Advice on Olympus 12-45 f4

Hi all

Would very much appreciate some advice - I'm a long time 4/3 then m4/3 user now using a Pen-F and E-P5.

Most used lenses - in descending order - are all Olympus :

1. 45mm f1.8 - absolutely love this lens, life is better through it
2. 25mm f1.8 - sharp, have never loved it though, rendering not special in my view
3. 12mm f2.0 - gorgeous
4. 60mm f2.8 - very nice, I need to spend more time with it

I take mostly family, street, landscapes, flowers. No birding. Particularly enjoy being the amateur photographer at family events (birthdays, weddings, dinners, meals) which usually end indoors with lousy light.

When the light is decent however, I am often swapping between 45/25/12 and am therefore thinking of getting the Oly 12-45 f4. Just wondering how image quality would compare between that and the primes - I understand that in lower light situations I will be back to the primes.

Would appreciate any advice / experience. TIA.

Edward

Edward Lowy wrote:

Would very much appreciate some advice - I'm a long time 4/3 then m4/3 user now using a Pen-F and E-P5.

Most used lenses - in descending order - are all Olympus :

1. 45mm f1.8 - absolutely love this lens, life is better through it
2. 25mm f1.8 - sharp, have never loved it though, rendering not special in my view
3. 12mm f2.0 - gorgeous
4. 60mm f2.8 - very nice, I need to spend more time with it

I take mostly family, street, landscapes, flowers. No birding. Particularly enjoy being the amateur photographer at family events (birthdays, weddings, dinners, meals) which usually end indoors with lousy light.

When the light is decent however, I am often swapping between 45/25/12 and am therefore thinking of getting the Oly 12-45 f4. Just wondering how image quality would compare between that and the primes - I understand that in lower light situations I will be back to the primes.

Image quality is probably comparable.
You might want to check out the PL 25mm f1.4 to replace the 25mm f1.8. It’s a MUCH better lens.

If you’re concerned about low light, why not take a look at the 12-40mm f2.8. Bump the ISO and it’s perfectly usable in low light.

Its part of my travel combo along with the GX9, excellent lens and can't find any fault with it.

Much better fit than the larger 12-40/2.8 it replaced for my travelling, small, lightweight and weather proof too.

I usually carry a 15/1.7 in case the light conditions require something faster. Rarely use it though, the 12-45 is very versatile.

I had the 12-45f4, then got the 12-40f2.8, then got the 12-100f4.  Honestly since getting the 12-100f4 I havent even looked into putting the 12-45 or the 12-40 back on my camera.

I did just take my em3.5 with 12-40f2.8 to try to get a wide angle of a rocket launch, welp that was a bust, we were too close and the rocket was out of frame in like 1.2seconds.

Depending on where your located Id be interested in selling you my copy of the 12-45 f4.  Its been used very minimally on my EM5.3.

Edward Lowy wrote:

Hi all

Would very much appreciate some advice - I'm a long time 4/3 then m4/3 user now using a Pen-F and E-P5.

Most used lenses - in descending order - are all Olympus :

1. 45mm f1.8 - absolutely love this lens, life is better through it
2. 25mm f1.8 - sharp, have never loved it though, rendering not special in my view
3. 12mm f2.0 - gorgeous
4. 60mm f2.8 - very nice, I need to spend more time with it

I take mostly family, street, landscapes, flowers. No birding. Particularly enjoy being the amateur photographer at family events (birthdays, weddings, dinners, meals) which usually end indoors with lousy light.

When the light is decent however, I am often swapping between 45/25/12 and am therefore thinking of getting the Oly 12-45 f4. Just wondering how image quality would compare between that and the primes - I understand that in lower light situations I will be back to the primes.

Would appreciate any advice / experience. TIA.

Edward

Have you considered shooting with your 2 bodies and have the best of both worlds?

I shoot with 2 bodies, the E-P5 and an E-M5 Mark II and my most used primes are the 17mm and the 25mm and to fill in for the 45mm length, I use my 35-100 f/2.8 zoom. I too was thinking of adding either a 12-45 f/4 or a 12-40 f/2.8 and shoot with just 1 body. But then I realized, simply adding a 12-40/45 zoom meant that I still need to switch to primes when the light is low, so I'm carrying an "extra" zoom lens that still weighs a bit. Why not leverage the resources I have which is my 2nd body (which weighs similar to a 12-45/and slight lighter than 12-40) and simply shoot with 2 bodies? And I did and since 45mm is not an often used focal length for me and even if I switch, I still have either a 17mm or a 25mm mounted on another body anyhow. I can shoot all day and night. And nothing in the zoom touches my Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4. It has that special rendering which I didn't want to give up and @ f/1.4 gives me that shallow depth of field that no Pro zoom can touch either.

After this re-arrangement in using 2 bodies, I now no longer lusted after the 12-45/12-40. If I need an all in one zoom, I still have my pancake 14-42mm zoom lens in my kit that works well in daylight anyhow.

I love my 12-45/4.0 lens.  My current compact family outing kit is the 12-45/4.0, 40-150/4.0, 20/1.4 and 45/1.2.  Most of the time the 12-45/4.0 is on the camera.  I do own the  12/2.0, 17/1.8, 25/1.8 and 45/1.8 but don't use them that much any more.  I do love their compact size.  The image quality of the 12-45/4.0 Is slightly better that the primes you are using.   The close focusing ability of the 12-45/4.0 is great.  I also own the 12-100/4.0.  It is a great one lens solution.  I found the 100mm is not long enough for me.  It is also bulky.  So I only use it for when I need a one lens solution.  So many great choices.

jeffharris wrote:

If you’re concerned about low light, why not take a look at the 12-40mm f2.8. Bump the ISO and it’s perfectly usable in low light.

Thanks Jeff - am happy with the primes in low light and am attracted by the 12-45 as being compact and light and better balanced on my PEN bodies.

One fine day, I can see me going for an OM1 (when they are generally available!) and some bigger lenses better matched to that body. The 12-100 I feel may have my name on it when that day comes, possibly with some of the Pro primes.

Many thanks for responding, kind regards

Edward

Many thanks Dan, I am in the UK

David wrote:

Edward Lowy wrote:

Hi all

Would very much appreciate some advice - I'm a long time 4/3 then m4/3 user now using a Pen-F and E-P5.

Most used lenses - in descending order - are all Olympus :

1. 45mm f1.8 - absolutely love this lens, life is better through it
2. 25mm f1.8 - sharp, have never loved it though, rendering not special in my view
3. 12mm f2.0 - gorgeous
4. 60mm f2.8 - very nice, I need to spend more time with it

I take mostly family, street, landscapes, flowers. No birding. Particularly enjoy being the amateur photographer at family events (birthdays, weddings, dinners, meals) which usually end indoors with lousy light.

When the light is decent however, I am often swapping between 45/25/12 and am therefore thinking of getting the Oly 12-45 f4. Just wondering how image quality would compare between that and the primes - I understand that in lower light situations I will be back to the primes.

Would appreciate any advice / experience. TIA.

Edward

Have you considered shooting with your 2 bodies and have the best of both worlds?

I shoot with 2 bodies, the E-P5 and an E-M5 Mark II and my most used primes are the 17mm and the 25mm and to fill in for the 45mm length, I use my 35-100 f/2.8 zoom. I too was thinking of adding either a 12-45 f/4 or a 12-40 f/2.8 and shoot with just 1 body. But then I realized, simply adding a 12-40/45 zoom meant that I still need to switch to primes when the light is low, so I'm carrying an "extra" zoom lens that still weighs a bit. Why not leverage the resources I have which is my 2nd body (which weighs similar to a 12-45/and slight lighter than 12-40) and simply shoot with 2 bodies? And I did and since 45mm is not an often used focal length for me and even if I switch, I still have either a 17mm or a 25mm mounted on another body anyhow. I can shoot all day and night. And nothing in the zoom touches my Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4. It has that special rendering which I didn't want to give up and @ f/1.4 gives me that shallow depth of field that no Pro zoom can touch either.

After this re-arrangement in using 2 bodies, I now no longer lusted after the 12-45/12-40. If I need an all in one zoom, I still have my pancake 14-42mm zoom lens in my kit that works well in daylight anyhow.

That is food for thought, thank you very much indeed David.

DLBlack wrote:

I love my 12-45/4.0 lens. My current compact family outing kit is the 12-45/4.0, 40-150/4.0, 20/1.4 and 45/1.2. Most of the time the 12-45/4.0 is on the camera. I do own the 12/2.0, 17/1.8, 25/1.8 and 45/1.8 but don't use them that much any more. I do love their compact size. The image quality of the 12-45/4.0 Is slightly better that the primes you are using. The close focusing ability of the 12-45/4.0 is great. I also own the 12-100/4.0. It is a great one lens solution. I found the 100mm is not long enough for me. It is also bulky. So I only use it for when I need a one lens solution. So many great choices.

Thank you very much indeed for your reply - just what I was looking for!

Of the lenses that you listed, I have only the 60mm macro.  The 12-45 is no slouch for  close-ups, but I've never compared it directly to the macro.  I would hope that the macro is somewhat better, it would be astonishing if it weren't.

Compared to the full frame 24-70 f/2.8 lens that I used for years with my previous system for just about everything except macro and wildlife, the Olympus is certainly as good or better...and a lot more pleasant to carry around.

My advice is to get your hands on one and try it.  If it isn't what you want, don't buy it.

David5833 wrote:

Of the lenses that you listed, I have only the 60mm macro. The 12-45 is no slouch for close-ups, but I've never compared it directly to the macro. I would hope that the macro is somewhat better, it would be astonishing if it weren't.

