Olympus 12-40 easily beats the Canon 17-55 at f/2.8 (but not when stopped down).

Started Nov 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
LTZ470 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,926
Re: Olympus 12-40 easily beats the Canon 17-55 at f/2.8 (but not when stopped down).

technic wrote:

Timbukto wrote:

I'm not 100% sure your wide open shots were in complete focus on the Canon, but thats always the peril of shooting a PDAF camera with no MFA (which many DSLR manufacturers still do). I would never buy a DSLR without MFA...that or I would expect to stop down all the time, or get soundly trounced by mirrorless cameras.

Yes, and the 17-55 has less DOF than the 12-40 with both at the same aperture, which will also skew the result a bit in favor of the Olympus especially if there is some field curvature.

f/4 on m43 vs f/8 on Canon are virtually same DOF? I think Canon has more advantage actually...

In real life, that DOF difference can be an advantage or a disadvantage, but it sure makes comparing tricky. IMHO it would be more correct to use the 17-55 at 1/2 stop down from Olympus values (e.g. f/2.8 and f/3.5).

Actually f/5.6? on the Canon...

Agree with Rens that the way the Olympus renders the image makes any sharpness comparison almost futile; it looks totally different and yes, very 'processed'.

One in Spring and one in fall love Oly colors myself…but the Canon renders almost fluorescent green leaves (too green)

Still, the 12-40 seems to be a great lens compared to the 17-55, given the smaller size.

I didn't think it would be smaller? Is it actually?

The Oly 12-40 is the most interesting fast zoom on a smaller sensor so far (the 18-35 is a specialty lens albiet an optically superb one but doesn't get close to portrait focal length to be general purpose).

The 17-55 on say a 7D makes not that much sense compared to say a 24-105L on a 6D. The Sigma 24-105 on Nikon D610 would be a compelling choice as well. I picked 6D myself as I IMO picked the better camera out of the two choices I had at the time (i.e. the defunct D600).

Why does the 17-55 'not make much sense', because of focal length range? My impression from the Canon forums is that the 17-55 has better corners, especially in the WA range and near wide open, compared to the 24-105 on FF body. Another option to compare on APS-C would be the Canon 15-85IS (24-135mm equiv.), which is half the price of the Olympus 12-40 (the 15-85 has more tele range, but is effectively 1 stop slower at 80mm equiv.).

17-55 f/2.8 is an excellent lens, I owned one a few years ago...

-- hide signature --

--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.
I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow