Olympus 12-40 f2.8 or Olympus 14-150 II f4-5.6 & Primes

Now before you recommend other lenses I will say that I must have weather sealing to pair with my OMD EM5 II and I will be using this lens for travel whether it be hiking, at the beach, or anything else I can throw at it.

Now my knee jerk reaction is to say, get the better glass and buy the 12-40. But I currently own the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 II and the Olympus 45 f1.8, both of which I got at a bargain price. If I already have those lenses, do I really need the Olympus 12-40?

There's no replacement for displacement. If you shoot low-light a f2.8 normal zoom is invaluable. 12mm is also very appreciable over 14mm.

That being said, I have a lx100 now, and have considered selling the 12-35 for a 14-140 due to the redundancy..

For shallow DOF and absolute sharpness and low light usage the 2 primes would serve you well

Between the 2 zooms I'd recommend the 14-150mm II since it'll be the more versatile and used more often on trips (based on my experience)

The 12-40mm I have is relegated mainly to shooting social events  and indoor parties

It's not to say that the 12-40mm is the inferior lens , it's just that it'll be not as useful as the 14-150mm II IMHO

Of course you can always get both like me

But whenever I go out for a whole day of shooting , I 'd take the 14-150mm , it's just more used for my shootings

Or I 'll have to carry the 12-40mm + something else which I prefer not to

Cheers,

Without knowing more about how/what you shoot, it's hard to give informed recommendations.  Personally, I value large aperture openings over large zoom ranges, so I'd pick the 12-40 f/2.8. On the other hand, I don't shoot telephoto very often, so ymmv.

stillNotzithy wrote:

Now before you recommend other lenses I will say that I must have weather sealing to pair with my OMD EM5 II and I will be using this lens for travel whether it be hiking, at the beach, or anything else I can throw at it.

Now my knee jerk reaction is to say, get the better glass and buy the 12-40. But I currently own the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 II and the Olympus 45 f1.8, both of which I got at a bargain price. If I already have those lenses, do I really need the Olympus 12-40?

Everybody is different.  It really depends on what you shoot.  Are you shooting more in dark situations where you can use a prime or are you shooting a lot of shots in good light where you need the distance?

In 2015, I got both lenses around the July/August time frame.  I got the 14-150mm II first when Olympus started having their 'continual' sale on lenses (I figured the $200 off wouldn't come back soon, not realizing Olympus has had the same sale on the 14-150mm II for the past 6 months).

I bought the 12-40mm used a few weeks later.  For me, I use the 12-40mm 2-3 times as much as I use the 14-150mm.  Since I have both, when I'm expecting wet weather, both come along, and I switch to the 14-150mm II when I'm shooting subjects further away.  I do carry the 20mm/45mm in a plastic bag for when I'm shooting dark.

I have fn2 mapped to the 2x electronic zoom, so I don't really need to switch until I need to shoot at around 80mm focal length.  Looking at my shots for 2015, about 80% of the shots that I took are in the 12-80mmt range.

Since getting the 12-40mm, my usage of the Panasonic 20mm has gone down quite a bit (and note, neither the Panasonic 20mm nor the Olympus 45mm are weather sealed).  I generally only use it when my ISO is already up to 32000.  I bought the 45mm along with the 14-150mm, and I used it for some indoor shots when I had not yet bought the 12-40mm, the 14-150mm II was just too slow, and I had left the 20mm at home  Like the 20mm, I now tend to view the 45mm as a lens to use when I'm in a really dark situation.

I would suggest going with the 12-40mm.  If you find like me, it replaces the 20mm and 45mm and you find you need the range, sell them, and buy the 14-150mm II lens.

Alternatively, if you don't need weather sealing for the long shots, but you need it occasionally, get the 40-150mm II-R lens (the consumer, not the pro lens) to go with the 12-40mm.

Henry Richardson wrote:

stillNotzithy wrote:

Now my knee jerk reaction is to say, get the better glass and buy the 12-40. But I currently own the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 II and the Olympus 45 f1.8, both of which I got at a bargain price. If I already have those lenses, do I really need the Olympus 12-40?

Your primes are much faster, smaller, lighter, and in most ways better than the 12-40mm. You already have the primes so why bother with the 12-40mm? For low light, shallow dof, etc. your primes are much better than the 12-40mm.

That assumes you can move about.  Many times I have no flexibility to move (seated in the audience, on a boat, etc.).

In the case of the E-M5 (I can't speak for the E-M5 II), the 12-40mm focuses much, much faster than the 20mm.  I could never catch things with action with that lens.

I haven't done an in depth comparison, but IMHO, I get better image quality from the 12-40mm than the Panasonic 20mm (unless you need the smallest depth of field).  The Olympus 45mm, is a good lens and may be able to compete with the 12-40mm, but the Panasonic 20mm is an ok lens in terms of image quality.  The 12-40mm IMHO is a great lens.  But as I said in my other post, we are all different.

Henry Richardson wrote:

stillNotzithy wrote:

Now my knee jerk reaction is to say, get the better glass and buy the 12-40. But I currently own the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 II and the Olympus 45 f1.8, both of which I got at a bargain price. If I already have those lenses, do I really need the Olympus 12-40?

Your primes are much faster, smaller, lighter, and in most ways better than the 12-40mm. You already have the primes so why bother with the 12-40mm? For low light, shallow dof, etc. your primes are much better than the 12-40mm.

The 14-150mm is also not as good as the primes, but provides much more flexibility and a wide range of focal lengths. Seems to be the way to go. Carry the 14-150mm and one or both primes and use whichever is appropriate for the photo.

I dunno, Henry. I find the 12-40 resolves as much detail as my primes. The only issue I really have with it is that there isn't much DoF control at f2.8 for any of the focal lengths below 30mm. Other than that, its obviously not as fast, but it will have better detail and micro contrast compared to the superzoom. I always find the IQ compromise of superzooms to not be worth it imo.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 is a very special lens. It's sharp across the frame even at f/2.8. It's one lens that I would keep for my E-M1 if I had to give up all others. In fact I did travel to Europe for 3 weeks last fall and in that time of pretty dense touristy trips I used my E-M1 with 12-40 exclusively--never felt like I was missing anything. IBIS makes low light photos at f/2.8 easy. I love my 12-40 zoom, and I recently got a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 II pancake for the times when I want a compact solution + something for low light people photos. I would say that my 12-40mm f/2.8 is better optically than my Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 II.  It's got a pretty smooth pleasant bokeh at the long end as well.

Bhima78 wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

stillNotzithy wrote:

Now my knee jerk reaction is to say, get the better glass and buy the 12-40. But I currently own the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 II and the Olympus 45 f1.8, both of which I got at a bargain price. If I already have those lenses, do I really need the Olympus 12-40?

Your primes are much faster, smaller, lighter, and in most ways better than the 12-40mm. You already have the primes so why bother with the 12-40mm? For low light, shallow dof, etc. your primes are much better than the 12-40mm.

The 14-150mm is also not as good as the primes, but provides much more flexibility and a wide range of focal lengths. Seems to be the way to go. Carry the 14-150mm and one or both primes and use whichever is appropriate for the photo.

I dunno, Henry. I find the 12-40 resolves as much detail as my primes. The only issue I really have with it is that there isn't much DoF control at f2.8 for any of the focal lengths below 30mm. Other than that, its obviously not as fast, but it will have better detail and micro contrast compared to the superzoom. I always find the IQ compromise of superzooms to not be worth it imo.

I had the 45/1,8. Avery nice and sharp lens indeed. But to get best sharpness from corner to corner you need to step down to f/4. The same is true for the 12-40 at 40 mm. They are equally sharp there. When I realised that I sold my 45/1,8. I miss the 1,8 aperture of course sometimes, but I can live with that. Now the 20/1,7. I have no experience at all from that lens but if you believe slrgear it's less sharp than the 12-40 at 20 mm on all apertures except for 1.7 and 2.0 where the 12-40 of course doesn't perform anything at all. So, if you don't feel a very strong demand for one step more light you get along very well with the 12-40. Another thing you get which you don't have with the primes is the wider part of the 12-40 range. And yet another good thing is its close-up capability, not far from real macro.

The 14-150 is way worse than any of the above mentioned lenses. Of course it's versatile, you don't need to change lenses, but if that is important I think it's a much better idea to get a Panasonic TZ100 or Sony RX10 with 1" sensor and long zoom lenses.

If I were the OP I would get the 12-40, sell the 20 (and maybe the 45) and get a 40-150/4-56 R for tele shots. This is a very good lens for a ridicoulusly low price. The 14-150 is not close in IQ

MatsP wrote:

The 14-150 is way worse than any of the above mentioned lenses. Of course it's versatile, you don't need to change lenses, but if that is important I think it's a much better idea to get a Panasonic TZ100 or Sony RX10 with 1" sensor and long zoom lenses.

The TZ100 is NOT weather sealed and thus is not what the OP is looking for. The FZ300 with the smaller sensor (1/2.3") is weather sealed, and might be useful as a super zoom in wet conditions. I've been thinking about the FZ300, but so far, I'm thinking the E-M5 + 14-150mm would produce as good pictures as the FZ300. The OP was specifically asking for weather sealed options.

The RX10-II is (but it is more expensive than the 12-40mm and 14-150mm II combined).

If I were the OP I would get the 12-40, sell the 20 (and maybe the 45) and get a 40-150/4-56 R for tele shots. This is a very good lens for a ridicoulusly low price. The 14-150 is not close in IQ

Unless the OP needs weather sealing for the tele-shots.

In terms of weather sealing, sometimes having a single lens that you don't have to change trumps image quality, as you might not be able to change lenses in bad weather. Then having a jack of all trades (and of course master of none) allows you to get shots you might not otherwise get.

I'd probably go w the 14-150 II for the extended range... but note the 14-150 can be a little soft around the edges at 150mm.

If you don't need the extended range, go for the 12-40... Even if it overlaps your primes, it is weather sealed and goes to 12mm.

Michael Meissner wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

stillNotzithy wrote:

Now my knee jerk reaction is to say, get the better glass and buy the 12-40. But I currently own the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 II and the Olympus 45 f1.8, both of which I got at a bargain price. If I already have those lenses, do I really need the Olympus 12-40?

Your primes are much faster, smaller, lighter, and in most ways better than the 12-40mm. You already have the primes so why bother with the 12-40mm? For low light, shallow dof, etc. your primes are much better than the 12-40mm.

I haven't done an in depth comparison, but IMHO, I get better image quality from the 12-40mm than the Panasonic 20mm (unless you need the smallest depth of field). The Olympus 45mm, is a good lens and may be able to compete with the 12-40mm, but the Panasonic 20mm is an ok lens in terms of image quality. The 12-40mm IMHO is a great lens. But as I said in my other post, we are all different.

Plus, we all have different samples of these lenses. My 20mm at F2,8 is about the same IQ as the 12-40 at F2,8. where it is supposed to be sharpest.

This however is a great performance for a zoom lens.

Peter