Reading mode: Light Dark

Very struggle between 12-40 & 12-45 . Pls help.

Go to last post
G

GutiWong

Leading Member
Messages
692
Reaction score
579
I’ve a 12-45mm F4 Pro now.
I just bought a OM-1 II. I’m struggling whether to change to 12-40mm F2.8. I can sell the 12-45 for a used 12-40 without loss.

since 12-45 cannot do 50fps, I feel I’m losing the high fps benefits of OM-1.
However, I don’t do much high fps, even high fps will mainly sport which will be more than 40mm focal length.
But F2.8 still be useful for indoor event. However, I can switch to prime for even larger aperture.

On the other side, 12-45 is much more light and compact.



I’m very struggle.
 
I have an EM1 III and the 12-40 f2.8.

The f2.8 balances perfectly with the 1 series bodies, so IMO size/weight isn't an issue. Personally I prefer having the f2.8 for the extra versatility in low light and subject isolation, but everyone is different. I've never used the f/4 version but I'm sure it's great in its own way, especially for being smaller/lighter.

For people using smaller bodies, I can definitely see the f4 version being more attractive.
 
I had the 12-40 and then bought a 12-45 when it came out. I mainly use the smaller lighter 12-45 when i'm wandering around towns and cities all day. The 12-40 comes out when I think I might need it, but its a big old lump of a lens in comparison.

So i'm sorry I couldn't help other than to say buy them both. I also have the 12-100, that doesn't get much use unless its for a very short outing.
 
I think hands down the 12-40mm f2.8, a legendary and well respected lens that has made a very good name for it's self, I have both but just feel better when the 12-40 is with me, I just feel re assured and confident with that Lens, the 12-100mm gives me that same feeling
 
I have and use both. I bought the 12-45/4 to get a smaller lens with better IQ than my 12-40/2.8 mk i.

If you can only keep one lens, then the 12-40/2.8 mk ii would be my pick. I’m very happy to own both.

A
 
I think you just answered your own question. I had both at the same time and kept the 12-45 for the very same reasons, and that my 12-40 was always sharper at f/4 than at 2.8.
 
gary0319 said:
I think you just answered your own question. I had both at the same time and kept the 12-45 for the very same reasons, and that my 12-40 was always sharper at f/4 than at 2.8.
Click to expand...
12-40 at F4 is sharper than 12-45?
 
Trolleyman said:
I had the 12-40 and then bought a 12-45 when it came out. I mainly use the smaller lighter 12-45 when i'm wandering around towns and cities all day. The 12-40 comes out when I think I might need it, but its a big old lump of a lens in comparison.

So i'm sorry I couldn't help other than to say buy them both. I also have the 12-100, that doesn't get much use unless it’s for a very short outing.
Click to expand...
12-45 is far compact and lighter than 12-40
 
GutiWong said:
gary0319 said:
I think you just answered your own question. I had both at the same time and kept the 12-45 for the very same reasons, and that my 12-40 was always sharper at f/4 than at 2.8.
Click to expand...
12-40 at F4 is sharper than 12-45?
Click to expand...
No, the 12-40 was only as sharp as the 12-45 if the 12-40 was stopped down to f/4. So… no actual advantage to the 12-40.
 
GutiWong said:
gary0319 said:
I think you just answered your own question. I had both at the same time and kept the 12-45 for the very same reasons, and that my 12-40 was always sharper at f/4 than at 2.8.
Click to expand...
12-40 at F4 is sharper than 12-45?
Click to expand...
Looking at different reviews, it seems there is copy variation in both lenses and the new 12-40/2.8 mk ii is better than older copies of the 12-40/2.8 mk i. I have an older copy of the mk i and a recent 12-45/4. Comparing notes with someone else in the same position, we both agree the 12-45/4 is better at 40mm f5.6 than the 12-40/2.8 mk i. Other copies might be different.



TL:DR Don’t buy a used 12-40/2.8 mk i.

A
 
Ha ha.. a classic question, the one I'm struggling as well with.

I've bought but not opened 12-40 to be used with my om3.

It will be a bit awkward to use than 12-45 due to weight consideration but I'm tempted with f2.8 as that will provide more creative (bokeh, separation) opportunities.
 
GutiWong said:
I’ve a 12-45mm F4 Pro now.
I just bought a OM-1 II. I’m struggling whether to change to 12-40mm F2.8. I can sell the 12-45 for a used 12-40 without loss.

since 12-45 cannot do 50fps, I feel I’m losing the high fps benefits of OM-1.
However, I don’t do much high fps, even high fps will mainly sport which will be more than 40mm focal length.
But F2.8 still be useful for indoor event. However, I can switch to prime for even larger aperture.

On the other side, 12-45 is much more light and compact.

I’m very struggle.
Click to expand...
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Keep using the 12-45 you already have until you find it's holding you back in some way, then evaluate if the 12-40 would help.
 
MCMLXXIII AD said:
Ha ha.. a classic question, the one I'm struggling as well with.

I've bought but not opened 12-40 to be used with my om3.

It will be a bit awkward to use than 12-45 due to weight consideration but I'm tempted with f2.8 as that will provide more creative (bokeh, separation) opportunities.
Click to expand...
While technically there is the DOF distinction, but I really don’t see much in actual use. In fact, for my use cases more DOF is usually better than less and if I need to blur the background, the lens blur feature in Lightroom is great.

But that’s just my personal preference.
 
Thanks Gary. Yes, I see you are a big fan of 12-45 and rightly so.

I do not fancy sitting in front of a computer other than my work and all these wonderful forums and reviews. Hence the OM3 with colour 3 mode that I am loving and lenses that are small-is enough and give me blur and separation to my liking.

I only wish OM had their own grip for OM3 like they had for previous EM cameras. I don't like the third party grips that I have seen. I don't want to make my OM3 look like Frankenstein.
 
Trolleyman said:
I had the 12-40 and then bought a 12-45 when it came out. I mainly use the smaller lighter 12-45 when i'm wandering around towns and cities all day. The 12-40 comes out when I think I might need it, but its a big old lump of a lens in comparison.

So i'm sorry I couldn't help other than to say buy them both. I also have the 12-100, that doesn't get much use unless its for a very short outing.
Click to expand...
This is my approach as well.
 
ahaslett said:
  1. ahaslett wrote:
GutiWong said:
gary0319 said:
I think you just answered your own question. I had both at the same time and kept the 12-45 for the very same reasons, and that my 12-40 was always sharper at f/4 than at 2.8.
Click to expand...
12-40 at F4 is sharper than 12-45?
Click to expand...
Looking at different reviews, it seems there is copy variation in both lenses and the new 12-40/2.8 mk ii is better than older copies of the 12-40/2.8 mk i. I have an older copy of the mk i and a recent 12-45/4. Comparing notes with someone else in the same position, we both agree the 12-45/4 is better at 40mm f5.6 than the 12-40/2.8 mk i. Other copies might be different.

TL:DR Don’t buy a used 12-40/2.8 mk i.

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post
Click to expand...
first time I hear someone said image quality of mark II is better than mark I . I suppose the lenses inside are the same.

Anyway, thanks for your advice. I’ll not buy a used mark I
 
Mark Ransom said:
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Keep using the 12-45 you already have until you find it's holding you back in some way, then evaluate if the 12-40 would help.
Click to expand...
This is excellent advice, I just wish I could take it for myself!
 
MCMLXXIII AD said:
Thanks Gary. Yes, I see you are a big fan of 12-45 and rightly so.

I do not fancy sitting in front of a computer other than my work and all these wonderful forums and reviews. Hence the OM3 with colour 3 mode that I am loving and lenses that are small-is enough and give me blur and separation to my liking.

I only wish OM had their own grip for OM3 like they had for previous EM cameras. I don't like the third party grips that I have seen. I don't want to make my OM3 look like Frankenstein.
Click to expand...
My OM-5, E-M10 IV and Pen F before all have/had leather half cases fo just a bit of additional grip. I too hate those Frankenstein add on grips.
 
the bluesman said:
I think hands down the 12-40mm f2.8, a legendary and well respected lens that has made a very good name for it's self, I have both but just feel better when the 12-40 is with me, I just feel re assured and confident with that Lens, the 12-100mm gives me that same feeling
Click to expand...
Looking at the lenstip test of both lenses optically the 12-45 seems to be the better performer overall . Especially at the longer end

12-40 vs 12-45 ( red line is lenstips "decency level " the 12-45mm is tested on a 16 vs 12mp of the 12-4 ( A p% increase in pixel count will result in at most a ( sqrt (1 + p%) - 1) percent increase in MTF-50, all else equal. For example, going from 16 MP to 20 MP (25% increase) will yield at most a sqrt (1.25) -1 = 11.8% increase in the MTF-50 score. )

282f475b5fa34c7ea709234cd586ce64.jpg

I still have both versions of the 12-40mm and I am happy with them and consider them "small" enough for my needs. Other than the F/2.8 those looking for a smaller but still high quality standard room will be well served by the 12-45mm. You can't really go wrong with any of them , good to have choices :-)

--
Jim Stirling:
"Cogito, ergo sum" Descartes
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post
 
GutiWong said:
GutiWong said:
  1. ahaslett wrote:
GutiWong said:
gary0319 said:
I think you just answered your own question. I had both at the same time and kept the 12-45 for the very same reasons, and that my 12-40 was always sharper at f/4 than at 2.8.
Click to expand...
12-40 at F4 is sharper than 12-45?
Click to expand...
Looking at different reviews, it seems there is copy variation in both lenses and the new 12-40/2.8 mk ii is better than older copies of the 12-40/2.8 mk i. I have an older copy of the mk i and a recent 12-45/4. Comparing notes with someone else in the same position, we both agree the 12-45/4 is better at 40mm f5.6 than the 12-40/2.8 mk i. Other copies might be different.

TL:DR Don’t buy a used 12-40/2.8 mk i.

A
Click to expand...
first time I hear someone said image quality of mark II is better than mark I . I suppose the lenses inside are the same.

Anyway, thanks for your advice. I’ll not buy a used mark I
Click to expand...
I have both versions of the 12-40mm and looking at the results I don't see any noticeable differences , based on actual images not any serious testing :-) As Andrew mentions above there is a bit of copy variation going on so that may be a consideration.

--
Jim Stirling:
"Cogito, ergo sum" Descartes
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Do I need the 40-150mm range?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
11K
tsinvest
tsinvest
UncleVanya
New'ish user of OM-1 mk 1. Need some advice on useful settings.
2
Replies
32
Views
10K
UncleVanya
UncleVanya
O
Om 90mm or 40-150
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
ahaslett
ahaslett
Jeroen1969
Personal Deep investigation in the MFT vs FF everlasting debate
6 7 8
Replies
148
Views
27K
cba_melbourne
cba_melbourne
MJ_Photo38
Which premium standard zoom to get?
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
71K
Kevin Stephens
K

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top