All this talk about the 12-40mm, I just bought a used 12-50mm for $235

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
reygon
Senior MemberPosts: 2,003
Like?
not good?
In reply to MatsP, 10 months ago

MatsP wrote:

tgutgu wrote:

The Photo Ninja wrote:

Granted, I know the apertures aren't even comparable, but I already have a 17mm f/1.8 that I love. I bought the 12-50m to have a weatherproof system with the E-M1.

How weatherproof is the 12-50mm?

BTW, I bought the olympus lens hood for it too.

Well, that lens is certainly not worth than the price you paid for it. Among my zoom lenses in the focal length area it covers, it is by far the worst performer.

That there is so much talk about the 12-40mm and far less (favorable) about the 12-50mm is justified. All this writing about that the 12-50mm is a "decent" lens, is a polite statement saying that it is not really good. To me, paying $ 235 for it is money that could and should have saved to buy something else.

-- hide signature --

Thomas

The 12-50 IS ok at 12 mm I think but as soon as you use it at longer focal lengths it gets worse. I find 50 mm hardly usable to be honest. And I have never managed to get a sharp shot with the macro function.

I don't think so... This is a great all weather lens and a fraction the price of 12-40mm if you don't want to pay the big price difference for F2.8.  Some sample shots and you decide if it is not worth it or just a "decent" lens comment to be polite...

this is a great lens for its price!

-- hide signature --

reygon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Take nothing but photos... Kill nothing but time... Leave nothing but footprints...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow