An obituary for my 12-50mm

Started Mar 18, 2014 | Discussions thread
Wallybipster Senior Member • Posts: 1,493
Sharpness throughought the range is worth it

Weegee wrote:

You're starting to add weight that you went to micro 4/3 to avoid! And I'll bet that only 20%, if that many, of your pictures will be taken at f/2.8. Let's face it, you have GAS ( like I have, once in a while! ).

Enjoy the extra weight and girth.

That extra weight and girth is so worth having a long end that doesn't have to be stopped down like crazy to get decent results.  I think that's what I like the best, not necessarily the 2.8.  It's good everywhere in the range.  I'll admit, if you do most of your shooting around 12mm and F4 or above, the 12-50 is fine.  The 12-50 was good at 12, but much worse as you zoomed out.  I doubt the 10mm extra reach even matters much at that point, when I see how much I can crop on the tele end with the 12-40.

Sure, for my purposes a lighter, variable aperture 12-40 would've been nice to be a bit lighter.  But considering I lug the 12-40 just fine up mountains around my shoulder, the extra girth and weight is fine for me.

If I was really wanting to go light, I'd skip the 12-50 all together.  It's sure nice to have a continuum of options available. 

 Wallybipster's gear list:Wallybipster's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +4 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow