Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
daleeight
Contributing MemberPosts: 950
Like?
Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky
3 months ago

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

Olympus E-3 Sony Alpha 7
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Bobby J
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,690Gear list
Like?
Re: Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky
In reply to daleeight, 3 months ago

I don't know where you got your information but you are wrong.  I have both lenses.  The 12x60 weighs 1.5 lb.  The 12x40 just under 1 lb.  About 14 oz.

It's supposed a professional lens which means robust construction, weather sealing and excellent optical performance.  It meets all those criteria.  If you think it too big then I say compared to what? A similar type lens for any DSLR system will be larger and heavier.

You could stay with the consumer grade kit lenses and that would likely meet your need for "small & light".

-- hide signature --

BJM

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
FPF
FPF
Junior MemberPosts: 26
Like?
Re: Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky
In reply to daleeight, 3 months ago

Is not anything close to the 12-60. It's more about the size of the 14-54 II.

In pure MTf50 numbers, measured, there are no current primes that can touch it on the shorter end, it's slightly weaker on the long end.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian Wadie
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,288Gear list
Like?
Re: Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky
In reply to daleeight, 3 months ago

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.

-- hide signature --

Dale

12-60 weight = 575g

12-40 weight = 320g

the facts seem to suggest you may have had the figures reversed in your mind?

-- hide signature --

So much to learn, so little time left to do it!

 Brian Wadie's gear list:Brian Wadie's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gregm61
Forum ProPosts: 13,635Gear list
Like?
Re: Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky
In reply to Brian Wadie, 3 months ago

Brian Wadie 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.

-- hide signature --

Dale

12-60 weight = 575g

12-40 weight = 320g

the facts seem to suggest you may have had the figures reversed in your mind?

-- hide signature --

So much to learn, so little time left to do it!

Nuts is what he is...and obviously has not been in the same room as a 12-40. It's perfect for the E-M1.

He just needs to stick with a Pen and kit zooms,

-- hide signature --

"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights

 Gregm61's gear list:Gregm61's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 70-300mm 1:4.0-5.6 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Skeeterbytes
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,004
Like?
Re: Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky
In reply to Bobby J, 3 months ago

Right. By the time you add the adapter the 12-60 dwarfs the 12-40. Shoot a µ4/3 camera with the 12-60 for a bit then switch to the 12-40, and it will seem like a tiny marvel.

Next up: chocolate--too darn tasty!

Cheers,

Rick

-- hide signature --

"Whiskey is for drinking, digicams are for fighting over."
—Mark Twain

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Barry Stewart
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,049Gear list
Like?
Compared to the 14-42
In reply to Gregm61, 3 months ago

... the 12-40 is a relative boat anchor. Thankfully, it's f/2.8 throughout, weather-sealed, has the built-in manual focus switch and has the extra width at the short end. Those things don't come with some compromises.

-- hide signature --

Barry

 Barry Stewart's gear list:Barry Stewart's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EarthQuake
Senior MemberPosts: 1,119Gear list
Like?
Re: Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky
In reply to daleeight, 3 months ago

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MatsP
Contributing MemberPosts: 869Gear list
Like?
Re: Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky
In reply to EarthQuake, 3 months ago

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.

 MatsP's gear list:MatsP's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Canon Pixma MG8150 DxO Optics Pro Standard +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EarthQuake
Senior MemberPosts: 1,119Gear list
Like?
Re: Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky
In reply to MatsP, 3 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
local novice
Regular MemberPosts: 336Gear list
Like?
Re: Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky
In reply to daleeight, 3 months ago

I don't have the 12-40 but do have the 12-35,f 2.8.  It is heavier compared to kit lenses and the primes and the 12-40 is supposed to be heavier than the panasonic.  It is all about what you need. I  like the f2.8  when I am traveling because you can use it indoors and out without changing lenses. I you don't need this capability than the kit lenses will do fine. It is all a compromise, fast sharp lens=heavier lens. Slow, relatively sharp lens=lighter, smaller lens.  The engineer's maxim: fast, good, cheap-pick two. You can't have everthing in one package, somethings got to give.  The beauty of choice.

 local novice's gear list:local novice's gear list
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 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
daleeight
Contributing MemberPosts: 950
Like?
Re: Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky
In reply to Brian Wadie, 3 months ago

Brian Wadie 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.

-- hide signature --

Dale

12-60 weight = 575g

12-40 weight = 320g

the facts seem to suggest you may have had the figures reversed in your mind?

-- hide signature --

So much to learn, so little time left to do it!

Yes, my bad. I got those backwards. The 12-60 is 1.5x heavier than the 12-40.

-- hide signature --

Dale

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
daleeight
Contributing MemberPosts: 950
Like?
Re: Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky
In reply to Gregm61, 3 months ago

Gregm61 wrote:

Nuts is what he is...and obviously has not been in the same room as a 12-40. It's perfect for the E-M1.

He just needs to stick with a Pen and kit zooms,

I replied to the earlier post where yes, I got the number backwards. The 12-60 is 1.5x heavier than the 12-40.

Nuts? Seriously? A dang honest mistake and people like your smarty pants but claim people are nuts and should stick to Pen's and kit zooms. Rubbish. Love to meet in person. Never met someone that has never made a mistake.

-- hide signature --

Dale

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SkiHound
Senior MemberPosts: 1,164
Like?
Re: Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky
In reply to local novice, 3 months ago

The Oly is bigger and heavier than the Panny, I've used both. I've sold it but I've also used the 12-60 on adaptor. The 12-40 does feel a bit large and front heavy on my E-M5 but that's kind of the cost of having a constant f/2.8 aperture lens that offers very high IQ.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
zuikowesty
Senior MemberPosts: 1,144Gear list
Like?
Don't write what you wouldn't say in person.
In reply to daleeight, 3 months ago

daleeight wrote:

Gregm61 wrote:

Nuts is what he is...and obviously has not been in the same room as a 12-40. It's perfect for the E-M1.

He just needs to stick with a Pen and kit zooms,

I replied to the earlier post where yes, I got the number backwards. The 12-60 is 1.5x heavier than the 12-40.

Nuts? Seriously? A dang honest mistake and people like your smarty pants but claim people are nuts and should stick to Pen's and kit zooms. Rubbish. Love to meet in person. Never met someone that has never made a mistake.

Good point Dale. I read your post and assumed you mixed the numbers - no big deal. I hoped for some good comparisons and hands-on experiences to be shared, but also expected the usual personal attacks. I try not to write things that I wouldn't say in person. And yes, we all make mistakes.

-- hide signature --
 zuikowesty's gear list:zuikowesty's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus Stylus Tough-3000 Olympus Stylus 5010 Olympus E-410 Olympus PEN E-PM2 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian Wadie
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,288Gear list
Like?
Re: Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky
In reply to daleeight, 3 months ago

daleeight wrote:

Brian Wadie 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.

-- hide signature --

Dale

12-60 weight = 575g

12-40 weight = 320g

the facts seem to suggest you may have had the figures reversed in your mind?

-- hide signature --

So much to learn, so little time left to do it!

Yes, my bad. I got those backwards. The 12-60 is 1.5x heavier than the 12-40.

-- hide signature --

Dale

We all make mistakes, its what makes us human

-- hide signature --

So much to learn, so little time left to do it!

 Brian Wadie's gear list:Brian Wadie's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
thesutex
New MemberPosts: 16Gear list
Like?
Re: Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky
In reply to Brian Wadie, 3 months ago

Camerasize.com is good to compare sizes of cameras with lenses.

The 12-40 on my EM10 is too big for the camera, so I ordered the extra grip Even though It feels allot smaller than the A7+Zeiss zoom that I tried out before ordering the Olympus.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Guy Parsons
Forum ProPosts: 18,287Gear list
Like?
Oly 12-40 is too NICE......
In reply to daleeight, 3 months ago

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.

Back to the original paragraph and forgetting all about the weight statistics arguments.....

Lovely lens, it is stuck on my E-PL5 now and I feel little need now to swap to any other lens.

Some say the heavier lens affects the balance of a camera but that is nuts as the user holds the camera in such a way as to balance it. In other words the left hand holds the weight of the lens and the right hand does the operational bit with the usual light touch. I feel that I can shoot now at slower speeds before I need to use stabilisation due to its extra weight.

Not a combination to attempt one-handed photography (in fact I always use two hands with any camera, no matter what size) and definitely not a pocketable setup. It's a serious lens for a proper (small) camera bag to carry and protect it.

Here's my mini kit using a small snoot bag, the 45-150mm lens fits in the main part under a sewn-in flap, the flash and battery and little bits go in the front pocket. My usual kit bag is a little bigger with lots more junk in it but still is around only 2 kg total and on the shoulder all day causes no pain whatsoever.

One interesting thing is that the front of the lens that the subject sees has no writing on it so it looks blander and plainer than the usual lens even though it is still big. Somehow that helps "reduce" its size/presence to the subject.

As for the prime lust, that went away when I updated from E-PL1 to E-PL5, the newer sensor just worked so much better in low light that my need for primes vanished. Then of course the 12-40mm with constant f/2.8 for AF and composing really pushed any faintly lingering need for primes right out the door.

When I am "serious" about photography is when I travel and photo opportunities vanish in seconds in strange and new places so a zoom lens is a must. Fumbling with swapping primes would have lost me too many shots in my travels so I am a committed zoom user now, and the 12-40mm has really hit the sweet spot for me.

Lucky that it is weatherproof, otherwise the constant drool when I look at it would have rusted it away by now.

Regards..... Guy

 Guy Parsons's gear list:Guy Parsons's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Casio Exilim EX-ZR1000 +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
broody
Regular MemberPosts: 263
Like?
Re: Oly 12-40 is too NICE......
In reply to Guy Parsons, 3 months ago

I always prefer smaller when it comes to m43 lenses. Other people are more than happy to pay a price in portability to squeeze every last bit of quality out of their kits. Luckily there are way more choices than for any other format when it comes to standard zooms.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 5,411
Like?
Re: Oly 12-40 is too big/bulky
In reply to daleeight, 3 months ago

Here's an actual visual comparison.

12-60

12-40

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads