Advice on Olympus 12-45 f4

Just noticed you have ordered so be it please disregard my post.

Edward Lowy wrote:

Lens ordered.

Good to know, seems like something that I also should be considering. If only travel was going to be easy again though. My age and Covid regulations have intervened.

I don't know about you but I'm not good at spending money on myself.

Aha! I'm retired and have enough of the kids' inheritance handy, so no problems for me. Just the other day Aldi had a plasma cutter way cheaper than the usual tool stores, that might be handy so grabbed it - along with some bananas and some breakfast food.

Consensus seems to be that the lens is quality, compact, versatile. I'm looking forward to trying it.

All I've seen so far is good about that lens. Please report back with some sample images.

Thank you for all the replies. Courteous, succinct and helpful.

Yes, a lot of the time the forum works well and is useful, though at other times.....

Anyway, while I was triggered to start thinking about lenses again I found that this site is the best and quickest to explore the possibilities. https://www.m43lenses.com/ just click on the appropriate categories on the right to simplify the list generated.

Such as any brand, Zoom, Normal gives this list to look for possibilities... (clipped from screen)....

Then you get to click on that top right box to select the way you want to see them, such as list by Weight might be important. For me either of the Panasonic 12-60mm may also be a contender when I get around to choosing. But my 12-40/2.8 still works OK so it would only be a case of me spending my money.

• fGood to know, seems like something that I also should be considering. If only travel was going to be easy again though

Judging by what you own and write I doubt is the 12-45 will bring that much to your table it best suited for the casual landscape photographer in good light as it also has a very good close up pseudo macro ability

I think the big thing you should ask yourself is what apertures are you mostly shooting at with your primes? It won't matter much if the 12-45 f/4 is as sharp at f/4 as the 45mm f/1.8 is at f/4 if you're mostly shooting the 45mm f/1.8 at wider apertures.

Interesting discussion... I'm also considering the Oly 12-45, although I'm a panny user (GX9). I miss my old 14-45 that I sold with my GH1, and my current standard zoom is the tiny 12-32 which often falls short at the long end and requires me to switch to the 35-100 just for a bit extra reach (~ around 40mm); having to "extend" the lens before being ready to shoot is also a big downside I didn't anticipated.

On a GX9, I would not have dual IS and DFD. Do you think it is a major drawback? Should I better get a 12-60 (Panasonic or PL) instead of the 12-45 ?

Would be glad to hear from other panasonic body users...

Agree, the benefits of 60mm over 45mm are scant, owning both. Now, the wee 12-32's long end disadvantage is noticeable but it has other charms in its pocket.

The f:4 cousins 12-45 and 40-150 would make a compelling travel pair. Very compact, high quality.

Cheers,

Rick

The f:4 cousins 12-45 and 40-150 would make a compelling travel pair. Very compact, high quality.

As long as you restrict travel photography after sunrise and before sunset.Adding fast primes to the kit starts to erode in compact.

I think it depends on how steady you are and how often you're shooting at the limits of your ability to hand hold. I know that the older I've gotten the more I appreciate stabilization. The IBIS of the GX9 is useful but doesn't compare with the IBIS in bodies like the new OM-1 or the G9. The dual stabilization is something that would be a compelling argument for me.

SkiHound wrote:

I think it depends on how steady you are and how often you're shooting at the limits of your ability to hand hold. I know that the older I've gotten the more I appreciate stabilization. The IBIS of the GX9 is useful but doesn't compare with the IBIS in bodies like the new OM-1 or the G9. The dual stabilization is something that would be a compelling argument for me.

A agree about the GX9 IBIS performance: I tried a friend's G9 with my 20/1.7 and IBIS felt like nearly a stop better. Oly bodies seems also much better, although I hadn't the opportunity to compare myself.

In good light it wouldn't be an issue for 12-45, the problem are like you said: handshake when dropping down to 1/8s or below without much ISO margin can become troublesome. Good IBIS or dual IS can save the situation, and unfortunately the GX9 is not the greatest in this regard.

Thanks for the insights ...

At 12mm I'm amazed how long I can drag the shutter with good IBIS. At the other end, the dual IS of the 300/4 and E-M1iii or OM1 also allow surprisingly long shutter speeds, but I'm as much after taming the EVF view, especially when using the teleconverters.

f:4 shouldn't scare anybody away who wishes to do low-light handheld shooting.

Cheers,

Rick

f:4 shouldn't scare anybody away who wishes to do low-light handheld shooting.

as long as your subject has inbuilt ibis synchronised with the camera used

I had this lens for awhile.  It's tiny for a zoom, but IQ and handling are very, very good.  I also have the 12-40 2.8 and 12-100 4 and the IQ of the 12-45 is essentially indistinguishable from either of them even pixel peeping.  The 12-45 is ever so slightly weaker on the borders on the wide end, but you'd never notice it in actual use.

I ultimately decided to sell it and keep the 12-40 2.8 for the extra stop.  But, if I were ever to take a big trip oversees again I'd be seriously tempted by the little 12-45mm and an EM5III.

I have both a GX9 and G9. I really like the GX9 for a lot of my uses but in terms of IBIS I think the G9 is much better. Some of that might be that's it's heavier and is just easier to grip and hold steady.