Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
EarthQuake
Senior MemberPosts: 1,125Gear list
Like?
Re: Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky
In reply to MatsP, 4 months ago

MatsP wrote:

daleeight wrote:

So I have read and pondered the Oly 12-40 purchase for awhile (like a lot of people, probably). I read the "arguments" over zoom versus prime, and the size/weight/bulk stories. So I wondered if it would be too much, or too awkward.

The Oly 12-40 is apparently 1.5 times as heavy as my old Oly 12-60 big 4/3 lens, and give or take, about 3/8" bigger in diameter and 0.5" longer. I guess one could say given the lens range, the 12-60 is big, but it was 2.8 - 4.0 too. And a bigger mount. But it doesn't feel heavy and bulky on the E-3.

So I wondered about the lowly Sony models. Their new 24-70 f/4 Zeiss FE lens for their A7/7r. Camera itself is a tick smaller than the OM-D E1 (which kind of surprised me). This lens is only 1/8" bigger in diameter, and is 0.5" longer, weighing in about 1/10th of a pound more. And it is only f/4, with 10mm less range (35mm terms).

So one would assume the new Sony 24-70 on an A7/A7r would feel more bulky and heavier, no? And I would assume the Oly 12-40 would feel worse as far as heavy/bulky on the M-5 (with no added grip) than on the M-1...?

-- hide signature --

Dale

The 12-40/2.8 is only large/heavy by M43rds standards, its smaller than comparable four thirds lenses, and its a bit smaller/lighter than the smallest APS-C 2.8 standard zoom lens; the Tamron 18-50/2.8, though it has significantly better build/optics than that lens. Smaller than lenses like the Sony 16-50/2.8, Canon 17-55/2.8, etc.

Its close in size to the Sony 24-70/4, but the Sony lens is optically a significantly weaker lens, with serious issues on the wide end (huge distortion and very soft corners).

Here are the weights, as some have corrected your 12-60 vs 12-40 comparison but still don't have the correct numbers:

Panasonic 12-35/2.8 : 305g

Fuji 18-55/2.8-4: 330g (not weather sealed, fuji is coming out with a WS 16-50/2.8 which will be significantly heavier).

Olympus 12-40/2.8: 385g

Sony 24-70/4: 430g

Tamron 18-50/2.8: 430g

Sony A 16-50/2.8: 575g

Olympus 12-60/2.8-4: 575g

Canon 17-55/2.8: 645g

And Canon EF 24-70/2,8 L is 805 g. When I look at DxO accutance I see that the EF lens is somewhat sharper in center but softer at edges than the Oly. The 12-40 is indeed big for a mft lens, but a lot smaller than comparable lenses for other formats. It's a fantastic lens.

Yeah I didn't even bother listing the 24-70/2.8s as they are all massive. I certainly don't miss my Sigma 24-70/2.8 HSM at 790g.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow