Olympus OM-D + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50 mm f/3,5-6,3 EZ from DSLR Magazine on Vimeo.
There is a new Olympus 12-50mm lens test at DSLRmagazine (Click here for the google translation). The test is very detailed and proves that the lens has some flaws. It’s an average quality kit lens that his strengths int he features list more than in the optical quality. But overall the lens is a real bargain for what it delivers when you buy it as kit lens along the [shoplink 29074]Olympus E-M5[/shoplink]!
Also Lenstip (Click here) reviewed the lens: “I like writing the summaries of Olympus optics because usually I can praise the tested lenses. Olympus has always produced good lenses. Unfortunately the summary of the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 12–50 mm f/3.5–6.3 ED EZ will be an exception because it won’t feature a lot of praise.”
P.S.: the german Fotomagazine (Click here) posted the full E-M5 ISO test images.
E-M5 preorders (Click on the names of the stores to see the product page):
Black E-M5 body at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, J&R, Warehouse UK, Digitalrev and Amazon Japan.
Silver E-M5 body at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, J&R, Warehouse UK, and Amazon Japan.
Black E-M5 body with 14-42mm lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto , Digitalrev and J&R.
60 Responses
At about 24 seconds into the vid you’ll notice a brief jerk- I wonder if that has to do with the 5 axis image stabilization or vimeo? Anyone else notice it? Don’t get me wrong, I’m still amazed at the smoothness of the handheld footage I’m seeing but some people have commented how occasionally you will get a momentary jerk, like the 5 axis image stabilization is resetting or something.
Almost looks like an edit.
It has got to be the stabilization. I noticed a similar effect in the earlier vids, especially the one on the ship, when they shooter is panning it looks like you can how the sensor buffers the image and one frame sorta drops for a second then gets pulled back in.
It’s too bad, Olympus essentially devalued the E-M5 as a serious weather sealed photographic tool by bundling such a compromised lens with it. That they’re able to sell it for $150 as part of a deal with the lowly E-PM1 (which I own and like a lot, BTW) shows it for what it is, as also demonstrated by now numerous tests pointing out its optical flaws.
Maybe if you’re into video it might make some sense for its range and silent focusing,but for pure photographers, just another slow and poor performing throw-away kit lens. A missed opportunity, but thankfully they offer a true bargain in allowing us to buy the E-M5 without it at a $300 savings.
Where’s the fast 12-60mm mFT equivalent, Olympus? We know you have it in you.
The $150 lens deal is for the 40-150mm…
Ee eee that lens cost 399 € GOOD DAMN IT , name JUST ONE LENS , wheater sealed with similar features mmmmmm , IT DOESN’T EXIST !!!! , so you have the 12-60 SFW, and the quality is awesome butt , it never ever comes with a kit and , the price is around 999 € , and also is DAMN BIG( ’cause i have one with an ep3) , when u buy a CANON 7D for a 1599 COMES WITH A 18-55 ( 28-84mm) , or and nikon d7000 for 1199 comes with an 18-55 , DO U REALLY THINK A SIMPLE 18-55 is DAMN CLOSE TO AN 12-50 zuiko ????
Think again ^^
If you mean the lens deal offered in the post below this, it’s the 40-150 they’re talking about. I would prefer better than what we got with the 12-50, but it’s still generally better than the older kit lenses, and not terribly expensive when purchased with the kit.
After what I’ve seen the 14-42 II is better. But I’ve ordered the E-M5 kit with 12-50, for this price it’s a good deal, maybe it will helpful sometimes to have a weather sealed lens. But normally I will prefer to shoot pics with the 14-42.
+1
+10
Why do all the video samples seem to look really poor?
It does look pretty bad, doesn’t it? I kind of think the shutter speed’s too high in the outdoor videos. The bitrate is pretty low, as well.
Because Oly only includes video as a feature bullet point, not for use as a serious tool.
Want video? Get a GH2.
I agree. While I have an EM5 on order, and prefer Oly to Pany for stills photography, if you want the best video capable camera, get a GH2.
Video on Olympus bodies is an added feature for personal videos and maybe some light commercial shoots.
Funny thing is that there are people who complain about a feature that they can’t use. “Video sucks on this camera!” But all they are shooting is there dog for YouTube. You don’t need to be George Lucas for that.
I agree – video mode has been a constant let down when it comes to Olympus. As a documentary filmmaker with a Panasonic AF101, I was setting my hopes to the EM-5 as a kind of second unit – I so would like to have that camera because of its features and qualities as a still camera – but with no manual exposure while filming makes it impossible for me to buy it. The decision not to include that possibility in such a high quality camera is beyond my understanding.
It has manual exposure, it’s other stuff that’s kind of crappy; lack of 24p, bad bit rate, etc.
I’ve seen much better samples elsewhere, so either the videography didn’t have a clue how to operate the camera, or there is a serious flaw with his model.
Any thoughts on the 14-42? I may just get this for the $100 and throw it on my GF-1 as a gift or cheap travel lens and get something better later. I would really like to see a comparison of the two kit lenses based on the $100/$300 pricing.
I was pleasantly surprised at the 14-42. I didn’t test for ultimate sharpness or stuff like that, but got some fantastic shots with in on vacation. For the money & size it’s great!
I got the 14-42mm with my E-M5 for two reasons. 1, I wanted a small go-anywhere kit lens. And this does the trick as when it’s collapsed, it’s tiny. 2, I have used the mkI version of the 14-42mm lens and was very happy with it’s quality.
Oh, and if you do a pre-order for the Body with the 14-42mm, I think you have the best chance of getting it, since that seems to be the least popular option. 😉
Let’s face it Panasonic make better kit lenses. 14-45 is best zoom. 14-140 is reasonable. 14-42 X is smallest. 20mm and 14mm primes are both better than Oly 17mm. All zooms have OIS. Surely Oly could do better?
Don’t forget that they replaced the very nice 14-45mm with the worse 14-42. You can’t even get the 14-45 anymore at all.
And… why would a potential E-M5 buyer care/pay for/carry aroind the extra weight of built-in OIS?
Rubbish! They’re everywhere. $272 for the 14-45 on Amazon for example.
But the 14-42 X power zoom seems to be crapy.
No it’s not:
http://www.photozone.de/olympus–four-thirds-lens-tests/615-pana1442?start=2
If you have problems with OIS turn it off!
It’s a weird lens. My theory about Olympus producing 12-50mm is that they assumed its primary use in harsh weather conditions where image quality is dominated by external factors.
My thoughts exactly. If a better lens comes a long I will certainly buy that too. But for now I need something resistant to the weather conditions here in NL and it needs to focus quick too.
For all other things I can do with a non weathersealed lens or the 14-54mm and other 43 lenses icw MMF3.
It is a weird lens, but I have decided to get it (as kit) for experimentation.
1. I don’t do macro, maybe its fun?
2. I have never missed weather-sealing before, maybe i can get som cool pictures in poor condition?
3. I haven’t done much video, I am going to experiment abit with that.
So even though i wouldn’t by it for “normal photograhy” alone. I found that for a pretty low price it gives me the oppurtunity to try some new stuff and expermint with some tinghs i haven’t done before.
It’s not a real macro lens, so don’t bother. If you want to do real macro, get the 35mm 4/3 lens – it’s really sharp and contrasty, and really cheap. It won’t AF well, but for macro, you don’t care. The even cheaper option is some reverse mount adapters and some legacy lenses.
You miss Atle’s points completely: he implies that he can play around with near “macro” possibilities with an inexpensive lens which also has other uses, without investing in an expensive, real macro lens which he doesn’t know whether he will use much. Having bought the micro Nikkor 105/2.8 and not used it much, I think that is a very wise decision. And who knows – maybe he will find it so interesting that he will upgrade to a real macro lens?
You miss my point. The 12-50 cannot be used to play with macro because it’s not a macro lens. It has three times less magnification. It’s simply a closeup lens. That’s like saying you can play with birding using the upcoming 75mm.
Thanks for the feedback. But do you think its not usable as a macro lens? I though 1:1 was good for a macro lens at 35mm. And you get the same relative size as 0,72x 35mm with the lens, is that not enough? (with realtive size, i mean a given objekt will cover as much of the picture as with 0,72x on 35mm)
The magnification here is 0.36x, or roughly 1:3. Some people argue that macro starts at 1:2, but I think it’s 1:1 minimum, with 2:1 being preferable if you want to catch the extremely fine detail of flower pollen, or have clarity on each of a fly’s several hundred eyes.
Macro is tricky. You shouldn’t be shooting handheld, and lighting is quite an issue.
Maybe i have misunderstood, but I find the system for quoting macro-cpabailitys a bit strange (1:1) and so on. I find it better to think how much of the picture is covered.
Lets say a bee covers 2/3 of the length of a macro photo with a 1:1 lens on a 35mm-system. Wont the bee cover the same 2/3 of the photo on a m4/3-system with 1:2 macro?
(The anonymous above was me from a different PC)
The whole crop-equivalent thing is confusing, yes 🙂
It depends on what one thinks macro should be. Try to shoot a fly with the 12-50 and it will cover a small portion of the frame; the eyes will be a reddish blob. With the 4/3 50mm (1:1 in 135 format) you’ll get something quite decent because the lens is insanely sharp, but the fun starts with the 35mm, which is equivalent to 2:1 in 135 format, as are the two Sigma macros, the 105 and the 150. Add an extension tube to that, and you get a 4:1 equivalent – that’s where the REAL fun starts.
I never liked macro until I got the 35mm *and* the extension tube; I had the 50mm before, but it just didn’t feel like a macro lens. Then I upped the magnification from 1:1 eqv to 4:1 eqv, and wouldn’t you know it, that turned out to be extremely fun to use, although the working distance is horrible, and I’m looking into getting a used Bugma (the 150mm Sigma).
If you want to play with macro and really try macro as such, 0.72x equivalent just isn’t going to cut it. Reverse mount rings, legacy lenses, and/or the 35mm are the bare minimums for such a task.
I personally suspect that many people don’t like macro, even if they have a dedicated macro lens, because they don’t have enough magnification or patience. It’s a whole different world when it comes to picking the subjects and the angles – I had a ton of shots “ruined” because there was dirt or spider silk on the subjects that I couldn’t see with my bare eyes. Also, the slightest wind breeze tends to make shooting very hard.
Bottom line – if you want to try macro, try it properly. Doing it with the 12-50, like I said, is like trying to do birding with the upcoming 75mm. Works well for dead birds or with insane crops, but not much else.
@Anonymous/Boo:
From Wikipedia: “Likewise, a macro lens is classically one lens capable of reproduction ratios greater than 1:1, although it now refers to any lens with a large reproduction ratio, despite rarely exceeding 1:1… Outside of technical photography and film-based processes…a life-size result is possible with a lens having only a 1:4 reproduction ratio.…However, macro lenses with 1:1 or 1:2 ratios are more common.”
I conclude that the 12-50 *can* be denoted a macro lens in the common/amateur use of the word. And it *would* give Atle and others the possibility to play around with things they haven’t done before, e.g close-up pictures. And it *can* inspire Atle and others, if they find out that they enjoy the experience but are not totally happy with the image quality, to upgrade to a classical macro lens.
This means that I think the 12-50 fits *precisely* into what he described as his needs. And that your attempt to force a strictly classical definition of macro on him was missing the point of his need.
No, I did not miss your point.
It’s not a dedicated macro lens, but it appears to do macro pretty well for a zoom. It functions to some extent for macro purposes, which is a helpful feature and not worthless.
plus one ! Same reasons more or less for me
1) With the kit it costs half of the usual price;
2) It can do macro : I would never get a true macro lens, like the 60mm Oly announced, but it will be fun trying;
3) It is said to work smoothly for video. I’ve never shot video because of the jerking, but with the 5 axes IBIS improvement, I will try it and hopefully be more successful;
4) I won’t have second thoughts when going out in bad weather or at the beach or in other dusty environments;
5) The focal range corresponds to that of my avorite zoom on the Canon 5D.
But I have no illusion concerning its IQ and will perhaps sell it at some point thus diminishing
the price of the body. It is sold at 400.- I got it for 200.-, if I can sell it for 300.- I’ll spare 100.- on the body !
But if you compare to their test of the 14-42mm Olympus kit lens, the 12-50mm is still better. Centre and edge performance in terms of sharpness are a step up.
As a kit lens, it does quite well, especially considering the range and the additional macro (close-up) feature.
The “slow” 12-50… The fact is that in the range 14-42, it is about as fast as any other 14-42 kit lens. As a bonus, you get a wider range, internal zooming, weather sealing, etc. It is not perfect! But kit lenses hardly ever are.
I’m sorry, but there are test showing that the 14-42 is sharper then the 12-50, without any doubt.
Sorry, I’ve made a mistake, the 14-42 is better at short focal range, and at the long end it seems the 12-50 is a little bit better 😉
The mediocre performance of the 12-50 demonstrates how difficult it is to design a quality zoom in the confined dimensions dictated by the mirrorless conventions. The quality zooms, 7-14, 9-18, 14-45, 14-140 and 75-300 are rather significant, yet slow. Other mirrorless mounts have been facing the same dilemma. To date, the only decent small zooms are the Nikon 10-30 and 30-100 (made for the smaller CX image circle). I suspect that the soon to be announced 35-100 and especially 12-35 might turn out as somewhat disappointing in their optical qualities. Still, m4/3 has some small and very good prime lenses.
It seems that Oly was trying to force this lens to do too much and it ended up not doing anything very well. It’s too bad. And worse, it will probably sell well simply because of weathersealing and it’s an EM5 kit lens and nothing more.
It’s a bit soon to condemn the 12-35mm and 35-100mm don’t you think? There are a few exceptions, but over all Panasonic has done a better job designing quality M4/3 lenses than Olympus.
Jack of all trades, master of none.
I’m not condemning, only stressing my suspicions. Hopefully I’m wrong, but miracles are scarce.
Enough with Olympus, I begin to think they give you some many; take look to your few last pages – this looks like an Olympus site … (I have to say I’m an E-P1 owner :D)
Maybe you heard of the EM5? It was officially announced recently and has caught a lot of attention.
I am so excited by m43 but infighting is just a dirty mark on this scene, we’re the lucky ones who have two companies working for us. So shut up.
Although the announced 12-35/2.8 has a more limited range, I have to say that my more or less equivalent 24-70/2.8 Nikkor lens has a very useful range (yes, I know the DOF thing). Still, the XZ-1 range of 28-112 was even better.
I’m a little surprised by not seeing any real tests of the E-M5 with the 14-54 II… The 14-54 v II supports CDAF, and some informal comments suggest that the AF speed with CDAF is on par with that of the Panny 20/1.7 — which would make it acceptable. What the the 14-54 misses is internal zoom, video support, and it is twice te weight/longer with slower (but oh?) AF.
Some people denounce testing the 14-54 because the E-M5 “doesn’t improve on the AF of 43 lenses”. But that misses the point, which is: does the 14-54 II with its super optical quality give comparable AF speed of the 20/1.7??
Olympus degraded a great camera with a slow junker of a lens. Who cares if it is waterproof? With such a fantastic camera there could be a kit with a fast normal prime. For photographers. Remember them. (That is what happens when a lens is designed by a committee, and half the committee are the finance people.). LOL!
I’d prefer It if they offered a zoom with less focal range but better aperture and optical performance.
Anyone else notice that the video flickered quite a bit when zooming out? The only time I’ve seen something similar to this is when changing the aperture on a lens while filming.
I don’t have much knowledge on how the internal components work, but could this be related to the same issue? … with the aperture changing by itself as a result of zooming?
> It’s an average quality kit lens that his strengths int he features list more than in the optical quality.
+1
Having looked at some of the DxO tests of m43 lenses recently, I have become suspicious that some tests, where they look at uncorrected raw files, are analysing parts of the image which would normally be chopped off by the distortion correction.
DxO in particular report high distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration for lenses (e.g. 14-42 and 45-175 X lenses), which seem to be unrepresentative of the lenses when used with corrections.
Corner performance of the 12-50mm lens at the 12mm end does appear to be a weakness, as Olympus’ MTF curves suggest, but I will wait for more full size image samples to be published rather than simply taking these tests as gospel.
I’ve decided to go with the 14-42. I t is smaller, faster and sharper. I can use it or sell it with my GF-1 (not my 20 1.7) and it is a small package and if it gets wet I will throw it away for the $100 I spent. When something small and decent comes out I will buy that and have saved $200 toward that lens. Since video on the EM-5 seems to look worse than even my GF-1 won’t miss a power zoom feature or all the added bulk when street shooting or traveling. I think too many people are getting this because they think it is better and I bet the market is flooded with used ones later this year. Even Robin Wong seems to show forced enthusiasm about this lens IMO.
It’s interesting to me how many people rubbish the video on E-M5. I know nothing about video but obviously have seen my fair share of them, just like all the pixel peeping that I am a part of, no one will ever notice a difference except those that specifically know about this kind of stuff.
Personally i’m happy with the video, i’m blissfully ignorant, and for the 99% of people who want to use the video and won’t get broadcasted passed YouTube, surely this is fine? The IBIS works a charm.
I ordered the E-M5 with the 12-50 lens when it was announced, but I just canceled the order a few days ago. I started to think that even with the discount this lens is not worth it, weather sealing aside. I doubt I would even get back what I paid for it. It’s just too slow, and I really want a lens with a little more reach. A 12-60 4.0 would have really been interesting.
I would cancel my order for the kit if I wouldn’t loose my spot on the waiting list.
I believe buying the “body only” and saving towards something that makes sense would been better.
Not sure what to do…