Crazy to sell the Olympus 12-40mm?!

I just recently upgraded from a GM1 and GX7 to the new E-M5 mkii which I really love. The weather sealing, big EVF, centre placement of VF (stronger left eye), 5 axis stabilisation, great controls,all in all it is an excellent camera.

I opted for a kit with the 12-40mm 2.8, which is built like a tank and seems like a great lens however the zoom ring is quite heavy, the weight and general feeling of bulk is a bit off putting in the operation. It's also quite short in FL compared to the Panasonic 14-140 it replaced.

I know this may make some here laugh, it is a pro level 2.8 zoom after all! But coming from the tiny GM1 to this is taking some getting used to and having the 14-140mm as a sunny day walkabout was pretty liberating. Something I didn't realise until I sold it.

I also have the Oly 25mm + 45mm, both of which are brilliant.

So the question is, do you think I should stick it out with the 12-40 and give it another month of use? I've ordered the Olympus version of the superzoom but cannot afford to keep both, was going to give them both some consideration for a while and see what I prefer.

Am I mad to sell the 12-40? Just wanted to hear of others preferred setups, with a leaning toward light, compactness and ease of use. Others who own the 12-40 with a smaller m43 camera, do you not find it very front heavy?

Was thinking the 14-150 would be great for outdoors walks outs, and the tiny primes for indoor, street, portrait and other specialist areas.

Anyhow, first world problems I suppose! Oh and here are a few shots with the new setup...

Cheers!

Your choice.  If the new weather-sealed superzoom suits you better, then go for it. 

I like my primes. 12-40 is fabulous, but even at 2.8 with a m43 sensor, the DOF doesn't satisfy me, so I usually always end up shooting with primes. The 25/1.8 is my most used lens. Plus, the 25/45 make a great combo, as they are tiny. Afterall, that's the whole point of the m43 system. If you want versatility, then yeah, the 12-40 is unbeatable. I just find my best shots are dont with primes.

shamhead wrote:

So the question is, do you think I should stick it out with the 12-40 and give it another month of use?

Yes.

I don't think it's crazy.  The Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 is a lighter alternative with OIS that you could look into as a replacement if you want a similar lens.  It's got better colors and contrast than the Olympus 12-40mm.  The two lenses have their own strengths and weaknesses, but if you want smaller and lighter and more compatible with Panasonic bodies, I'd go with the 12-35mm.

Other than that, if you are happy with your primes and other zoom lenses, there's certainly no NEED for another lens--it's all about your personal use habits and preferences.  That's why it's great that the micro four thirds system has so many lens options!  Something for everyone.

Yeah, I've tested both on my camera in a local store, along with taking sample photographs and doing lots of reading on-line. The Panasonic lens is noticeably smaller and lighter when on the camera. It feels more balanced on E-M1--I can't tell for other bodies. I was set to get the Panasonic 12-35mm for various reasons but ended up with a 12-40mm because of a really great deal. I still have a lot of respect for the 12-35mm, however, and would not hesitate to use either lens (maybe even prefer the 12-35mm).

That said, both lenses are not heavy in DSLR terms.  I'm currently using a four thirds Panasonic 14-150mm, and that weighs as much as my Nikkor 18-200mm VR did, when adding the adapter to m43.  Still quite manageable.  Very heavy when compared to the tiny pancake zooms, but not heavy in absolute interchangeable lens camera terms.

Hi,

The weight of the 12-40 when it's attached to a body never satisfied me, it felt like a small DSLR like a Canon 100D or Nikon D3300 and not like a marvel any longer to the ingeniousness of a small and light camera. The depth of field control at F/2.8 on Micro Four Thirds has never satisfied me either. I shoot with the 12mm F/2 and 20mm F/1.7 primarily as a result.

If its not doing it for you then feel free to change something, buy another prime, or perhaps one of the light weight zooms such as the Olympus 40-150 F/4-F/5.6, or alternatively one of the 14-140 or 14-150 lenses from Panasonic, Olympus or Tokina.

The Image quality of the O 2.8/12-40mm is mostly better than the primes in its range, so I would not consider selling it. Especially compared to any of the super zooms, the IQ extraordinary. Therefore I switched from a one walk around super zoom strategy to a two zoom strategy with better range and much better IQ.

As such my most favorite setup is currently the combination O 2.8/12-40mm plus P 45-175mm.

shamhead wrote:

john isaacs wrote:!

You obviously don't want or need the 12-40, so you should sell it and stick with the 14-150.

You may be right, I'm possibility just in need of validating my thoughts but it's good to hear others opinions and setups. See if it gives me any other ideas.

Nothing crazy about it.

I've had 12-40 for a couple of weeks then sent it back. For me it's defeating the very idea of the m43 - compact and lightweight one hand operated camera with a good IQ. But that's my understanding of the system and many think differently.

The fact that the lens was decentered only made my decision easier. Also I was kind of shocked by the level of vignetting on this "pro" lens.

So no, you are not alone and the 12-40 is not a must-have miracle for everyone.

• When the light is good the lenses even out - you generally need to stop down somewhat anyway, and there goes one of the main advantages (speed).

I have the Panny 14-140 II and its pretty tough to beat - if there is enough light. Of course, if you keep going down that slope, you'll end up with a fixed lens superzoom (ie FZ1000).

So get those primes out in low light and you'll appreciate them more. Or scenes where a blurred background adds to the photo

I'm on the fence with this lens, and I really like the Manual focus 'clutch'.  But its not the smallest and its not the cheapest...

I used to have a Canon 450D (a "small" dslr) with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens. I recently held a 450D again. I can definitely tell you: the E-M5 with 12-40 lens is a *lot* smaller than the 450D with a similar lens.

The superzoom lenses are not all that much smaller and lighter than the 12-40. They do give you a lot more reach obviously. Which is best is mostly a matter of what you need most: the low light capabilities of the f/2.8 or the reach of a zoom going to 150mm.

tgutgu wrote:

The Image quality of the O 2.8/12-40mm is mostly better than the primes in its range, so I would not consider selling it. Especially compared to any of the super zooms, the IQ extraordinary. Therefore I switched from a one walk around super zoom strategy to a two zoom strategy with better range and much better IQ.

As such my most favorite setup is currently the combination O 2.8/12-40mm plus P 45-175mm.

Maybe, but this comment is rather facile in nature... There is nothing inherently wrong with most of the primes in terms of image quality except for the Olympus 17mm pancake and the primes by and large are 1 to 1.5 stops faster in terms of light gather and depth of field.

The 12-40 F/1.28 can't do F/1.7 and so it comes up short for a lot of users. You can stop down a lens, but you can't stop a lens up.