.
The 12-40mm PRO lens is now finally in Stock at Amazon US (click here).
Reminder:
Olympus E-PL3 with 14-42mm lens for $199 at Newegg (Click here).
Up to $800 off on Olympus cameras+lens bundles at Amazon deal page (Click here) or at BHphoto (Click on Buy Together & Save link).
47 Responses
One grand is a little steep. How much is the 28-135 F5.6 IS? Wait, this one has “pro” written on.
I was all set for this lens, but then I saw that report of it smashing from a small drop, and this price is not really reflecting plastic internals and a shitty mount system. For this price I’d like the build quality of the Voigtlander’s.
One person who wasn’t being careful dropped the lens, and then blames the lens for getting damaged. Idiotic. I saw that post on dpreview and just shook my head. You really believe that nonsense? Guess what? Most lenses would suffer that damage. You want all metal, fine. Be prepared to pay A LOT MORE than $999. Get a reality check. And there is nothing wrong with the mount.
I just love it when someone blames the camera or lens for something that was their fault. But that’s the way of the world. It is always someone else’s or something else’s fault.
Unless you buy a Tough camera, cameras and lenses are not warranteed against drops.
not everything has to be made of metal, but that there is plastic at this specific point also irritated me. why use plastic to join to parts of the lens that are made of metal? but I’m not an engineer, so maybe somebody can explain why they use plastic there 🙂
It’s not as simple as “plastic is bad and cheap” and “metal is good, solid and expensive”. Today’s plastics aren’t http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakelite anymore.
Every material has its own strengths and weakness, in the load they can manage, in the way they would go back to initial shape as opposed to keep a permanent change in size, or in the way they break in pieces. Not to mention how hard or how easy they are to shape in the intended way.
There are some plastic that are better than some metals in some or all of these qualities. There are metals that are very brittle and break in little pieces like bad glass.
So saying that you are irritated by the use of plastic sounds the same as being irritated by the color of the screws they used in the internal assembly.
You may be rightly irritated if their design isn’t up to your expectations for the (reasonable) mechanical loads you think a lens of this price point should be able to bear, that’s fine.
This is true. I can only speak frim experience. I once dropped my lumix 14-140 from a table onto concrete. The filter that was attached smashed but the lens was undamaged..
“Be prepared to pay A LOT MORE than $999”
It’s their pro lens, it’s meant to be the best of the best. Yes, I would pay a lot more if it was well made, and not just looking nice. Make it 1200, and swap out the three little struts of plastic with 3 little struts of Aluminium. If you’re buying this lens, bargain hunting and penny-pinching are not on the cards.
I’m not sure US$1200 would be enough. I’ve never dropped an inexpensive lens like this, and I’ve only dropped one lens ever.
When I was photographing a swim meet, my E-5, 35-100mm f/2.0 lens, and FL-50 flash slipped off the seat next to me and landed on the pool deck. I picked them up and as soon as the next race started, I continued photographing the swimming. Although the flash has stopped working reliably, the camera body and US$2500 lens continue to work just fine.
To me, the 12-40mm f/2.8 is well-built. I don’t expect any lens to survive intact. I’ve seen high end Canon and Nikon lenses need repair from drops. Things happen.
Thanks for the lecture CC, this thing is still crap nevertheless. Sorry about your job – coz you work for Olympus right?
The camera fell off a couch onto carpet and was in a bag at the time, it wasn’t directly dropped. No blame on Olympus at all on this one my bad. I just want my lens back so I can use it.
For the sake of others reading, it’s all the angst mongers that have blown this out of proportion in the forums. This lens might have had a fault in it at assembly for this to break as easy as it did as a second lens was reported to break, but it is quite possible an assembly procedure was not adhered to for these examples & not something that everybody needs to panic over.
langer318, I hope you get your (or replacement) lens back soon.
Don’t you just love this continued argument about about plastic versus metal. Now we often read comments that are compared to the motor industry in the threads, so how about another one, guess what the gearbox housing is made of in a particular Mercedes Benz model, yes a gold star for all those who said PLASTIC. The only thing is it does not wear the MB badge but it is still an MB under it’s skin.
You’re right. Modern high-tech plastic can take drops better metal. Here’s another example: since we started using the G36 instead if the G3, we have much less issues with the precision of the shots after para jumping. Metal is “harder” but can only take so much of an impact before bending while plastic can absorb the shock. The optics on it are btw resin encased. The military will know why they choose weapons almost entirely made of plastic!
I dropped my 50-200 from a higher height onto concrete, and broke the HMC filter and damaged the lens hood. I sent it in for assessment. Nil damage. You drop an all metal iPad 50x and it won’t break, but then drop it in a particular way and it will break. The use of plastic does not reflect the chance of damage. I would rather have a $30 plastic part break than one $200 lens
Please post the link? Thanks!
Here it is! OWEEEEE!
http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=56256&highlight=12.40mm
Thanks!!!..saw the photos read the posts…I smell a rat…no WAY that the camera was in the bag and fell one foot. I think that something different happened to cause this damage….I know that this could be an Extremely poorly designed lens…but it could also be a person that did something more damaging to cause this situation and they are trying to get sympathy to hopefully get a cheap or free repair.
I just can’t believe this happened from falling one foot in a camera bag???
Indeed – the lens must have been attached to a camera to pull/break out the plastic. I had once my camera shot out of my hands (my sons football) to the asphalt – camera and lens (E-330 40-150 kit lens) survived with some scratches. Something might cause the lens to break off the lens mount…
Undoubtedly a dramatic picture, but I’m calling B.S. on this guy’s explanation.
I took my E-M1 and 12-40 on travel a few weeks back, and along the way slipped while hiking down a slope and fell on the camera and lens. So the camera/lens supported close to half of my weight (and I weigh a bit over 200 lbs) when I hit the ground. I got some mud stuck in one of the hood’s release buttons in the process (a lasting souvenir), and a small scuff on the camera body, but that’s as close to damage as either took.
So there’s just no way the guy did that amount of damage by knocking the lens & camera off a couch, onto a carpeted floor, in a camera bag. No way, Jose…
You can call BS if you want but that is exactly what happened. I watched it. Hopefully it was a fluke accident and not a significant issue.
Either a fluke accident, or more likely your lens was damaged goods when you bought it (i.e., had enough internal damage from a previous incident at the camera store, or even factory, that what you did was just enough to finish it off).
Previous damage could have been it, no way to really know. I don’t believe I did anything else that may have warranted the damage in the few weeks I used it, but I can’t speak to what happened before I took it out of the box.
Either way Olympus has it at the moment and I’m waiting to hear back on the status of the repair.
So, can anyone compare this to the 12-60? My question: get the EM1 for the 12-60 combo or get the 12-40 PRO and stick with the EM5 for now.
The 12-60 is the sharpest, quickest autofocus zoom lens I’ve ever used. Sure, its big… but is it worth 1000 for a few lbs??
Do you want proper fast? Canon or Nikon universal zooms stretch from 200 and 2000 bux. They haven’t got “pro” written on, but if you can live with that, even the cheapest outdoes this.
I’m pretty vested in the 43/m43 systems. no need to convert. pretty sure the 12-60/e5 “speed factor” is not in question. more interested in a m43 or 43 discussion within this “43 Rumors” site, as I’ve bought in to the size benefit, etc. As for comments later about quality of M43 and 43 stuff, I’ll take splash proof/dust proof/solid build over most of the competition for ruggedness. Also, I have dropped the 12-60 (and taken it in a downpour, a snowstorm a sandy beach, etc. –sure the m43 primes could be splash proof!–but these PRO lenses would be ideal for ski/snow, or rugged pro journalist or travel photographer…
Although I took 15000 shots with it, I sold my 12-60 for the 12-40. Its better built, it’s actually a lot smaller, and although the 12-60 is a beautiful lens. this is a step up in the 100 photos I have taken so far. Plus it doesn’t have that distracting wave in the horizon you get on some shots that is pretty much impossible to get rid of
Once I dropped a 14-42mm RII Olympus kit lens from the third level of a castle I was visiting (more than 10m high). It rolled over a lot of rocks and ended on the floor. That kit lens is all made of plastic and it stills work fine after that. I also have a Voightlander 25mm F0.95 all made of metal and glass. I think if I dropped the all metal and glass lens it would never be possible to use it again because the metal bends and the glass breaks.
So, not alway having a plastic lens is a bad thing as long as the optics are good to get nice pictures. 🙂
I have the 25 Voigtlander on my camera 80% of the time, and have dropped it at least 2 times from pretty decent heights onto concrete, it took some scratches but that was it. I can absolutely imagine that a plastic lens would take it better, plastic is resilient to impacts, but it seems to me having a metal body and plastic internal supports is the worst of both worlds. You get a heavy, hard body and easily broken internal struts. I would have preferred a plastic cover and some solid internals, or even better, metal supports inside.
You sound like an idiot that should not have a camera but padded walls.
I take a lot of pictures.
This lens is as non “pro” as all the other M43 stuff…….Its to expensive for the quality its delivers.
Lol, bash bash bash, go back to your cave if you don’t have anything to tell.
The camera is the least important when you are talking about photography. It’s the story you tell, not the tools u use….
List of Top 12 Zoom Lenses in the $500-1000 range on DXOMark (removing all the variations of the same lens on different cameras):
Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM A – 26
Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC APO OS HSM – 22
Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD – 21
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II – 21
Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO – 20
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM – 20
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR – 20
Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM S – 20
Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD – 20
Panasonic LUMIX G X VARIO 12-35mm / F2.8 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. – 19
Panasonic LUMIX G X VARIO 35-100mm / F2.8 / POWER O.I.S. – 19
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED – 19
Micro 4/3s has 3 lenses in the Top 12 when you filter by price. If they’re too expensive, so are Nikon, Canon, Sigma, and Tamron. And because they’re testing the lenses on cameras, the fact that the M4/3 lenses are competitive in terms of perceptual megapixels with much smaller sensors is a testament to the optical quality of the lenses.
Would never buy the 12-35, to much CA if you use it with a camera without correction of CA (like the E-M5). I don’t know how they can rate a lens producing so much CA so high. So in my opinion, the 12-35 is much overpriced.
I use the haze filter trick with my ep5. Works great.
Would you be so kind and tell me more about this haze filter trick? Is it applicable to different Panna lenses, especially for Summilux 25/1.4. Thanks alot! 🙂
You’ve never sold a picture in your life have you, Shenkie?
Not wanting to feed the troll, but ‘small’ and ‘light’ are quality attributes as well that add value.
Never regret having bought it, better than 12-60 and reches 14-35.
I am buying this lens because of the images it can make and because I’m dropping my heavy, bulky Nikon DSLR for a more portable system. Is it as well made as a Nikon 24-70/2.8? Maybe not. But it is reportedly equally sharp at less than half the weight and for more than a thousand dollars less (I’m paying $800 for the Olympus, with a new body).
I’d say that’s value.
So how much better is the IQ then the 12-35? I know it seems much bigger in comparison. I want one of them, just not sure which yet.
I’m not sure where you get “much bigger” from — the 12-40 is noticeably heavier (about 25%) than the 12-35, but about the same diameter and maybe 10mm longer. You wouldn’t notice the size difference on an Oly OM-D or Panasonic GH body. On one of the Pen E-PMs, maybe.
As for image quality, most of the technical reviews seem to place the Oly slightly ahead of the Panasonic. Both companies now do in-camera correction of CA and distortion, so that won’t be much of a distinction for you (assuming your camera body is recent). If you have a Panny body, you’ll probably want the 12-35 for the in-lens OIS. Otherwise, I’d advise you to save the still substantial difference in price and get the 12-40.
I forgot to mention, gang — I took an E-M1 and 12-40mm lens on a trip through the Yucatán recently. I posted a quick review of how they handled on my blog here:
http://wp.me/p1feV0-j2
For those of you wondering about the size of the 12-40, you might be interested in my comparison of the lens’ size to that of some other, roughly comparable Olympus lenses.
I like the pic of the dog 🙂
I would advise you to buy the 12-35 instead because the only pseudo pro zoom is fragile like a metal shell held by four little plastic turrets.
Ever wondered why no-one listens to your advice?
I don’t understand how people complain of price on this lens. I think people have gotten spoiled by the lower prices on some of the m43 cameras and lenses. I have shot with Canon cameras and L lenses for years. My E-M1 and 12-40 lens is a bargain compared to anything equal at Canon or Nikon. The Olympus combo is $2200. Anything close to this build quality and performance at Canon or Nikon would easily run you $4,000. I can only guess that the people complaining about this lens have never even used it, let alone held it in their hands.