I still don't understand why it's so good but it is.

AlmostDoctor · Nov 10, 2020

I have been using this lens for several months now.

I still don't understand why I like the images from this lens so much. I just cannot figure it out.

Looking at the spec sheet, this lens does not seem so impressive.

Both the MTF charts online and my own testing show this lens to be technically less sharp than Lumix primes (20mm and 42.5F1.7) or Lumix 12-35 F2.8II at F4.

It has slow F4 maximum aperture.

Raw files have quite a bit of distortion without any software correction.

Physical size and weight is larger and heavier than people expected it to be (especially compared to say Lumix 12-60 F3.5-5.6 and Lumix 12-35 F2.8)

Yet somehow, I am constantly pleased by the output from this lens in a way that Lumix primes and Lumix 12-35 F2.8 II did not quite do at similar apertures. In fact, I have done extensive a side by side shoot with 12-35 with real world scenes and eventually decided to trade in 12-35. Of the lenses I've used, only PL15 and PL25 produce comparable quality images, but I don't even think they are necessarily better at F4 and up. The PL primes are sharper, but the last time I took the photo of the same scene with PL15 @ F4 and 12-45 @ F4, I preferred the output from 12-45 (photos posted below).

I have tried to make sense of why I like the output from this lens so much.

I think I feel like the images from 12-45 F4 just have more natural and pleasant quality to them.

It's sharp enough, without coming off as clinical or over-sharpened.

Good color and contrast without coming off excessively vibrant or contrasty.

Bokeh, while not a lot, tend to feels natural and blends smoothly into the background.

Shadows really look like shadows, rather than colors with different lightness.

Possibly most important, I feel that this lens does a good job reproducing three dimensional textures without rendering images like lines on a flat surface.

I don't know if my impression is true or it's just in my head.

It is entirely possibly that I'm just imagining it.

Either way, I know that if I'm shooting something at F4 and above in 12-45mm range, this lens is all I need to create images I am satisfied with. And that's good enough for me.

I deducted half a star from the review since I ran into a few copies of the lens with focusing issues. When you purchase this lens, I recommend you buy from a store with good return policy to ensure that you get a properly functioning copy.

Sample images are SOOC. They aren't necessarily interesting shots, but I think they are relevant.

This is a shot not from Oly 12-45 F4, but PL15 @ F4 as a reference.

PL15 @F4 for reference.

Here's the same scene with Oly 12-45 F4.

Oly 12-45 @ F4. Not identical images since it was a quick comparison driven by my own spontaneous curiosity, but I think it's good enough to make a point that the images are quite similar. PL15 image is a bit sharper, but I actually like the output from 12-45 better in this instance. Hard to tell if the difference is primarily due to slight difference in exposure/framing or something else. Either way, there isn't a huge difference between the two at F4 in a practical sense.

Albert Valentino · Nov 10, 2020

Nice review. Seems many are impresed with this lens since I read nothing good things, love the title of this review, “I still don't understand why it's so good but it is”. This is exactly what I said when I both its big brother, the 12-100 Pro. The versatility makes up for the size and weight, but optical quality remains uncompromised.

--

If you don't get older and wiser, than you just get older.

Harold66 · Nov 10, 2020

This thread clearly illustrates the power of self persuasion ;-)

H

AlmostDoctor · Nov 10, 2020

Albert Valentino said:
Nice review. Seems many are impresed with this lens since I read nothing good things, love the title of this review, “I still don't understand why it's so good but it is”. This is exactly what I said when I both its big brother, the 12-100 Pro. The versatility makes up for the size and weight, but optical quality remains uncompromised.

--

If you don't get older and wiser, than you just get older.

I did get an impression that 12-45 is more similar in it's rendering to 12-100 than any of the other lenses based on the images I've seen. And like 12-45, the images seem to come out looking better than the MTF charts will have you believe.

AlmostDoctor · Nov 10, 2020

Harold66 said:
This thread clearly illustrates the power of self persuasion ;-)

H

victorav · Nov 10, 2020

This will probably be my next lens. Nice zoom range in a small size with reasonable aperture. If I need something faster I can switch to primes.

Not a great choice if you already have the 12-40 though.

Albert Valentino · Nov 10, 2020

victorav said:
This will probably be my next lens. Nice zoom range in a small size with reasonable aperture. If I need something faster I can switch to primes.

Not a great choice if you already have the 12-40 though.

I had the faster 12-40 and 40-150 Pro but sold both for the 12-100 f/4 even though it is a smaller aperture, but I shoot mostly still and in good light at base ISO and rarely used my 12-40 Pro wide open. So I am happy with the f/4, and that keeps the size more manageable, my old 40-150 f/2.8 often stayed at home. That said, this year I picked up the tiny and fantastic Olympius 25mm f/1.8 and 45mm f/1.8 primes to compliment my f/4 zoom. The primes are both great but in practice, I never use them. I shoot mostly nature stuff and also have the wonderful Olympus 60mm macro. But the close focus of the Pro zooms is often enough not to bother with the macro. The 12-45 i think offers 0,3x mag which is really handy. Other systems do not have much in the way of close focus zooms, which was one of the reasons I left Fuji four years ago.

Skeeterbytes · Nov 10, 2020

Thank you, helpful writeup.

Pondering one for a compact standard zoom to add to the kit, something equally at home on an E-M1 and GM5. It occupies a space between the 12-40 and 12-32, much smaller than the first and less fussy than the second (plus weather-sealed).

Cheers,

Rick

mtnroads · Nov 10, 2020

The 12-45 is simply a fantastic lens, especially if weight and size are important. It is more compact and 6oz lighter than the 12-40, with the same rugged build, not to mention the extra reach seems greater than one would expect.. After comparing it side by side with my 12-40, I could see no difference in image quality, or detail, even at 100%. Since most of my photography is foreign travel, landscape or motorcycle adventures with a premium on light weight and portability, I sold the 12-40. I do always have a fast prime along though, and the story would be different if I were doing studio work or weddings..

gary0319 · Nov 10, 2020

Albert Valentino said:
Nice review. Seems many are impresed with this lens since I read nothing good things, love the title of this review, “I still don't understand why it's so good but it is”. This is exactly what I said when I both its big brother, the 12-100 Pro. The versatility makes up for the size and weight, but optical quality remains uncompromised.

When I received my 12-45 f/4 and looked at the first set of images, I immediately noticed the kinship to my 12-100 f/4.... siblings for sure.

gary0319 · Nov 10, 2020

victorav said:
This will probably be my next lens. Nice zoom range in a small size with reasonable aperture. If I need something faster I can switch to primes.

Not a great choice if you already have the 12-40 though.

I had both the 14-40 f/2.8 and the 12-45 f/4 at the same time. After a bit I sold the 12-40 since it was sharpest at f/4 anyway, I most always stopped it down to get mor3 DOF, and f/2.8 really wasn’t that great for low light, so I normally would go for my 25 f/1.8.

AlmostDoctor · Nov 10, 2020

Skeeterbytes said:
Thank you, helpful writeup.

Pondering one for a compact standard zoom to add to the kit, something equally at home on an E-M1 and GM5. It occupies a space between the 12-40 and 12-32, much smaller than the first and less fussy than the second (plus weather-sealed).

Cheers,

Rick

AlmostDoctor · Nov 10, 2020

mtnroads said:
The 12-45 is simply a fantastic lens, especially if weight and size are important. It is more compact and 6oz lighter than the 12-40, with the same rugged build, not to mention the extra reach seems greater than one would expect.. After comparing it side by side with my 12-40, I could see no difference in image quality, or detail, even at 100%. Since most of my photography is foreign travel, landscape or motorcycle adventures with a premium on light weight and portability, I sold the 12-40. I do always have a fast prime along though, and the story would be different if I were doing studio work or weddings..

Agreed that when shooting events, faster zoom would likely be more important.

But since travel landscape is my primary use for my photography gear, F4 isn't a problem. I always carry primes on me anyway if I need speed.

The weight shavings really matters during travel when I'm walking 10 miles a day everyday for like a week straight. Careful lens/body selection can shave quite a bit of weight as a whole.

victorav · Nov 10, 2020

Yes I've gotten a lot more into landscape photography so rarely shoot wider then f4, which would make the 12-45 f4 perfect. I own both the olympus 17mm and 45mm 1.8 primes, so if weather sealing is not required or I want shallower DOF or need a larger aperture I can use them.

I think the 12-45 complements the small panasonic and olympus primes nicely.

I like shooting primes but sometimes it's nice to have the convince of a zoom.

AlmostDoctor · Nov 10, 2020

victorav said:
Yes I've gotten a lot more into landscape photography so rarely shoot wider then f4, which would make the 12-45 f4 perfect. I own both the olympus 17mm and 45mm 1.8 primes, so if weather sealing is not required or I want shallower DOF or need a larger aperture I can use them.

I think the 12-45 complements the small panasonic and olympus primes nicely.

I like shooting primes but sometimes it's nice to have the convince of a zoom.

I have noticed that I appreciate zooms beyond simple convenience especially when I'm shooting landscapes.

When shooting landscapes, I'm often looking for exact composition where all the objects in the frame are in their intended place. That means I often cannot "zoom with my feet" because it changes my composition. Zooms often allow me to frame my shot exactly as I wanted without having to crop heavily in post or make compromises on the composition.

I personally use Laowa 7.5, PL15, and PL25 to complement 12-45. It's a relatively small setup that works very well for me.

Lichtspiel · Nov 10, 2020

Thank you for this review, and especially the comparisons. I am shooting with the 12-35 and have frequently pondered the 12-45, but I feel like I might miss the f2.8. Not for low light situations, but for better subject separation/smoother background/bokeh.

If I go hiking with the zoom lens I don't take primes with me, so I would not necessarily have a faster aperture available.

Regarding your comparison, it seems like the shot with the 12-35 is a tad more exposed, leading to less saturated colors, which may make you prefer the 12-45 shot.

With such comparisons, I have always found less differences than expected (between similar lenses!). Matter of fact, one such comparison lead me to sell my 17/1.2 because, at similar apertures, there was not much difference to the 15/1.7 nor 12-35. Of course, the kit 14-42 was significantly fuzzier towards the edges, so not a serious contender for me.

I have been looking at the prices at the outlet, and if there is another 20% coupon one day and the 12-45 is available I'll bite and do my own comparisons. But even if that never happens... I am pretty happy with the 12-35 (or the primes).

AlmostDoctor · Nov 10, 2020

Lichtspiel said:
Thank you for this review, and especially the comparisons. I am shooting with the 12-35 and have frequently pondered the 12-45, but I feel like I might miss the f2.8. Not for low light situations, but for better subject separation/smoother background/bokeh.

If I go hiking with the zoom lens I don't take primes with me, so I would not necessarily have a faster aperture available.

In your situation, I would just keep 12-35. In fact, if I only had panasonic body, I would probably have kept 12-35 since dual IS works with that lens and Pana IBIS is not in the same league as Olympus.

For me, I always carry primes anyway so I preferred the longer range and closer focusing of 12-45. F2.8 zooms are better as one-lens solution.

Lichtspiel said:
Regarding your comparison, it seems like the shot with the 12-35 is a tad more exposed, leading to less saturated colors, which may make you prefer the 12-45 shot.

Actually, those shots are comparison between Panasonic Leica 15mm F1.7 prime at F4 and Oly12-45F4. Interestingly, I had already thought of the difference in exposure and tried to edit them both from raw with similar exposure and settings. My conclusion was the same. PL15 is visibly sharper, but I still preferred the image from 12-45. I can post those images too if you are curious, but maybe in another post since this one is already image-heavy (see below).

As for 12-35 vs 12-45, I have posted comparison shots between them in another thread awhile back, but I'll post some here for your convenience since you seem to be curious.

As you can see, the differences are quite subtle and in most situations will not affect the overall quality of the image in any substantial way. Yet, when I compared the shots initially without having any idea which of the pair was taken on which lens, I overwhelmingly picked the images from 12-45 as the better of the two of the twenty or so image pairs.

I knew from shooting a bunch of rulers that 12-35 is sharper at F4 than 12-45, but carefully examining the images from both made me think that 12-45 renders images just slightly more three dimensionally. For example, on the images of the spiky grass, I think the 12-45 image makes each of the blade look more tubular, which is actually how the grass looked in person.

Lichtspiel said:
With such comparisons, I have always found less differences than expected (between similar lenses!). Matter of fact, one such comparison lead me to sell my 17/1.2 because, at similar apertures, there was not much difference to the 15/1.7 nor 12-35. Of course, the kit 14-42 was significantly fuzzier towards the edges, so not a serious contender for me.

Yes, as you say, differences are often quite subtle if not identical in some instances. But I also think that it's highly dependent on the subject and the scene. If the scene is not demanding enough to highlight the differences, you will end up seeing similar images.

If there were two guitarists with different skill levels and you wanted to know which one of them is better, asking them to play "Smells like teen spirit" would most likely not help you find the better of the two since that song would likely be far too easy anyone could play well. Ask them to play something like "Classical Gas" though, it might be easier for you to hear the difference in their skill level.

In the past, I have done some controlled indoor comparisons between 12-32, PL15, and 12-35 and found little differences. Yet out in the real world shooting landscapes, I often encountered situations where 12-32 just couldn't deliver satisfactory IQ but better lenses could, even at identical apertures. I know from the thousands of images I have shot on12-32 that at least my copy of the lens could have never produced images similar in detail to the example images of 12-45 I posted in the original post.

Lichtspiel said:
I have been looking at the prices at the outlet, and if there is another 20% coupon one day and the 12-45 is available I'll bite and do my own comparisons. But even if that never happens... I am pretty happy with the 12-35 (or the primes).

12-35 is an excellent lens on it's own merit. The only reason why I traded it in was because 12-45 was meeting my needs better and 12-35 was rarely being used...and I really wanted to get a silver Pen-F in good condition before it became too difficult to find. I still do think though, that 12-45 produces more pleasing images than the lens spec would have you believe.

eques · Nov 10, 2020

Lichtspiel said:
Regarding your comparison, it seems like the shot with the 12-35 is a tad more exposed, leading to less saturated colors, which may make you prefer the 12-45 shot.

That's it.

Also I suspect, that lens profiles not only correct vignetting and distortion, but that Olympus lenses are set to slightly higher saturation than Panasonic lenses. At least I got that impression when I started using my 12-100.

I also wonder, that your 12-45 is less sharp than your 20. My 12-100 is at least as sharp as my 20. (And I unexplicably prefer the output of the 20, but use the 12-100 :-D ). But here sample variation might explain these differences.

Peter

Lichtspiel · Nov 10, 2020

AlmostDoctor said:
Lichtspiel said:

Thank you for this review, and especially the comparisons. I am shooting with the 12-35 Regarding your comparison, it seems like the shot with the 12-35 is a tad more exposed, leading to less saturated colors, which may make you prefer the 12-45 shot.

Click to expand...

Actually, those shots are comparison between Panasonic Leica 15mm F1.7 prime at F4 and Oly12-45F4.

Yes you are right, as I was replying to your post I got the lenses mixed up. They "render" pretty similarly though.

I enjoyed reading your response. I will have a closer look at the comps tomorrow, appreciate you posting them.

AlmostDoctor · Nov 10, 2020

Lichtspiel said:
Thank you for this review, and especially the comparisons. I am shooting with the 12-35 and have frequently pondered the 12-45, but I feel like I might miss the f2.8. Not for low light situations, but for better subject separation/smoother background/bokeh.

If I go hiking with the zoom lens I don't take primes with me, so I would not necessarily have a faster aperture available.

Regarding your comparison, it seems like the shot with the 12-35 is a tad more exposed, leading to less saturated colors, which may make you prefer the 12-45 shot.

With such comparisons, I have always found less differences than expected (between similar lenses!). Matter of fact, one such comparison lead me to sell my 17/1.2 because, at similar apertures, there was not much difference to the 15/1.7 nor 12-35. Of course, the kit 14-42 was significantly fuzzier towards the edges, so not a serious contender for me.

I have been looking at the prices at the outlet, and if there is another 20% coupon one day and the 12-45 is available I'll bite and do my own comparisons. But even if that never happens... I am pretty happy with the 12-35 (or the primes).

Here's the PL15 prime vs Oly 12-45 comparison, both developed from raw in DxO to try to match the exposure. The preset settings are the same.

I still don't understand why it's so good but it is.

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts