Reading mode: Light Dark

theonlinephotographer reviews ZD 12/2

Go to last post
Not that I was likely to spend 800 bucks on what for me would be a special purpose lens, but what desire I had is pretty well gone.

Disappointing, though, to see a brand I like do so poorly with a tester whose opinion I respect.

Gato

--
After 40 years of Canon and Nikon I'm now using a camera named after my toaster.

Silver Mirage Gallery:
http://www.silvermirage.com
 
Gato Amarillo said:
Not that I was likely to spend 800 bucks on what for me would be a special purpose lens, but what desire I had is pretty well gone.

Disappointing, though, to see a brand I like do so poorly with a tester whose opinion I respect.
Click to expand...
Puzzling too. Why not do it right? We know they can (e.g. 45/1.8, ZD 12-60).

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey
 
Without having seen the results for the ultrawide zooms, I think this is a problem with all wide m4/3 primes (neither of the Panny 14, Oly 17 is particularly impressive on the edges). I suspect that the short flange distance and the need for telecentricity results in a lot of barrel distortion (the amount of barreling the above two lenses show without auto-corrections would be riduculous in a full size prime!) for compact/"normal size" form factor lenses, and the in-camera correction degrades the edges.
--
ODM
 
mfbernstein said:
Puzzling too. Why not do it right? We know they can (e.g. 45/1.8, ZD 12-60).
Click to expand...
It is. What makes if most disappointing to me personally is that I bought into Olympus 4/3 originally for the excellent lenses. I was hoping that the 12 would be up to their best -- as the 45 seems to be.

Currently I'm using the mostly the 14-54 MkII on my Panasonic bodies and still hoping for dedicated m4/3 lenses to match the quality of the 14-54/12-60/50-200 Olympus zooms.

Gato

--
After 40 years of Canon and Nikon I'm now using a camera named after my toaster.

Silver Mirage Gallery:
http://www.silvermirage.com
 
If I were considering purchasing this lens, I wouldn't let one user's review make the decision for me.

Note some of the comments in the blog, where other users rave about the lens.

I would either rent the lens, or purchase from a dealer with a good return policy, and find out for myself.

Regards,

Richard

--
"Careful photographers run their own tests." - Fred Picker
 
olddigiman1 said:
Without having seen the results for the ultrawide zooms, I think this is a problem with all wide m4/3 primes (neither of the Panny 14, Oly 17 is particularly impressive on the edges). I suspect that the short flange distance and the need for telecentricity results in a lot of barrel distortion (the amount of barreling the above two lenses show without auto-corrections would be riduculous in a full size prime!) for compact/"normal size" form factor lenses, and the in-camera correction degrades the edges.
Click to expand...
Yes exactly the point I made at top, under my real name. People expect too much from m4/3, ignoring the system's constraints.

Like spoiled brats they want small, fast, superwide, and stellar IQ. That is simply not going to happen, even at a high price. So it's not a defect of the lens, but of the system, which was ignored by the reviewer.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
A few weeks ago several mft users reported they were using the Sony UWA adapter on some of their mft lenses with success. Anyone who has it on mft might like to post some of their shots here. I have no idea how it works on mft lenses but apparently the clip on attachment of the UWA worked on some lenses.I think it was selling on Amazon for about $50

The reports on the 12mm Oly and the difficulties in designing wa on very short flange distance cameras with large sensors, put the much (and i still argue, unfairly) maligned Sony 16mm 2.8into some perspective. I'd still argue that this Sony lens is quite good and at the price, an absolute bargain. Given that the Sony is a 1.5X versus 2X factor on the mft, the Sony is even more impressive.
--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia
 
Not really. I checked the edges of the NEX 16mm and they are really horrible, much worse than any m4/3 wide.

The fact that Sony uses a shorter distance to flange, and bigger sensor than m4/3, can only worsen the problems at the edges, compared to m4/3. It is a problem of lack of telecentricity at short focals.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
Or taking your camera into the store and trying a few shots?

Look at this reviewer's conclusion:
mfbernstein said:
This has been a very long (10 parts!) series of posts about one lens. The reason is that its probably the most useful lens I've bought in a long time.
Click to expand...
mfbernstein said:
The only negatives I've seen are that its very expensive and following on from this, for a lens that costs this much, there's some Chromatic Aberration (though not much) throughout the aperture range.
Click to expand...
mfbernstein said:
Apart from those there's much for me to like here.
Click to expand...
mfbernstein said:
It is I believe the sharpest m4/3 lens I've used.
Click to expand...
http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/search/label/Olympus%2012mm%20f%2F2%20Review

I wouldn't make a decision based on what any single reviewer has to say -- if I want the lens because of the aperture/focal length combination, I will read lots of reviews and I will test it personally and make my own decision.

Lots of examples I have seen on this forum tell me this lens is great. As it happens, it isn't the lens I want -- not quite short enough.

By the way, if you're not concerned about the f2, try Oly's supplementary lens to bring the bottom end of the 14-42 down to 11mm. The IQ is surprising!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=39906687

Cheers, geoff
--
Geoffrey Heard
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2011/10/ah-kavieng-new-ireland-you-win.html
 
amalric said:
Not really. I checked the edges of the NEX 16mm and they are really horrible, much worse than any m4/3 wide.
Click to expand...
I thin k we have been down this path before. You checked the edges on the Sony 16mm where? As far as I am aware, all the photo sites reviews of this lens were done at the time of the original Nex release and everyone acknowledges that there were quality issues with this lens at that time. The lens was always seen as sharp in the centre. Additionally however the new release Nex have adjustments to the microlens that have improved the edge performance as well. Again, I'm not aware of any review of the new Nex models that has specifically looked at this lens on the new bodies. The proof however is easily seen.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1042&page=5

Now I can see some edge softness in some of these as well, but nothing to warrant "horrible". About what you might expect from a lens this wide at larger f stops.
amalric said:
The fact that Sony uses a shorter distance to flange, and bigger sensor than m4/3, can only worsen the problems at the edges, compared to m4/3. It is a problem of lack of telecentricity at short focals.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Which is why the performance of this lens is really surprisingly good if one takes the trouble to actually look at the results it now gives rather than the much repeated but rarely checked statements from non users. I'm quite picky about my lenses and use WA a lot. I almost didn't buy a Nex because of the initial reports on this lens. Currently I don't own a Nex for other reasons, but when I get my next travelling system, if its the Nex, I wouldn'y hesitate to buy both the 16mm and the UWA that goes with it.

--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia
 
Jogger said:
but, they are charging too much for it. uncorrected it looks atrocious.. they are saving costs in production but NOT passing the savings onto the user. this is pretty lame. not to mention the $100 lens hood.
Click to expand...
Jogger - why are You bothered by lenses You're not going to ever use? Complain about soft Sony "Zeiss" lenses that go for 999$ ...
 
richj20 said:
If I were considering purchasing this lens, I wouldn't let one user's review make the decision for me.
Click to expand...
Ditto!

Especially when there are other reviews leading to considerably different conclusions, even quite oppozite ones!
richj20 said:
Note some of the comments in the blog, where other users rave about the lens.
Click to expand...
"There's no authority but yourself", so...
richj20 said:
I would either rent the lens, or purchase from a dealer with a good return policy, and find out for myself.
Click to expand...
richj20 said:
"Careful photographers run their own tests." - Fred Picker
Click to expand...
 
Bad answer.

Because the 16mm samples were here to be freely consulted - and they had horrible edges.

IF Sony put microlenses on sensor to obviate the problem that doesn't mean that they made the right choice of format in relation to distance to flange, but exactly the opposite. They now have to pay for the wrong initial choice.

Indeed, compared to the NEX 16mm the 12mm's edges are crystal clear, and with no need of microlenses.

That says something for the better initial choice of m4/3. But you can always go boast in the NEX forum. They might need it, we don't.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
amalric said:
Bad answer.

Because the 16mm samples were here to be freely consulted - and they had horrible edges.

