Direct comparison Oly 12-40mmF2.8 with Oly 12-50mmF3.5-6.3?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
RoelHendrickx
Forum ProPosts: 22,066
Like?
Direct comparison Oly 12-40mmF2.8 with Oly 12-50mmF3.5-6.3?
6 months ago

Has anybody made a direct comparison between the new Oly 12-40mm lens and the older Oly 12-50mm lens?

Or is anybody aware of a website where such a comparison was made?

There is obviously a speed difference across the whole zoom range (already at 12mm and ever increasing).  For someone shooting with natural (low) light, and for increased DOF control, that is already a big plus for the 12-40.  (To be fair, the 12-50 has the advantages of a longer range, internal zoom, macro function and video electronic zoom, none of which are essential to me.)

But is there a noticeable difference in sharpness, contrast, color rendition and other IQ characteristics?

If so (as one would expect and as should be the case, with the price difference), are these differences then most present :

* when the lenses are used wide open,

* or also at comparable apertures (12-40 stopped down to match the 12-50)

* or also when both lenses are stopped down to where they each are sharpest?

I am interested in any info and samples.

Maybe DXO tested both lenses and there are graphs available, but I am not aware (and also not very good at reading such graphs - I am more into real-life experiences).

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Olympus E-3
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Paul De Bra
Forum ProPosts: 11,239Gear list
Like?
Photozone has reviewed both.
In reply to RoelHendrickx, 6 months ago

They have tested both. There are few surprises. (Vignetting wide open is worse on the 12-40 and uncorrected distortion at 12mm is worse as well.)

http://www.photozone.de/m43/827-olympus1250f3563ez

http://www.photozone.de/m43/862_oly1240

-- hide signature --

Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.

 Paul De Bra's gear list:Paul De Bra's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F200EXR Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steven Wandy
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,749Gear list
Like?
Re: Direct comparison Oly 12-40mmF2.8 with Oly 12-50mmF3.5-6.3?
In reply to RoelHendrickx, 6 months ago

I would be interested in the responses also. I had the 12-50 and sold it (planning on getting the 12-40) but ended up getting the Olympus Stylus 1, which I felt I would get more use out of. (And I still had the 14-42IIR to use on my EP5.) I have always felt (without actually trying out the combination) that the 12-40 might feel a bit over-balanced on the EP5, but now that I am planning on getting the EM10, my eyes keep getting attracted back to the 12-40 lens. Still don't know if I would use it enough to justify selling (and getting almost nothing for) the 14-42 and getting the 12-40.

 Steven Wandy's gear list:Steven Wandy's gear list
Olympus Stylus 1 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RoelHendrickx
Forum ProPosts: 22,066
Like?
Seen that. Considerations.
In reply to Paul De Bra, 6 months ago

Paul De Bra wrote:

They have tested both. There are few surprises. (Vignetting wide open is worse on the 12-40 and uncorrected distortion at 12mm is worse as well.)

http://www.photozone.de/m43/827-olympus1250f3563ez

http://www.photozone.de/m43/862_oly1240

I saw those two and tried to understand the resolution (MTF graphs).

I'm horrible at graphs and statistics, but I assume longer/higher bars and higher values are good, so that was good news for the 12-40 across the board.  Actually that is probably what matters most for me : in wide to standard focal length scenes, I generally want to capture as much detail as I can, even in low light.

Vignetting with a fast lens is something I can totally live with.  If anything, it often looks good and when it doesn't it is so easily corrected.  Distortion is less fun to deal with, especially in architecture, but still doable (and the 12-50 was no champion either...).  In that department, it will always be hard to beat the ZD12-60 (in fact also on sharpness/resolution, I think).

But now the real question, Paul : I think I know you've used both.

How would you describe your transition?  Still using the 12-50 for anything?

(Personal consideration: I am not about to jump onto the E-M1 just yet. I like the E-M5 with its size configurability too much (and no complaints about the EVF).  But I think the 12-40 would be a more logical upgrade for me, in order to have a faster versatile standard zoom for those occasions when I want to work dual-camera, with the ZD35-100 glued to the E-5.  The ZD12-60 on E-3 is now my second combo, but that camera is really getting old and worn and the ISO difference in low light is really starting to show when I combine images.)

(Hence my interest in the 12-40, also to be able to travel very light with only two lenses : the fast standard zoom and the small tele.)

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sebiruns
Regular MemberPosts: 122Gear list
Like?
Re: Direct comparison Oly 12-40mmF2.8 with Oly 12-50mmF3.5-6.3?
In reply to Steven Wandy, 6 months ago

I had the 12-50, currently I own the 12-40 which I picked up for 800$ alongside my e-p5. The 12-40 seems way sharper than the 12-50. Never had the two lenses at the same time so it is hardly a scientific comparison. But while owning the 12-50 I used very rarely (only for macro shots) and was using primes most of the time because I wasn't happy with the output of the kit lens. Sharpness was the main issue. It also felt like the output was flat. With the 12-40 it is the other way around. I keep it on my e-p5 most of the time as my walkaround lens and swap it for a prime only when I need a wider aperture than f2.8. Even wide open the sharpness is quite good. The main problem with the 12-50 is that it is so slow on the long end that diffraction becomes an issue as soon as you stop it down. So in my opinion the difference in practical usage is immens and certainly worth the price difference. About the 12mm quality I cannot say too much. I rarely should wider than 35mm ff equiv. To me it was okay.

 sebiruns's gear list:sebiruns's gear list
Sony RX100 Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:1.8 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sierra Dave
Regular MemberPosts: 447Gear list
Like?
Optically, there's a big difference
In reply to RoelHendrickx, 6 months ago

RoelHendrickx wrote:

If so (as one would expect and as should be the case, with the price difference), are these differences then most present :

* when the lenses are used wide open,

* or also at comparable apertures (12-40 stopped down to match the 12-50)

* or also when both lenses are stopped down to where they each are sharpest?

I am interested in any info and samples.

Maybe DXO tested both lenses and there are graphs available, but I am not aware (and also not very good at reading such graphs - I am more into real-life experiences).

Lenstip and photozone have both tested those 2 lenses. In both cases, the 12-40/2.8 is significantly sharper, particularly off center. The 12-40/2.8 also has lower CA and slightly lower distortion (before correction), but higher vignetting at the 12mm end.

I shot a few landscapes side-by-side and there really is no comparison if you view at 100%. The 12-50 is quite soft at 12mm wide open outside the center, and while it sharpens a bit by f/5.6, it never really gets sharp. The 12-40 is sharp from f/2.8 to f/8 - there's really no advantage to stopping down other than DoF. At 25 and 40mm, the 12-40 is a bit softer overall than at 12mm, and is sharpest at f/4.0. The 12-50 is softer than at 12mm in the center but a bit better at the edges. Again, the edges sharpen with stopping down, but the 12-40 is still noticeably better at all apertures.

Bottom line is that the 12-50 performs like a $200 kit lens (which is what Olympus sells it as on their refurb. store) and the 12-40 like a pro zoom. Personally I think for anything more significant than snapshots, the 12-40 is well worth the extra $600 (after rebate) even if you rarely shoot wider than f/5.6.

 Sierra Dave's gear list:Sierra Dave's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RoelHendrickx
Forum ProPosts: 22,066
Like?
Budget and options.
In reply to Steven Wandy, 6 months ago

Steven Wandy wrote:

I would be interested in the responses also. I had the 12-50 and sold it (planning on getting the 12-40) but ended up getting the Olympus Stylus 1, which I felt I would get more use out of.

Yes, that seems like a really fun compact.  But I have my LX7.

(And I still had the 14-42IIR to use on my EP5.) I have always felt (without actually trying out the combination) that the 12-40 might feel a bit over-balanced on the EP5, but now that I am planning on getting the EM10, my eyes keep getting attracted back to the 12-40 lens. Still don't know if I would use it enough to justify selling (and getting almost nothing for) the 14-42 and getting the 12-40.

Budgets are of course a personal matter, and so is the desire (for some) to accumulate lenses and options, while others want the other thing: to have as little as possible stuff that does not get used much.

I am terrible at selling off gear.  I always think that I can still find a good use for it, and let's face it, the market for Olympus gear (except the SHG lenses) is not stellar.  So I just hang on to stuff and tell myself that it is always a good backup.

And indeed, I counted myself VERY lucky that I had never sold my ZD14-54 after getting the ZD12-60, because indeed that lens was very useful when my ZD12-60 was out of order for an extended period due to a repair with complications (long story short: less than hot European service and excellent US service).

Besides, if you already know the yield will be next to nothing, you can consider keeping the other lens not only as backup, but also for actual use, especially when it has a really different form factor and weight like that 14-42 : a good option to use if you know there will be good light and you want to limit your weight.

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Paul De Bra
Forum ProPosts: 11,239Gear list
Like?
In real life there just is no comparison.
In reply to RoelHendrickx, 6 months ago

When I got the 12-40 I did one quick test shot with the 12-50 and 12-40 side by side and also with my tiny Panasonic 14-42X. Only one conclusion was possible: the 12-50 had to go (and the 14-42X was certainly good enough to stay).

I initially planned on keeping the 12-50 just for the pseudo-macro but actually the 12-40 can focus more than close enough for what I need. I also tried some in-camera JPG images. With the 12-50 the CA would be visible on a large computer monitor (which is around 2MP, down quite a bit from 16) but with the 12-40 it takes 100% pixel peeping to detect the CA which isn't corrected on my E-M5. Distortion is no issue as it is corrected in camera or by the RAW converter.

The only possible description of my transition is that the 12-40 should have been my first lens on the E-M5 right away. Alas it was another year and a half in the making...

The only possible negative I could think of is the size and weight. It of course is what it is and is needed for what it does, but I did move to m43 to go smaller and lighter. I know the 12-40 is still much smaller than my old Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. But it feels big compared to everything else I have except for the 75-300.

-- hide signature --

Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.

 Paul De Bra's gear list:Paul De Bra's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F200EXR Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RoelHendrickx
Forum ProPosts: 22,066
Like?
Re: In real life there just is no comparison.
In reply to Paul De Bra, 6 months ago

Paul De Bra wrote:

When I got the 12-40 I did one quick test shot with the 12-50 and 12-40 side by side and also with my tiny Panasonic 14-42X. Only one conclusion was possible: the 12-50 had to go (and the 14-42X was certainly good enough to stay).

I initially planned on keeping the 12-50 just for the pseudo-macro but actually the 12-40 can focus more than close enough for what I need.

Knowing myself, I will probably keep the 12-50 as backup (or to have a lens to bundle with a camera if I give it away when finally upgrading).

I also tried some in-camera JPG images. With the 12-50 the CA would be visible on a large computer monitor (which is around 2MP, down quite a bit from 16) but with the 12-40 it takes 100% pixel peeping to detect the CA which isn't corrected on my E-M5. Distortion is no issue as it is corrected in camera or by the RAW converter.

Does only the E-M1 perform that correction, or also the E-M5 (and others)?

And is the correction done only in JPG or also in RAW?

Just wondering.

The only possible description of my transition is that the 12-40 should have been my first lens on the E-M5 right away. Alas it was another year and a half in the making...

Exactly.  I would have jumped on a constant F2.8 standard zoom with the E-M5.

The only possible negative I could think of is the size and weight. It of course is what it is and is needed for what it does, but I did move to m43 to go smaller and lighter. I know the 12-40 is still much smaller than my old Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. But it feels big compared to everything else I have except for the 75-300.

-- hide signature --

Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TonyinJapan
Senior MemberPosts: 1,050Gear list
Like?
Re: Direct comparison Oly 12-40mmF2.8 with Oly 12-50mmF3.5-6.3?
In reply to RoelHendrickx, 6 months ago

RoelHendrickx wrote:

Has anybody made a direct comparison between the new Oly 12-40mm lens and the older Oly 12-50mm lens?

Or is anybody aware of a website where such a comparison was made?

There is obviously a speed difference across the whole zoom range (already at 12mm and ever increasing). For someone shooting with natural (low) light, and for increased DOF control, that is already a big plus for the 12-40. (To be fair, the 12-50 has the advantages of a longer range, internal zoom, macro function and video electronic zoom, none of which are essential to me.)

But is there a noticeable difference in sharpness, contrast, color rendition and other IQ characteristics?

If so (as one would expect and as should be the case, with the price difference), are these differences then most present :

* when the lenses are used wide open,

* or also at comparable apertures (12-40 stopped down to match the 12-50)

* or also when both lenses are stopped down to where they each are sharpest?

I am interested in any info and samples.

Maybe DXO tested both lenses and there are graphs available, but I am not aware (and also not very good at reading such graphs - I am more into real-life experiences).

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

For what it’s worth, I had the 12-50mm (kit lens with the EM-5), and although it was a good lens, it was not an exceptional one. Sold it after a few months.

There is simply no comparison between the 12-50mm and 12-40mm. They are simply different leagues.

With just even the first few shots with the 12-40mm, I could see the difference in quality and the potential it has to be more creative and get the shots without worry that the lens is not good enough. It is simply stellar.

Unlike the 12-50mm which went to a new owner after a few months, I am certain the 12-40mm will have a long life with only one owner.

Will try to post some samples when I get the chance.

-- hide signature --
 TonyinJapan's gear list:TonyinJapan's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
453C
Senior MemberPosts: 4,620Gear list
Like?
Re: In real life there just is no comparison.
In reply to RoelHendrickx, 6 months ago

RoelHendrickx wrote:

Paul De Bra wrote:

When I got the 12-40 I did one quick test shot with the 12-50 and 12-40 side by side and also with my tiny Panasonic 14-42X. Only one conclusion was possible: the 12-50 had to go (and the 14-42X was certainly good enough to stay).

I initially planned on keeping the 12-50 just for the pseudo-macro but actually the 12-40 can focus more than close enough for what I need.

Knowing myself, I will probably keep the 12-50 as backup (or to have a lens to bundle with a camera if I give it away when finally upgrading).

I also tried some in-camera JPG images. With the 12-50 the CA would be visible on a large computer monitor (which is around 2MP, down quite a bit from 16) but with the 12-40 it takes 100% pixel peeping to detect the CA which isn't corrected on my E-M5. Distortion is no issue as it is corrected in camera or by the RAW converter.

Does only the E-M1 perform that correction, or also the E-M5 (and others)?

And is the correction done only in JPG or also in RAW?

Just wondering.

Yes, the E-M1 performs CA correction, and not just for Olympus lenses. It's the first OM-D to offer that feature, and I believe it works in both JPG and RAW. Check out the Lens corrections section.

As another said, the 12-40 is the lens that should've been available when the OM-D line was introduced. I believe middling reviews of the 12-50 had at least a small effect on E-M5 sales. I wanted a WS system, and the 12-40 made it easier to decide it was time to upgrade.

 453C's gear list:453C's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RoelHendrickx
Forum ProPosts: 22,066
Like?
Re: In real life there just is no comparison.
In reply to 453C, 6 months ago

453C wrote:

RoelHendrickx wrote:

Paul De Bra wrote:

When I got the 12-40 I did one quick test shot with the 12-50 and 12-40 side by side and also with my tiny Panasonic 14-42X. Only one conclusion was possible: the 12-50 had to go (and the 14-42X was certainly good enough to stay).

I initially planned on keeping the 12-50 just for the pseudo-macro but actually the 12-40 can focus more than close enough for what I need.

Knowing myself, I will probably keep the 12-50 as backup (or to have a lens to bundle with a camera if I give it away when finally upgrading).

I also tried some in-camera JPG images. With the 12-50 the CA would be visible on a large computer monitor (which is around 2MP, down quite a bit from 16) but with the 12-40 it takes 100% pixel peeping to detect the CA which isn't corrected on my E-M5. Distortion is no issue as it is corrected in camera or by the RAW converter.

Does only the E-M1 perform that correction, or also the E-M5 (and others)?

And is the correction done only in JPG or also in RAW?

Just wondering.

Yes, the E-M1 performs CA correction, and not just for Olympus lenses. It's the first OM-D to offer that feature, and I believe it works in both JPG and RAW. Check out the Lens corrections section.

But does the E-M5 also offer that correction?

As another said, the 12-40 is the lens that should've been available when the OM-D line was introduced. I believe middling reviews of the 12-50 had at least a small effect on E-M5 sales. I wanted a WS system, and the 12-40 made it easier to decide it was time to upgrade.

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sierra Dave
Regular MemberPosts: 447Gear list
Like?
Re: In real life there just is no comparison.
In reply to RoelHendrickx, 6 months ago

RoelHendrickx wrote:

453C wrote:

RoelHendrickx wrote:

Paul De Bra wrote:

When I got the 12-40 I did one quick test shot with the 12-50 and 12-40 side by side and also with my tiny Panasonic 14-42X. Only one conclusion was possible: the 12-50 had to go (and the 14-42X was certainly good enough to stay).

I initially planned on keeping the 12-50 just for the pseudo-macro but actually the 12-40 can focus more than close enough for what I need.

Knowing myself, I will probably keep the 12-50 as backup (or to have a lens to bundle with a camera if I give it away when finally upgrading).

I also tried some in-camera JPG images. With the 12-50 the CA would be visible on a large computer monitor (which is around 2MP, down quite a bit from 16) but with the 12-40 it takes 100% pixel peeping to detect the CA which isn't corrected on my E-M5. Distortion is no issue as it is corrected in camera or by the RAW converter.

Does only the E-M1 perform that correction, or also the E-M5 (and others)?

And is the correction done only in JPG or also in RAW?

Just wondering.

Yes, the E-M1 performs CA correction, and not just for Olympus lenses. It's the first OM-D to offer that feature, and I believe it works in both JPG and RAW. Check out the Lens corrections section.

But does the E-M5 also offer that correction?

No, it does not.

 Sierra Dave's gear list:Sierra Dave's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RoelHendrickx
Forum ProPosts: 22,066
Like?
no distortion correction on E-M5 = no biggie
In reply to Sierra Dave, 6 months ago

Sierra Dave wrote:

RoelHendrickx wrote:

453C wrote:

RoelHendrickx wrote:

Paul De Bra wrote:

When I got the 12-40 I did one quick test shot with the 12-50 and 12-40 side by side and also with my tiny Panasonic 14-42X. Only one conclusion was possible: the 12-50 had to go (and the 14-42X was certainly good enough to stay).

I initially planned on keeping the 12-50 just for the pseudo-macro but actually the 12-40 can focus more than close enough for what I need.

Knowing myself, I will probably keep the 12-50 as backup (or to have a lens to bundle with a camera if I give it away when finally upgrading).

I also tried some in-camera JPG images. With the 12-50 the CA would be visible on a large computer monitor (which is around 2MP, down quite a bit from 16) but with the 12-40 it takes 100% pixel peeping to detect the CA which isn't corrected on my E-M5. Distortion is no issue as it is corrected in camera or by the RAW converter.

Does only the E-M1 perform that correction, or also the E-M5 (and others)?

And is the correction done only in JPG or also in RAW?

Just wondering.

Yes, the E-M1 performs CA correction, and not just for Olympus lenses. It's the first OM-D to offer that feature, and I believe it works in both JPG and RAW. Check out the Lens corrections section.

But does the E-M5 also offer that correction?

No, it does not.

Too bad but ah well.

I'll just Lightroom images in desperate need of correction. No biggie.

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sierra Dave
Regular MemberPosts: 447Gear list
Like?
Distortion correction is there, just no CA correction
In reply to RoelHendrickx, 6 months ago

RoelHendrickx wrote:

Sierra Dave wrote:

RoelHendrickx wrote:

453C wrote:

RoelHendrickx wrote:

Paul De Bra wrote:

When I got the 12-40 I did one quick test shot with the 12-50 and 12-40 side by side and also with my tiny Panasonic 14-42X. Only one conclusion was possible: the 12-50 had to go (and the 14-42X was certainly good enough to stay).

I initially planned on keeping the 12-50 just for the pseudo-macro but actually the 12-40 can focus more than close enough for what I need.

Knowing myself, I will probably keep the 12-50 as backup (or to have a lens to bundle with a camera if I give it away when finally upgrading).

I also tried some in-camera JPG images. With the 12-50 the CA would be visible on a large computer monitor (which is around 2MP, down quite a bit from 16) but with the 12-40 it takes 100% pixel peeping to detect the CA which isn't corrected on my E-M5. Distortion is no issue as it is corrected in camera or by the RAW converter.

Does only the E-M1 perform that correction, or also the E-M5 (and others)?

And is the correction done only in JPG or also in RAW?

Just wondering.

Yes, the E-M1 performs CA correction, and not just for Olympus lenses. It's the first OM-D to offer that feature, and I believe it works in both JPG and RAW. Check out the Lens corrections section.

But does the E-M5 also offer that correction?

No, it does not.

Too bad but ah well.

I'll just Lightroom images in desperate need of correction. No biggie.

No, you misread.  Distortion correction is part of every m4/3 camera.  CA correction is only available on the E-M1 and the E-M10 with Olympus lenses, and any Panasonic body with Panasonic lenses.

 Sierra Dave's gear list:Sierra Dave's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
453C
Senior MemberPosts: 4,620Gear list
Like?
Re: In real life there just is no comparison.
In reply to RoelHendrickx, 6 months ago

RoelHendrickx wrote:

453C wrote:

RoelHendrickx wrote:

Paul De Bra wrote:

When I got the 12-40 I did one quick test shot with the 12-50 and 12-40 side by side and also with my tiny Panasonic 14-42X. Only one conclusion was possible: the 12-50 had to go (and the 14-42X was certainly good enough to stay).

I initially planned on keeping the 12-50 just for the pseudo-macro but actually the 12-40 can focus more than close enough for what I need.

Knowing myself, I will probably keep the 12-50 as backup (or to have a lens to bundle with a camera if I give it away when finally upgrading).

I also tried some in-camera JPG images. With the 12-50 the CA would be visible on a large computer monitor (which is around 2MP, down quite a bit from 16) but with the 12-40 it takes 100% pixel peeping to detect the CA which isn't corrected on my E-M5. Distortion is no issue as it is corrected in camera or by the RAW converter.

Does only the E-M1 perform that correction, or also the E-M5 (and others)?

And is the correction done only in JPG or also in RAW?

Just wondering.

Yes, the E-M1 performs CA correction, and not just for Olympus lenses. It's the first OM-D to offer that feature, and I believe it works in both JPG and RAW. Check out the Lens corrections section.

But does the E-M5 also offer that correction?

I guess you didn't look at that review section.

No, the E-M5 doesn't perform CA correction, nor does any earlier Olympus MFT body. If Olympus could introduce that feature through a firmware upgrade, they'd gain an a lot of good will, but I don't know if that's technically possible.

 453C's gear list:453C's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,110Gear list
Like?
Re: Seen that. Considerations.
In reply to RoelHendrickx, 6 months ago

RoelHendrickx wrote:

Paul De Bra wrote:

They have tested both. There are few surprises. (Vignetting wide open is worse on the 12-40 and uncorrected distortion at 12mm is worse as well.)

http://www.photozone.de/m43/827-olympus1250f3563ez

http://www.photozone.de/m43/862_oly1240

I'd rather look at the Lenstip results, which I have more confidence in than those from Photozone:

http://www.lenstip.com/334.1-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_12-50_mm_f_3.5-6.3_ED_EZ.html

http://www.lenstip.com/392.1-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_12-40_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Introduction.html

As you'd expect, the 12-40 does better at the same f-stop in pretty much every respect and gives you more speed on top of that. Note that Photozone's claim about noticeably higher distortion (before autocorrection) for the 12-40 is not replicated by Lenstip. Rather, they find it to be marginally lower.

I saw those two and tried to understand the resolution (MTF graphs).

I'm horrible at graphs and statistics, but I assume longer/higher bars and higher values are good, so that was good news for the 12-40 across the board. Actually that is probably what matters most for me : in wide to standard focal length scenes, I generally want to capture as much detail as I can, even in low light.

Vignetting with a fast lens is something I can totally live with. If anything, it often looks good and when it doesn't it is so easily corrected. Distortion is less fun to deal with, especially in architecture, but still doable (and the 12-50 was no champion either...). In that department, it will always be hard to beat the ZD12-60 (in fact also on sharpness/resolution, I think).

But now the real question, Paul : I think I know you've used both.

How would you describe your transition? Still using the 12-50 for anything?

(Personal consideration: I am not about to jump onto the E-M1 just yet. I like the E-M5 with its size configurability too much (and no complaints about the EVF). But I think the 12-40 would be a more logical upgrade for me, in order to have a faster versatile standard zoom for those occasions when I want to work dual-camera, with the ZD35-100 glued to the E-5. The ZD12-60 on E-3 is now my second combo, but that camera is really getting old and worn and the ISO difference in low light is really starting to show when I combine images.)

(Hence my interest in the 12-40, also to be able to travel very light with only two lenses : the fast standard zoom and the small tele.)

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,110Gear list
Like?
Re: In real life there just is no comparison.
In reply to 453C, 6 months ago

453C wrote:

RoelHendrickx wrote:

453C wrote:

RoelHendrickx wrote:

Paul De Bra wrote:

When I got the 12-40 I did one quick test shot with the 12-50 and 12-40 side by side and also with my tiny Panasonic 14-42X. Only one conclusion was possible: the 12-50 had to go (and the 14-42X was certainly good enough to stay).

I initially planned on keeping the 12-50 just for the pseudo-macro but actually the 12-40 can focus more than close enough for what I need.

Knowing myself, I will probably keep the 12-50 as backup (or to have a lens to bundle with a camera if I give it away when finally upgrading).

I also tried some in-camera JPG images. With the 12-50 the CA would be visible on a large computer monitor (which is around 2MP, down quite a bit from 16) but with the 12-40 it takes 100% pixel peeping to detect the CA which isn't corrected on my E-M5. Distortion is no issue as it is corrected in camera or by the RAW converter.

Does only the E-M1 perform that correction, or also the E-M5 (and others)?

And is the correction done only in JPG or also in RAW?

Just wondering.

Yes, the E-M1 performs CA correction, and not just for Olympus lenses. It's the first OM-D to offer that feature, and I believe it works in both JPG and RAW. Check out the Lens corrections section.

But does the E-M5 also offer that correction?

I guess you didn't look at that review section.

No, the E-M5 doesn't perform CA correction, nor does any earlier Olympus MFT body. If Olympus could introduce that feature through a firmware upgrade, they'd gain an a lot of good will, but I don't know if that's technically possible.

It surely is.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
453C
Senior MemberPosts: 4,620Gear list
Like?
Re: In real life there just is no comparison.
In reply to Anders W, 6 months ago

Anders W wrote:

453C wrote:

RoelHendrickx wrote:

453C wrote:

RoelHendrickx wrote:

Paul De Bra wrote:

When I got the 12-40 I did one quick test shot with the 12-50 and 12-40 side by side and also with my tiny Panasonic 14-42X. Only one conclusion was possible: the 12-50 had to go (and the 14-42X was certainly good enough to stay).

I initially planned on keeping the 12-50 just for the pseudo-macro but actually the 12-40 can focus more than close enough for what I need.

Knowing myself, I will probably keep the 12-50 as backup (or to have a lens to bundle with a camera if I give it away when finally upgrading).

I also tried some in-camera JPG images. With the 12-50 the CA would be visible on a large computer monitor (which is around 2MP, down quite a bit from 16) but with the 12-40 it takes 100% pixel peeping to detect the CA which isn't corrected on my E-M5. Distortion is no issue as it is corrected in camera or by the RAW converter.

Does only the E-M1 perform that correction, or also the E-M5 (and others)?

And is the correction done only in JPG or also in RAW?

Just wondering.

Yes, the E-M1 performs CA correction, and not just for Olympus lenses. It's the first OM-D to offer that feature, and I believe it works in both JPG and RAW. Check out the Lens corrections section.

But does the E-M5 also offer that correction?

I guess you didn't look at that review section.

No, the E-M5 doesn't perform CA correction, nor does any earlier Olympus MFT body. If Olympus could introduce that feature through a firmware upgrade, they'd gain an a lot of good will, but I don't know if that's technically possible.

It surely is.

Maybe, maybe not. It may require more processing capabilities than some cameras possess, but you'd think that at least some of the latest bodies could do it. Beats me, and I'm certain Olympus won't tell. I hope they surprise us, though.

 453C's gear list:453C's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bob657
Regular MemberPosts: 349Gear list
Like?
Re: In real life there just is no comparison.
In reply to 453C, 6 months ago

+1 for all the quality comments, I just wanted to thank Roel for his great series on Antarctica, we're booked for December so I really appreciate the tips!

Bob

 Bob657's gear list:Bob657's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS Olympus 12-40mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads