Olympus 12mm f/2 vs. 17mm f1.8

Excellent IBIS means interiors don't have to have a f1.8 type lens. But 12mm will be more useful for FOV obviously. The 12, if you get a decent copy, renders very nicely... not super sharp but smooth with nice background quality blur... there are some very bad 12mm copies out there. The 17 is a bit more ordinary in rendering quality, and also is usably sharp. Both are a bit soft off centre used wide open. If you shoot RAW and process using a good lens profile, like DXO Photolab 6 Elite has, both are quite usable wide open.

You didn't want other lenses, but the 12-40 2.8 is better wide open, covers both FL with some ability to zoom in for details... and f2.8 with IBIS for still interiors is fine. The 12-45 f4 would also probably be OK with IBIS for interiors unless super dark. F1.8/ 2.0 is better for low light when higher shutter speeds are needed... like shooting people/ portraits. With this in mind, the 17 is a better companion to either zoom as it is better for people pics... less wide angle stretching of heads etc.

Agree the 12-40 is sharper at that FL than the 12/2, so unless size or the extra stop are important....

The zoom is also sharper than the 17/1.8, even while not equaling the 12mm resolution. At that FL the 1.2 Pro sets a much higher bar than anything else we have at our disposal, but not under consideration here.

Cheers,

Rick

I have both, and they probably my most used lenses. They are small, have great character with nice background rendering. That makes them fantastic as carry-anywhere lenses for social settings. If I throw a camera (E-M1 or E-P7) in my bag with a single lens, one of these two will be mounted.

The 17mm has a nicer focal length for situational portraits, but my 12mm is a bit sharper. Both have their uses.

However, if I'd pack for a camera-centric trip shooting scenery and buildings, I'd probably settle for a zoom instead.

Cheers,
Simon

Skeeterbytes said:

Agree the 12-40 is sharper at that FL than the 12/2, so unless size or the extra stop are important....

The zoom is also sharper than the 17/1.8, even while not equaling the 12mm resolution. At that FL the 1.2 Pro sets a much higher bar than anything else we have at our disposal, but not under consideration here.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

Rick, you've got me thinking now. Would you say that I may be able to suffice with taking only a 12-40 f/2.8 PRO instead of my 12-45 f/4 PRO and a faster prime?

I'm beginning to think that given my OM-5's great IBIS and my willingness to let ISO rise to maybe 1000, f/2.8 might be sufficient as a single lens solution.

jalywol said:

Tom Caldwell said:

Crazy Micro Four Thirds Dude said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

Crazy Micro Four Thirds Dude said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

I’m considering one of these two lenses for some overseas traveling where I expect to find myself in situations where I would want a relatively wide angle as well as a faster focal length for the no doubt reduced light that I’ll encounter with interiors of churches, cathedrals and other buildings.

Click to expand...

Are you only shooting the stated places, and expect to not shoot anything else?

Click to expand...

I will be taking my OM-5, the 12-45 and either the 12 or 17. That's it. I want a very light set up. The 12-45 will cover everything other than interiors for which, I'm trying to decide on these two.

jalywol said:

Is price a consideration? Used or new? 17mm 30%ish cheaper.

Click to expand...

No, it's not.

jalywol said:

jalywol said:

I’m mindful of the trade off of wider angle yet slower aperture vs. faster aperture yet narrower FOV.

Click to expand...

Seems kind of strange to not make this part of the comparison.

Click to expand...

I didn't say I was not making it part of my decision only that I'm mindful of that trade off.

jalywol said:

jalywol said:

What I would like to know is how do you feel they compare in terms of sharpness and aberration control.

Click to expand...

I would say general consensus will point to more people saying the 12mm is a very nice lens, some reports of decentering (from others).

Click to expand...

Yes, I've read about that.

jalywol said:

jalywol said:

And to hopefully keep this topic on track, these are the only two that I’m considering so please don’t suggest any others and also I’d really like to only hear from folks that have used both.

Click to expand...

The only thing is, the 17mm makes no sense owning the 20mm, and the 12mm is spendy for what you get, and although it's nice, I think many people might agree, it's not worth the high price, especially when there's a lot of lenses available.

Click to expand...

Well, as I said, this is for travel, international travel specifically, so the 20 doesn't figure in. That's for use at home. And the 12 is only $100 more than the 17 so cost is not a factor in my decision.

jalywol said:

My answer before I do it(sorry), if it's one or the other, the 12mm makes way more sense.

Click to expand...

That's the answer I'm looking for.

jalywol said:

Then you could leave your 12-45 at home, and its 12, 20, 40-150 come with.

Click to expand...

See my comments above about two lenses for travel.

jalywol said:

I hate to do it, but I am kinda a gear list guy, and the 12-45mm is a nice lens, but it is kind of drag compared to the rival lenses,one from it's own maker. So my real answer is sell or TRADE!! that 12-45 in and get the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8, its the same rough size as the 12-45mm. The 12-45mm might even sell for more than the lumix. For your Olympus camera the version 2 wouldn't add any benefit, so the version 1 could be had for even less.

Click to expand...

I'd have to be convinced that the Panasonic is noticeably (not via pixel peeping) better than the OM Systems lens.

Click to expand...

I don't think you will find either one to knock the socks off the other one with pure sharpness or the like..... When both cameras are set to f4.

By "better" one could say that at 12-35mm lens is better, because it has an available stop of light at 23 different focal lengths. (12mm and 17mm included).

By "worse" one could say the 12-35mm is missing 10mm of reach.

That leaves the question is f2.8 fast enough? The lenses are the same size, one can reach farther, but with a stop slower throughout, the other can give you a stop of speed, but not reach.

Click to expand...

Yes the 12-35/3.5-5.6 is an excellent lens with IS and is fairly cheap and very common as it was a kit lens on many Panasonic camera bodies. It also does not have an aperture ring. It does collapse into a very compact form factor when not in use.

Click to expand...

Actually, he is talking about the 12-35mm f2.8, not the kit 12-32mm f3.5-5.6 . The 12-35mm f 2.8 was actually one of my suggestions also...

Click to expand...

My mistake and thanks for the correction - it is 12-32/3.5-5.6 and I stand by my assertion. It is both compact and capable somewhat traduced by the fact that it is a common or garden 'kit lens'. It is slow-ish but the lens is stabilised.

I don't know the 12-35/2.8 hence a partial reason for my mistake. But I do have the Olympus 12-40/2.8 Pro which is indeed an excellent lens (no IS of course) but its sheer size rules it out of this equation.

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

Skeeterbytes said:

Agree the 12-40 is sharper at that FL than the 12/2, so unless size or the extra stop are important....

The zoom is also sharper than the 17/1.8, even while not equaling the 12mm resolution. At that FL the 1.2 Pro sets a much higher bar than anything else we have at our disposal, but not under consideration here.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

Rick, you've got me thinking now. Would you say that I may be able to suffice with taking only a 12-40 f/2.8 PRO instead of my 12-45 f/4 PRO and a faster prime?

I'm beginning to think that given my OM-5's great IBIS and my willingness to let ISO rise to maybe 1000, f/2.8 might be sufficient as a single lens solution.

Click to expand...

Yes, I've done backcountry hiking with just the 12-40 and it's a complete package in a fast standard zoom. One benefit over the 12-45 past the extra stop is snap MF, which I use a lot in tricky conditions.

For maximum resolution across the zoom range, shoot 12mm wide open and 40mm at f:4. The crossover begins past 25mm.

Cheers,

Rick

cba_melbourne said:

Tom Caldwell said:

...........

One might wonder whether the 12/2.0 also needs to be divided into the cheap silver and later similarly priced black version which can usually be bought at reasonable price after-market. Versus the arm and a leg "Limited" version which I persuaded myself that I really needed because it was coloured "black" and somehow was worth quite a lot more than the much cheaper 'cooking silver' which was the only alternative at the time.

Click to expand...

My 12/2.0 is silver, but made in Japan just like the later "Limited Black" version only sold in a kit. So far I have not heard of any complaints (like one-sided soft edges due to de-centering) from a Japan made 12/2.0 regardless of color.


If Japan made it says so engraved on the lens barrel. If made in China or Vietnam it says so besides the electric contacts. That metal lens hood is the much cheaper JJC clone from AliExpress, I guess that is why it a different silver tone

[ATTACH alt="This is the "Limited Black" version, currently used on ebay from a Japanese seller for only US$268.90, but without the originally bundled extras. If I was looking for a 12/2 today, I would order this one before it is gone https://www.ebay.com/itm/394101383381"]3429209[/ATTACH]
This is the "Limited Black" version, currently used on ebay from a Japanese seller for only US$268.90, but without the originally bundled extras. If I was looking for a 12/2 today, I would order this one before it is gone https://www.ebay.com/itm/394101383381

cba_melbourne said:

My second oem lens M4/3 after the kit 12-32 that came with the GM1 that I bought.

Never looked back but I doubt that the Limited version has held its premium value for resale purposes. Not that I have ever looked as mine is certainly never-for-sale.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks, I don't remember how much I paid for mine. It was unobtainable in Australia and low stocks everywhere else. I managed to get it a bit cheaper buying it direct from Japan.

Mine has the word "Limited Black" engraved on it to the right of the mount point red dot and came with a filter and matched hood in the box.

Obviously disappointed when the Black-only "Limited Edition" was re-released at the same price as the silver-only cheap version - but the words "limited black" is not on this re-released black edition. (As far as I know!)

I keep myself amused by clinging to the fact that I had a very nice expensive filter and hood and the "Limited Black" stamp on mine.

Are you sure that this Japanese listed lens is a real "Limited" of simply the silver edition in black?

I have no issues with my "Limited" and can only assume that the QC was. more rigorous to justify the extra price. It was quite a lot more.

Just noticed that mine has a higher serial number than the one that you have referenced - as the plain black version did not appear until some time after I bought mine this earlier version is almost certainly a "Limited".

Also noted that the 'expensive' lens hood is labelled "China".

Mine of course is not for sale.

--
Tom Caldwell

Tom Caldwell said:

But I do have the Olympus 12-40/2.8 Pro which is indeed an excellent lens (no IS of course) but its sheer size rules it out of this equation.

Click to expand...

Actually, that may not be the case. As I replied to another comment (from @Skeeterbytes), quoting myself...

"I may be able to suffice with taking only a 12-40 f/2.8 PRO instead of my 12-45 f/4 PRO and a faster prime. I'm beginning to think that given my OM-5's great IBIS and my willingness to let ISO rise to maybe 1000, f/2.8 might be sufficient as a single lens solution."

Skeeterbytes said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

Skeeterbytes said:

Agree the 12-40 is sharper at that FL than the 12/2, so unless size or the extra stop are important....

The zoom is also sharper than the 17/1.8, even while not equaling the 12mm resolution. At that FL the 1.2 Pro sets a much higher bar than anything else we have at our disposal, but not under consideration here.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

Rick, you've got me thinking now. Would you say that I may be able to suffice with taking only a 12-40 f/2.8 PRO instead of my 12-45 f/4 PRO and a faster prime?

I'm beginning to think that given my OM-5's great IBIS and my willingness to let ISO rise to maybe 1000, f/2.8 might be sufficient as a single lens solution.

Click to expand...

Yes, I've done backcountry hiking with just the 12-40 and it's a complete package in a fast standard zoom. One benefit over the 12-45 past the extra stop is snap MF, which I use a lot in tricky conditions.

For maximum resolution across the zoom range, shoot 12mm wide open and 40mm at f:4. The crossover begins past 25mm.

Click to expand...

Interesting, I just read a review of this lens that said basically the same thing. Well, this may very well be my solution.

Thank you Rick!

Impulses said:

Tom Caldwell said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

bs1946 said:

melnais said:

Impulses said:

And to hopefully keep this topic on track, these are the only two that I’m considering so please don’t suggest any others and also I’d really like to only hear from folks that have used both.

Click to expand...

You are wasting your time and money getting those lenses, the Panasonic 15mm will serve you better.

Click to expand...

I have owned the 12mm, 17mm, and still own a PL 15mm f1.7. It is an excellent lens and slots right between both. But on the OP's Olympus body, the aperture ring, AF/MF switch, and Dual IS will not work. One good reason not to consider it.

Click to expand...

I agree, having (and paying for) features that are cr*ppled or unusable is not for me.

Click to expand...

Sounds like this is the issue with all Olympus/OMDS bodies ... just saying of course

Click to expand...

I mean, Dual IS won't work on Pana bodies either considering the lens has no OIS whatsoever...

OIS (and MF/AF?) switches always work regardless of brand matching between lens and body so I dunno where that notion originated... The aperture ring is the only thing that'll go to waste, let's not spread FUD here (not aimed at you Tom, obviously).

Click to expand...

Panasonic seems to have used the belt and braces route with AF/MF switches on their lenses and also an AF/MF capability on the bodies. They did scrap it on the GX85 but brought it back on the GX9. Only one switch needs to be set to MF for MF to be used.

Not sure if magnify on turn of lens aperture works with both switches - probably does - will have to check to be sure.

The 25-50/1.7 (and others) has the 'Olympus style' MF clutch and does not need the AF/MF switch on lens. Kind of cute but it can be easy to accidentally activate the clutch and then wonder why AF is not working.

The very capable new 9/1.7 UWA lens from Panasonic only has fly by wire focus - no AF/MF switch or aperture control on the lens.

One of my favourite M4/3 lenses is the Olympus 40-150/2.8 lens - no lens IS and quite usable on the GM5 camera body which of course is not stabilised either. Back to the dark ages ....

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

Tom Caldwell said:

But I do have the Olympus 12-40/2.8 Pro which is indeed an excellent lens (no IS of course) but its sheer size rules it out of this equation.

Click to expand...

Actually, that may not be the case. As I replied to another comment (from @Skeeterbytes), quoting myself...

"I may be able to suffice with taking only a 12-40 f/2.8 PRO instead of my 12-45 f/4 PRO and a faster prime. I'm beginning to think that given my OM-5's great IBIS and my willingness to let ISO rise to maybe 1000, f/2.8 might be sufficient as a single lens solution."

Click to expand...

Fair enough. It is a great lens and obviously of better pedigree to the kit 12-32 which actually collapses when not in use and is arguably of similar size to the (faster) primes you were considering. It should be cheap enough as there were so many sold as kit lenses on a variety of Panasonic camera bodies.

Of course it is your decision and forum members, like myself are just trying to be helpful.

Tom Caldwell said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

Tom Caldwell said:

But I do have the Olympus 12-40/2.8 Pro which is indeed an excellent lens (no IS of course) but its sheer size rules it out of this equation.

Click to expand...

Actually, that may not be the case. As I replied to another comment (from @Skeeterbytes), quoting myself...

"I may be able to suffice with taking only a 12-40 f/2.8 PRO instead of my 12-45 f/4 PRO and a faster prime. I'm beginning to think that given my OM-5's great IBIS and my willingness to let ISO rise to maybe 1000, f/2.8 might be sufficient as a single lens solution."

Click to expand...

Fair enough. It is a great lens and obviously of better pedigree to the kit 12-32 which actually collapses when not in use and is arguably of similar size to the (faster) primes you were considering. It should be cheap enough as there were so many sold as kit lenses on a variety of Panasonic camera bodies.

Of course it is your decision and forum members, like myself are just trying to be helpful.

Click to expand...

And I appreciate it for sure. My original plan was to take the 12-45mm f/4 "kit" lens that came with my OM-5 and one of the two primes that started this discussion. But I do believe that I can make do (and nicely that is) with just the 12-40. Certainly it'll be nice never to have to change lenses.

Tom Caldwell said:

cba_melbourne said:

Tom Caldwell said:

...........

One might wonder whether the 12/2.0 also needs to be divided into the cheap silver and later similarly priced black version which can usually be bought at reasonable price after-market. Versus the arm and a leg "Limited" version which I persuaded myself that I really needed because it was coloured "black" and somehow was worth quite a lot more than the much cheaper 'cooking silver' which was the only alternative at the time.

Click to expand...

My 12/2.0 is silver, but made in Japan just like the later "Limited Black" version only sold in a kit. So far I have not heard of any complaints (like one-sided soft edges due to de-centering) from a Japan made 12/2.0 regardless of color.


If Japan made it says so engraved on the lens barrel. If made in China or Vietnam it says so besides the electric contacts. That metal lens hood is the much cheaper JJC clone from AliExpress, I guess that is why it a different silver tone

[ATTACH alt="This is the "Limited Black" version, currently used on ebay from a Japanese seller for only US$268.90, but without the originally bundled extras. If I was looking for a 12/2 today, I would order this one before it is gone https://www.ebay.com/itm/394101383381"]3429209[/ATTACH]
This is the "Limited Black" version, currently used on ebay from a Japanese seller for only US$268.90, but without the originally bundled extras. If I was looking for a 12/2 today, I would order this one before it is gone https://www.ebay.com/itm/394101383381

Tom Caldwell said:

My second oem lens M4/3 after the kit 12-32 that came with the GM1 that I bought.

Never looked back but I doubt that the Limited version has held its premium value for resale purposes. Not that I have ever looked as mine is certainly never-for-sale.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks, I don't remember how much I paid for mine. It was unobtainable in Australia and low stocks everywhere else. I managed to get it a bit cheaper buying it direct from Japan.

Mine has the word "Limited Black" engraved on it to the right of the mount point red dot and came with a filter and matched hood in the box.

Obviously disappointed when the Black-only "Limited Edition" was re-released at the same price as the silver-only cheap version - but the words "limited black" is not on this re-released black edition. (As far as I know!)

I keep myself amused by clinging to the fact that I had a very nice expensive filter and hood and the "Limited Black" stamp on mine.

Are you sure that this Japanese listed lens is a real "Limited" of simply the silver edition in black?

Click to expand...

Yes Tom. If you look up the ebay link there are more pics of it, and it shows the "Limited Black" engraving. Also, only the very first silver 12/2 lenses, and then again the "Limited Black" edition kit, are made in Japan. The vast majority of 12/2 are marked as made in China.

Usually it does not matter where a lens is made. But with a very few lenses is does. For example, the newer China made PL100-400 are a better buy than the older ones made in Japan, because they don't have the overly stiff zoom ring sample variation problem anymore. It also appears the latest 17/1.8 made in Vietnam have less de-centering issues than the earlier made in China samples. I personally think with the 12/2 it is just the other way around, the oldest made in Japan samples are least at risk of being de-centered.

Tom Caldwell said:

I have no issues with my "Limited" and can only assume that the QC was. more rigorous to justify the extra price. It was quite a lot more.

Click to expand...

The price for the "Limited Black" kit at it's release in 2012 was US$200 more than the silver model released one year earlier in 2011, which had (and still has today) an RRP of US$800. Only 3,000 units of the "Limited Black" were ever made. You own a "collectors item"

Tom Caldwell said:

Just noticed that mine has a higher serial number than the one that you have referenced - as the plain black version did not appear until some time after I bought mine this earlier version is almost certainly a "Limited".

Also noted that the 'expensive' lens hood is labelled "China".

Mine of course is not for sale.

Click to expand...

I'm about to go OS too. I have an OM-1. I intend to take the 12-40/2.8 PRO for general pics and landscapes, 17/1.8 for low light, street and family snaps, 60mm macro for wildflowers and critters. I'm leaving the 300/4 PRO at home and sincerely hope I don't see any birds or I'll probably cry.

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

I’m considering one of these two lenses for some overseas traveling where I expect to find myself in situations where I would want a relatively wide angle as well as a faster focal length for the no doubt reduced light that I’ll encounter with interiors of churches, cathedrals and other buildings.

I’m mindful of the trade off of wider angle yet slower aperture vs. faster aperture yet narrower FOV. What I would like to know is how do you feel they compare in terms of sharpness and aberration control.

Click to expand...

I own both.

The 17mm is sharper. The 12 has better aberration control.

Neither of these factors are as important as choosing the focal length you’re more comfortable with.

Cheers,

Scott

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

And to hopefully keep this topic on track, these are the only two that I’m considering so please don’t suggest any others and also I’d really like to only hear from folks that have used both.

Click to expand...

NZ Scott said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

I’m considering one of these two lenses for some overseas traveling where I expect to find myself in situations where I would want a relatively wide angle as well as a faster focal length for the no doubt reduced light that I’ll encounter with interiors of churches, cathedrals and other buildings.

I’m mindful of the trade off of wider angle yet slower aperture vs. faster aperture yet narrower FOV. What I would like to know is how do you feel they compare in terms of sharpness and aberration control.

Click to expand...

I own both.

The 17mm is sharper. The 12 has better aberration control.

Neither of these factors are as important as choosing the focal length you’re more comfortable with.

Cheers,

Scott

NZ Scott said:

And to hopefully keep this topic on track, these are the only two that I’m considering so please don’t suggest any others and also I’d really like to only hear from folks that have used both.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes, avoid using the 17/1.8 wide open in high contrast scenes like branches against a bright sky to avoid exercise CA. Stop it down a bit and it's a great. Use it wide open only when necessary, like low light.

BobT3218 said:

NZ Scott said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

I’m considering one of these two lenses for some overseas traveling where I expect to find myself in situations where I would want a relatively wide angle as well as a faster focal length for the no doubt reduced light that I’ll encounter with interiors of churches, cathedrals and other buildings.

I’m mindful of the trade off of wider angle yet slower aperture vs. faster aperture yet narrower FOV. What I would like to know is how do you feel they compare in terms of sharpness and aberration control.

Click to expand...

I own both.

The 17mm is sharper. The 12 has better aberration control.

Neither of these factors are as important as choosing the focal length you’re more comfortable with.

Cheers,

Scott

Bobapingu said:

And to hopefully keep this topic on track, these are the only two that I’m considering so please don’t suggest any others and also I’d really like to only hear from folks that have used both.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes, avoid using the 17/1.8 wide open in high contrast scenes like branches against a bright sky to avoid exercise CA. Stop it down a bit and it's a great. Use it wide open only when necessary, like low light.

Click to expand...

I use it wide open all the time, because I like the way it renders.

I remove the CA in post (and yes, it does have a lot of CA).

S

--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottkmacleod/

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

Tom Caldwell said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

Tom Caldwell said:

But I do have the Olympus 12-40/2.8 Pro which is indeed an excellent lens (no IS of course) but its sheer size rules it out of this equation.

Click to expand...

Actually, that may not be the case. As I replied to another comment (from @Skeeterbytes), quoting myself...

"I may be able to suffice with taking only a 12-40 f/2.8 PRO instead of my 12-45 f/4 PRO and a faster prime. I'm beginning to think that given my OM-5's great IBIS and my willingness to let ISO rise to maybe 1000, f/2.8 might be sufficient as a single lens solution."

Click to expand...

Fair enough. It is a great lens and obviously of better pedigree to the kit 12-32 which actually collapses when not in use and is arguably of similar size to the (faster) primes you were considering. It should be cheap enough as there were so many sold as kit lenses on a variety of Panasonic camera bodies.

Of course it is your decision and forum members, like myself are just trying to be helpful.

Click to expand...

And I appreciate it for sure. My original plan was to take the 12-45mm f/4 "kit" lens that came with my OM-5 and one of the two primes that started this discussion. But I do believe that I can make do (and nicely that is) with just the 12-40. Certainly it'll be nice never to have to change lenses.

Click to expand...

Sorry to repeat from earlier, but trade that 12-45mm f4 for either f2.8 zoom available, the Panasonic is just as small as the 12-45, and the 12-40 has the mf clutch, and is (one of, if not) the best 12mm lens available for the system.

The 12-45mm imis a lens that came out late, and it may get some sales as the newer lens, but it hardly makes much sense compared to either other option.

Crazy Micro Four Thirds Dude said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

Tom Caldwell said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

Tom Caldwell said:

But I do have the Olympus 12-40/2.8 Pro which is indeed an excellent lens (no IS of course) but its sheer size rules it out of this equation.

Click to expand...

Actually, that may not be the case. As I replied to another comment (from @Skeeterbytes), quoting myself...

"I may be able to suffice with taking only a 12-40 f/2.8 PRO instead of my 12-45 f/4 PRO and a faster prime. I'm beginning to think that given my OM-5's great IBIS and my willingness to let ISO rise to maybe 1000, f/2.8 might be sufficient as a single lens solution."

Click to expand...

Fair enough. It is a great lens and obviously of better pedigree to the kit 12-32 which actually collapses when not in use and is arguably of similar size to the (faster) primes you were considering. It should be cheap enough as there were so many sold as kit lenses on a variety of Panasonic camera bodies.

Of course it is your decision and forum members, like myself are just trying to be helpful.

Click to expand...

And I appreciate it for sure. My original plan was to take the 12-45mm f/4 "kit" lens that came with my OM-5 and one of the two primes that started this discussion. But I do believe that I can make do (and nicely that is) with just the 12-40. Certainly it'll be nice never to have to change lenses.

Click to expand...

Sorry to repeat from earlier, but trade that 12-45mm f4 for either f2.8 zoom available, the Panasonic is just as small as the 12-45, and the 12-40 has the mf clutch, and is (one of, if not) the best 12mm lens available for the system.

The 12-45mm imis a lens that came out late, and it may get some sales as the newer lens, but it hardly makes much sense compared to either other option.

Click to expand...

What I'll likely do is just get the 12-40 f/2.8 and keep the 12-45 as it was the kit lens that came with my OM-5. That way should I decide to part with the OM-5 (upgrading to some other model) I'll have the complete kit to sell. Also, the 12-45 might still have some use for me when not traveling as it's so small and light.

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

Skeeterbytes said:

40Eridani-Vulcan said:

Skeeterbytes said:

Agree the 12-40 is sharper at that FL than the 12/2, so unless size or the extra stop are important....

The zoom is also sharper than the 17/1.8, even while not equaling the 12mm resolution. At that FL the 1.2 Pro sets a much higher bar than anything else we have at our disposal, but not under consideration here.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

Rick, you've got me thinking now. Would you say that I may be able to suffice with taking only a 12-40 f/2.8 PRO instead of my 12-45 f/4 PRO and a faster prime?

I'm beginning to think that given my OM-5's great IBIS and my willingness to let ISO rise to maybe 1000, f/2.8 might be sufficient as a single lens solution.

Click to expand...

Yes, I've done backcountry hiking with just the 12-40 and it's a complete package in a fast standard zoom. One benefit over the 12-45 past the extra stop is snap MF, which I use a lot in tricky conditions.

For maximum resolution across the zoom range, shoot 12mm wide open and 40mm at f:4. The crossover begins past 25mm.

Click to expand...

Interesting, I just read a review of this lens that said basically the same thing. Well, this may very well be my solution.

Thank you Rick!

Click to expand...

That's a pretty big uptick when it comes to size and weight for the lens you'll be carrying around 100% of the time. 382g vs 284g for your 12-45. Perhaps you might consider splitting the difference with the P 12-35/2.8. In pictures: https://camerasize.com/compact/#897.1042,897.626,897.852,ha,t

Too many options!