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

Forgottenbutnotgone wrote:

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?

I think the problem is in your grammar, as you seem to have used the wrong conjunction. Perhaps your heading should read, "Olympus 12-40 f2.8and Olympus 14-150 II f4-5.6 & Primes!" (...and 40-150mm and 300mm and 7-14 and so on and so on...)

The latest medical science indicates that this is the ONLY cure for Gear Acquisition Syndrome by the way.

Robert

Although it was written a few month back, Robert's comment (above in red) made me chuckle! Truly, G.A.S. seems to be a common side effect of entering the m43 system!

But if you do get all those lenses and then travel with very limited space and weight, it becomes quite a headache to decide which few to take, regretfully leaving all the rest at home.

MatsP wrote:

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

You must have had a poor copy of the 45mm it's a superb lens even a 1.8 and no way is the 14-150 way worse than the other lenses, it's a very good lens.

MatsP wrote:

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

Never found you need to stop down to f4 with the 45 to get the best results and the 14-150 not way worse by any means

petebuster wrote: the 14-150 not way worse by any means

Having recently purchased the Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 lens myself, I'm glad to read that many forum members have been using the lens extensively, and are pleased with the results, especially given the weather-sealing and the reasonable price.

Dostoy wrote:

petebuster wrote: the 14-150 not way worse by any means

Having recently purchased the Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 lens myself, I'm glad to read that many forum members have been using the lens extensively, and are pleased with the results, especially given the weather-sealing and the reasonable price.

It's an excellent lens for the price, people think with a pro lens your always getting greater iq, the differences are more often minimal, what your your really paying for is a faster, better bulit lens.

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?

In my view you never regret a buying a good lens...

The 12-40 is a great lens, Sharp,  focus close, moderately large f/stop for portraits and focus is very fast. The only bad thing is that it is rather heavy a 382 grams.

The 45 I only bring forward for portrait use or when I want to travel light. I have made some portraits with it that I'm quite pleased with.  It's sharp  and gives a nice bokeh at f/1.8.

The 20mm is my least used lens. It's perfectly sharp, but focus slowly and makes a bit of noice. It's also to long as a wide angel lens and to short as a "normal" lens. So it's often left at home.

Rather than buying a mediocre 14-150. Take a look at the cheap 40-150mm lens from Olympus. Combined with the 12-40 you cover most of your needs.

One thing to consider, if you are shooting with an EM5II, the 12-40, as good as it is,  may feel a bit unbalanced and top heavy. I found this was the case when I had an EM-10.

h2odog wrote:

One thing to consider, if you are shooting with an EM5II, the 12-40, as good as it is, may feel a bit unbalanced and top heavy. I found this was the case when I had an EM-10.

You "need" to get a grip on your E-M10 with the 12-40

petebuster wrote:

MatsP wrote:

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

You must have had a poor copy of the 45mm it's a superb lens even a 1.8

I definitely didn't have a bad copy. I'm not alone in my opinion regarding the 45/1.8. It's confirmed by various reviews. For portraits it's excellent but if you need corner to corner sharpness it's not ideal. The 12-40 is much better in this respect.

and no way is the 14-150 way worse than the other lenses, it's a very good lens.

Sorry to say but it suffers from similar shortcomings as other superzoom lenses of all brands, it's probably one of the better, but still it's a compromise. The long reach comes to a price, and what you pay for convenience is lesser IQ. Of course it's good enough to satisfy many needs but not if you want real good sharpness.

TorsteinH wrote:

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?

In my view you never regret a buying a good lens...

The 12-40 is a great lens, Sharp, focus close, moderately large f/stop for portraits and focus is very fast. The only bad thing is that it is rather heavy a 382 grams.

The 45 I only bring forward for portrait use or when I want to travel light. I have made some portraits with it that I'm quite pleased with. It's sharp and gives a nice bokeh at f/1.8.

The 20mm is my least used lens. It's perfectly sharp, but focus slowly and makes a bit of noice. It's also to long as a wide angel lens and to short as a "normal" lens. So it's often left at home.

Rather than buying a mediocre 14-150. Take a look at the cheap 40-150mm lens from Olympus. Combined with the 12-40 you cover most of your needs.

I agree to every word. Exactly my opinion.

14-150 = way worse

These two lenses aren't comparable ...... different function

You could ask 12,20,45 mm primes vs this 12-40 pro  ..... because one could replace all three IMO.

If you don't have an of the primes then the 12-40 pro is probably a better choice despite the weight (which is considerable).  It is sealed and no changing lenses on the beach where a single grain of sand can blow your ibis.

If you have all three primes you should probably keep them..... they open up wider.

I have only the 45mm and I am keeping it. It is too sweet a lens to give up and far lighter.

That said I am very very impressed with the 12-40 pro in terms of handling, sharpness and contrast.  It is far too heavy but I guess nobody wants to pay 1k for plastic.

If you haven't decided yet, wait for the Oly 12-100 f/4 that's rumored to come out in a couple of months. You get the wide end of the 12-40 and most of the tele of the 14-140, and because it's supposedly labeled a Pro lens, we should expect a very sharp image and weathersealing, too.

aliasfox wrote:

If you haven't decided yet, wait for the Oly 12-100 f/4 that's rumored to come out in a couple of months. You get the wide end of the 12-40 and most of the tele of the 14-140, and because it's supposedly labeled a Pro lens, we should expect a very sharp image and weathersealing, too.

I had the same dilemma, even started a new thread about it, and finally I've made the decision to go with the following set:

1. 12-40 PRO 2.8, for my everyday usage.

2. 40-150 R, for those times I need a tele.

3. 45mm 1.8, for low light and street.

Hope it helps!

LS

sellera wrote:

aliasfox wrote:

If you haven't decided yet, wait for the Oly 12-100 f/4 that's rumored to come out in a couple of months. You get the wide end of the 12-40 and most of the tele of the 14-140, and because it's supposedly labeled a Pro lens, we should expect a very sharp image and weathersealing, too.

I had the same dilemma, even started a new thread about it, and finally I've made the decision to go with the following set:

1. 12-40 PRO 2.8, for my everyday usage.

2. 40-150 R, for those times I need a tele.

3. 45mm 1.8, for low light and street.

Hope it helps!

LS

At the end of the day people will argue and disagree about IQ  all day long but in reality it's mostly a lot of nonsense, they all take pictures, how good they are is more about the person behind it, a 2K lens won't necessarily get a better picture than £200 lens,

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.

Well, first of all. He did say that he "must have weather sealing", and the 12-40 is weather sealed. And secondly, the 12-40 is an amazing lens. It's razor sharp from 2.8, and it's REALLY close focusing! I love that about the lens, for the type of semi-macro i sometimes do, i dropped my desire to buy a dedicated macro after i got the 12-40. The 12-40 is the best lens i've ever had. The only downside, imo, is that it's heavy (i have had heavier lenses though).

Oh, and with the 12-40 you don't have to switch lenses as often as you have to do with primes. With that said, i do love shooting primes as well. It's a relief sometimes, and it brings the weight down when you bring one or two primes only.

… Doug Brown 's holiday pix thread which he just started.

Well worth a look if you are considering this lens.