Image courtesy: Robin Wong
Robin Wong. tested the Olympus 12-40mm lens:
If you have bought an OM-D system, and intend to have a high grade lens, just one lens to cover most of your shooting needs, this 12-40mm Pro lens should be in your consideration. It is versatile, does close up shooting well, and is sufficiently wide for most situations at 12mm focal length. That F2.8 bright constant aperture is also useful in many situations.
Olympus zoom lens store search links at [shopcountry 47062].
SLRgear tested the Panasonic 35-100mm X zoom and writes:
There’s a lot to like in the Panasonic 35-100mm ƒ/2.8: it’s super sharp and offers professional results at slightly less than you might pay for a comparable full-frame lens. Perhaps its most attractive feature is its slim frame, but then, that’s one of the chief selling points of the whole Micro Four-Thirds endeavor.
Panasonic X lens store search links at [shopcountry 33626].
136 Responses
F2.8 on mft equals f5.6 on FF. This lens is not pro level, it’s consumer mid level.
f2.8 on mft is f2.8 on ff.. in terms of light.
f2.8 mft is f5.6 fullframe, in terms of DOF.
This lens is pro, in the hands of a pro photographer.
This lens is consumer level, in the hands of a newbie.
Let me fix that for you:
f2.8 on mft is f2.8 on ff.. in terms of light intensity. It’s f/5.6 in terms of light gathered by the sensor which is what determines your noise performance.
f2.8 mft is f5.6 fullframe, in terms of DOF.
Wrong. The sensor is 2x smaller, so you will have gathered enough light twice as fast. Besides, you won’t use this lens on a ff body.
Incorrect. It has 1/4 the area, so you will gather only 1/4 of the light. You are losing the light that would normally fall on the remainder of a FF sensor. The tests that have been done on ISO performance flatly contradict your claim that you will gather light twice as fast on a smaller sensor. The benchmarks are consistently showing a two stop (4x) difference in ISO performance from FF to MFT on the current best sensors from both. (Compare the E-M5 or E-M1 and the D800, for example.)
OK, 4 times, even better.
You’re not talking about manufacturing sensors are you? Because I’m just going to use a certain lens on a certain camera. When a manufacturer says ISO 200 is what you get when you choose ISO 200 on your camera, and all shutter times and aperture values match that value, then I am convinced that ISO 200 is ISO 200.
So what happens when you use a m43 lens on a ff camera? Vignetting? Under exposed images? Over exposed? Longer shutter times? Shorter?
The difference is that the overall image noise at ISO 200 is about the same as ISO 800 on a larger sensor. You end up shooting at lower ISOs on MFT to match the image quality, necessitating faster lenses. It turns out the difference in the wild from the best of each format is 2 stops (+/- 1-2%), the same as the difference in DoF. So you can say a MFT 25mm f/2.8 is equivalent to FF 50mm f/5.6 with a fair degree of empirical evidence to back up the math. It’s not just the DoF that’s equivalent there. If you carry the calculation through to the ISO too, it’s pretty much everything.
And to answer your questions, no, it’s nothing to do with Vignetting (presumably the respective lenses produces image circles large enough for their sensors), it’s nothing to do with exposure (f/2.8 at ISO 200 produces the same exposure as f/5.6 at ISO 800) and it’s nothing do do with shutter speeds because you’re holding that constant.
OK, I agree with the answers. So you’re only comparing noise levels between the formats. I’m not super picky and very satisfied.
And who cares about FF? Not enough DoF control is a tiring urban legend. Usually images suffer from not enough DoF. It is an advantage of m4/3 to provide more DoF at the same aperture.
They’re equivalent assuming you’re shooting for similar noise levels. That’s what I’ve found anyway. I shoot MFT at lower ISOs than I’d shoot FF so in indoor light I’m getting the same DoF on both systems and almost identical IQ at the same time. At the extremes, yeah, there’s a difference, for example you’d be hard-pressed to get an f/1.2 equivalent lens on MFT. But in every day pro shooting scenarios, more DoF is not an advantage of MFT. Diffraction is still going to limit you to DoF-equivalent f-numbers.
If you want to be free in the mFT system you should never buy a lens that is dependant on some stabilisation that does not offer this. I will never buy an Oly lens like this one because it becomes useless on my Gh4 etc. Lenses are forever remeber, bodies are not. The 12-35, from what I have read, is as good, is smaller, weighs less, is environmentally sealed etc. Why would someone buy the Oly?
Same is true for the 35-100 vs 40-150. Now the latter has a clearly more usefull reach as a pro, but who with a Panny cam would buy that lens? And again: it has more reach but the mock-ups show it is much bigger and probably heavier and has no OIS. I have the 35-100. Like the short part of the review below this item says: it is so sharp and good, you can wonder what Oly must bring to the table to really better this…
If i buy such lenses it means I must buy an Oly body to really aprreciate them and have good results allround. So no buy for me.
As you say, lenses are forever. Image stabilisers are forever improving. That’s why I think we are better off with the stabiliser in the body so that we can upgrade when we upgrade bodies. If the lens is great quality, but simple, then it is more future proof.
I agree. Panasonic should simply adopt IBIS more consequently. Also stabilization in the lens always means a slight decentering of the optics. That can hardly improve optical quality. It is a compromise. As such sensor stabilization is the preferred way.
> Panasonic should simply adopt IBIS more consequently.
+1.
But as they have commented on it previously, there is a technical hurdle to overcome. IBIS harms the video performance, since it is harder to cool the sensor: with IBIS, it is not attached to something what can serve as a heat sink.
But it seems that they are trying to solve the problem, as GX7 and FZ1000 have IBIS, albeit a limited one.
I believe that the FZ1000 achieves the 5-axis with 2-axis OIS and 3-axis SW stabilization,
IBIS is very difficult as it heats upo the sensor. It seems high quality and heavy processing power for 4K video heats the thing up even more. You currently cannot use IBIS for a GH4. OIS is just perfect for this one. For stills, I would prefer IBIS too as the lenses could be smaller and IBIS can get you at 5 stops (well, that is what has been said) and that is really nice.
Once IBIS is perfectly fine with the best video out there. Panny could simply come up with lenses that no longer have OIS. But currently, the situation is not like that. Panny for its use in its Hybrid cams (the best out there) uses the best possible strategy.
And who cares about FF? The urban legend of not enough DoF control gets tiring. Usually, images suffer from not enough DoF and not vice versa.
its not simply the extra control in dof, its the total characteristique of a larger sensor, the looks are rendered with subtle but different perspective. the transition from focussed to blurred area is more pleasant with larger sensors. But without getting into the dof discussion. MFT has it advantages too with its characteristics. We just choose what we want or just use both platforms maybe.
This “total characteristic” of the larger sensor is justing seeing a lens’ imperfections in the shot. Does the perspective of Medium and Large format improve even more on this “perspective rendering” or is “Full Frame” the holy sweet spot? There’s a reason the highest performing lenses (technically) for any given format are built with larger imaging circles, like the Zeiss Otus, that take advantage of the sweet spot of the lens. Actually, just like Four Thirds lenses… This was one of Olympus’ arguments back in the day for the Four Thirds size. Lastly, your “blur characteristics” is as laughable as the Leica crowd and their “rendering and micro contrast” BS.
By the way, I own m43, APS-C, and “Full Frame” systems.
if you ever tried medium formats like 6×7, then you prob see the difference.and you can see how the larger format makes the area from sharp to blur less compressed then in smaller formats. Micro contrast is again another subject.
again my reply got a non aproval, this way makes no sense to reply to someone. Admin?
That does not sound all too sensible. Did you give your reply some extra THOUGHT?
First of all: which stabilised mFT with excellent video do you recommend? None of the Oly’s qualify. None of their bodies comes even close to G6 or GH2 video IQ. I have a GH4. I cannot use the Oly lenses in low light as well as the Panny’s.
On to lenses: I want the best lenses possible, so I have the 12-35 and 35-100. Tell me: what stops me from using these on future stabilised bodies that perform much better from that perspective (stabilisation)? Nothing. In fact, I set my Oly EPL5 in such a way that it detects OIS. If it is there, it is off if it is not its IBIS turns on.
Besides: most reviews show that 12-35 and 12-40 both have there strengths but in total perform equal. 12-35 has 5 mm less, but has OIS weighs consoderably less. It is smaller too. To my mind it is what I bought mFT for. It still fits nicely on my EPL5 and works flawlessly on that one. No worries.
With the 12-40 you simply need a tripod much sooner too.
But you cannot praise IBIS on one hand and than go on and say you can use the 12-40 just fine in a non stabilised way. Those who do this, seem to use double standards…
From the reviews I’ve read, the 12-40mm is marginally better than the 12-35mm. I use Panasonic cameras and I’m considering a 12-40mm for the extra reach and it’s close focusing abilities.
Of course there’s no comparison, the 35-100mm costs about 10x as much as the 40-150mm, which is a cheap kit lens that’s supposedly pretty good optically.
I have the 12-40 and I hardly use it. The first reason is that it’s heavy. The second is that at anything but the wide end the hood is useless and that huge front element flares like mad. I get much less contrast with the 12-40 than with Samyang 7.5mm or the PL 25mm. The other problem is that the 12-40 is pretty soft at the tele end and has significant peripheral illumination issues at f/2.8 at every focal length. For the weight, I’d rather carry the PL 25mm and have slightly less flexibility, because I know I’ll be happy with the results. For wide shots, I prefer the Samyang. Even if I do a center crop from it, the IQ is going to surpass the Olympus, even shooting directly into the sun.
I also own the Panasonic 35-100 and I’d rank it among the best lenses I’ve ever used on any system. It feels lighter than the Olympus 12-40 and I’m much happier with the results. It’s up there with the PL 25mm in terms of contrast and color rendering.
I’m actually considering selling the Oly 12-40 and getting the Panasonic 12-35 just for the weight advantages. I might not be happy with the IQ but I’d like to at least give it a chance after the Olympus being so hit and miss.
Your copy probably has a problem. My 12-40mm is my sharpest lens in that range, better than the O 2.0/12mm, O 1.8/17mm, and the PL 1.4/25mm. My O 1.8/25mm is pretty close.
Also, the O 12-40mm has better edge sharpness than the P 2.8/12-35mm and the effects of software correction is more pronounced at the P 12-35mm. The Panasonic lens also is more prone to flare and chromatic aberration.
So if you expect to get better IQ from the P 2.8/12-35mm you’ll likely will be disappointed.
Yes, the O 12-40mm is a little larger, but have more reach at the long end and a better close distance focus.
Even if the Panasonic has the same IQ, it’s actually small enough to use on an MFT (E-M5) body. The 12-40 isn’t. Mind you I have a touch of arthritis, but the OLY is ridiculous: the zoom ring is right against my finger when I use the battery grip and it’s a hard metal zoom ring. The 12-40 isn’t just heavy, it’s front-heavy and it gets worse when you zoom. It’s an awkward lens to handle all around.
Don’t get me wrong, the IQ isn’t bad, but it doesn’t come close to a prime. It is sharp but I shoot raw and between the distortion and peripheral illumination issues, the images take a lot of work. I’d rather shoot with a high quality prime where the contrast is better, the hood is sized properly for the focal length and where I can count on better IQ wide-open.
At the tele end, yeah, the Oly isn’t that good. The wide end is where I’ve had the best luck with it. Check dXo if you don’t believe me. But it is pretty obvious.
Sharper than the P/L25mm?
LOL!!!
ALERT: Oly Rabit Fanboy Sighting!!!
Sorry Mr ALL CAPS, but I have to agree with Mahler, I have both those lenses and the Oly Zoom consistently out performs the PL25, a lens which I would be ashamed to call a Leica, I’m on my second copy having returned the first in disgust of it’s IQ, now it stays mostly at home.
I’m laying on my carpet, belly down with both fists on my chin…
tell me another cool story on Olympus stuff, and how it’s WAY better and cooler than Panasonic stuff.
*Swings legs in anticipation*
I only said what I found not what I thought, perhaps the PL25 does not have as consistent results as we expect of a Leica labelled product.
You are certainly known here as THE ultra fan boy. Your posts and “judgements” are certainly the least seriously to be taken. But you are welcome here to continue posting for our amusement.
And you can continue to spew Olympus propaganda. It’s entertaining as well. I swirl my red wine while typing this on my phone.
With every comment you spit out here, you prove that I am right.
At least now we know, why you spit so much nonsense: alcoholism.
Obviously you’re doing something wrong if you think this lens is useless past the wide end. Robin’s review is proof enough of that (which you obviously did not view).
I’m super picky about image quality…that’s what’s wrong. I never said it was a bad lens. I’m just not as happy with it as carrying primes, and that’s mostly form factor. (Weight, size and weight distribution.) DXO agrees with me on the IQ issues. It’s a great lens, but the particular issues it has are issues that I’d rather not have in my primary standard lens.
Just because I have a different opinion doesn’t mean I’m doing something wrong. I’ve spent nearly 6 months with the lens and I’ve used it a lot. I’m an experienced photographer and I know what I’m doing.
I agree with other users – You probably got a flawed lens. My 12-40 2.8 is tack sharp in the corners at f/4, hilariously sharp in the center (at 40mm). Still VERY sharp at 2.8 all around. I’ve never had flare issues with it, even in hard backlighting. I agree that it does have some vignetting at 2.8.
Here’s an example. See the washout on the rug at the right next to the window. Then look at the second photo taken with the Samyang. I was able to recover quite a bit of detail from the highlights and there was no flare-over into the indoor part with the 7.5mm. The Olympus does poorly whenever there is a window in the shot.
Here’s another example. Just terrible against bright light. And 100% consistent in that. It must be the coatings they use. The bigger the DR, the more washed out.
Pretty shocking that a prime lens is smaller and lighter than a fast zoom lens. That’s some amazing power of deduction you have. You’re like some kind of superpowered genius, possibly with alien DNA to notice that zoom requires more glass and moving parts, while prime is simpler and can therefore be smaller and lighter. Camera companies must be very angry that you’ve let out their secrets like this.
Such insider knowledge must make you the best photographer on earth!
I should also mention, none of the photos posted by Robin in the review challenge the lens in any of the areas where it’s weak. None of them are shot into bright light (they’re all street shots), most of them are tightly isolating the subject near the center of the frame (avoiding edge issues) and none of them would show distortion.
That being said, my style of photography differs significantly from Robin’s and I’m constantly running into situations where the PL 25mm or the 7.5mm f/3.5 would significantly outperform the 12-40. I mention this because it probably won’t suit everyone’s style. It’s a great lens, it’s just not one that I’m happy with.
Robin does not do reviews he is an employee he does infomercials.
You may have a bad lens. I’m not seeing any problem with lens flare. Even the pre-production samples I used had minimal problems with flare. Of course, the tiny lens hood is useful.
The 35-100mm does feel incredibly light, and its optics show why it feels light and cheap. It’s an economy lens at a very high price. I wish I’d never bought mine.
Now I know you’re a fanboy. You can produce flare on any lens. If you’re not seeing flare on the Olympus, you’re not trying. My problem isn’t that it’s possible to produce; my problem is visible in the examples I posted, where around something bright there’s a halo which washes out the surrounding color across most of the frame. The shots almost always require manual adjustment and they lose a lot of DR as a result. I have found very few lenses that don’t do this, so I’m not surprised the Olympus does, but It’s not something I want in a standard or wide lens where including lights is something that’s often unavoidable. And it’s not something I’m happy to have spent $1000 to get.
No, I’m not and that’s definitely not typical.
At the same time, I was initially testing the 12-40mm on the E-M1, I had my GH3 around my neck with the 35-100mm attached. The 12-40mm handled sun in the frame with minimal flare and the 35-100 with lens hood and sun out of frame had a huge purple flare. I was told by Panasonic service that it was perfectly normal.
It’s possible it’s a bad copy. But I’ve seen similar problems in examples posted, and 99% of the examples I’ve seen have not included the sun or bright objects in the frame. People simply aren’t testing it for this.
I’m sure the Panasonic can flare too, but in general I find their coatings maintain more contrast in the rest of the frame. Not sure why the Olympus ones tend to wash out with this purple haze. I’ve seen it on my 45mm f/1.8 too and it’s the reason I sold that lens.
Oh well.
They should be able to re-coat it. Send it for repair, please. Hopefully, you’ll get a proper response, unlike what I got from Panasonic.
I’ve been using the 12-40mm in the California desert and farm land areas where the sun is omnipresent and I’m still only seeing minimal flare. I’ve used the 35-100mm a bit but now, I go away from the sun, so there is no chance for flare–or I use my Four-Thirds equipment.
Thanks. You may be right about it being a defect. I’ve sent stuff to Olympus before and their repair service is fantastic. Never the less, I find the handling of the lens to be a bigger problem, so I may end up selling it anyway. So far I’m pretty happy with the 35-100, though. It seems to be very good and it’s also very comfortable to use. The zoom and focus rings seem to fall in exactly the right places to operate easily. Generally I just carry two bodies and lenses: the E-M1 with the 35-100 and the E-M5 with the PL 25mm f/1.4 and the 7.5mm in my pocket. I’m happy enough with this setup.
The 35-100 f2.8 is a great lens. Excellent optics, very sharp, vewry light, sealed. A lot to like.
Jeff…I think you missed my point. I was talking about the 40-150 f2.8 (hence: mock up, size etc).
Gotta specify.
You are not a newbie, are you? I said “And again: it has more reach but the mock-ups show it is much bigger and probably heavier and has no OIS.” For the 40-150 f4 to f5.6, any mockups needed? Would it be heavier? Come on now.
For wildlife and everyday outdoor shooting, the Oly 40-150mm cheapo gets the job done well. If you want better control of DoF and speed, (lots of wedding photographers swear by a 70-200mm 2.8 lens) then you pay up. Since I’m no wedding photographer, that $120 Oly looks good to me ;).
at 12mm oly is noticeably better in corners, little bit extra reach. Max magnification is higher for close-ups. I.S. is overrated anyway, could take photos without I.S. and much worse high iso performance just fine. So this is quite funny recommendation, not to buy a lens just because of stabilization?
Not if you take video hand held
If you take video hand held, you are not in the target audience of the GH4.
if you want to take action sequences at close range than handheld is used alot, either for moviemaking or documentary imo
Oh dear do I have to give mine back now? pros shoot hand held as well
Watch digirev tv, Lok shows well that hand holding and no I.S. also can be done really well. Though doesn’t matter to me, i’m not interested in video at all. OP also didn’t mention video priority.
ofcourse handheld without IS still can give reasonable results, provided the user is skilled videographer. Put a non IS set in the hands of an average videographer and the outcome is sometimes very awful
I’m running the 12-40mm on the GH4 with awesome results, in fact it’s by far the best zoom I’ve ever used. Image stabilization has not been a factor for me at all, but that’s because I prefer primes and tripod for night shooting. I believe Panasonic will eventually extend IBIS to the GH line in the future and then it will be a non-issue. One interesting note about continuous AF on this lens… it appears to outperform the Panny 12-35mm. I am getting 8 fps with dead-on accuracy with this lens while most 12-35mm users are reporting only 5-6 fps on the 12-35mm. It seems DFD is slowing up cycle times in C-AF mode. Perhaps it will be tweaked in a future firmware update.
How does that work out for video Tron ? , I shake like a blancmange when shooting video and couldn’t do without OIS LOL
Yes my thoughts as well. Oly would sell many more lenses if they offered stabilisation for pana users.
i think your opinion about wether ot not having OIS is too black/white…stabilisation is a very usefull option, but not having it does not make setup useless, we just have to put more effort to prevent camera shake. When we tak about handheld video, then I find stabilisation a must, even with wide angle(I had such bad wide angle videoshots with my Nikon 1 plus 10mm prime ).
I have a feeling that Panasonic will switch to in body IS before too long. It would only serve as an advantage for them, and M4/3 in general.
The 12-40mm f/2.8 was perfectly fine on my GH3, so why would it be useless on the GH4?
Having IBIS is useful, but the 12-40mm is so light that it’s just fine on the GH3 or GH4. The 35-100mm is not so good optically, though, and you can’t fix that with OIS or IBIS, no matter which body you’re using.
The “PRO”12-40 has slightly poorer transmission, vignette & distortion while having slightly better CA and the same sharpness as the 12-35mm. It has slightly poorer sharpness, transmission distortion and CA than the 35-100mm while having slightly better CA , in real world use the differences would never be seen in any way. For a Panasonic user especially for video the advantage of OIS is a no-brainer and I wouldn’t consider the Olympus lens.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-12-40mm-F28-PRO-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-versus-Panasonic-LUMIX-G-X-VARIO-12-35mm-F28-ASPH-POWER-OIS-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-versus-Panasonic-LUMIX-G-X-VARIO-35-100mm-F28-POWER-OIS-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1___1233_909_960_909_1034_909
The 12-40 offers an extra 10mm of focal length while being larger and heavier so it is swings and roundabouts. The 12-35 also does not seem to fall of its mount ;-]
You’re absolutly right: lenses are forever. That’s why I chose an oly body with ibis to mount my old M42 lenses…
I WAS going to buy mostly panasonic lenses for this reason. Then I had an AF issue with not one, but TWO of the new Panasonic Leica 15mm lenses (would VERY often backfocus or frontfocus on way too many shots). Sort of soured me on buying panasonic lenses now.
can you enlighten us more about your problems? I thought front or back focus issues are realted to PD AF sensor modulus in SLR cameras only, while mirrorless focuses on the sensor directly.
You are correct in that front-focus and back-focus are not present in mirrorless cameras, but the same end result (ie: a photo where the focus is either behind or in front of the point of focus) can still happen. From what I’ve heard from others when I posed this issue is that it likely has to do with my EM-10 in combination with this particular lens. Basically, the camera likely fires off the photo right before the full AF kicks in, or as it is travelling back from its widest to its desired aperture (our cameras open the aperture wide for a split-second to find focus then they close it to whatever the setting is and shoot). My tests shots show this lens having even more issues with the EM-10 at wider than 1.7 apertures (though it is still present at 1.7). I took test shots of 4 AA batteries set at a 45 degree angle with two different copies of the Leica 15 and my Oly kit lens. Both of the copies of the Leica exhibited the same issue. It likely would need a firmware update by Olympus. I decided to just return the Leicas entirely and buy the Oly 12-40 instead.
ah okay i have no experience with such scenario as I always use S-AF, so half push button gives me the focus i need (mostly a non moving model) after that the capturing follows. I always shoot wide open. Though I happened to have a few weird circumstances where the aperture of my 45mm f/1.8 closes down. Right now i dont have the set anymore.
Right I always shoot S-AF+MF as well, though I also shoot by pushing the touchscreen when I’m not looking through the EVF. I tend to like to find the bang-for-your-DOF aperture on each lens… the f-stop where you gain the most IQ without losing too much DoF. For the Leica, that is around f2-f2.2. So I mostly shot that range when the main subject was people. When shooting landscapes though, I always stop to at least f4 or f5.6, as this is the typical peak of IQ performance on most m43’s lenses (and I’m not getting any DoF with a 30mm equiv lens when my focal point is so far away.)
another person with such narrow focus on choice of gear can easily say the opposite and prefer an OMD with the benefit he can use any lens while using IS. Fact is some people dont need IS. And imo there is no such thing as a camera being a non option. If you prefer Panasonic thats perfectly fine but any arguments against other brands are somehow based on less logical reasons.
They tested those lenses so early lol
it is a nice lens…for me not a great lens…I had it and got rid of it…just because I prefer a prime lens…but if you want a nice little versatile zoom go for it.
I will follow your advice – whatever lens you’re talking about.
Nothing pro here except the price. 24-80mm F5.6…….lol. For less money you can get a smaller FF with kittens. This FF will deliver much much much much much better image quality and DOF control. For 400 euro you can get a smaller NEX6 with kitlens. This will deliver much much better image quality and DOF control. M43 is becoming a joke.
You are the joke. 4/3 format was being trolled by much better than you people years ago. You are about 6 years late to the game, loser.
And sadly the same ineducable abusive Olympus fanboys who could not grasp ,even this most simple of photographic facts are still in denial. The reaction to the very word “equivalence” is almost Pavlovian , unfortunately for you & your fellow deluded fanboys no matter how much you howl in protest you can not change simple physics, all it does is confirm your ignorance.
You mean, we can’t grasp the concept of cameras that come with kittens attached?
LOL it’s great huh? And the tones they use, like the future of the nation is at stake.
Why do you even bother? Seriously. Why?
It seems that you have failed to perform basic mathematical calculations. Please allow me to assist you.
You seem to think that the 12-40 f/2.8 is somehow actually a totally different thing – a 24-80 f/5.6. All you have to do to find that this is wrong is look at the lens specs – It is a 12-40 f/2.8. The measurements are clear as day.
If you want to get into semantics, 12-40mm on M4/3 does create a similar field of view to a 24-80mm lens on 135 Digital, aka “Full Frame”. Howerver, I am not sure where you are getting the f/5.6 part from. If you took a 24-70 f/2.8 on 135, set the ISO to 200 and the aperture to 2.8, then took the 12-40 f/2.8 on M4/3, set the ISO to 200 and the aperture to f/2.8, you would end up with either identical or nearly identical calculated shutter speeds. So it seems that your f/5.6 comparison is both mathematically and practically incorrect.
If you want to get into a depth of field comparison, M4/3 may have an advantage over, say, a Canon 5D Mark III combined with a 24-70 f/2.8 L. Lets take for instance a very dimly lit environment, say indoors with no lights on, but during the daytime. Some like is bleeding in. You set you camera to ISO 800 and f/2.8 to start, at 50mm. You take a shot. Uh oh, not only is the depth of field too shallow for what you wanted, but its also blurry from being hand held at a low shutter speed of 1/8th. Keep in mind your 24-70 L has no IS, nor does your 5DIII body. You bump the ISO to 12,800 and stop down to f/5.6. You are now at 1/30 second. You might be able to hand hold this. Snap. Looks sharp enough, but oh, pretty noisy. In comes the E-M1. The E-M1 user starts at f/2.8 and ISO 800. He has a shutter speed of 1/8th as well. He takes the shot. Wow. Its sharp! Thanks to that 5 axis in body IS, he can hand hold very slow shutter speeds. He lowers the ISO to 400. 1/4th. Snap. Still sharp! Incredible!
In summary, the M4/3 user was able to shoot at ISO 400 and f/2.8 to get the desired depth of field, where the 5DIII had to be at ISO 12,800 and f/5.6 to get the desired depth of field. Since “Full Frame” is only about 1.5 stops ahead of M4/3 in the noise department, the E-M1 user walked away with a much higher quality image, and the ability to make a very large print. The 5DIII user walked away with an ISO 12,800 image, usable for web or very small prints.
It’s so funny to see people who would obviously struggle in 5th grade (like you) try and school the rest about basic physics. Even funnier is your know-it-all style. I am not even touching your “contents” because they are all wrong, of course.
“I am not even touching your “contents” because they are all wrong, of course.”
Are the any mathematical errors in my post? And practical errors? Feel free to pick at them, if you can actually find them. Before you respond, do note my latest response to sjh above.
Please, enough rubbish. It’s funny but it gets tiring.
Okay so how many kittens do you need for equiversence to the ones you can stuff into your FF camera?
In your little scenario , you have two possibilities. One the subject is moving an thus IS offers no help whatsoever or second your subject is static and you can either swap the FF lens to one of the multitude of lenses with IS covering from 16mm -1200mm. Or as your subject is static you could use a camera support a monopod,tripod,beanbag, gorrillapod whatever does the job.
You have done your best to find the only possible scenario which lets mFT compete namely a very low light static subject ,with no external support allowed , no external light allowed, and finally you desire deep DOF
If the subject is static and you brought your tripod, then you can shoot both the 5DIII and the E-M1 at base ISO at any aperture. The result is that both get maximum image quality suitable for massive prints. Does this mean that the “Full Frame” camera won? No, it means it performed evenly. Also, it depends on your focusing distance whether or not 50mm at f/5.6 is “deep” depth of field. You could be focused at one foot, at which point even f/5.6 would be quite shallow.
If your subject is moving, IS can help with panning, otherwise it will not.
Even so, with the 5DIII being about 1.5 stops ahead in the ISO department, there will not be a huge difference with available light, and a lot of people shoot moving subjects with flashes anyway, making your ISO performance nearly irrelevant.
