-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Zuiko 12-60 four thirds lens for OM-D?
- Thread starter Moonman52
- Start date
Gregm61
Forum Pro
The best micro four-thirds alternative is Panasonic's 12-35mm f2.8. None of the other micro standard zoom models to date can touch the 12-60mm f2.8-4 in the image quality category. Smaller, more convenient to carry and faster AF, yes, but not image quality.
You have to go to the primes to get there. That's why I carry the 12mm f2, 25mm f1.4, 45/1.8 and am on the waiting list at Arlington Camera for the 60mm f2.8 Macro.
--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights
Thanks. The Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 reviews are not very encouraging and the CA issue is unexceptable for a lens in the price catagory. I already have the Panny 14-45 which is pretty good but after seeing the results achievable with my Zuiko 45mm and Panny / Leica 25mm primes I am now looking for a really good zoom.
I also have the OM-D kit 12-60 micro four thirds lens and all I can say is ho hum. I was also considering the four thirds 14-54 mk2 because it is a bit smaller and focuses quicker than the 12-60 four thirds lens but after reading all the reviews the 12-60 really seems to have no competition. How about the Panny Leica 14-50 four thirds lens anyone tried it with OM-D ?
By the way I just picked up a Zuiko 35mm Macro and am experimenting with the it on my OM-D with mmf-3 adapter. Bad news is it is a bit slow to focus but the good news is the results are just outstanding! I am using it for a landscape lens. This lens makes my Panny Leica 25mm f/1.8 and Oly 45mm f/1.4 primes look soft in the corners! I haven't taken it off my OM-D since I got it. I am now thinking the 12-60 f/2.8-4 may be the only lens out there that can really compete with my 3 primes and thus I'm willing to put up with the little extra weight, an adapter and and a slower focus confirm. I am even thinking of adding the grip.
The only thing is if there was a new micro four thirds zoom lens on the horizon coming out in the near future that was finally up to the optical standards of the 12-60 f/2.8-4 I'd have a bit of buyers remorse.
I also have the OM-D kit 12-60 micro four thirds lens and all I can say is ho hum. I was also considering the four thirds 14-54 mk2 because it is a bit smaller and focuses quicker than the 12-60 four thirds lens but after reading all the reviews the 12-60 really seems to have no competition. How about the Panny Leica 14-50 four thirds lens anyone tried it with OM-D ?
By the way I just picked up a Zuiko 35mm Macro and am experimenting with the it on my OM-D with mmf-3 adapter. Bad news is it is a bit slow to focus but the good news is the results are just outstanding! I am using it for a landscape lens. This lens makes my Panny Leica 25mm f/1.8 and Oly 45mm f/1.4 primes look soft in the corners! I haven't taken it off my OM-D since I got it. I am now thinking the 12-60 f/2.8-4 may be the only lens out there that can really compete with my 3 primes and thus I'm willing to put up with the little extra weight, an adapter and and a slower focus confirm. I am even thinking of adding the grip.
The only thing is if there was a new micro four thirds zoom lens on the horizon coming out in the near future that was finally up to the optical standards of the 12-60 f/2.8-4 I'd have a bit of buyers remorse.
John Bean (UK)
Forum Pro
12-50 you mean I guess. Indeed, that's the best you could say about it :-(
When I used 4/3 this was my favourite short tele lens in the landscape, an absolutely superb pictorial lens at any aperture; some true macro lenses are not too good at infinity but not this one - it's hard act to follow at any distance.
However its AF wasn't too good even on a 4/3 body (I had an E-1 and almost always used MF with the 35 macro) so I'm surprised that AF works at all on a micro 4/3 body. Hmm, I may have to look for a nice cheap used sample to play with now that I have an adapter I bought for a ZD25
--
John Bean [BST (GMT+1)]
Sorry, yes mean't 12-50 and yes ho hum is pretty much it. Even the Panasonic 14-45 is sharper. It's not terribly bad at the mid to long end but for wide angle the corners just do no cut it for landscape use even stopped down.
Yes, the 35mm macro does auto focus on the OM-D although it labors a bit. For landscape not a deal breaker. I like it so much I'm considering even selling my 45mm f/1.8 to help pay for the 12-60 f/2.8 zoom. I think its even sharper than either the 45mm or the micro four thirds version Pany Leica 25mm f/1.4 which is saying something.
Yes, the 35mm macro does auto focus on the OM-D although it labors a bit. For landscape not a deal breaker. I like it so much I'm considering even selling my 45mm f/1.8 to help pay for the 12-60 f/2.8 zoom. I think its even sharper than either the 45mm or the micro four thirds version Pany Leica 25mm f/1.4 which is saying something.
12-50 you mean I guess. Indeed, that's the best you could say about it :-(
When I used 4/3 this was my favourite short tele lens in the landscape, an absolutely superb pictorial lens at any aperture; some true macro lenses are not too good at infinity but not this one - it's hard act to follow at any distance.
However its AF wasn't too good even on a 4/3 body (I had an E-1 and almost always used MF with the 35 macro) so I'm surprised that AF works at all on a micro 4/3 body. Hmm, I may have to look for a nice cheap used sample to play with now that I have an adapter I bought for a ZD25
--
John Bean [BST (GMT+1)]
John Bean (UK)
Forum Pro
On one of the testing sites (slrgear I think it was) the 35 macro maxed-out their standard sharpness test as soon as it was stopped down even a tiny amount - they simply couldn't measure any blur, even in the corners. That's pretty much how I remember it on 4/3 too, and the same as you're finding it even on the much more lens-challenging E-M5 sensor.
It's such a good lens optically I'm surprised that Olympus never updated the focus mechanism or - better - re-mounted it as native micro 4/3. Some people may turn their nose up at its modest maximum aperture but I'm hard pressed to think of any lens - at any price - that can produce both better corner to corner sharpness and better-looking defocussed blur than the humble ZD35 macro.
--
John Bean [BST (GMT+1)]
mring1
Senior Member
The 12-50 had three priorities: good video capability, a competent macro capability and a competent stills capability. In that order. It also had to be a small as possible to meet the marketing needs of smaller cameras.
Given those priorities, its still photography capabilities are distinctly inferior to HG Oly glass. I can't speak to the comparisons with the Pany glass, although most of the commentary I've heard seems to suggest, as above, that the original 14-45 was the best of the bunch.
As a stills lens, it'd rate it better than "ho-hum", but I kept my 14-54 Mk I for stills use on my E-M5. The two lenses complement one another. The macro capability of the 12-50 lens has gotten me to a type of photography I'd never indulged in before. I'm still trying to get the hang of the video part. They wanted a lens proportional to the camera that did those three things. That involved some compromise.
Now for what is strictly IMHO...and that is I'd not sit around and wait for an m4/3s Oly equivalent to the 12-60. I think Oly and Pany have sorted out their lens directions. Oly's is very good primes and Pany's is good to very good zooms. You may see some other options from other manufacturers, but if you're looking for a 12-60 that works on m4/3s, my suggestion would be the 14-54 Mk II.
I've quit pining for photographic "vaporware"....an E-7, a rangefinder style body with EVF, or HG Oly m4/3s zooms. We'll know it's there when we see it. Otherwise, you have to use what is available.
Given those priorities, its still photography capabilities are distinctly inferior to HG Oly glass. I can't speak to the comparisons with the Pany glass, although most of the commentary I've heard seems to suggest, as above, that the original 14-45 was the best of the bunch.
As a stills lens, it'd rate it better than "ho-hum", but I kept my 14-54 Mk I for stills use on my E-M5. The two lenses complement one another. The macro capability of the 12-50 lens has gotten me to a type of photography I'd never indulged in before. I'm still trying to get the hang of the video part. They wanted a lens proportional to the camera that did those three things. That involved some compromise.
Now for what is strictly IMHO...and that is I'd not sit around and wait for an m4/3s Oly equivalent to the 12-60. I think Oly and Pany have sorted out their lens directions. Oly's is very good primes and Pany's is good to very good zooms. You may see some other options from other manufacturers, but if you're looking for a 12-60 that works on m4/3s, my suggestion would be the 14-54 Mk II.
I've quit pining for photographic "vaporware"....an E-7, a rangefinder style body with EVF, or HG Oly m4/3s zooms. We'll know it's there when we see it. Otherwise, you have to use what is available.
alfa
Well-known member
The 12-60 is hard to beat and the simple answer is that you probably can't attach a better zoom to your camera. If you can live with the slower AF and the weight, there are no other problems. It's quite wieldy on the E-M5 and I use it a lot. I also use the FT 9-18 and the 70-300 quite a bit. The 50-200 SWD works much better on the FT body.
The 12-50 is a clever combination of everything most people would want out of a kit lens but it doesn't have the insistent, uncompromising sharpness of the 12-60. But it will fit in your pocket enabling you to go shooting with one or two primes, a zoom and no bag.
The 12-50 is a clever combination of everything most people would want out of a kit lens but it doesn't have the insistent, uncompromising sharpness of the 12-60. But it will fit in your pocket enabling you to go shooting with one or two primes, a zoom and no bag.
Julian_K
Senior Member
The answer would have to be yes. Although the 12-35mm is smaller and focuses faster it is still not up to the optical quality of the 12-60mm, Given you can pick this lens up for $600-$700 second hand these days it is a bargain.
I recently finished a trip to China with the EM5 + 12-60mm combo (among other lenses) and my pictures are here:
http://www.julian-kaesler.com/p782810217
Jules
-----------------
http://www.jkaesler.zenfolio.com
I recently finished a trip to China with the EM5 + 12-60mm combo (among other lenses) and my pictures are here:
http://www.julian-kaesler.com/p782810217
Jules
-----------------
http://www.jkaesler.zenfolio.com
newsposter
Leading Member
Is the barrel diameter. The lens will block a lot of the OM-D focus assist light making any kind of low-light autofocus problematic.
Other than that, running this lens for the past month has been a pleasure.
Other than that, running this lens for the past month has been a pleasure.
I stopped using the 12-60 SWD on my E-PM1 because of the violent back and forth torque in the focus mechanism while the camera was acquiring focus. The 14-54mm Mk I doesn't seem to have this problem. But I noticed that the focus with the 12-60mm was spot on, almost every time, while the focus with the 14-54mm Mk I wasn't as reliably accurate as with the 12-60mm. (It may also have been user error when the 14-54mm "missed" focus, but I didn't seem to have this issue with the 12-60mm.)
Julian_K
Senior Member
Correct. I have the 14-54mm II as well and both focus at pretty much the same speed with the OMD, there's not much in it at all. I plan to sell the 14-54mm II as I notice better results from the 12-60mm
-----------------
http://www.jkaesler.zenfolio.com
-----------------
http://www.jkaesler.zenfolio.com
3DrJ
Senior Member
I've also been using the 14-54mm Mk1 with the EM-5. While it auto-focuses slowly , that it does at all is amazing. And the images produced with the lens are quite good.
The 14-54mm is a bit larger than ideal, but not a problem to use with the EM-5. So far, it's the only lens I have for the EM-5 that is "weather-resistant", not a shabby benefit in the rainy climate I live in.
Perhaps the most important merit of the lens is that I already own it.
It will be great when Olympus produces a version for the OM-D cameras, or when they make the camera with PDAF capability. Or both, for the ideal solution.
JRA
--
Artists must not only see, but see what they are seeing.
So, from what I gather, the 12-60 SWD tosses about and jitters, but is a sharper lens than the 14-54?
I had the 14-35 f2 SWD for a time and it would violently jitter, but that is a lot of glass to move around. An Olympus tech told me that the SWD lenses focus so fast that on the OMD, they overshoot the focus back and forth until they hit the spot.
I had the 14-35 f2 SWD for a time and it would violently jitter, but that is a lot of glass to move around. An Olympus tech told me that the SWD lenses focus so fast that on the OMD, they overshoot the focus back and forth until they hit the spot.
For landscape you should be looking at the 4/3 9-18 or one of the 7-14's either the Panny m4/3 (convenient) or Oly 4/3 (superior).
yokosin
Member
How would you compare the 4/3 12-60 SWD with the m4/3 12-50?
I have the 4/3 12-60 on the e620 and thinking if I should get the convertor. Unfortunately, I don't have much Olympus lens as use more Nikon kit.
The Olympus is kind of my light duty SLR and love the OM-D and keen to get both the ultra-wide and zoom lens gradually. Maybe wait till more choice as Sigma release more choice.
I have the 4/3 12-60 on the e620 and thinking if I should get the convertor. Unfortunately, I don't have much Olympus lens as use more Nikon kit.
The Olympus is kind of my light duty SLR and love the OM-D and keen to get both the ultra-wide and zoom lens gradually. Maybe wait till more choice as Sigma release more choice.
alfa
Well-known member
I have both.
You can get very good results with the 12-50, especially if you focus it manually but you can't expect 12-60 insistent sharpness and contrast out of it. I bought the MMF-3 converter so I can take the OM-D and the 12-60 out in the rain and that is my default walk around. The 12-60 really takes advantage of the OM-D's better sensor and with the 1.5 software upgrade, it focusses faster and with less jitter than before, though still nowhere near the lightning speed you will get from MFT lenses, which are, if anything a bit too quick and silent. The X10 I have has a green focus LED on the back and I'd like one or even a beep to confirm focus has been found when there has been no apparent response to a half press of the shutter.
I think the biggest letdown in the 12-50 design is its size. It's not quite small enough to turn the OM-D into a pocket POS and if you already own the 12-60, that's can do all you'll want the 12-50 for and do it better as pocket ultra-sharp primes do the portability.
You can get very good results with the 12-50, especially if you focus it manually but you can't expect 12-60 insistent sharpness and contrast out of it. I bought the MMF-3 converter so I can take the OM-D and the 12-60 out in the rain and that is my default walk around. The 12-60 really takes advantage of the OM-D's better sensor and with the 1.5 software upgrade, it focusses faster and with less jitter than before, though still nowhere near the lightning speed you will get from MFT lenses, which are, if anything a bit too quick and silent. The X10 I have has a green focus LED on the back and I'd like one or even a beep to confirm focus has been found when there has been no apparent response to a half press of the shutter.
I think the biggest letdown in the 12-50 design is its size. It's not quite small enough to turn the OM-D into a pocket POS and if you already own the 12-60, that's can do all you'll want the 12-50 for and do it better as pocket ultra-sharp primes do the portability.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum