharpness.
I think that the Oly 12mm and 45mm are very good glass for this system. Is it L glass for my Canon …no…but very acceptable. I have made prints from these lenses and sold them in galleries….they are above par. There are a lot of good primes on par with the system and the sensors..
I so wish Oly would redo the 17mm and speed it up to f1.8. It could be such an awesome lens.
+1! Except for making it F1.4
-p-
@ Mr. Reese:
“The only good Oly lenses are the 12mm, 45mm and 9-18mm.”
+1,000,000
Their micro 4/3 lens line has been mostly a disappointment, with a few bright shining stars.
However, there are those who really like the 14-42 and 40-150 lenses. Despite the fact they are slow, they are small, light and compact, and have very good image quality.
But without lens based IS, they don’t offer much to the Lumix user…
– Olympius
theres been a review since Dec 27
http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2011/12/olympus-mzuiko-12-50mm-f35-63-review.html
meh. Doesn’t look that great, too slow. I have the 4/3rds 12-60 and it is a great lens. Disappointed with the specs of this one.
This lens is for someone who wants a better kit lens than the 14-45mm and does not want to pay $900 for a 12-60mm equivalent. From the early previews, it matches the 14-45mm optically at the short end and is better at the long end.
I like good zoom lenses, and of course, the 12-60mm and 50-200mm.
Why is such a slow lens so big?
It never gets bigger and have a 4x zoom
It never gets bigger because it’s huge to begin with? I don’t see the point.
Simple. Such lenses are easier to seal. Also, sturdier construction.
He asked why, which is the question I answered. Wrong design decision IMO, but it’s still the reason why it’s so big. Martin is probably right that it’s sturdier and easier to seal, but Pentax managed a cheap 18-55 with sealing and about the same size as their standard kit lens. mFT need small lenses, not big ones, at least when we’re talking about slow kit zooms.
If its internal zoom, its not that big.
This is a sealed weatherproof lens. Sealed weatherproof zooms are always inheritantly large because you can’t have externally moveable elements. Take any small zoom you can find and zoom in and out until it’s at it’s largest physical length. If you want an equivalent sealed weatherproof lens, the lens will need to be at least that big.
Also, in order to cover both 12mm and 50mm, it also needs to be big. You can just draw some simple scaled diagrams to see that there’s a minimum size needed to cover that range. It would have been ALOT smaller if they decided to cut the telephoto end at 35 or 40mm instead of at 50mm.
There are lots of weather proofed extending zoom lenses, all the way from 4/3 Zuikos to Canon L lenses.
Internal zoom lens is just no doubt easier to make weather proof because only externally moving parts are focus and zoom rings.
Yes, plus I love internal zooming! It is certainly an advantage. No more urge to zoom back in after each picture taken.
Of course it is possibly to make weather sealed lenses with “external” focus or zoom action (i.e. lenses with a telescopic barrel).
The Olympus 12-60 is the most obvious example…
I picked up my teleconverter the other day and the thought dawned on me, wait, don’t lenses have to be faster then f/5.6 to autofocus on most cameras, and wouldn’t the new Oly 12-50 fall outside of that? Then I realized, that’s totally a function of PDAF.
So, if Oly does implement a PDAF system in a future camera, this lens is unlikely to autofocus (well) unless they have PDAF that is more advanced than most (I think top end Canon and Nikons will PDAF at f/8).
That doesn’t give me lots of confidence that Oly has high hopes for a new body with PDAF 🙁
You’re mixing Canikon with Olympus 😉
Olympus will autofocus a lens at f/11 (70-300mm + EC20).
Not so much. In good light you will sometimes get auto focus on an E body beyond f/8 because there is enough difference between the two phase detectors. That’s true with any brand. But, there is no guarantee.
From Olympus’s EC-20 manual: Auto focus can be used if the maximum open aperture of the lens is f2.8 or less. With a lens with an open aperture of f3.5, auto focus is possible using the center AF target.