In addition, you mentioned -swapping- to a lens with IS. For some reason, Canon does not have a standard f/2.8 zoom with IS. To get IS, you must drop to the relatively slow f/4 zoom. Why should you have to swap to another lens if you desire IS? You shouldn’t. So, the E-M1 wins here, as ALL lenses, even, say, an adapted Nikon 600mm f/5.6 (Throw a speedbooster on to make it an 840mm f/4), have IS.
In addition, you say that “Full Frame” has a depth of field advantage. I’d say its a double edged sword. Sometimes you want the shutter speed of being wide open, but need the depth of field of being stopped down. Sometimes you may want a shallower depth of field. If you are a flat out bokeh maniac who takes pictures of bokeh instead of subjects, M4/3 is probably not your best choice. But for those who do need some shallow depth of field, M4/3 has three f/0.95 primes to choose from, an autofocus 42.5mm f/1.2, and even a silly expensive f/0.85. You can also adapt fast glass with speedboosters and make them faster, if you enjoy that kind of thing.
Not only three, but there the SLR Magics too. M43 is in position 3 in number of lenses (per mount) in only 5 years. Years of complete retraction in photo industry btw.
If subject is moving in some limited manner like walking, we can use IS in panning mode and get sharp shot from walking person. Because the subject speed related in sensor plane is short.
And that isnt only possible scenario. You can go to outdoord to direct sunlight and start taking photos from your family or friends or client. You want you background most often to be recognizable so it isnt just color blob. You want to get people in different distances to be sharp (faces) and you want to be able freeze aome motion 1/500 instead 1/250 or even 1/125.
Guess what, you need to be using f/5.6-8 for required depth of field and possible ISO 400-640 range while E-M1 shooter is again in base ISO and at f/2.8-4 range.
If we check 35mm shooters database for most common camera settings, they are way above widest open aperture. Between f/5.6 and f/11. No matter they have f/1.4-1.8 objectives when they cant use them than rare situations when they want to make art, like 1 shot from 1000.
I’m sorry, Mr Villezure,
Why would anyone want kittens when they buy a FF camera? Who buys these FF cameras that come with kittens? Is this legal in your country?
Makes me wonder what he uses the kittens for. Yuck.
You people with your “Full Frame” sensors (guess you never heard of Large Format, it’s only 15 times bigger than “Full Frame”) must be scared and bored to troll here. Maybe you could go out and take some pictures. Oh, that’s right, you don’t actually own a camera.
But he does have a smaller FF with kittens attached.
They dont even know that their “full frame” cameras are actually the Small Format.
– Large Format = 4×5, 5×7, 8×10 up to 20×24 (and higher) (in inch)
– Medium Format = 6×9, 6×6, 6×4.5, 6×5 etc (in cm)
– Small Format = 135 kinofilm and from it “Full-Frame” or “Half-Frame” (like Olympus Pen cameras using only half of frame giving double amount pictures from same 135 film, that “Half-Frame” is size of APS-C sensor)
– Microfilm (etc)
Their small format cameras are 16 times smaller than smallest large format or 2-6 times smaller than medium format.
And medium format was the standard until ’70s and small format (=35mm) was available to consumers and it became most popular. Before that 35mm was called as well “crop format”. The reason 135 film made breaktrough was AF (’70s) and because it was possible to make small and light cameras (like Olympus OM) and even smaller Half-Frame cameras (Olympus PEN) and quality was high enough. But most important was the speed. It was fast to swap to another frame and especially swap film roll (even when compared to medium format cameras what used roll film lile 120).
But now we have digital cameras where megapixels matters (it really do, but not in marketing terms), not the sensor size unless you really want thinner depth of field but then photographer should use medium format instead small format.
M4/3 is awesome format. It gives same benefits what was reason to small format win medium format, rendering small format niche.
And even today if we want high resolution it is medium format like Phase One. If we want wide exposure range it is film. As not even today digital sensors give same exposure range as film what allows to push and pull +-7-9 stops (recover highlights or shadows) what is impossible to digital cameras. And while film gives “only” 9-12 stops exposure range without pushing and pulling compared to digital 12-14 stops, it has huge capability to store colors like no digital does. Take a drum scanner and we can scan 11 000-25 000dpi and when we do that even to medium format instead laege foemat, we can get details what no digital sensor is capable.
The point is, if you whine about m4/3 quality or promote how small format (35mm) is superior, then those should be shooting with medium format cameras or with film.
As those only offer what whiners want/need (really needs?)
Using 35mm Full-Frame as standard today is stupid as it has not been most common format for decades. It is now 35mm Half-Frame (APS-C) and that is what should be used as the standard for calculations. Otherwise we could take a mesium format cameras with digital backs like Phase One and keep that as standard and then Small Format (half- or full-frame) is same line as m4/3 format.
M4/3 is not going anywhere, DSLR is dying and same time Small Format as no matter that camera body is small, you are still carrying large and heavy lenses. To get weight and size down we need to get small sensor and m4/3 hits the sweet spot.
M4/3 sensors improves a lot in 1-2 generstions again. And so does digital technology in next ADC processors and algorithms etc. The small cap there is to small format will go away as it is already so small that it is not detectable.
I’m sorry for all the MFT fans, but Viezevure is absolutely right. I’m an MFT photographer myself, but let’s be honest: everything gets better once you attach a kitten to it! And ONLY FF offers the power to attach kittens, as in plural(!), to your camera!
But how do you mount kittens on a camera?
Or I need a dedicated Metabones “KittenBooster” adapter?
Duh, FF cameras are PRO cameras by definition! And PRO cameras can handle having a bit of force applied to them without a problem!
Now with the kittens this might differ. But then again, being an uncompromising FF photographer you wouldn’t want a weak kitten anyway, now would you?
Wrong, Professional Photographers use real cameras, not those toy “Full Frame” things.
Anyone else been having trouble with the rough tongues of the kittens? Mine seem to keep on licking and I can see they completely licked the coating off the filter that covers the sensor of my full frame, resulting in terrible flare and ghosting as soon as the sun is included in a picture.
Please. Real Professional Photographers use Medium Format and Large Format. Not that tiny 135 sensor. I guess those small “Full Frame” cameras are the only ones capable of attaching kittens because real photographers are busy making pictures with real cameras instead of those toys.
Awesome a camera for pu….ies
My GH3 and 35-100 came with kittens.
Does Robin Wong still work for Olympus? If so, I have no idea why you think it’s helpful to share his reviews.
You think his opinion changed when he was hired? He’s been using Four-Thirds equipment for quite a while.
So…?
he still gets checks from Olympus. Doesn’t matter how long he’s been using it, he WORKS for Olympus.
Then you better try to see him as an Olympus user who can be used as an endorser too for the company. Mr. Wong is a very capable photographer. I would prefer him much over the technical review sites of which many lack the ability to make good photos.
So what you are really saying is that the marketing works on you? You’ll take the word of someone paid to market the product over an independent review site simply because you like his photographs? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? This is why I have trouble taking some Olympus users seriously. Robin Wong is just viral marketing, but it turns out its also more confirmation bias Kool-aid for the Olympus fan-boy faithful.
Mr Pink its your choice ofcourse if you find it ridiculous, but for me seeing Robin makes more sense using something even if he is kind of sponsoring it(you prob know Robin was already an Olympus user before). I am a musician too, in the seventies, musicians sponsoring certain brands was very popular, much more than we see in photography. Carlos Santana, James Taylor were sponsoring guitars from Yamaha(not just in ads but in actual use), these are skillled users of instruments, and only use what they really like. Robin is also busy alot with his passion. That he uses the same brand he is working for, might blind you in your judgement, prob just based on prejudice. But thats ok, you not the only one and its a logical. Regarding “independent” review sites, surely lots of them are biased, which is okay, as long as they can make it up in their skills in capturing. Nothing is more hilarious when seeing boring photos after the impressive technical story. Its like a guy who is in theory the best in sex because he watched all the movies, but only dated a a girl or two 😉
my reply got a non aproval 🙂
Kool-aid for the Olympus fan-boy faithfull…….hmmmm.
There’s nothing wrong with taking the views of a declared employee with potential conflicts of interests. I look at what the camera can do and find his blog useful and interesting. Unless and until we see fake pictures, the results of the tools in the hands of a competent user are definitely of interest.
Marketing works on nearly all of us, whether we like to admit it or not. However, I don’t give a toss whether you like my personal buying decisions and methodology. Liking his blogs does not make one a fan-boy on kool-aid.
Of course there is nothing wrong woth liking his blog. And there is nothing wrong with getting information from the in depth advertising that Mr. Wong presents. My comments about Kool-aid for fanboys comes from seeing people who disregard those facts and say they like his reviews better than those of independent reviewers. Why? Because he gushes about a product they love? And because they agree with the advertising, they assume it’s factual (confirmation bias) and argue about the validity and objectivity of his opinions (confirmation bias), despite knowing that it’s advertising!!! And this becomes fuel to further reinforce their baseless opinions, creating a feedback loop of mindless fan-boy boosterism. It is difficult to take those people seriously. If those not-so-subtle distinctions are lost on you, you might be a fan-boy!!!
And Mr. Wong is a decent photographer. I’m sure he gets plenty of work and his clients are happy, but he is far from being one of the greats, and ANY modern camera can produce fantastic looking shots for the web (that’s not a slam on Olympus, it’s just fact that fan-boys overlook)
I think you suffer from a fanboyphobia Mr Pink.
I have recently purchased the Oly 12-40mm zoom. I don’t see what all of the complaining is about. I find mine to be well-built, (the snap MF is really great). I find it to be very sharp at all focal lengths, also. It is somewhat large, but I guess it had to be designed that way to perform as well as it does….I have 10 MFT AF lenses…and if I could only grab one it would be the 12-40mm….but…I do wish that my lens had come with the kittens…I am very upset that it did not!
LOL Advertisement masqueraded as a review. Think I’m selling this stuff off, no way to get an honest look at things when one of the manufactures has no respect for it’s consumers.
An interesting marketing technique for sure: find someone who is a successful blogger with a large following, who already uses your equipment and likes it, and ’employ’ him/her. The blogger, Wong, thinks there is no downside, but suddenly his writing can see no wrong with his employer’s products, and said blogger doesn’t realise how many of his followers find it distasteful that they are supposed to continue to believe him.
His reputation has take a hit, no doubt, and deservedly so.
He has his criticisms though they are small to be sure. I think that is more indicative of his personality and attitude more than his newfound paycheck as his reviews seem pretty consistent from when he wasn’t employed by Oly.
That really doesn’t matter. He is a paid Olympus employee. His objectivity is tainted. The lens is great, but it would be a mistake to think Robin Wong is objective. Its just in depth and detailed marketing by a fairly decent photographer.
M4T4ever>> If he keeps the same objectivity and is able to show off the equipment and what it can do, I’ll still read his blogs. Due to the disclaimer, I’ll also compare other reviews. I very much doubt Robin Wong is cheating and using another camera or equipment to take his pictures, so the blog is still very relevant to show what it is capable
of in good hands.
If you’re selling your stuff because of this, assuming you actually have any and are not just trolling, then you are easily offended. How many other consumer goods do you sell because you don’t like the way they are marketed?
You are with high propability been cured by using Olympus medical devices so you are as biased as Robin…. He is at least open and put money where his mouth is. While you dont even tell you dont work for canon/nikon who are stalled to their dying small format systems when m4/3 is gaining popularity.
Full Frame is getting Smaller, APS-C is too.
Yet, M43 is getting Pricier.
If Canon and Nikon takes Mirrorless seriously, and I predict it will happen real soon, with the likes of Sony and Fuji grabbing Mirrorless marketshare away from M43, I expect Olympus to wave the white flag.
