The first Olympus PRO lens, the 12-40mm zoom got tested at DxOmark (Click here). As you see it’s on par with the Panasonic. DxO writes:
The Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO is a good lens, very good in fact, easily challenging the optical performance of the rival, and slightly dearer Panasonic model as well as high-grade APS-C lenses. But, at a whisker under $1000, quality like this doesn’t come cheap.
Also Tashley1 (Click here) posted a lens review:
At every focal length F2.8 thru F5.6 will give sharp images edge on a 20″ print. No need to finesse this, just shoot.
—
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.
137 Responses
I was expecting more difference, in Oly favor.. hmmm
Oly has Better build, close focus capability, longer range, manual focus clutch and preset focus pulling.
Panny is lighter, has OIS
– both good but definitely different. take your pick based on function rather than just IQ. Choice is good.
Plus the Oly is about $300 USD less…wonder if Panasonic will drop their price…
according to a 15 second search on amazon the 12-35 is $119 more new. used 12-35 are $113 less. intro price yes, $300 difference.
if olympus introduced the 12-40 first, before the 12-35, it would have been $1500 with no lens hood and an optional limited lens cap made out of tin for $200. gotta love downward price pressure due to competition.
Wow…the Panny is already coming down. I was going to order one about a month ago from B&H…they were $1299… So i decided to wait for the Oly. Yes, I do like competition!
Also the Olympus is weather-sealed…is the Lumix??? (I am not sure)
Oly also has more reach..witch matters to me.
Oh..just checked B&H site…says that the Panasonic is Dust & Splash Proof….
..but the Olympus is cooler looking…so DxO should give it style points!
I bet the reviews are going to vary quite a bit on this lens….should be interesting.
They have different FL anyway, but I see other sites would be biased for Olympus due to brand name. But the Pana does have the barrel distortion problem due to (?)smaller diameter.
Haha. Understatement of the year. In early reviews this lens has been literally praised as the god of all optical resolution and aberrations, to justify being 30% heavier than the pana. Thank you Ming Thein. Now I suppose we’ll have to chalk up that extra weight to pro “build quality” (ie fashion, which of course is mostly what people want to begin with). Like we used to justify the OMD hump based on the 5-axis IBIS, until the EP5, and now we justify it because…it’s not so bad.
I like the hump…very nostalgic, but I’m well into my forty-something years. I did notice, however, that the folks at Nikon seem to like the hump too.
Most panny cameras have a hump. Its where they put the flash! I wish oly would do the same on the next omd. That and a fully articulated lcd and my dream is complete!
Yes..m112..and the extra $300 is for all of the air inside of the Panasonic!!!! 🙂 I think that they are both very good lenses…I bet the Panasonic will drop in price though…
In addition to Ming Thein, Tim Ashley seems to like the lens, http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/11/olympus-12-40mm-f2-8-pro-m-zuiko-review-the-hammer. Ashley is less impressed by the E-M1 (but still find it useable).
It actually is. Do not look on score, look Measurement-Sharpness-Field map. Overall score in DxO tells nearly nothing about zooom performance.
DxOMark testing (or rather scoring) is outdated – they rate sharpness, vignetting and maximum CA based on the corners of the image UNCORRECTED for distortion. But correct the distortion as in-camera JPEG engine and every decent RAW processor does, and the corners are pushed out of the frame, so they don’t matter at all. If you look at the field maps of both 12-35 and 12-40, by far the worst CA (and of course vignetting) is in those extreme corners which simply are not going to be present in your final picture unless you use an incompetent RAW processor.
Also I don’t know what their p-mpix is, at what FL and aperture, but it is clear as day that 12-40 is sharper across the frame at landscape FLs where it matters most, especially wide open (and yes, it matters for landscapes at or close to infinity and in low light handheld, like those cameras tend to be used).
A proper lens test should ALWAYS ignore JPEG engine correction. Also JPEG engine correction will always decrease resolution, as it distorts pixels (where do you think that correction comes from?). JPEG correction is a warping of the original image and is not a function or aspect of the lens at all. It is a function of the camera.
To expensive and not so good. Why o why M43 won’t you stick to youre roots.
Plenty of choices for alleged roots.
Since “DXO is a great sourse”, why didn’t you check it to do comparison. The 12-40/2.8 has higher scores than the Nikon and Canon 17-55/2.8 while being $400 cheaper than the Nikon, not too mention better build quality.
Oh and when mounted on an E-P5, it has the same overall score as the Nikon 24-70/2.8 on D700.
Maybe you’re the one who should “go away”, trollbag.
I’m curious as to how they measure sharpness. I noticed on their site that most of the lenses they measured (across all brands) come in at about half of “excellent” or under.
I saw one lens close to “excellent” in a DXO test. I was Nikon 200/2 VR on a D800. It weighs 3 kg and costs 5-6 times more than the lens we discuss here……
Interesting. I just would like to know what their standard benchmark is that they are testing against. Lenses like the Oly 75 get a below half score for sharpness on DX, but are off the charts on sites like ephotozine.
The sharpness one is when you you zoom the lens the foot step of Neil Armstorng is clearly seen on the moon, that’s wanted by DxO
DXO is not measuring the lens on it’s own but scoring based on the combination of sensor and lens. That is why you can change the body with their tools and get different results with the same lens. The resolution score is based on Mega pixels, so a larger sensor with more MP will have a higher score.
The fact that these lenses can compete with the larger APS-C sensor says a lot about the quality of the lens. Or maybe is says something about the lack of quality in APS-C lenses. 😉
” The resolution score is based on Mega pixels, so a larger sensor with more MP will have a higher score.”
The current m43 cameras have higher pixel densities than most other cameras. Meaning a 30cm long by 2.5mm wide lump of metal photographed at a corrected distance for sensor size would cover more pixels on a m43 than a APSc or Fx sensor.
Does this mean that all dox ratings should be doubled for M43?
Interesting question for DXO addicted. If so, many detractors could change opinion and look at these charts in a different perspective.
To me, these are just numbers: following their test charts I take nice photos with “crappy” 17mm f1.8 and “not sharp” 12mm f2.
What I’m curious about is comparison to Olympus 12-60mm.
sorry but isn´t 9 MP sharpness not a bit weak?
aps-c sesnors and m43 nearly have the same MP today…. yet m43 lenses have way lower MP sharpness.
> sorry but isn´t 9 MP sharpness not a bit weak?
For a zoom lens? No.
Not sure what you’re talking about. Canon’s fixed 17-55mm 2.8 aps-c gets the exact same 9mpix. Nikon’s gets 5MPix.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/EF-S-17-55-f-2.8-IS-USM
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Nikon/AF-S-DX-Zoom-Nikkor-17-55mm-f-2.8G-IF-ED
No, they have a metric incorporating line widths per picture height, which scales with sensor size. So m43 is usually lower than FF per definition.
One of my favorite Canon lenses was the 24-105 f/4. Goes for over a grand. It’s longer than this Oly lens but it’s a full stop slower. It’s sharper in the center but the Oly is considerably sharper across the frame and its bokeh will be much nicer. FWIW the scores of the Oly on the E-P5 match the score of the Canon on the 5D Mark III.
Not seeing anything that supports your notion that m43 lenses aren’t top flight. Same quality and less expensive and smaller. What’s not to like?
From what people were talking the Oly lens was supposed to be a lot better, but it’s good to know that both produced equally great lens and in a way it would have looked bad if the difference was big, but now it’s more a matter of preference then.
One is best at 12mm and one is best at 25mm, pretty clear which is better
Yep, Oly has better sharpness on 12-25mm, Panny is better on 35mm(vs40 on Oly). So do not look on score – look Measurement-Sharpness-Field map. Much more usefull info than just “score” wich means very little for zoom in DxO test.
Seems like Panasonic focused on the longer end… Is it by much? Does the Olympus’ 12-25 that much sharper than Panasonic’s 12-25? Or only by small amount?
I wonder how they compare with regards to flare. Anyone yet have experience with that on the 12-40?
Can’t remember which site, but I recall someone said the Panasonic was more flare resistant. But the Oly a tad less distortion.
Take your pick
Something to do with diameter size of the front, right?
According to my own experimence, the 12-40 is a bit sensitive to flare in the wideangle range.
DxOMark sucks again.
Why care about a tiny bit more center sharpness at a specific range, when the oly has super sharp corners along its entire range and blows the pana out of the water?
Their primitive scoring sucks and does not reflect the real world.
If the results were reversed, you’d be saying “why give so much emphasis to the corners, when they’re usually out of focus anyway?”
Fanboys always reveal their true colors.
What he said is objective and true… Olympus zoom is sharp across the frame while Pana zoom is only sharp at the small center area in specific range. Not to mention that Pana zoom isn’t sharp at f2.8. Calling him a fanboy won’t change any fact.
Stop being jealous. 🙂
The day people started to praise DXO as the Holy Grail of benchmarks and photographic wisdom photography died. DXO and gearheads are the cancer of photography. I’m not trying to defend the Oly, but when every other reputable website in the internet has applauded its performance I start to wonder if DXO isn’t just full of cr@p. Sure, the Oly might as well be average in real life but I’ll just have to test it myself to confirm that, I don’t give a cr@p what DXO says about gear, any gear, I only care about my standard for quality, my client’s and what my eyes see.
DXO doesn’t test real world performance, it doesn’t test photographic technique and prowess, it doesn’t test user friendliness, ergonomics and interface, I don’t go out to shoot with a sheet of DXO results as reference.
People seriously need to stop using DXO as the go-to-reference for internet arguments and sh+t, this DXO brainwashing is killing photography.
AMVR, please i want you to go away. All this negatieve talk when something is not going youre way. You sound like a old record played over an over again. DXO is a great sourse. They can not help it if M43 is not as good as APSC or FF.
How IRONIC! You want someone else to go away? We should take a vote! You won’t like the results…at all.
Well said!
Ok so let me get this straight…
– I’m overly negative when I encourage people to stop arguing about meaningless numbers and instead go out and enjoy photography for what it is: taking pictures ?
– I sound like a broken record when in fact this has to be the 2nd time around in my many years here that I have ever critizised or talked directly about DXO ?
– DXO is a great source ? of what exactly ? meaningless benchmarks and statistics for nerds to wank over ? Photography is not PC overclocking, it’s not sound systems, it’s not sport cars, benchmarks and performance test should be used when strictly necessary not every time you need to win an internet troll contest. Go read my post again and please take your time, I said ¨ I don’t give a cr@p what DXO says about gear, any gear¨, I’m not defending m4/3 against the hordes of other gear, I’m defending ALL photographic gear against DXO itself, they have encouraged a vile culture of crack-like benchmark addiction that goes against what photography is all about: being outside making pictures!
I think that by asking me to go away it is YOU who gets frustrated when something is not going your way. When you spout cliche phrases such as ¨They can not help it if M43 is not as good as APSC or FF¨ you ooze ignorance, it reveals you’re just a computer nerd and not really into photography, why I say this ? because you only talk about being ¨good¨…Good for what exactly ? what application !? there’s no single camera system good for all applications, Not full frame, not APS-C, not Medium format nor m4/3. Stop wanking at useless statistical data and hone your photography, show your photos, that’s the only real way to justify upgrading your gear and bragging about it, not DXO results.
Agree! Very well said.
What’s kinda funny is if you delve down into their data, like the sharpness field map, the Oly does show much better sharpness at 2.8 for 12-25, whereas the Pany beats it at 35 vs 40 (someone mentioned this already). They seem to always have some odd system for overall score.
Personally, I used my 12-50 mostly at 12, a few times going at ranges between and up to 25ish, so the 12-25 is far more interesting to me (I use the 12-50mm for my sunset and landscape photographs, and tend to use primes for almost anything else). Someone who takes more Portaits while having the option for wider at the same time may prefer the 12-35 (though, honestly, 35mm is a bit short for that…)
Agree. And ultimate sharpness is not so important for portrtaits, as for landscape wide scenes when you need to blow up big.
AMVR,
That was an extremely intelligent post in response to a personal attack. I can’t imagine he will post any more today – you destroyed him.
YOU want someone to go away? And saying someone sounds like an old record??? After you have been saying the same three things over and over the entire time you have been here – including when you were posting under the name shenkie.
Hi Full Frame
Well said AMVR. I have NEVER used DXO data…and I’ve purchased many lenses. It is entertaining to see folks get whipped up into a frizzy over DXO results though…
It feels like much more people are getting whipped up in a frenzy whenever the word DxO is used in sentence, regardless of how the word is actually used. AMVR is not reacting to anything being said, he lashes out pre-emptively against statements that only exist in his imagination.
dxo has strange ratings when it come to lenses. like a zeiss 21 not being sharper then a 24-70mm II http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/326/%28lens2%29/886/%28brand1%29/Zeiss/%28camera1%29/483/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28camera2%29/483
i trust them reviewing sensors like dynamic range and noise. but for optics i prefer sites that use imatest benches
If you believe the reviews of the new Zeiss ZF/ZE Distagon 21mm on fredmiranda forum, the DXO data could have some merit. It was the old/original Contax Zeiss version which had sharper corners, the new ZF/ZE Distagon 21mm does not perform as well according to some of them.
Since they re-introduced the design, presumably some lens materials have changed or been banned, causing an impact on the quality? (Disclaimer: This is just a guess as to the cause of the worse performance of the new 21mm distagon, not a known fact).
The way to confirm this would be for DXO to benchmark an original c/y Contax Zeiss 21mm adapted to a 5D Mkiii (which is unlikely as I haven’t seen them test adapted lenses).
As far as I’m concerned, they’re just attempting to figure out how to manipulate photos within their software to offer corrections. Whether their methodology is correct or not only matters if you you their software.
Numbers may not lie but the interpretation of facts often does.
If you run out of goods arguments, you just pretend that those you disagree with have used even worse arguments (nobody ever claimed anything even remotely like DxO being the Holy Grail of photography; nobody has ever claimed that they can be used for anything else than sensor performance or just another datapoint in lens testing). You are making a herbalist into a witch.
(And I am saying that as somebody who uses m43 a lot but is somewhat put off by what feels like 10x more posts pre-emptively bashing DxO than posts citing results from DxO.)
Seeing how people reply to a post about a lens being dxomarked, I suppose it isn’t entirely strange that those people give an opinion about dxo now is it?
To gives ones opinion is absolutely ok, to hurl slanderous insults less so.
I want to know how it perfoms in terms of CA at bodies with no correction insde like the E-M5 – with real world shots. maybe somebody remembers that test: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3226735?page=1 I wanto to see a test like this also with the 12-40.
Matthias, Zuiko lenses are corrected in Olympus bodies, while Panasonic lenses are corrected in Pana bodies. You should try this 12-40 on Panasonic camera to see its CA.
Or shoot to orf/raw
I know, it’s possible to correct CA with LR with one click, but I don’t have time and I don’t want to work with RAW. With such expensive lenses it should not be necessary to correct CA by myself.
There is no in-body correction of CA at Olympus before the E-M1, so E-M5 doesn’t has this feature 😉
DxO tested both lenses on the E-M5, so their chromatic aberration measurements should be what you’re looking for?
really? then the 12-40 will be awful at the E-M5, concerning CA… you’ve seen the test I’ve linked 4 posts above? and if it’s really so, then I’m disappointed about that Olympus now goes the way to correct the CA in the camera with software instead to make this with really good lenses.
Is there need for that? I didn’t notice much CA with Oly. I do notice CA with Nikon, Sigma, Tamron and Canon, but it does not seem to bother dxo, they have their numbers. The dxo numbers don’t tell me much, I look at the actual photo instead. We are so different….
Marco…I think that the only Olympus body that corrects Olympus lenses is the M1. I could be wrong about that …but I have recently read this I believe.
Correct, no in-body CA correction in the EM-5. As opposed to even 5 year old Nikon bodies. It’s not the end of the world, but I think it shows how thin the R&D resources are at Oly.
Well..I really like the Oly cameras so there is alway Lightroom!!!!
Bob that’s what I thought , but I can easily be wrong: I always shoot in JPEG + RAW, using JPEG files immediately when needed for online work, and working on RAW files most of times.. Until now my JPEG photos were ok and noone ever complained about CA..
Well, I have learnt something new! Thanks to all who corrected me! 🙂
Zuiko lenses are corrected for CA *only* on the EM-1, not on any other body. Panasonic lenses are corrected for CA on all Panasonic bodies.
Both Pany and Oly are missing a huge potential market IMHO – the extra reach makes this a natural for wildlife/birding. When are we going to see some really good long telephotos (maybe a TC too)? I’ve played with the 70-300 – it’s OK, but give me really good longer lenses!!! The FourThirds system was no better – the Sigma lenses weren’t worth the trouble.
Totally agree. But telephoto lenses do not take any advantage from short focal distance of MFT. So MFT telephoto lenses should have the same size and weight as FT lenses..
They do take advantage of the crop ratio though, and this makes them much smaller for the same angle of view (in comparison to 35mm film frame)
Evidence would suggest otherwise – compare size/weight of any comparable FT vs MFT lens – the MFT lens is smaller (e.g. 70-300). I’d would use a good 400 or 500 FT lens if they had made one.
+1. The big advantage is seeing a 600mm equivalent FOV in the viewfinder when using a 300mm lens. And now the EVF is approaching FF size. This is a big help in finding small birds and accurately focusing on their eyes. APS-C and FF cannot compete with this unless you go to much larger lenses.
Agree 100%. I was just surprised that the 300 was often not enough! I need more! 🙂
Sometime I do wish for more focal length as well. But I think it will become more difficult to find the small bird with the viewfinder, especially if they keep jumping out of view. A 400mm focal length would show a 800mm equivalent FOV which would be difficult for moving birds that are relatively close.
We just need a lens that is much sharper than what is currently available, that can resolve most of the 16mp. Right now the existing zooms cannot resolve even half of what the sensor makes available. Thats why I keep going back to a 300mm f4 as the best solution for m43, assuming it is very sharp.
Try a red dot sight. Or as it’s called, Tactical Four Reticle Sight.
Once you spend 10 minutes getting it calibrated, it’s a snap to use. Of course it doesn’t help if the critter you’re trying to shoot is behind a bunch of branches and you need to focus manually, but it works really well for birds in flight, etc.. I bet people trying get shots of their brats darting around would benefit, too! 😉
http://gadget.brando.com/wildlife-photography-with-tactical-four-reticle-sight_p01341c73d3.html
Reeee can you tell me how it works? Is the laser coupled with the lens and focuses on the target? (Never done wildlife photography, but I’m curious)
Sure. It mounts in the hotshoe. It’s a red dot sight like in Call of Duty. 😉
I put my camera with 100-300mm on a tripod, mounted the RDS (red dot sight), found something 200 to 300 feet away… 75-100 meters for the enlightened 😉 … focused on something through the lens and adjusted the sight with set screws on the same target.
Then it’s a matter of using the sight to target photo subjects, instead of the EVF or LCD and shoot. It’s pretty fun to use and the price is right.
Don’t get caught on a grassy knoll with this thing mounted. 😉
Hmm, there is a very nice Zuiko Digital 70-250/2.8, and a gorgeous 300/2.8 prime.. so I’d say your statement concerning 4/3 isn’t correct.
What didn’t exist in 4/3 is something inbetween the 70-300, and those really expensive f/2.8 zoom and prime. A 300/4 would have been nice, and would still be nice.
oh, that should have been 90-250/2.8, not 70-250/2.8
Did you read my statement? I have the 70-300 MFT – It’s OK, but I stated that I needed something LONGER than 300 (not the Sigma lenses), maybe a 400 or 500 prime or maybe a 200-400/500 zoom – none of which were available in FT mount. So a 90-250 ain’t going to cut it. So, I’d say my statement is correct!
So get a 300/2.8 and add the EC14 or EC20? With its f/2.8 aperture and sharpness both teleconverters are viable options with this lens, unlike with the 70-300.
Its expensive as hell, but it does exist for 4/3.
Ah indeed, handholding this isn’t an option, unless you are a big green colored dude…
Neither of these 2 solutions are hand holdable. There needs to be a ligher alternative this is much sharper than the existing 300mm zooms.
I’m surpised I haven’t even heard that they are working on such a thing. A sharp 200-400 would work for me. Wouldn’t even have to be that fast. Needs to be relatively light. I don’t often get great results with the 300 handheld, so the monopod/tripod or even the beanbag is usually on hand.
Try the panny 100-300 with the ois switched on. Ive got some pretty good results with this lens. More reach is always welcome though…
Olympus did show a long telephoto in their lens roadmap. But we don’t know the focal length or aperture yet. That lens is a at least a year away.
I just hope that lens goes to at least 300mm and is light enough to be handheld.
Agree. 300/4 is the sweet spot. Shorter is too short for wildlife. Faster will make it too heavy and expensive. Longer, the same. 350/4.5 may be ok, too, but they will be too conservative for such an ‘odd’ length. And THE WORST would be a zoom. CaNikon make 300/4s for 1-1.5k. So let’s prepare for at least 2k for an Oly version. To be fair, it would have to be designed for a pixel density much higher than that of FF, so that makes it harder.
When Nikon redesigned their 300mm f4 it will likely be at least $2k as well. People are dreaming if they think a m43 version will be less.
Probably right, but it needs to be REALLY good. I also want a matching 1.4 or 2x converter for those days when I need a a little more reach. I just noticed that the FT 300 2.8 still goes for $7K at B&H – how many of those do they sell?
I believe they are made to order. B&H may have 1 in stock, but that’d probably be it.
The Pentax 300mm f/4 is excellent, its one of their “holy grail” lenses, and its only $1100
Yes but a m43 300/4 will need to be designed for an equivalent of at least 32MP on an APS sensor.
In essence, you need to scale down a 600/4 by a factir of two, but keeping the same exotic materials and all. Just less of them.
It’ll be expensive. But hopefully they’ll do it anyway.
amen to that. i currently use a lumix 100-300mm f4-5.6 with the em5 as my portable set and despite the limitations i am using it more and more, probably until my em1 arrives which i can then pair with my heavier zuiko 300mm f2.8 and 90-250mm f2.8. i find that this lighter set-up affords me stealth and there is nothing better, even a longer (but heavy) lens, than being able to get closer to the subject. i only use the bigger and faster lenses when i have done the study of the subject and i can already afford to wait and preposition myself for the shots. as i’ve written in this forum a number of times, an m4/3 300mm f4 weather sealed lens will be a big jump. throw in a similarly weather sealed 1.4 teleconverter and virtually nothing can escape me anywhere and in any type of weather. this set up will of course be heavier but still infinitely lighter than my big tuna set ups and definitely puny and weightless compared to those aps-c and ff tele lens monsters.
How do people say this lens is expensive? It’s a pro-level lens. If you take the Canon equivalent the 24-70 2.8, That lens is $2300!!! But, perhaps that’s not a fair comparison. So, let’s take the Canon 16-35 2.8. That lens is $1700!! So, I ask again, how is this lens expensive?! It is a pro-level, built like a tank, “L-type” lens. I think the price is just fine.
Well, in my view, ALL this equipment is expensive! People complained about the price of Canon 24-70 2.8 – and many bought it anyway, and the price has dropped – same will happen to the Oly lens.
or to put it another way – people who consider the price reasonable usually don’t chime in – when was the last time you heard someone write about pro quality gear; “This $2000 (substitute almost any number) lens is a good value/bargain.”, all the while thinking #@!%$#&*^%.
It has to be proven that’s a real pro level lens 😉
Great!
It means that panasonic can build zooms as good as olympus pro ones….
And it means that Olympus can build zooms as good as the best m43 zoom in that focal range to date.
We are lucky 🙂
No one will see any difference in the images produced by these lenses despite all the hairsplitting they do.
I doubt that anyone will see the difference between these and the kit lens for the typical photo and print size and web display.
Maybe at 400%+ images of a newspaper or brick wall on a screen where no one cares but the pixel peepers will a difference be seen.
Disagree. The differences between the good and the not-so-good zooms are easily seen on a screen
21″ and up when the image fills the screen, no 100% peeping needed.
It can be seen at a lot small than that on a screen.
But they’re both good and none of them are “not-so-good”
They will in low light when you need to bump up ISO on the slower lenses.
Very noticeable on screen 12-50 sharpness is not so good at 5 or 6
One single test will never tell the full truth. Looking at SLR gear f.i. the Oly lens seems a bit more consistent sharpness-wise. But differences are small and is probably within variation between lens individuals. Photozone is critical about Pana optical performance in corners, but looking at their test of Pana/Leica 25mm MTF evaluation looks similar. At Photozone the Oly 75mm is “by far the best m43 lens”.
I am looking at both and one is lighter, the other has weather protection…… Both are as good as a zoom gets is my conclusion.
At least in Sweden, price is almost the same.
I think they both have weather protection.
Yes, both claim to, but I don’t think either actually specifies an IPX rating.
I really hope the lens is AWESOME! Just ordered the whole E-M1 package, body, pro lens, and 75mm lens.
Sounds like a great kit!
SLR-Gear have had both of these lenses covered for about a month now. They offer excellent interactive charts of sharpness across entire image frame at every aperture stop for a host of focal lengths. Also distortion and light fall-off profiles. Much more meaty detail than a few DXO figures. Granted, the difference between these two lenses is indeed negligible except maybe for heavier light fall-off of the Panasonic – which is sadly missing from the superficial picture drawn by DXO.
>> ” the superficial picture drawn by DXO”
DXOmark is useful if you think of it as just another test/reference point/comparison. However, you should ignore the summary data with its ‘megapixel’ rating for the lenses and go straight to the measurements > sharpness > fieldmap feature.
In this case you will see that the Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 PRO is ‘sharp’ (or green) at f2.8 across the frame from 12mm to 25mm, but only ‘sharp’ across the frame at f4 (or smaller) at 40mm.
Conversely, the Panasonic X VARIO 12-35mm F2.8 ASPH is not ‘sharp’ across the frame at any focal length when open at f2.8, and needs to be stopped down to f4 as a general rule to achieve across frame sharpness.
Therefore they should not really have the same sharpness rating, and their summary rating data is not that useful.
+1 the score is not relevant, you need to look the field map…
For a lens that expensive (by even full-frame standards) and that talked about by the m4/3 fanatics, it sure doesn’t rate particularly well, at all. The field tests I’ve seen have also been nothing but average. The only plus, is that it’s weather-proof. But even that is only going to matter to a fraction of the people who ultimately buy that lens, as most who do will never venture into an environment which would be detrimental to even the cheapest of lenses. And I’m including myself in that majority.
Lol ! did you notice that the lens is SHARP ? what do you need more ?
Strange in that the test numbers don’t match the verbiage of the review. The actual profiles say the Oly lens is sharper pretty much everywhere wide open. For example, wide open at 12mm the Panny drops below 60% for most of the frame, to the mid 50’s in some places, while the Oly doesn’t drop much below 70%. Same thing more or less holds wide open at 18mm and 25mm. I’d think this would be visible. Not huge but visible.
The review is also weird in that they the only camera on which the two lenses score the same is the E-M5. On other bodies the Oly gets another tick. No big deal but usually the reviews use the highest scoring body.
Personally can’t see this making a difference. If you have an Oly body you’d want the Oly lens. If you have a Panny body then you’d want the Panny lens. Not that much difference in price after the discount.
>> “The actual profiles say the Oly lens is sharper pretty much everywhere wide open.”
>> “Personally can’t see this making a difference. If you have an Oly body you’d want the Oly lens. If you have a Panny body then you’d want the Panny lens.”
I would say you were right when you said the Oly is sharper wide open. I think it would make a difference in certain circumstances so I don’t see why you would not opt for the better lens? (Which in this case, is the Oly). Wanting the lens brand to match the body brand seems absurd.
“I would say you were right when you said the Oly is sharper wide open. I think it would make a difference in certain circumstances so I don’t see why you would not opt for the better lens? (Which in this case, is the Oly). Wanting the lens brand to match the body brand seems absurd.”
In real life use the differences will be pretty minimal.With most Olympus bodies not doing the full range of automatic corrections on Panasonic lenses I would also be inclined to use the native lenses from each maker.
Outside the USA the Panasonic is actually £150 cheaper than the Olympus and noticeably smaller smaller { more important to me than fractions of a stop difference }looking through the various Lens metrics on the best scoring mFT camera the EP5, the Panasonic has a little better sharpness,transmission, distortion and Vignetting while being a little behind regarding Chr. aberration.
Away from camera forums where every variable not matter how miniscule is debated ad nauseam in actual photographic use the differences will be all but invisible. So for me the 12-35
oops posted before finishing
So for me the 12-35 is my choice,smaller lighter, cheaper and as I shoot with the GH3 all automatic corrections are carried out.
dxo data both on the E-P5
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/1233/%28brand%29/Olympus/%28camera1%29/883/%28lens2%29/960/%28brand2%29/Panasonic/%28camera2%29/883
Best UK prices
12-35MM £749
http://www.camerapricebuster.com/Panasonic/Panasonic-G-System-Lenses/Panasonic-12-35mm-F2.8-ASPH-Power-O.I.S-Lumix-G-X-Vario-Lens
12-40mm £899
http://www.camerapricebuster.com/Olympus/Olympus-PEN-System-Lenses/Olympus-M.ZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-12-40mm-f2.8-Pro-Lens
here already people selling second hand in less than 700usd$ 12-35 600$ seens everyone that try knows how lame they are 🙂
No supply and demand. They know that they need to sell it to get the 12-40 which is much sharper at the edges than the Panasonic
I went for the 12-35 and the 35-100 just before Olympus announced the 12-40 (and the upcoming 40-150).
Though I had a few moments when I wondered if I made the wrong choice, I am happy with my decision. The 12-35 fits like a glove on the E-M1 and the size/weight make a perfect combo. Also, I prefer the natural progression to 35-100, which keeps the similar size/weight – instead of the 40-150, which I am sure is going to be huge.
Yes though it obviously covers a wider range the 40150 is way larger than the 35-100 size is my most important factor regarding mFT lenses.
Size comparison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afSjAVM8wBU
I think 3.4 TStop is pretty disappointing: too far from 2.8
The lens on the E-P5 gets an overall score of 20
Correct. I read that, too.
almost same weight of canon 70-200 f4
Since when is 380g = 705/760g. The half of the weight.
+1 Epic trolling fail 😀
I have no problem with DxO’s reviews, but I have a big problem with their ratings. If you look at the review in detail, I don’t see how any sane person could say the 12-35 is sharper than the 12-40 – quite the opposite in fact. Yet their inflexible scoring methodology results in this absurd final score. I really wish they’d drop the ratings, so geraheads don’t just look the numbers but look at the data in detail, and judge how good the lens or sensor is for themselves.