Is Olympus 12mm f2.0 still a good buy?

Sener wrote:

I'm thinking of returning to Olympus for street photography. I'll be getting an E-P5 (which surprisingly is still in stock) with a wide prime.

Are there folks here still using the 12mm and what is general opinion on this lens?

Thanks in advance.

I found this the perfect combination for candid streetshots in Rio, especially in occasional combination with the 45f1.8.  They're small and discrete as is the camera,

James Pilcher wrote:

In my early tests, I perceived that that when the camera is in AF mode and you merely engage the AF clutch, manual focusing is NOT continuous; it is stepped. The steps are very close, but stepped nonetheless. It makes more of a difference when trying very close focus.

That's why I don't use the clutch anymore, but the 2x2 lever of my E-M1 to switch between AF and MF. BTW the camera doesn't engage focus assist when using clutch mode (but of cause does when in MF Mode).

The clutch mode (at least on the 12 and 17 mm primes) was a smart idea, but not brought to its full potential due to camera firmware "oddities".

I had one in 2013 but I was not convinced by it. Retrospectively, I think I had a problem with my workflow, using an early version of DxO optics Pro.

I bought a 12-40 PRO zoom, then switched for the 12-100 and was satisfied with them when shooting at 12mm.

Recently, I wanted a smaller gear than my bulky E-M1 III + 12-100, and better for stills than my E-PL9. I found a cheap PEN-F, and as I was totally charmed by the 17mmf1.2 (on the E-M1) and loved this focal, I bought a cheap 17mmf1.8 for the PEN-F.

So what ?

Finally, I wanted to be able to shoot wide landscapes with the PEN-F. So what else than the 12mmf2 (a Loawa 7.5mm is fine but not equally versatile than a 12mm).

I found that a short (100mm) "rapid nodal plate" is fine to align the entrance pupil with the rotation axis of the tripod head :

Panorama setting for PEN-F and 12mmF2

I did a short try of that with an approximate estimation of the pupil entrance

Panorama with above gear

As I have a bank of similar shots of almost all my previous and current lenses, I wanted to compare the 12mmf2 with the PRO zooms, at their best aperture near f5.6 :

- left : 12-100mm 16MP

- center 12-40mm 16MP

- right 12mmf2 20MP

Center

Left

Right

IMO, center is similar, edges are a little better with the prime, the 12-100 is a little better than the 12-40. I could not forecast this result !!!

"Soyons fous" : what about 80MP high res (with the PEN-F). IS this lens able to resolve such a resolution ?

So let's compare the resized 20MP->80MP ORI file with the 80MP ORF, both processed by Topaz Denoise AI

Center

Right

2/3 Left from the center

The answer is yes from the center to the 2nd third, not so much at the edge, but you gain absence of moire and less noise

If the price was high several years ago, it's not so true any more today, and the value is now very good.

What surprised me is how it compares to the PRO zooms.

Bonus tips : I reprocessed a shot with my first 2013 lens and you know what ? It's not as good at all. Not the same aperture (f4.5 vs f5.6) but it can not be the full story. Mystery ! Did Olympus improve its manufacturing ?

2013 lens (left) versus 2020 lens

I used mine a lot more before I got a 12-40. I use my 17 and 25 less but the 12, rarely. Too bad because I do like its size & weight & rendering (warmer than the 12-40).

With the deal I got, it was worth it. A friend with a camera store in Brooklyn sold it to me, used, at the price he'd paid.

But, new, it is overpriced. I don't know what the prices are for the other lenses you are considering but I do not consider the 12 2.0 a good buy.

James Pilcher wrote:

Bassam Guy wrote:

I used mine a lot more before I got a 12-40. I use my 17 and 25 less but the 12, rarely. Too bad because I do like its size & weight & rendering (warmer than the 12-40).

With the deal I got, it was worth it. A friend with a camera store in Brooklyn sold it to me, used, at the price he'd paid.

But, new, it is overpriced. I don't know what the prices are for the other lenses you are considering but I do not consider the 12 2.0 a good buy.

I disagree. If you want a 12mm prime in µ4/3, the Oly 12mm f/2 is the sweet spot. It's far cheaper than the Leica 12mm f/1.4, and far smaller than the 12mm f/2 Samyang.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Life is good in the woods

12 F2.0 is very nice lens. However, since I bought my 12-100 F4.0, I barely used the 12 F2.0. I sold mine. I either use 7-14 F2.8 or 12-100 F4.0 is I need the FL of 12mm.

The mostly used lenses of my mFT are 12-100 F4.0, 45 F1.2 and 17 F1.8.

James Pilcher wrote:

Bassam Guy wrote:

I used mine a lot more before I got a 12-40. I use my 17 and 25 less but the 12, rarely. Too bad because I do like its size & weight & rendering (warmer than the 12-40).

With the deal I got, it was worth it. A friend with a camera store in Brooklyn sold it to me, used, at the price he'd paid.

But, new, it is overpriced. I don't know what the prices are for the other lenses you are considering but I do not consider the 12 2.0 a good buy.

I disagree. If you want a 12mm prime in µ4/3, the Oly 12mm f/2 is the sweet spot. It's far cheaper than the Leica 12mm f/1.4, and far smaller than the 12mm f/2 Samyang.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Life is good in the woods

Bassam Guy wrote:

James Pilcher wrote:

Bassam Guy wrote:

I used mine a lot more before I got a 12-40. I use my 17 and 25 less but the 12, rarely. Too bad because I do like its size & weight & rendering (warmer than the 12-40).

With the deal I got, it was worth it. A friend with a camera store in Brooklyn sold it to me, used, at the price he'd paid.

But, new, it is overpriced. I don't know what the prices are for the other lenses you are considering but I do not consider the 12 2.0 a good buy.

I disagree. If you want a 12mm prime in µ4/3, the Oly 12mm f/2 is the sweet spot. It's far cheaper than the Leica 12mm f/1.4, and far smaller than the 12mm f/2 Samyang.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Life is good in the woods

Perhaps, Jim, the difference is that I am comparing it to the 12-40 which is 90% of the 12 2 at 12, plus a whole lot more   for little more money.

If the competing primes are moreoverpriced, I'll restate my conclusion: "the 12 2 is less overpriced than its competitors" and I'll repeat it has beautiful warm tones. But, if the size & weight & full stop don't deter you, consider saving a little more for the 12-40.

Thanks for all your effort. This should be very useful for anyone buying this and wanting to know if they got a lemon.

I always thought this lens was way too expensive for what it was, but recently Olympus had great promotions here, so at 420 EUR, I though it would be worth it. I wanted it mainly for my little vlogging style videos, as the PanaLeica 12/1.4 is annoyingly big and heavy for that.

Anyway, the copy I got was bad. Very obviously, very bad.

So I went back to the store to exchange it. They only had one more copy. It was equally bad. Got a refund instead.

Both were "Made in China". So probably a batch from a few years ago.

This was a very disappointing experience.

Thanks

It seems there is big variance from copy to copy. I will check : perhaps mine is made in the new plant in Vietnam ?

I paid mine 450 € in France, which I think is a good value.

Using a prime is not only a matter of size and weight. Discreteness is important also : people will not react the same way if you use a PEN-F with a small prime or a E-M1 with a 12-100mm.  The 12-45 is on the right way regarding these concerns. Regarding IQ, PRO zooms and premium primes are similar. The PRO primes are apart, and stellar in fact (you can have a look at a comparison of mine here)

But now I think using a prime makes me think more about my composition, and adds coherence to my set of images, especially the 17mm. But a 17mm does not do everything, and that's where the 12mm matters.

And of course, the prime will help in low light or for action shooting and, not essential but why not, "cerise sur le gâteau", shallower depth of field.

Frdric BERNARD wrote:

Thanks

It seems there is big variance from copy to copy. I will check : perhaps mine is made in the new plant in Vietnam ?

That would be interesting to know. It's widely speculated that the move to Vietnam also brought improvement to manufacturing consistency. But there's no real data to back it up. It's just that there's been less complaints about this problem in recent years.

I paid mine 450 € in France, which I think is a good value.

Yep, I also feel that's the price level at which this lens is a good value.

Using a prime is not only a matter of size and weight. Discreteness is important also : people will not react the same way if you use a PEN-F with a small prime or a E-M1 with a 12-100mm.

Also, this lens is a perfect match for PEN-F. Visually. Both are absolutely gorgeous.

I agree with that.

The 12-45 is tempting, especially because I have the 12-100 (not any more the 12-40) and such a small PRO zoom would be very usable, light and discrete on a PEN-F

But I will try to keep shooting with small primes with my PEN-F, keeping the 12-100 and larger primes for the E-M1 when it's appropriate : the zoom in particular is a time saver when you visit a town, a museum or a monument and you don't have time / can't change lens or move around to choose the best composition with a prime. And larger primes are unmissable in very low light (moreover the E-M1 has better high ISO) or when a shallower depth of field is intended.

In this "shooting policy", the 12mmf2 has its place.