Panasonic is doing the right thing, with small M43 cameras and Video primary cameras, so they’ll be fine.
Y’all Olympus fanboys better get used to your cameras changing names to Sony, if y’all are lucky.
but my dream is Panasonic acquiring Olympus. OH, that’ll REALLY get the fanboys upset!!
You do realize that those of us that shoot with Oly are also pretty happy with Panasonic as well right? Since they are also making great bodies and lenses that are compatible. Not sure I understand all the hoopla of an Oly vs. Panny tantrum.
And the lenses get smaller as well? My god, you really don’t get it! In order to shrink a camera system (of which lenses are an important part), you need to shrink the sensor!
How unbalanced a system with large lenses and small bodies can be, is already seen by Sony’s A7.
The current mirrorless APS-C systems aren’t smaller than m4/3. If size and weight is of concern, m4/3 has the products to build the lightest system with the largest lens portfolio available for it.
This advantage will remain. It is the strength of m4/3. And this has nothing to do, which camera manufacturers can survive. If Canon chooses APS-C for its mirrorless strategy, m4/3 will survive, because Canon wouldn’t be able to make the system smaller.
That m4/3 also has larger, but more functional bodies and larger but faster lenses in its portfolio, is no contradiction. For the same class of product, it is still the smallest solution.
I hope you get it now.
Has anyone here owned some seriously nice full frame gear before moving completely over to m43? I’m considering switching permanently. I just am still on the fence and worried about regret. My greatest loss will be my zeiss 135mm 1.8. Yeah, the 75mm is an amazing lens but not quite the same. Still, having three systems at present is kind of stupid IMO.
I’ve only used APS-C Canon and Nikon gear previously for both work and personal, so I can’t really comment on the high end of FF gear and Zeiss glass (though I have shot with a 5D3 and a Zeiss lens… very nice experience). Best thing you can do if you really want to try out m43’s is to rent either a GH4 or an EM1 and some glass (recommend the Noct 42.5 f1.2, Oly 75, Panny 25 and maybe the Panny 35-100) for a weekend and really give it a go and see if it will meet your needs.
As long as you keep the sensor’s dimensions and consequences in mind, you can basicly live with either of those formats imo.I had no problems with the 24×36 sensors…I was just unhappy with the accuracy of the AF on dslr’s. Mft’s focus precision was much better for me, and manual lenses with magnified focusing became fun again. I will go back to 24×36 but without the mirror. Maybe this will be my format for the coming time.
Last year, I traded in all of my Nikon full-frame cameras: a D3, a D3x and a D700. For lenses, I was using the 24-70mm 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8 VR I. I now use a GH3 and an E-P5 with an Oly 12mm f2, an Oly 17mm f1.8, an Oly 45mm 1.8 and the 75mm 1.8. I also use a Panny 45-150mm when flexibility, not IQ, is the prime consideration (though it is sharp and has great color rendition).
If you are a photographer only, I would not recommend making the leap, unless you really are tired of lugging heavy equipment around. If you shoot video, there are many compelling reasons to switch. Canon cameras offer pretty good HDSLR capabilities, but they are eclipsed by Panasonic cameras (IMHO) in terms of codecs, weight and autofocus (if you need it). Olympus video is nothing to write home about.
For me, the switch to MFT has been extremely rewarding. I shoot a lot more because I always have my E-P5 and 12mm with me. Always. I tried to carry my D3 and 24-70mm with me everywhere, but I often left it in the car because of size and weight.
As far as depth of field, it is a legitimate concern. You have to figure a 1.8 is a 1.8 in terms of light gathering, but is a 3.6 in terms of depth of field. Fortunately, there are lenses like the Voigtlander .95s, which give you a 1.9 equivalent depth of field and light gathering that just about beats anything out there. The Olympus 75mm is the best lens I have ever used. It may not match lenses like the Nikon 200mm f2 or your Zeiss in terms of depth of field, but I haven’t had problems getting beautiful bokeh out of it, and it is tack sharp from 1.8.
About your Zeiss, consider buying an adapter for it. It would turn into a 270mm f3.6 in terms of angle of view equivalency and depth of field, but I am betting it would still perform quite well. I have had really good results with the Nikon 105mm 1.8, the Nikon 200mm f4, and the Nikon 300mm f4 with Novoflex adapter.
If you are happy with your gear and you shoot only photos, stick with it. Make the jump if you do video, don’t want to lug around big FF cameras, and are inspired by Olympus or Panasonic cameras.
Yeah, I think I might just sell it off and play around with the ep5 for now. I have the 9-18, 45 and now 25mm 1.8. I’m just amazed how much I end up using it. I’m not a professional but do like having some of the best if I can afford it. I have the 135mm and 50mm sony zeiss plus an a900 and a bunch of other lenses. I don’t think the a7 is there yet so I wait….but the more I do the less it gets used. It’s the ep5 I keep coming back too. I do have an adaptor as we’ll….and amazingly the 135mm is a beast on the ep5. Talk about wafer thin dof.
Robin Wong is a paid Olympus employee. This is not at all a knock on the lens (its great), but lets be honest, thats not a review, its marketing.
Call it a presentation or a demonstration, this lens can do this and that, it’s all information to make you decide you want it or not. Maybe some of it is even really true…
The only pro feature about it is the price…
Like the only pro feature about you is your nick.
Can’t understand why people who call themselves “pro” keep bashing on Olympus here… Boys, get a life and go taking pictures instead of acting like 8-years old stupid kids… Bashing on Wong on the fact that he’s an employee of Olympus is also totally stupid : the fact is well known, he mentions it before any review he does. So what ?
there is a tendency here that some people prefer to critisize other people’s opinion about gear or style related topics. Maybe there is more satisfaction to argue about that. Or they are just drunk.