IF Sony put microlenses on sensor to obviate the problem that doesn't mean that they made the right choice of format in relation to distance to flange, but exactly the opposite. They now have to pay for the wrong initial choice.

Indeed, compared to the NEX 16mm the 12mm's edges are crystal clear, and with no need of microlenses.

That says something for the better initial choice of m4/3. But you can always go boast in the NEX forum. They might need it, we don't.
Click to expand...
With due respect, nonsense. You still haven't told us just what 16mm samples you were referring to.

I at no time said that Sony had made the right choice, or even the best choice. That is the problem that all short flange designs have with wa lenses. It is a price both Sony and mft pay for the advantages of the compact mirrorless design.

I think you will find that all dslrs use microlenses, how they are set up varies from camera to camera. Those on the current Nex now seem to be better than they were on the original to compensate for difficulties of the flange distance. Adjusting the angle at which the light strikes the sensor is what microlenses are all about. If anything, you might rightly argue that Sony should have got this better in the first place. and is this really ant different to the in camera lens correction that mft use? I've got no argument with computerized lens correction.

In what way was I boasting? I think I was the first person to post here re the ctein reviews. Have a read of my post. I made no mention of the Sony 16mm lens at that time, in fact I was pretty clear in my admiration for the Oly 45mm lens. All I did in this post was pick up on the fact that a number of posts suggested actually looking at images rather than tests and discussion was going on re the issues in getting lenses this wide to work well with these sort of flange distances. Given the way posters here continually bag the Sony 16mm without actually looking at the current images it seems entirely appropriate to suggest that might look at this lens a little more objectively. In fact, if you check my posts you will find that my interets is in compact mirrorless cameras rather than one brand or the other. I am as likely to take issue with some of the over the top statements made about mft over on Nex as I am to pick up points like this re the Nex on the mft forum.

--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia
 
other then just another reviewer, what authority does he have over the many review sites that favour the 12mm?

This guy up to now is more or less the only reviewer that dismisses the 12mm due to the "many" negatives, huh WTF.

Looks like all here don't have the lens and even never have seen it.

There are enough examples of it's IQ that would suggest the very oposite of what Ctein at TOP states.
mfbernstein said:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/11/olympus-12mm-review.html

Ctein also reviewed the 45/1.8 last week. What a contrast...

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey
Click to expand...
--
Digifan
 
I own this lens as well as the 45mm F1.8 and think that the reviewer is somewhat too harsh toward the Olympus 12 mm F2. I had the feeling that it was a sharp lens and just checked the measures of DIWA-Labs and they are confirming my feelings :

http://www.diwa-labs.com/wip4/test_result_overview.epl?product=8610&id=1029097&lid=1029097

Yes, the 45mm is sharper, shows more uniformity across the frame and wonderful sharp corners :

http://www.diwa-labs.com/wip4/test_result_overview.epl?product=8609&id=1074636&lid=1074636

But the 14mm F2.5 of Panasonic, which the reviewer says is as good as the 12mm lies far behind second DIWA-Labs (I have no first hand experience with that lens, so can't add anything to that, except that I like the pancake size) :

http://www.diwa-labs.com/wip4/test_result_overview.epl?product=8239&id=507306&lid=507306

I compared the 7-14mm zoom at 12mm with the Olympus 12mm and in real life the zoom's performance is not way inferior, but the zoom is huge and heavy and it opens only at f4. DIWA-Labs results for the zoom at 10mm and 14mm are both inferior to the 12mm prime :

http://www.diwa-labs.com/wip4/test_result_overview.epl?product=7693&id=472468&lid=472468

To sum up I agree with those who say that the final judgment of the reviewer would have been different, had he begun to review the 12mm instead of the 45 mm. And yes, the short registration of the mft or Nex cameras represents a challenge for wide angle lenses.

--
rrr_hhh
 
I thought the article spot-on, and it hasn't changed my enjoyment of the lens (to the contrary, it helped sort some things out for myself that I haven't done myself as of yet).

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top