The Olympus 12mm F/2

M43 Dude wrote:

markymark101 wrote:

M43 Dude wrote:

What does one say when they see this lens? I often see and here various platitudes from people who have either never owned or never shot with this lens, most of them negative, trivialised, biased and in many cases completely nonrepresentational to any sort of reality about this lens. The lens gets down trodden based on something they read once in a web review of the lens and never seems to get a second look in. The Olympus 12mm F/2 is one of the most harshly critiqued and criticized lenses but is also the most misunderstood and underrated lenses in the Micro Four Thirds lineup. If one lens receives more negative comments in the Micro Four Thirds lens lineup its this one and for the majority of cases the disparagement is entirely misdirected.

...is poor quality control. A significant number of reports - including me - of decentered lenses. I don't think anyone who has a good copy has said it's a bad lens. But, the 12-40 equals or bests it for sharpness at equivalent FL. At the price point it's at, with no hood nor weather sealing, and it's only 1 stop better then the 12-40. Frankly, IMO, it should be priced more in line with the 17mm and 45mm.

Saying that, it does render very nicely.

Yes, there are too many of these comments, unfortunately, whatever reason? My copy is an original made in Japan 1st edition copy of the lens, so perhaps that equates for its quality. While I see comments that the 12-40 is close or beats it in terms of sharpness, we can turn around and say that this lens is almost 1 full stop of light faster than the 12-40 F/2.8

I can also say holding the 12-40 F/2.8 in store, that lens is not for me, if I had wanted that lens, I might as well have bought a Canon 100D body and uses my existing wide angle zoom which would have weighed about the same.

I'd left those kinds of comments out of the discussion on the matter merely leaving this thread for guidance of people who were interested in the 12mm F/2. However. now that it's said the 12-40 F/2.8 is no lighter and not much shorter than a lot of my Canon EF lenses and it defies the point of why anyone would go with Micro Four Thirds in the first place.

The closest Canon competitor would be the 17-55/2.8, which is three centimeters longer, about 1.5 centimeters wider and close to 300 g heavier, and can't compete with the 12-40/2.8 for optical performance. On top of that would come the little problem of finding Canon APS-C alternatives that can compete for size, weight, and optical performance with the other seven MFT lenses I currently use (7-14/4, 75-300/4.8-6.7, 7.5/3.5, 12/2, 20/1.7, 45/1.8, and 75/1.8).

By the time you buy the 12-40 and look at the cost of it you might as well buy a D3300 or 100D and lenses, there is little weight and cost savings. As others have said the 12 F/2 can be bought cheaply these days because of comments such as the above.

M43 Dude wrote:

A part of my comments above was based on the fact that the lens actually auto focuses which is why none of the other options are listed.

That could be. It doesn't make a statement like the following correct:

"The 12mm F/2 ... features an perture range from f/2-22, currently the widest and fastest native prime for Micro Four Thirds."

It is the widest lens that is AF and the fastest at that width, unfortunately I wanted to edit my post and fix a number of issues including typos. Anyway this is not the real issue.

Anders W wrote:

The closest Canon competitor would be the 17-55/2.8, which is three centimeters longer, about 1.5 centimeters wider and close to 300 g heavier, and can't compete with the 12-40/2.8 for optical performance. On top of that would come the little problem of finding Canon APS-C alternatives that can compete for size, weight, and optical performance with the other seven MFT lenses I currently use (7-14/4, 75-300/4.8-6.7, 7.5/3.5, 12/2, 20/1.7, 45/1.8, and 75/1.8).

If you want to consider only a directly comparable lens you're right, but when you put the weight of it in. A Canon 100D weighs 407 grams the OM-D I have weighs 430 grams The Olympus 12-40 weighs 387grams together with a body thats 817grams. My 11-16 and a 100D weighs for all intents and purposes about the same weight 967 grams.

By the time you put the 12-40 on a body there is basically no point in using Micro Four Thirds.

Anders W wrote:

The closest Canon competitor would be the 17-55/2.8, which is three centimeters longer, about 1.5 centimeters wider and close to 300 g heavier, and can't compete with the 12-40/2.8 for optical performance. On top of that would come the little problem of finding Canon APS-C alternatives that can compete for size, weight, and optical performance with the other seven MFT lenses I currently use (7-14/4, 75-300/4.8-6.7, 7.5/3.5, 12/2, 20/1.7, 45/1.8, and 75/1.8).

If you want to consider only a directly comparable lens you're right, but when you put the weight of it in. A Canon 100D weighs 407 grams the OM-D I have weighs 430 grams The Olympus 12-40 weighs 387grams together with a body thats 817grams. My 11-16 and a 100D weighs for all intents and purposes about the same weight 967 grams.

By the time you put the 12-40 on a body there is basically no point in using Micro Four Thirds.

The 12-40 or lenses as large as it aren't my thing either, but saying that using such a lens makes opting for M4/3 pointless is quite a stretch IMO. Why wouldn't you compare it to equivalent lenses if you're making such a broad statement? A G6 with a 14-140 or 12-35 is still as small or smaller than the smallest DSLR possible with a slow 3x kit zoom...

That's a huge difference in functionality, IQ, and usability.

My own preference is towards even smaller lenses and bodies, so I have primes or smaller/slower zooms, but I definitely appreciate that the same system can scale in both directions. There's nothing wrong with stating your own preference, there's something off putting about putting down other's or making generalizations that aren't really accurate.

Impulses wrote:

Anders W wrote:

The closest Canon competitor would be the 17-55/2.8, which is three centimeters longer, about 1.5 centimeters wider and close to 300 g heavier, and can't compete with the 12-40/2.8 for optical performance. On top of that would come the little problem of finding Canon APS-C alternatives that can compete for size, weight, and optical performance with the other seven MFT lenses I currently use (7-14/4, 75-300/4.8-6.7, 7.5/3.5, 12/2, 20/1.7, 45/1.8, and 75/1.8).

If you want to consider only a directly comparable lens you're right, but when you put the weight of it in. A Canon 100D weighs 407 grams the OM-D I have weighs 430 grams The Olympus 12-40 weighs 387grams together with a body thats 817grams. My 11-16 and a 100D weighs for all intents and purposes about the same weight 967 grams.

By the time you put the 12-40 on a body there is basically no point in using Micro Four Thirds.

The 12-40 or lenses as large as it aren't my thing either, but saying that using such a lens makes opting for M4/3 pointless is quite a stretch IMO. Why wouldn't you compare it to equivalent lenses if you're making such a broad statement? A G6 with a 14-140 or 12-35 is still as small or smaller than the smallest DSLR possible with a slow 3x kit zoom...

That's a huge difference in functionality, IQ, and usability.

My own preference is towards even smaller lenses and bodies, so I have primes or smaller/slower zooms, but I definitely appreciate that the same system can scale in both directions. There's nothing wrong with stating your own preference, there's something off putting about putting down other's or making generalizations that aren't really accurate.

Well said!

Hmm, forum's buggy again and interfering with edits...

I'm actually considering the 12mm and I appreciate the review btw. Are you using the OEM/JJC hood with the tightening thumb screw or an aftermarket one that screws into the filter threads?

Seems like the latter might pack away smaller, but the former might be easier to attach... Downside of a metal build I guess, makes it hard to add an even smaller bayonet mount hood like the 9-18's.

Well my issues are a couple things with the 12-40, it doesn't cover the lens width that I shoot with and its a heavy lens. My lenses are mostly dedicated to the ultra wide to normal and this suits my "predilections" as a photographer.

Of course my opinions are my own, and perhaps I should state that in my signature about the matter just to make it even more clear on the matter.

It is my "prediction" with cameras that leads me to think, no, this lens weighs to much and is too big for my "predilections" of why I went with Micro Four Thirds. The "predilection" that led me to Micro Four Thirds was the size advantage and as such anything that goes against or close to being against that defies point.

This is why I've invested in primes... This is why my first Micro Four Thirds body was an E-PL5. I wanted to buy something significant smaller than my Canon kit and the 12-40 defies the point of that.

Micro Four Thirds is Yin to my Yang, and thats my "predilections" I will buy a new Canon body when, if ever they offer a significant real world sensor upgrade.

To me longer lenses on Micro Four Thirds are therefore pointless and these are predilections that are not going to change because of the predilections of Anders W or anyone else.

If they do not like my predilections there is an ignore button that can tailor there predilections on the forum exactly as they like. It's funny how easy these kinds of predilections are to modify.

Impulses wrote:

Hmm, forum's buggy again and interfering with edits...

I'm actually considering the 12mm and I appreciate the review btw. Are you using the OEM/JJC hood with the tightening thumb screw or an aftermarket one that screws into the filter threads?

Seems like the latter might pack away smaller, but the former might be easier to attach... Downside of a metal build I guess, makes it hard to add an even smaller bayonet mount hood like the 9-18's.

The lens fits in one side of my top loading DSLR bag with the lens attached its a tighter fit on my OM-D but it still fits, the OM-D would appear to be a couple of millimeters thicker.

I'm not sure on hoods with this lens, so I wont comment on the matter, only to say it probably should have come with one. I haven't bothered to acquire one. Honestly, I would say due to the type of glass used in this lens that purple flare is not a significant issue, I've shot directly into the sun without much lens flare.

It will flare a little bit, but there is not really much in the way of ugly purple flare that becomes problematic with other lenses such as the SLR Magic 12mm lens.

Impulses wrote:

Hmm, forum's buggy again and interfering with edits...

I'm actually considering the 12mm and I appreciate the review btw. Are you using the OEM/JJC hood with the tightening thumb screw or an aftermarket one that screws into the filter threads?

Seems like the latter might pack away smaller, but the former might be easier to attach... Downside of a metal build I guess, makes it hard to add an even smaller bayonet mount hood like the 9-18's.

Personally, I went for the small Contax GG-2 hood shown here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41919316

over the original and the JJC. I have a Contax cap for it so that I can cap the lens without taking the hood off.

Impulses wrote:

Hmm, forum's buggy again and interfering with edits...

I'm actually considering the 12mm and I appreciate the review btw. Are you using the OEM/JJC hood with the tightening thumb screw or an aftermarket one that screws into the filter threads?

Seems like the latter might pack away smaller, but the former might be easier to attach... Downside of a metal build I guess, makes it hard to add an even smaller bayonet mount hood like the 9-18's.

Personally, I went for the small Contax GG-2 hood shown here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41919316

over the original and the JJC. I have a Contax cap for it so that I can cap the lens without taking the hood off.

Interesting, thanks for sharing that... Looks nice and compact compared to the Oly/JJC or even most screw in alternatives I'd seen... I added the one linked below to a recent Amazon order but with an outside diameter of 70mm+ it might be pretty bulky (or more splayed out than it needs to be to even work effectively), haven't received it yet:

http://smile.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B009GFYA4W/ref=pd_aw_sbs_p_15?refRID=0TAN0JTW8JWV5X0FHSRQ

Might just order that GG-2 when I order the 12mm. Seems they've got some Kiwi branded knockoffs on eBay for $20 and the originals for $28? The backside curve is shaped a little differently between those... I imagine there's no threads for a clip in cap, hence the slip on? Oddly I found those caps (GK-54) cheaper on Amazon ($4-9) than eBay ($10+).

http://smile.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00G349XP0/ref=pd_aw_sim_p_2?refRID=0N7ZGZB0ZNDCXZZP6QM7

Is the hood on the photo within the post you linked supposed to be silver? Looks really weird/dark on my end... I see the Kiwi branded ones in silver & black on eBay; and the original in silver only although there's a set with GG-1, GG-2, and GG-3 replacements plus the cap all in black for $32, go figure. Not even sure what color 12mm I'll end up with.

http://m.ebay.com/itm/181650115698?nav=SEARCH
http://m.ebay.com/itm/161556829091?nav=SEARCH
http://m.ebay.com/itm/110321977698?nav=SEARCH

Kind of inconsequential I guess, I've got a little silver Fotasy screw-in metal hood on my black 45mm and I think it looks fine (it's slimmer than others and closely matches the diameter of the lens barrel), but still...

Anders W wrote:

Impulses wrote:

Anders W wrote:

The closest Canon competitor would be the 17-55/2.8, which is three centimeters longer, about 1.5 centimeters wider and close to 300 g heavier, and can't compete with the 12-40/2.8 for optical performance. On top of that would come the little problem of finding Canon APS-C alternatives that can compete for size, weight, and optical performance with the other seven MFT lenses I currently use (7-14/4, 75-300/4.8-6.7, 7.5/3.5, 12/2, 20/1.7, 45/1.8, and 75/1.8).

If you want to consider only a directly comparable lens you're right, but when you put the weight of it in. A Canon 100D weighs 407 grams the OM-D I have weighs 430 grams The Olympus 12-40 weighs 387grams together with a body thats 817grams. My 11-16 and a 100D weighs for all intents and purposes about the same weight 967 grams.

By the time you put the 12-40 on a body there is basically no point in using Micro Four Thirds.

The 12-40 or lenses as large as it aren't my thing either, but saying that using such a lens makes opting for M4/3 pointless is quite a stretch IMO. Why wouldn't you compare it to equivalent lenses if you're making such a broad statement? A G6 with a 14-140 or 12-35 is still as small or smaller than the smallest DSLR possible with a slow 3x kit zoom...

That's a huge difference in functionality, IQ, and usability.

My own preference is towards even smaller lenses and bodies, so I have primes or smaller/slower zooms, but I definitely appreciate that the same system can scale in both directions. There's nothing wrong with stating your own preference, there's something off putting about putting down other's or making generalizations that aren't really accurate.

Well said!

agreed. to the OP by all means praise this lens, but please dont insult all and sundry by presenting your choice as the only sensible approach to m43. BTW i have a long and ongoing history with canon and i would disagree profoundly with your assertion. the em1 and 12-40 isnt even half the bulk of my 5d3 and 24-105.

Impulses wrote:

Hmm, forum's buggy again and interfering with edits...

I'm actually considering the 12mm and I appreciate the review btw. Are you using the OEM/JJC hood with the tightening thumb screw or an aftermarket one that screws into the filter threads?

Seems like the latter might pack away smaller, but the former might be easier to attach... Downside of a metal build I guess, makes it hard to add an even smaller bayonet mount hood like the 9-18's.

I have the thumb-screw version hood, and it's fine (don't have cause to consider an alternative).

As The Dude says, flare on this lens is minimal, with strong/near light sources in mind at night (possibly the best of the m4/3 AF lenses, in this regard).   It can exhibit a ghosting of strong lights, but I didn't find them to be all that distracting (as far as flare/ghosting goes).

Impulses wrote:

Impulses wrote:

Hmm, forum's buggy again and interfering with edits...

I'm actually considering the 12mm and I appreciate the review btw. Are you using the OEM/JJC hood with the tightening thumb screw or an aftermarket one that screws into the filter threads?

Seems like the latter might pack away smaller, but the former might be easier to attach... Downside of a metal build I guess, makes it hard to add an even smaller bayonet mount hood like the 9-18's.

Personally, I went for the small Contax GG-2 hood shown here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41919316

over the original and the JJC. I have a Contax cap for it so that I can cap the lens without taking the hood off.

Interesting, thanks for sharing that... Looks nice and compact compared to the Oly/JJC or even most screw in alternatives I'd seen...

Yes. As you can see from the thread I linked to, it took a little digging to find it and I doubt that there is anything better out there, based on my personal preferences.

I added the one linked below to a recent Amazon order but with an outside diameter of 70mm+ it might be pretty bulky (or more splayed out than it needs to be to even work effectively), haven't received it yet:

http://smile.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B009GFYA4W/ref=pd_aw_sbs_p_15?refRID=0TAN0JTW8JWV5X0FHSRQ

Yes, you should be able to find something better than that.

Might just order that GG-2 when I order the 12mm. Seems they've got some Kiwi branded knockoffs on eBay for $20 and the originals for $28? The backside curve is shaped a little differently between those...

Yes, I am aware of the Kiwi knockoffs. I considered those but in the end went for the original for reasons outlined below.

I imagine there's no threads for a clip in cap, hence the slip on? Oddly I found those caps (GK-54) cheaper on Amazon ($4-9) than eBay ($10+).

http://smile.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00G349XP0/ref=pd_aw_sim_p_2?refRID=0N7ZGZB0ZNDCXZZP6QM7

The original GG-2 has threads for a clip-in cap so you are not forced to go with the slip-on. And I'd say the latter isn't the self-evident solution in this case. The main pro of the original slip-on is that it looks cool. Put the 12/2 with the GG-2 hood and cap on a silver E-M5, and you've got something looking really old-school in a classy way. The downsides are that it is more expensive and not so securely fastened. Mine is getting increasingly insecure in that regard as the felt on the inside of the rim is being compressed/worn with use. It is still OK the way I handle it. But I wouldn't try walking around with the lens capped but mounted on the camera.

In case you decide to get a clip-in cap, the internal diameter of the original GG-2 is about 54 mm (external about 57 mm).

Don't know if the Kiwi knockoffs have threads and as I recall (it's been a while now) that may have been one of the reasons I went for the original GG-2. Possibly, I asked this question myself (perhaps in the thread I linked to, perhaps somewhere else) and got it answered. But I am afraid no longer remember what the answer was if there was one.

Is the hood on the photo within the post you linked supposed to be silver?

Yes.

Looks really weird/dark on my end...

That's just the photo. Compared to the silver on the lens, that on the hood is a tad less shiny and a tad more yellowish. But the difference is small enough that you'd notice it only if you look for it. I bet that people who just give it a casual look, even at close distance, would think that the hood is originally made for the lens. I am less sure how the Kiwi blends in, which was another reason I went for the original. Oddly, the cap is a slightly different shade than the hood (a bit more like the lens) although that too is Contax original.

I see the Kiwi branded ones in silver & black on eBay; and the original in silver only although there's a set with GG-1, GG-2, and GG-3 replacements plus the cap all in black for $32, go figure. Not even sure what color 12mm I'll end up with.

http://m.ebay.com/itm/181650115698?nav=SEARCH
http://m.ebay.com/itm/161556829091?nav=SEARCH
http://m.ebay.com/itm/110321977698?nav=SEARCH

If you go for a black lens, then the Kiwi would seem like a pretty self-evident choice, any trouble with capping aside.

Kind of inconsequential I guess, I've got a little silver Fotasy screw-in metal hood on my black 45mm and I think it looks fine (it's slimmer than others and closely matches the diameter of the lens barrel), but still...

Seems like we have similar hood tastes. If the hood is the one I think it is, then I use the same on my 45/1.8. My lens is silver though, so no obvious contrast with the hood. However, the hood is more shiny than the silver plastic of the lens barrel in this case.

Impulses wrote:

Impulses wrote:

Hmm, forum's buggy again and interfering with edits...

I'm actually considering the 12mm and I appreciate the review btw. Are you using the OEM/JJC hood with the tightening thumb screw or an aftermarket one that screws into the filter threads?

Seems like the latter might pack away smaller, but the former might be easier to attach... Downside of a metal build I guess, makes it hard to add an even smaller bayonet mount hood like the 9-18's.

Personally, I went for the small Contax GG-2 hood shown here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41919316

over the original and the JJC. I have a Contax cap for it so that I can cap the lens without taking the hood off.

Interesting, thanks for sharing that... Looks nice and compact compared to the Oly/JJC or even most screw in alternatives I'd seen... I added the one linked below to a recent Amazon order but with an outside diameter of 70mm+ it might be pretty bulky (or more splayed out than it needs to be to even work effectively), haven't received it yet:

http://smile.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B009GFYA4W/ref=pd_aw_sbs_p_15?refRID=0TAN0JTW8JWV5X0FHSRQ

Might just order that GG-2 when I order the 12mm. Seems they've got some Kiwi branded knockoffs on eBay for $20 and the originals for $28? The backside curve is shaped a little differently between those... I imagine there's no threads for a clip in cap, hence the slip on? Oddly I found those caps (GK-54) cheaper on Amazon ($4-9) than eBay ($10+).

http://smile.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00G349XP0/ref=pd_aw_sim_p_2?refRID=0N7ZGZB0ZNDCXZZP6QM7

Is the hood on the photo within the post you linked supposed to be silver? Looks really weird/dark on my end... I see the Kiwi branded ones in silver & black on eBay; and the original in silver only although there's a set with GG-1, GG-2, and GG-3 replacements plus the cap all in black for $32, go figure. Not even sure what color 12mm I'll end up with.

http://m.ebay.com/itm/181650115698?nav=SEARCH
http://m.ebay.com/itm/161556829091?nav=SEARCH
http://m.ebay.com/itm/110321977698?nav=SEARCH

Kind of inconsequential I guess, I've got a little silver Fotasy screw-in metal hood on my black 45mm and I think it looks fine (it's slimmer than others and closely matches the diameter of the lens barrel), but still...

P.S. (editing function is still out of order): As I suspected when I bought the GG-2, it might not work without vignetting if you have a filter of ordinary thickness on the lens. For me that's not a problem since I no longer use UVs or plain glass filters for protection and would rarely use this lens with a filter. If I do, then it's not a major problem to shield a bit with my hand if required on that particular occasion.

I think the lens is judged harshly because of it's incredibly high price point. People expect a lot for $800, and being merely "very good" may not be enough.

If this was a $500 lens, then it would get 5 star ratings all around. And then it becomes a "must have" lens for M4/3 shooters.

Even when accounting for the better build quality, it just isn't a good value once you realize it costs TWICE as much as a 25mm f/1.8 lens. And that lens comes with a hood. Not a $45 option....

This is truly a sweet lens and I want one.  Can you tell me about the focus speed. I really loved my 17. mm f 1.8 because it was so damn fast to focus. Just to get an idea how does  the 12 compare ?

Terry Breedlove wrote:

This is truly a sweet lens and I want one. Can you tell me about the focus speed. I really loved my 17. mm f 1.8 because it was so damn fast to focus. Just to get an idea how does the 12 compare ?

While I don't have a 17/1.8 to compare with, I am pretty sure the 12/2 (which I have) is on a par with regard to AF speed. No essential difference between the AF mechanisms in these two lenses AFAIK.

M43 Dude wrote:

Chippy99 wrote:

M43 Dude wrote:

The 12mm F/2 ... features aan perture range from f/2-22, currently the widest and fastest native prime for Micro Four Thirds.

Puzzling comment. Are you forgetting the Panasonic 15mm f/1.7; Olympus 17mm f/1.8; Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 etc?

None of them are as wide as the Olympus 12mm F/2.

I never said they were.  He said the 12mm f/2 is the fastest native prime and it isn't.  He didn't say it was the fastest at 12mm.

And no, I didn't know what he meant.

Marty4650 wrote:

I think the lens is judged harshly because of it's incredibly high price point. People expect a lot for $800, and being merely "very good" may not be enough.

If this was a $500 lens, then it would get 5 star ratings all around. And then it becomes a "must have" lens for M4/3 shooters.

Even when accounting for the better build quality, it just isn't a good value once you realize it costs TWICE as much as a 25mm f/1.8 lens. And that lens comes with a hood. Not a $45 option....

This lens comes in at a price point where most people who seem to migrate to Micro Four Thirds don't want to pay for it. Unfortunately Olympus tried something with it that most people are also not willing to give it credit for.

Olympus marketed this lens as a Pro lens, had it come along a few years later with the Olympus 12-40 and 40-150 peoples opinions might not have been so steadfastly negative about this lens. While I write that, it's your loss if you choose not to pick a copy up.

The Olympus 12mm can now be had for under $500, if you're browsing the open market I've seen it on eBay for less than this.