The f/3.5 part was news to me. Still, it means above f/5.6 PDAF auto focus is limited. Again, not a good sign for future PDAF if Oly is building f/6.3 lenses.
I’m talking about actual use, not theory.
CaNikon won’t AF beyond F5.6, only on 1D using center spot at f8 AF will be possible.
E3/5/30 (and possibly other models) will AF 50-200mm + EC20 or 70-300 + EC20 (f7.1-f11 at max extension) using any of the 11 AF points.
Granted, it won’t be as fast as the bare lens, but it does work.
it is a CDAF lens
There is no reason to assume Olympus will implement PDAF in a future camera, but even if they do I expect that camera to have both PDAF and CDAF.
I will be very happy if it actually happens as I have a few excellent 4:3 lenses that I do not intend to part from.
Can’t wait to see some sharpness tests on the Oly 12-50mm. If it’s corner to corner sharp, I don’t care if it starts at 3.5. I’ll be using it primarily at 5.6.
As for Pany U.S.A… boo to you! Get some product to market! Sounds like supply issues have not improved. (continuing the trend of the GH2, 25mm, etc.)
25 mm is readily avail in the US…
Actually you do not need to wait
http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2011/12/30/olympus-mzuiko-12-50mm-f35-63-in-comparison.html
You always want the m43 to replace 43, but you have to face the truth, that it is a new system, with a new approach.
The approach to be smaller.
And with a new 12-60 2,8-4,0, it ist just a copy of a system, that did not sell well;)
In a year or two, when a Pen or Lumix G is better, faster and and and(For example because of the introduction of a global shutter!!), there is the need for such lenses…and, you also have to remember, that Panasonic already showed a fast lense..
Normally, we criticize them for building the same lenses again and again(just count, how many 14-4x you can buy for m43), but this time, it is ok, to build two lenses which are nearly the same…
In the end, you just buy one of them, and Olympus and Panasonic both will say, that the fast zoom lenses didn’t sell well.
Surprise surprise!!
Ps. I’m not a native speaker…
you can also get it at foka.nl, fotobooms.nl and cameranu.nl for €399. they also ship abroad. hope this helps
too big
Is it internal zoom to begin with?
Maybe not that big after all…
Should i pay 500$ just for extra 2mm? otherwise i dont see the point of weather sealing on a kit lens that i can buy new for 150$
Not to mention that this size completely negates the point of M43
No, you should only get this in a kit with a new camera. Buying it standalone is not reasonable.
I disagree that the size of this lens negates the point of the m43 system.
This lens isn’t any larger than the m43 40-150 and keep in mind it’s an internal focus lens without the need to extend any further.
This lens also has approximately 0.36x magnification in macro capability which will do excellent close up work as well as being weather sealed.
It’s no replacement for my zuiko 12-60 but to some it’s definitely welcome and indeed has a place in the land of m43.
I’d buy this lens by itself for two reasons:
1. Starts at 12mm instead of 14mm. That’s a big deal to some of us.
2. If true, it’s sharpness will be better than most of the other kit lenses. The non-X Pany 14-42mm isn’t very sharp, the Pany 14-140mm isn’t very sharp (although convenient as a superzoom). I’d rather have a bigger lens that is corner-to-corner sharp rather than a small kit lens that sucks. But that’s just me.
As for size, m43 isn’t just about tiny rangefinders and pancake primes. It’s okay for some of us to want larger standard lenses. It’s still worlds smaller than comparable Canikon SLR offerings, so lenses like this are quite appealing to me.
i waiting price drop under 100€, same of 14-42mm kit
Won’t happen.
it’s better the x14-42 not to become available that soon. panasonic should either have better quality control or redesign the lens completely from scratch.
i tested it against my 14-140 and the 14-140 wiped the floor with the x14-42.
it is very soft at 42mm and also softer than the 14-140 at 14mm. through the whole zoom-range i couldn’t find a focal length that was sharper than my 14-140.
here some crops near the center taken at f/5.6 with both (i think i don’t need to hint which is which).
42mm:
http://datenkeule.de/dl.php?file=file132631208642mm-crop.jpg
14mm:
http://datenkeule.de/dl.php?file=file132631212214mm-crop.jpg
Thanks for the comparison! Well, the small size comes with compromises..
My ideal m43 setup would be an uncompromised m43 14-54 f2.8-3.5 and that’s weathersealed, a sealed m43 11-22 which performs as well as the 43 version coupled with the forthcoming sealed digital OM camera which is fitted with a new sensor that has significantly improved shadow noise up to iso 1000 especially at low iso and an extra stop of DR.
Add a weathersealed telephoto lens that’s not necessarily very fast across it’s aperture range but weathersealed and sharp throughout and to fill the gaps would be a few excellent fast and sharp primes like the 12, 25, 45, a 50 or over macro prime and possibly a fish eye for the occasional shot.
There is a relatively small and light system covering UWA, standard walk about & travel, telephoto, low light wide angle, portraiture, macro, a fast 50 equiv lens and fisheye for extra fun has almost every scenario covered and weighing less than the a full frame body with a 24-70 f2.8 lens!
Perhaps the lack of American availability is because Micro 4/3 penetration in the US market has been poor. I checked the Top 100 SLR cameras on Amazon US and then Amazon UK. The UK has the Olympus E-P2 at #43, the Olympus E450 at #53, and the GF1 at #56.
Compare this to the US, where I don’t think I have EVER seen a 4/3 or Micro 4/3 product in the Top 100.
The dollar swimming in the toilet doesn’t help, either.
E-450 is in the list, I don’t think much of the list then. The 3 digit E series has been all sold out for quite a while.
Surprisingly, for Olympus. I sometimes think they are in the fabric industry who is notorious in getting much to much product out much to late.
Although having more lenses for 43/M43 is great, I think that their design and finish could have been more consistent with the other Zuiko lenses and camera bodies, especially the texture. For example, some of the FourThirds lenses have a smooth finish while others have texture. It doesn’t look right if you put a lens with a smooth surface on a camera that has a textured finish…
Do you guys feel the same?
Yes, Oly seems to design a new look for every single lens.
Personally I would like this as a kit lens. All of the features in it make it a flexible walk around lens. Wen it gets dark I can throw on a more purpose built lens such as a prime.
As for its size, you have to be kidding me, if they had gone 14-60 it would have been smaller, pushing it to 12mm and adding the macro feature makes for a pretty well rounded lens. It looks smaller than the 40-150 and that is small.
Look forward to the new body, has anyone noticed how olympus move to the more textured zoom/focus ring on the recent zooms looks and awful lot like the texture on their OM lenses?
Ab
Just got the 12-50 from Foka.nl in Rotterdam..
And I like it!!
Weekend I can play with it 🙂
This lens is to big for a kit lens.
I see Oly is moving away from small form factor with their next body.
If this turns out to be a kit zoom, its 17mm kit for me an current 14-42 as zoom.
BTW Admin is a bit to sure in his wording abut OM like digital camera… I think he knows more than he’s saying… 😉
Please, do tell! 🙂
Actually, amazon.de doesn’t even know about the Panasonic GX1 yet, when searching for it they suggest the GF3 as “closest hit” instead.
For goodness’ sake, its a weather sealed 12-50 lens that weighs 220grams. give me a break.
try it out before you complain!
I’d like to know from those who are buying, or considering buying, this lens what are your reasons? With the fast 12-35 coming from Panasonic, and owning the wonderful and inexpensive 14-45, I can’t imagine any reason to buy this slow lens… Al
I do not have any M4/3 camera. If I were to buy, say a digital OM, at $1600, I don’t mind to pay $1850 to get this lens with the body.
This lens looks well built, light, and some claim it has good optics, it will be a good all around lens.
Professional photographer John Shaw said one should buy the best lens they can afford; if I can’t afford the 12-60mm, this one will do.
Assuming linear increase in aperture a with focus length L, the aperture is a = 3.5 + (6.3-3.5)*(L-12)/(50-12). Thus at 14 mm it should have aperture 3.65, at 42 mm the aperture should be 5.7, and at 45 mm the aperture should be 5.9. I’d say it’s aperture is comparable to the 14-42 type lenses, and it extends in both directions. Of course, it may not be linear. But it most likely is comparable to the range of 14-4x kit lenses. This does not imply that it is a fantastic lens wrt aperture, though.
Also in Italy are ready to buy: http://www.fotolandia.it/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=4_90_143_144&products_id=2561
I just want the GD Oly PRO to come out, but of course they couldn’t even have it ready for CES, they have to wait until Feb…. At least give us the details…
To all the blind people in the forum here are some numbers:
The 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 is just an inch longer than the 12mm f2.0 and the 45mm f1.8. Widthwise they are quite similar, around 2″.
The 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 weights 211 gms, the 12mm f2.0 130 gms, and the 45mm f1.8 116 gms
OK, it is slow, but check the following Canon lenses for comparison
The 24-105mm f4 L Canon lens is 2.3″ longer than the 24mm f2.8 and 1.5″ longer than the 85mm f1.8, which has USM. Widthwise, the zoom is 0.7″ wider than the 24mm and just 0.3″ wider than the 85mm.
The 24-105 weights 670 gms., the 24mm 270 gms. and the 85mm 425 gms.
The proportions are not to different, and I bet the Olympus zoom will be much better optically. The Canon 24-105 is quite mediocre over 50mm
I’m one of the blind 🙂 since I compare with other m43 lenses and not Canons. The Panny 14-45 is awesome, about as fast, as small or smaller, lighter, superb IQ, and much cheaper.
But you still can’t go as wide as 12mm or as long as 50mm in the one lens, nor can you take it (Panny 14-45) out in the rain (when attached to a weather sealed body).
> The Panny 14-45 is awesome
And optically mediocre standard kit lens looking good only because of major cover up of deficiencies in software. (you can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still pig under it)
“Lumix lens shows a very poor performance regarding distortions specifically at the wide-end of the zoom range here. At 14mm we’ve a whopping ~5.5% of barrel distortion and it’s not really much better at 18mm (~4.1%). The situation eases significantly at 25mm (2.2%)…
principal vignetting figures are much worse than that. At 14mm we measured an edge shading of ~2.32EV @ f/3.5 which is extreme. The problem is already very much reduced at f/5.6 but even at f/11 we’ve still an edge deterioration of 1EV. Technically the lens is clearly underdesigned here…”
http://www.photozone.de/olympus–four-thirds-lens-tests/414-pana_1445_3556?start=1
Maybe we need to start calling actually good optics as über quality because “high” quality has been completely devaluated by mediocre cheaters!
Strange, dpreview speaks much better about it. They don’t seem to mind the software correction.
“The Lumix 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 OIS does extremely well in our studio tests. Panasonic has integrated software correction of distortion and lateral chromatic aberration into the system design, and this pays off with near-perfect results for these aspects of our tests; the lens is also unusually sharp for its class. Compared to the Micro Four Thirds Olympus M. Zuiko Digital 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 ED, the Panasonic does better in almost every regard; it even out-performs the best of the kit zooms for conventional DSLRs, the Olympus Zuiko Digital F3.5-5.6 ED. The differences aren’t necessarily huge, but they’re there.”
Esa’s post is a great example of quoting selected parts of a text as to intentionally manipulate the reader. This is from photozone’s conclusions at the end of the review:
”
In terms of sheer optical performance the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS is not a great lens. However, when looking at the auto-corrected results, and this is where it counts from a user perspective, it’s capable of producing very good results.
