Image courtesy: Photozone.
Photozone (Click here) tested the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens and writes:
Upon first contact you will immediately fall in love with the Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-40mm f/2.8 as the mechanical implementation is exemplary and meets the expectations of a pro lens. Although Olympus first pro zoom may not be perfect there’s much to like about this beautiful lens and while the pricing is a little too steep in our opinion it’s still in line with its direct competitor from Panasonic.
The lens earns very good scores for the mechanical and optical quality. But gets only 3 star out of five in the Price/Performance category.
E-M1 and 12-40mm lens Store Links:
Olympus E-M1 body at Amazon, Adorama and BHphoto, Amazon DE (via DL), Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL), WexUK, Topshot FI, CameraWorldUK.
Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO Lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, AmazonDE (viaDL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-40mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK and CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-50mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK, CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus EP-13 Eyecup for E-M1 at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus HLD-7 Battery Grip for E-M1 at Amazon, Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LC-62D Metal Front Lens Cap for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LH-66 Lens Hood for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.
58 Responses
I am personally very excited to see all these new lens for the m43 system. These are very exciting times for all the m43 system users. This really shows the commitment from the manufacturers, giving us confidence to invest more into our m43 gear.
So if any of the Olympus, Panasonic, Samyang, Tamron (!!!) hardware developers are reading this.
A big thank you for all your effort.
This is a great lens..the best lens I ever owned…I really don’t understand how the reviewers call this lens expensive…
until you compare it to sigma 15-35 f1.8.
you should also consider the fact that lenses for smaller sensors are suppose to be cheaper, which is not the case for MOST m43 lenses. (pantax-Q < nikon 1 < m43 = apsc < full frame)
To me the price is about right but certainly not a bargain, you might feel differently because your love for the system or simply richer=)
Why is it supposed to be cheaper? Because it is simpler to make or do you think that a dollar worth of glass and metal will make a huge difference?
M43 is not supposed to be cheaper… it’s supposed to be compact.
as a hobbist & m43 owner…have to say …sad but true
+10
Any other comparable zooms with the same speed from other camera companies are more expensive.
f2.8 zoom for pantex-Q sell for $300, stylus 1 with f2.8 SUPER zoom sell for $700 with camera. lorenzaccio’s explanation is very informative.
Well, the laws of optics dictate that the larger the sensor, the larger the glass, the more difficult to craft quality lenses (for correction, etc.). It used to be that medium format lenses costed a zero (= a magnitude) more than equivalent lenses for 35mm, due to all problems involved in making quality lenses that rarely matched 35mm lenses in speed.
Yes, for the same reasons I would expect m43 lenses to be cheaper: easier to build, and less glass involved. But Japanese companies are smart enough to understand that people are used to a given price for a given kind of lens, so they will spend the same amount of money for a product that could easily cost the half.
This would work as you suggest if the underlying medium has the same spacial resolution, which is the case when comparing medium format and 35mm film, provided you use the same film. This isn’t usually true for digital systems, as a lens for a smaller system has to provide a higher resolution because of increased pixel density.
So, what you write is correct, but only one side of the coin.
Couldn’t agree more…a top quality, 24-80mm (equivalent) 2.8 for under a grand? Amazon.co.uk had them for £730 recently. If ever a lens was worth the money! Versatile and tack sharp through the range, with lovely bokeh and colour rendition.
It’s difficult to understand Amazon Europe’s policy with this lens – it’s always in short supply, but when they have it in stock they seem to sell it at 15% discount. Just waiting for delivery of one from Amazon Spain at €850 (£698) – so I’m not complaining
UPDATE – now Amazon UK are selling at 20% discount – £715.65
please explain to me what a “real” lens is? photozone is so wrong on this (reflects their inherent bias towards ff)… first off your version of a “real” lens is not a 28-80 but 28-70. second, this “real” lens cost $1900-$2200 when bought for a “real” camera (full frame). the oly costs $1000. sounds like a bargain for me, but then again I only want a “fake” lens on a “fake” camera.
depth of field is a personal choice, so to say it’s equivalence is f5.6 (correct only on the subjective parameter of depth of filed) is saying the “fake” lens some how no longer can have the same brightness as f2.8. you live in a “fake” world.
btw, I shoot news so to me the m43 is “real” and the ff is “fake” cause why? oh snap, I prefer more depth then less…
But if you’re talking ‘equivalent’, it’s a 24-80mm f/5.6, not f/2.8. Which is why it can be so much smaller and lighter than a real 24-80/2.8 would be, but not so much smaller and lighter than a real 24-80/5.6. Photozone is perfectly correct when they call the lens expensive for what it offers.
Dude, really, you always post this same bullshit in every thread.
F/2.8 on m4/3 has the same brightness as f/2.8 in FF.
The only difference is depth of field.
“On the one hand the manual focus clutch mechanism, which switches easily between auto- and manual focus and on the other hand the L-FN button, which temporarily prevents unwanted autofocus operations in case of accidentally crossing objects. Additionally, you can link this button to an Olympus camera setting.”
What do they mean regarding the L-Fn button here?
Does it stop AF if you press and hold it?
‘Cause a single press only activates whatever function assigned to it…
(I cannot test it myself now, as my E-M1 is already dead, waiting for service 🙁 )
What’s up with the E-M1
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52976359
Ah well, some times you just luck out and get a lemon, trick is to know consumer law where you live and assert your rights.
Where I live you can take a product back to point of purchase and have them handle warranty claims.
Oh God… if ever such a thing happens to my camera I would simply die lol! A friend bought it for me when he was abroad and it wouldn’t be easy to take it back for repair or anything.
Good job you were not in Australia with a US camera. OlyOz is not in the World Wide Warranty (as some other countries are not). But they have extended the local warranty to 2 years. It’s unfortunate but things do go awry. That’s what warranty is for. The test of the commitment is how they respond. You don’t want it to be like a backup program that works fine and fills the computer with backups. Then one day you discover recovery does not work!!!!
I have always said the measure of a company is not how or what it sells or its unblemished record. It’s how it responds when something does go wrong.
You can assign it to AF Stop function, which, activate by hold down L-Fn button, to stop the auto focus.
The default setting on the LF-1 button is to stop autofocus. Useful when you got the focus you want and just want to keep it there. It is programmable though.
A whopping distortion of 8.5% at 12mm 🙁
If you watch the distortion graphic, it’s clear that a correction of this has an impact on the image quality.
yes and no…I mean the at 12mm the lens without correction is I think circa11mm so when correct they crop the extreme corner and you don’t loose too much resolution..that’s my finding using Photo Ninja that doesn’t correct raw file.
Somewhere I’ve seen a test between the 12-60, 12-40 and 12-35 at 12mm, and the result was, that the image sections had a different size… So it seems, that 12mm are not always 12mm 😉 But because it was only one test, I hope, also other people will make a test about that and can confirm or not confirm that result.
Photozone gives the a Pansonic 12-35mm 5.8% barrel distortion at 12mm in the incorrect end RAW file …so both lenses are pretty heavily “software” corrected at 12mm
http://www.lenstip.com/392.6-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_12-40_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Distortion.html
It is interesting how different reviewers come up with different results…an measurements?!…do we attribute that to variation in not only the lens but also differences and variations in the actual camera body that is used in the testing as well!?!?
In the end, who cares. Mine is sharp corner to corner and free enough from distortion so that I don’t notice it. The beauty of m43, and the electronic viewfinder, is that they can correct distortion for both viewing & saving. One less constraint in an optical design will give them the option to optimize other aspects so they can make a better overall lens. After all, if the distortion correction did in fact wreck the resolution, they are under no obligation to leave it uncorrected.
Nice lens…it is beautiful to look at . My copy was not sharp throughout its range…at 40 mm it became soft . The weather sealing is nice . It does produce nice images …but not stellar in my opinion . For me it is too heavy for my aging and aching wrists…and I have grown to prefer the primes offered for micro four thirds…wish more of them were weather sealed…nice lens…nice images…nice craftsmanship . Just not my cup of tea .
The 12-40 mm is to BIG for m43. It looks like an APS-C.
Light in this days is not the Problem but bokeh.
If it has the Same bokeh like an normal APS-C why should i go for m43?
I prefer smaler lenses!
Otherwise the new Fuji XT1 would be an Option .
Where did you find a 2.8 zoom at this focal range at the same size on APS-C? Yoh will find a double sized for full frame.
It is a f2.8 zoom. There is only that small it can be built without compromises becoming too heavy for what its worth.
My non scientific belief is that the typical hobbyist who pays $1000 for such lens understands and accepts the trade off on size and weight.
I had this lens for about a month and can confirm that it is an excellent, well-built, versatile lens that produces excellent images. it’s small considering this is a constant f/2.8 lens. It is perfectly matched to the E-M1 and feels well-balanced when shooting with that camera.
However, I ended up selling it because it is too big and heavy for my tastes. It makes the camera nearly as bulky as a small DSLR and not comfortable to wear on a shoulder strap. I prefer putting on a prime and keeping it all small and compact.
I’m glad this lens exists though, and I will rent it when I need it.
Unfortunatly there are AF issues with the e-p5…
I understand that some human may like or even love a lens, but normally you don’t call a lens beautiful. A property like this is assigned to a woman – or to a picture of a sunset, etc. To call a lens “beautiful” is a sign of severely going nuts. Not just a side-effect, a serious symptom of incurable photophilia … 🙂 Tomorrow we may hear someone wanting to go to bed with his/her camera body – or his/her sensor, his/her filter, for that matter … 🙂
Not being able to recognize that many people do in fact see beauty in feats of engineering is a sign of severe tunnel vision. Not just a side-effect, a serious symptom of incurable self-absorption … 🙂
What price/performance rating do they give to Canon and Nikon 2.8 zooms. The closest comparable lens in the Nikon lineup is the 17-55/2.8G, a DX lens covering only a slightly larger image circle. That costs 40% more than this Oly.
For a fast OEM zoom, this is fairly priced, especially since you can get it for $200 less with a body.
Well the Nikon DX 17-55/2.8 is equivalent to a hypothetical 12-38 F2. I bet it is bigger and dearer.
On 135, this lens is equivalent to a 24-80 F5.6, which is the cheapest zoom out there, coming in many flavours, normally with variable aperture and rather small sizes.
This is one of those lenses where the format is least competitive. Why don’t they make a 100-200/2.8 around the same price? Now, that would make those tiny sensors shine where they can: small size and small price.
that’s absurd to say an aps-c sensor based lens (Nikon DX 17-55/2.8) is equivalent to a hypothetical 12-38 F2! If you’re only measure is depth of field ( a subjective parameter at best)… the fact is it’s the same f stop meaning you will shoot at the same settings… a measure that’s NOT subjective.
If you have a hard on for shallow depth, then pay $2200 for a full frame canon or $1900 for the nikon version. And in the end, it will still shoot at the same f stop, albeit with much shallower depth of field, if that’s your preference.
your subjective “standard” for equivalence is simply stupid. get over it.
You don’t know much, at least have the decency to shut up…
It is a fact that this lens is an overpriced kludge, perfect to make a point against M43 as a whole.
It is also a fact that a 200 2.8 would really help the system stand out where it can.
Can’t expect “fangirls” to be competent photogs, or engineers.
one of the great talents of stupidity is the repeated need to generalize and make judgements that are unfounded. cases in point:
fangirls—do I need to say more?
overpriced kludge—what exactly is a kludge? “overpriced” is an unfounded emotional judgement.
200 f2.8 to help the system stand out—huh? stand out for what? this is just irrational
fangirls to be competent photogs or engineers—relevance? presumptuous and extremely generalized
I think you made your point. you’re thinking with your emotionally irrational self that has no basis in reality. so… if you have no foundation for your position, I would guess to say, based on your statement, you are the one that should shut up, BUT I would never demand you do that. I enjoy your stupid comments.
I hate f-stop equivalence. In fact, I like having more DOF in most instances, so equivalence could be argued in the exactly opposite way. That is, a FF lens can only give you deep depth of field if you stop down and lose speed.
Speed is what really matters and for that, f2.8 is always f/2.8.
Of course, if you don’t know how to compose good shots, it helps to throw the background out of focus.
“a FF lens can only give you deep depth of field if you stop down and lose speed”
Sure, then with an FF sensor you set a higher ISO value, and you end up having the same IQ of the apsc or m43 sensor, or still better.
Long story short: with 2.8 in FF you can have less DOF, or more DOF. With 2.8 in m43 you can only have more DOF. This is why I expect m43 2.8 lenses to cost less than comparable FF lenses.
How does this compare to the Panasonic 12-35?
As far as I can tell, they’re pretty much even w.r.t. image quality. The Panasonic has in-lens image stabilization (handy for non-Oly bodies) and is lighter / smaller. The Olympus has better weather-sealing, and is cheaper.
I’ve got a quick side-by-side comparison (includes the Olympus 12-60 for 4/3 too) here — http://wp.me/p1feV0-jK — there are other comparisons on various other blogs too.
Oh, one more thing — you might want to read the Photozone review of the 12-35 — http://www.photozone.de/m43/766_pana1235f28
I thought their take on the Oly lens was odd (calling it overpriced when the Panasonic is more expensive). But their Panasonic 12-35 review closes with “we are still not convinced that the lens is really worth its very high price tag although there’s no doubt that most users can get perfectly happy with it.”
No bashing this lens, but can someone tell me why I should go for this and not the pana 12-35mm (except for the extra 5mm and better build).
Seems like image quality wise, the pana is just as good. And I like keeping my m43 light. That is the objective of owning m43.
Well, this one is $200 less. But if you don’t have IBIS you’d be better off with the Panasonic.
Read it here: http://www.lenstip.com/392.11-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_12-40_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Summary.html
Calling it “the objective of m43” is a theoretical leap I am not willing to make. GH serie would not have any niche at all, yet it does.
Think about it. there are so many things to look at in a lens, not all of which are described with numbers and some of which are (or tends to be) mutually exclusive. Aberrations, color rendering, contrast, sharpness, fall off, (uncorrected) distortion, bokeh quality, built quality and ruggedness, AF speed, AF sound, OIS, just to name a few..
Both are said to be fine performers. If you could try both and I know this is not always a option, you ought to be able to judge on your own.
If you use Panasonic cameras go for the 12-35 (IS) else for the Olympus. I like the small minimum focus distance (5cm less than the 12-35, so you can achieve nice shallow DOF and large magnification ratios at 20cm distance) and that the Oly is a little sharper at maximum aperture (review don’t look at 35mm on the Oly, so for this focal length it’s difficult to compare). Wheather sealing, frost proof … Great lens. A nice review here from a well known landscape photographer: http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/11/olympus-12-40mm-f2-8-pro-m-zuiko-review-the-hammer.
The 12-40 is better wide open, has better edge sharpness, less CA,less distortion, much more resistant to flare. It is simply a better lens and cheaper too. I don’t see any reason to buy the 12-35mm now except for those who need OIS.
The reason I asked about the pana are because:
1. The pana can be bought new at us$730. A lot cheaper than oly
2. There are second hands available for $400
3. It is significantly lighter and smaller
4. I have a second body, gm1, to complement my em5
Don’t like the excuse for bokeh shots. Not as “bokeh” anyway.
Where the hell is my rebate on this, Olympus!?
I got mine about 4 days ago.
So they are being sent.