Oly 12-40 Pro 'out'..Panny 14-45 'in'..well maybe.

My E-M1 with RRS grip and 14-35mm f2 has a combined weight of 1.65kg. I can carry this around with me all day long, anywhere, and not raise a sweat. I just handed it to my wife and asked her if this is heavy and would she be able to carry it around. She didn't think it heavy at all.

And no, 'little' isn't what m4/3 is all about. It's about providing options to meet all manner of requirements. Yes, it does provide smaller and lighter lenses than equivalent FF/APS-C systems, but the intent is not to be a Nikon 1 or Pentax Q.

The 12-40mm f2.8 is just over a third of the weight of the 14-35mm f2 and way smaller. My 35-100mm f2 is much bigger and heavier and I'll carry that around with me all day as well. But for crying out loud, 380g isn't heavy. That's a can of Coke.

My work boots weigh nearly 1kg each.

Dave in Wales wrote:

I'm considering letting the Oly go and replacing it with a Panasonic 14-45mm f3.5-5.6.

I went the other way, replaced the 14-45mm with the way better and more useful 12-40mm.

Why, because the 12-40 is just TOOOO BIG AND HEAVY.

A weak 73 year old and I find the weight stuck on an E-P5 to be a just perfect heft.

I don't really need f2.8.

I have found f/2.8 to be essential when on holidays, makes those shots inside dim cathedrals work properly and helps me keep to lower ISO settings. Flash never used any more because of the combination of f/2.8 and good high ISO perfromance.

I've had the the Panny 14-45 before, years ago, beautiful little lens.

Agree, but it has not seen a shot since the 12-40mm came into my life.

'Little'...isn't that what M4/3 is supposed to be all about?

No, it's all about sensible size and good quality results.

Compact pocket cameras and smartphones are all about "little".

Regards........ Guy

peppermonkey wrote:

OzRay wrote:

My E-M1 with RRS grip and 14-35mm f2 has a combined weight of 1.65kg. I can carry this around with me all day long, anywhere, and not raise a sweat. I just handed it to my wife and asked her if this is heavy and would she be able to carry it around. She didn't think it heavy at all.

And no, 'little' isn't what m4/3 is all about. It's about providing options to meet all manner of requirements. Yes, it does provide smaller and lighter lenses than equivalent FF/APS-C systems, but the intent is not to be a Nikon 1 or Pentax Q.

The 12-40mm f2.8 is just over a third of the weight of the 14-35mm f2 and way smaller. My 35-100mm f2 is much bigger and heavier and I'll carry that around with me all day as well. But for crying out loud, 380g isn't heavy. That's a can of Coke.

My work boots weigh nearly 1kg each.

But it could certainly be more larger than he wants or more heavier than he wants to carry around.

It just depends on how he wants to use it.

Indeed, but as with many posts on this forum, why carry on about such things if they are nothing but a personal choice? It simply invites push back.

Yes, and there will be those without sin who are the first to cast stones (not you in this case) that if you don't like it, why read it or say anything?

I choose to question, not to blindly agree.

Dave in Wales wrote:

I'm considering letting the Oly go and replacing it with a Panasonic 14-45mm f3.5-5.6.

Why, because the 12-40 is just TOOOO BIG AND HEAVY.

I don't really need f2.8.

I've had the the Panny 14-45 before, years ago, beautiful little lens.

'Little'...isn't that what M4/3 is supposed to be all about?

As has been said, 'little' is a relative term. Don't know about Panny, but Olympus doesn't use the words "small" or "little"; rather they go for "compact", or more often "perfect sized" when promoting m43, OM range and of course the comparison is with DSLRs.

So perhaps "smaller than DSLR" is what m43 is all about for Oly (for the OM cameras), and in that they have been consistent.

Personally, I like a little heft in the lenses - I find it easier to hold them steady. As for the weight ... well I still feel like I'm walking on air after years of Canon! (Which lenses should I bring today? Oh yeah, now I can bring everything!).

Of course "perfect size" is totally meaningless but I do enjoy the fact that the EM-1 feels very similar in size and weight to the SLRs I started out with many years ago.

Hen3ry wrote:

OzRay wrote:

…

The 12-40mm f2.8 is just over a third of the weight of the 14-35mm f2 and way smaller. My 35-100mm f2 is much bigger and heavier and I'll carry that around with me all day as well.

They breed you blokes tough in Gippsland! Back in the day, I used to run up the hill at Plenty with two fence posts on my shoulders after spending a day splitting same down the paddock.

Now I look at the difference in weight between the Panny 12-35 and 12-32 and go for the 12-32 for lightness, LOL.

But for crying out loud, 380g isn't heavy. That's a can of Coke.

And here in the tropics, I can sweat that out in an hour but I prefer GoGo, the local product (less sugary).

My work boots weigh nearly 1kg each.

Perhaps, but they are on the ground, not on your shoulders. Unless …

I'm still going out in the paddocks, cutting, splitting and filling an 8'x5' tandem trailer load of wood all year round to stay warm in winter.

The only thing that really gets to my back is the bending over with a chainsaw for a couple of hours. Splitting wood with my axe I could do all day long.

The thing is, the moment that you start thinking and acting like you're old, that's when you become old and start going downhill.

Dave in Wales wrote:

I'm considering letting the Oly go and replacing it with a Panasonic 14-45mm f3.5-5.6.

Why, because the 12-40 is just TOOOO BIG AND HEAVY.

I had the 12-40mm with my EM1, and I found I never used it, even though it is a fabulous lens.  I ended up using the 12-32mm on the cameras instead.

Interestingly enough, when I went to the Sony A7 with the 24-70mm, the total weight of the EM1/12-40mm combo was within 10 grams of the A7/24-70mm combo...but the Sony felt lighter in hand simply because of how the lens was weighted in terms of its length and center of gravity.  I think that may actually be what you are having an issue with as much as anything else.

I don't really need f2.8.

I've had the the Panny 14-45 before, years ago, beautiful little lens.

'Little'...isn't that what M4/3 is supposed to be all about?

I'd also recommend you take a look at the 12-32mm.  I liked it better than the 14-45mm, myself, and it's really tiny, also.  It does have a fair bit more barrel distortion wide open than the more expensive lenses, but that's fixable in PP, and it has a nicer color rendition than the 14-45, to my eyes anyway.

-J

Dave in Wales wrote:

'Little'...isn't that what M4/3 is supposed to be all about?

No, it's about choice. If you want "little", buy a compact point and shoot.
It's about technology which isn't seen in other formats.
It's about value for money.
Going from a Pro lens to a kit lens, you will regret it.
It's not weather sealled, if your using a weather sealled body, it doesn't make sense to downgrade and risk water ingress.
Continuous shooting fps will be greatly reduced, especially if used on the EM1.

LMNCT wrote:

They may not say "little" but they do say "compact" and "lightweight". M4/3 was designed to be smaller and lighter than the huge and heavy alternate.

Which it is - have you felt the weight of a FF 24-70 2.8?