Compared to the full frame 24-70 f/2.8 lens that I used for years with my previous system for just about everything except macro and wildlife, the Olympus is certainly as good or better...and a lot more pleasant to carry around.

My advice is to get your hands on one and try it. If it isn't what you want, don't buy it.

Thanks - I don't see a primary use of the 12-45 as subbing for the 60mm Macro, rather that it would be one versatile lens in decent light instead of swapping between the 45/25/12.

Many thanks for responding, much appreciated.

NorCal Jim wrote:

Very interesting topic! Although I prefer primes, I have often thought of picking up the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens and more recently wondered about the 12-45mm f/4.

I am also partial to Pen cameras and have two E-P5s and a Pen-F and the older Pen Primes (12mm f/2, 17mm f/1.8, 25mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8 & 75mm f/1.8). I completely agree with you on the merits of the 45mm f/1.8 and the 25mm is my least favorite of the Pen Primes.

My first MFT camera was a GH3 that I paired with the Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 based on my intended use at the time (video with opportunistic photo). Although I sold that combo, I was impressed with the lens. I now have an even better copy of the 12-35mm lens that I pair with my GH4. Using the 12-35mm lens has increased my regard for a good zoom lens and my appreciation for the convenience of using a zoom lens.

Shooting with prime lenses on two camera bodies would be my first inclination but the more I think about it, the more a 12-45mm f/4 lens makes sense for your use cases. I was pleased to read the positive endorsements of the 12-45mm lens and it will probably be the next lens I add. Speaking of which, I have gotten lazy in updating my gear list and I received 3 more lenses for Father's Day.

Jim

Your children have great taste, clearly they have been brought up well Some years ago I was given the 75mm f/1.8 - I tried it and just couldn't get on with the focal length so returned it for the 60 mm which I don't use that often but very much enjoy when I do so.

The 45mm f/1.8 transformed my enjoyment of - and insight into - photography. The rendering, the low light performance, suddenly I could take lovely pictures in atmospheric environments whilst not being in immediate proximity of the subject and with such a compact set-up that is not distracting for anyone.

I too have read very positive experiences of the 12-45 and whilst on one hand I feel it is a sop to me being lazy in changing primes, pragmatically I can see it doing a good job for me when on walkabout outside.

Many thanks for your advice, gratefully received.

Edward

Edward Lowy wrote:

Hi all

Would very much appreciate some advice - I'm a long time 4/3 then m4/3 user now using a Pen-F and E-P5.

Most used lenses - in descending order - are all Olympus :

1. 45mm f1.8 - absolutely love this lens, life is better through it
2. 25mm f1.8 - sharp, have never loved it though, rendering not special in my view
3. 12mm f2.0 - gorgeous
4. 60mm f2.8 - very nice, I need to spend more time with it

I take mostly family, street, landscapes, flowers. No birding. Particularly enjoy being the amateur photographer at family events (birthdays, weddings, dinners, meals) which usually end indoors with lousy light.

In these focal lengths I shoot mostly landscape while hiking and macros of flowers, mosses, and bees. For landscape, and I would assume indoor shots, a very good zoom such as the 12-45 makes life so much easier. I shot with film and a set of topnotch primes for many years, but tired of the weight. When I bought m4/3 is 2014 with the EM-1 I, I bought the 12-40, 35-100, and 60 macro. Using a zoom for landscape is so much more effective than using primes. You also can see and perfect compositions more easily because you can test out quickly and refine the particular focal lengths you want to use. I shoot a lot in the 14 to 27 mm spectrum. The images are so much better than I got in the 90's and 2000's with primes. I am also a better photographer largely because of the zooms.

I've began using the 12-45 in early October of 2021. It does not give up anything to the 12-40 in image quality as far as I can tell, and I like the extra 5mm on occasion. But it is much smaller than the 12-40 and hence, better for long hikes, especially with multiple lenses. With just a single lens on some hikes, it doesn't matter much whether I carry the 12-40 or 12-45.

When the light is decent however, I am often swapping between 45/25/12 and am therefore thinking of getting the Oly 12-45 f4. Just wondering how image quality would compare between that and the primes - I understand that in lower light situations I will be back to the primes.

Would appreciate any advice / experience. TIA.

Edward

tl;dr if you need/want a smallish WR setup, 12-45 + EM5.3 (or EM5.2), is as good as it gets, otherwise...

Before I bought my 12-45, the only WR prime lens I have is the 17/1.2 - fabulous lens but a bit heavy for day-long walks/hikes.  I pair my 12-45 (and sometimes the kit 14-150) with my EM5.3 whenever I need a WR setup.  It's an excellent combo.

However, I don't enjoy shooting zooms in general - old school I guess and I still buy/drive stick/manual cars 

So, when the weather is good, I'd rather take my GM1 + 15/1.7 together with my PEN-F + 45/1.8 and my Mitakon 25/0.95.   See gear list for other prime lenses - 30/1.4 and 75/1.8 - are my other favorites