“
That should be “where it counts from an average clueless snapshot user perspective”.
The lens is HORRIBLE. Period.
So are you dear.
Why is it clueless too take software correction into consideration? Anyone who actually care about quality chosse the tools needed for the job that gives the best end result. Not using software for the sake of it is just snobbery that compromises quality.
Using software to correct optical underdesign and cheapness shortcuts compromises quality.
God, you’re all a bunch of fanboys. You could be given a lens with 15% distortion and 5EV vignetting and you’d claim it’s all perfect.
All design is a compromise, with pros and cons, you cant make a lens without compromise. Not using all the tools available just for the sake of it is bad design.
Is that a silver E-PL3 it’s mounted on in that pic? Looks very stylish.
LOL not, the is E-P3, more problem but eye 😉
Well, I first thought it was the EP3 but I didn’t see the grip. It looks quite nice without the grip- much nicer than with it.
Yes, it is an E-P3 without the grip.
Yep.
I wonder if they’ll ever release a faster, no-weather sealed version of this lens. I’m guessing it would be utter nonsense since making it faster means more expensive which begs to question any lack of weather sealing. Olympus just doesn’t make sense…
If this was intended to be an affordable kit lens then why bundle it with a PRO camera ? there was no need to make it weather-sealed, instead they could’ve made it faster(2.8-4.0 would be AWESOME, far more useful, 3.5-5.3 would’ve been decent), even if it meant a +2mm wider lens barrel. Length-wise I think this looks comfortable. Now the possibility of a fast 12-50mm is gone (even though they redesign their kitlenses a lot they don’t ever improve them speed-wise)
For me, this looks way better than leaked Panasonic new X lenses. I wish Panasonic change their design scheme…
i dont know but the small size and weight gains over a DSLR does not justify the use of a smaller mFT sensor for me.
mFT makes only real sense for me with a pancake…
looking at that lens body combination i can also take my DSLR with me.
E.g the e-p3 with the 12-50 lens will weigh some 550 g or so. The Nikon 24-70/2.8 lens weighs ca 900g *for the lens alone*. With my D300, this combo weighs ca 3 times what the Oly combo will weigh, the sensor quality of the e-p3 and the D300 are probably relatively similar. The Nikon lens is better, of course, but is not weather sealed, etc. Yes, I know that newer Nikons have better sensors with lighter bodies.
Why would you compare this lens to the Nikon 24-70/2.8 when you could be comparing it to the Zuiko 300/2.8? The latter weighs 3.3kg and is weather sealed.
Read my comment in its context. I don’t compare it to the Nikon lens. I comment on the idea that the 12-50 lens from Oly is so big/heavy that one can just as well use a dslr. I could just as well have used another DX/FX lens with comparable zoom span. Of course it would perhaps be fairer to use a poorer Nikkor lens, which would be lighter. Still, the 12-50/e-ps would “win” when it comes to bulkiness/weight. The discussion was on the 12-50 Oly, though.
Ok: the 300/2.8 by Oly costs some $5000 and weighs 3.3 kg. The comparable Nikkor 600/4 costs some $7000 and weighs 5.1 kg. What about the Zuiko 35-100/2 ($2000, 1.7 kg)? According to reviewers, it is pin sharp at full opening, whereas the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 ($2400, 1.5 kg)needs to be stepped down to f/5.6 or so to achieve maximum sharpness.
The 70-200 Nikon is actualy a bit cheaper than the 35-100 Zuiko (current bhphotovideo prices), is weather sealed and already sharp at maximum aperture. It also sports optical vibration reduction. I did not make this up, you can read the reviews.
The 12-50 cannot be compare to either of those lenses and was not designed with the same objectives in mind.
Personally I think it is reasonably sized, but am not excited about the small aperture and optical quality (as per online tests). I will not be buying it but it doesn’t mean it’s not a good lens. As a kit lens it should probably do OK.