DPReview TV: Olympus 12-45mm F4 Pro review

I hope the image quality is equivalent - 12-40 F2.8 is an excellent lens. I see your point about weight and balance.

f2.8 779,99€
-f4 649,00€
= 130,99€
Difference on Amazon.de
Definitely not worth to buy the f4 zoom

Yup, price is the only criteria when deciding for a lens...
if you want the smaller lens, buy the 2.8, because it costs only 130,-€ more...
if you want the lighter lens, buy the 2.8, because it costs only 130,-€ more...
If you want the lower cost lens, buy the 2.8, because it costs less..um...130,-€ more...

@ SridharC
I agree. Is this a better lens optically? 5mm difference and a stop slower, don't see any reason for this lens. Weight and balance? Could care less about balance or ergonomics, ever take a picture with a cell phone, the worst ergonomic camera platform in history? Weight, how much difference are we talking?

Yes you are. You are not getting the fact, as do so many even though the cycle endlessly repeats itself, that old mature kit sells at a discounted price and new equipment comes out a premium price for a while for people who will pay extra to get the kit quickly.
It is also likely that Olympus will cut the discounts on the 12-40 f2.8 now they have slotted this lens in to the line up as the former more premium lens does not have to cover such a wide user base now.

They always focus first on the impatient or just those with money to spare and good luck to them and the more stolid mean tight fisted miserable mob can wait until later.

Early premium priced take up keeps the camera business alive and we should be grateful for it.

No it's an f4 lens. Full frame terms is not relevant at all, it won't be used on a fullframe camera, if somehow it was the sensor cover would be too small, but the l ns would still be f4

It gathers the light as F4 but acts like F8 in FF.

Lenses don't act they just gather light. We're not talking Oscars here. Equivalency is just a measure stick from a standard. It doesn't really matter to anyone who doesn't have a system based on fullframe

Or dull drab Wales. 👍🏾

There is a "wide zoom lens" on the Olympus lens roadmap (sorry for german link):

https://www.olympus.de/company/de/news/pressemitteilungen/2019-11-27t14-00-00/update-der-olympus-m.zuiko-objektiv-roadmap.html

It is widely believed that this refers to a 8-24mm f4 which has been patented by Olympus:
https://www.43rumors.com/new-patent-discloses-the-olympus-8-24mm-f-4-0-lens-design/

This, together with the 12-45 f4 and a 40-150 or 50-200 (which are both on the lens roadmap) would make perfect sense to form a f4 trio.

f8 be there all the time!

This lens is too slow for you? Nobody is stopping you from spending the money for the Panasonic 10-25mm 1.7 and schlepping it around the whole day.

I for one will buy this one and use it when shooting in daylight.

A fab lens for landscapes.

f/8 dof, f/4 light.

"f/8 dof, f/4 light"

I'm afraid that's only true if you're solely interested in a per-unit-area understanding of light.

As soon as you print or display the images then a full-frame f/8 image shot with the same angle of view and shutter speed will be made up from just as much light. 1/4 the light per unit area, 4x the area. I'm afraid you don't get something for nothing.

Its actually f4 not f8, I know its confusing but its written on the lens :)

muljao - Absolutely right. It's also not 24-90mm.

It's a 12-45mm F4.0

which is equivalent to the hypothetical lens JackM proposed. Which, as buratino correctly pointed out is not a lens that's available for any FF system. In which case, it's fair to say that no other lens offers this combination of capabilities.

Unnecessary because a more expensive, larger and heavier lens with similar focal range already exists? LOL

If anything the whole concept of an m43 body with a normal zoom is unnecessary given that you can buy a full frame mirrorless with a normal zoom for under two grand. Yet here we are.

I would take this lens combined with a E-M5 mark III any day against a FF kit within the same price range. Good thing we can choose what we use. It would be rather boring if all company's would do exactly the same. Luckely we have company's like Olympus, Fuji and Panasonic for more diversity.

Maybe not unnecessary. But I don't know why a 'Pro' would want a 4.0 over a 2.8

I have the 12-40. Great lens. But I can use something smaller and lighter for daylight shooting. And it still has to be wheater sealed.

BobT3218: Yeah - me. I bought the Panny over the Oly because it's smaller and lighter.

@mfinley.... then you should also ask why a pro would want f2.8 with a 4/3 sensor instead of f2.8 with a larger sensor... the answers to both are really the same.

Yes, and thats why smaller formap has no advantage achieving deep DOF. Larger formats do have advantage achieving shallower dof on the other hand.

As I said; it’s a tie on DOF vs diffraction trade-offs; not a win for larger formats on “less diffraction”. And since you raise the subject, it’s also about a tie in shallow DOF from lenses of a given size (equal DOF requires scaling f-stop with focal length and format size, which means roughly equal front element size) and a tie on DOF vs noise in low light situations (larger formats needing to higher ISO speeds due to the higher f-stop)

I am debunking some myths about the superiority of one format over another, not claiming any of these is a clear advantage for a smaller format, or for a larger one.

(There are of course some real advantages in each direction; just not these.) ones.

True, larger formats have virtually no advantages when DoF is the same.
That’s not true the smaller formats are often smaller and lighter with less expensive bodies with less rolling shutter and a lot faster frame rates with HHHR modes and better weather resistance and better color science and better IBIS.

There are no trade-offs. There's only a larger sensor win.
A 50€ bill has no advantages over the 200€ bill (which is equal to four 50€ bills). You don't trade 50€ for 200€.
Diffraction is being measured at 1:1, while FF sensors can have much higher resolution than m4/3, which results in much better detail even at the same level of diffraction. You could call it "trade-offs" if there were any 40-50mp m4/3 cameras and if m4/3 lenses wouldn't cost more than equivalent FF lenses. Larger chips offer a wider "spectrum" of possibilities. We can reproduce any m4/3 images on FF. But not vice versa. The m4/3 format is and always will be 2 stop behind the FF. Of course, not everyone cares about that part of the "spectrum" uncovered by the m4/3. But this doesn't make it irrelevant. There's value in it and there's a price we pay for it. This ($650) 12-45F4 "PRO" deserves more skepticism the the new ($400) RF 24-105F4-F7.1 (which is equivalent to m4/3 12-52F2-3.6), because it costs $250 more.

FF system has a number of autofocusing f1.2 lenses. Small format system does not have anything comparable. And FF f1.8 lenses are much cheaper than f1.2 APS lenses or f0.9 m43 lenses.

There is no tradeoff here, simply FF dominates when you need shallow DOF.

“Yes, and thats why smaller format has no advantage achieving deep DOF.”

It does a bit, because at equivalent DOF, sensor dust is less visible: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4465426

@ecka84, are you sure about “much” better detail when you are diffraction-limited? What about what this article says: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#diffraction

“Larger chips offer a wider "spectrum" of possibilities.”
True, but also slower readouts (unless you put multiple ADCs like in an A9), worse IBIS, and more heat generation. Also, so far, I haven’t really been convinced by the ergonomics/features combination of any FF mirrorless body, but that may change with the new Canon R5.

By the way, with my E-M1 II, I am able to take hand-held exposure brackets throughout which IBIS keeps the sensor perfectly steady, which increases DR tremendously after merging (by more than two stops). To your knowledge, is there a FF body that can also do that? I am curious.

"the stabilization keeps the sensor perfectly steady throughout the bracket" - So does optical lens stabilization plus the somewhat less effective FF IBIS. I've done this (the exposure bracketing) even without any sort of stabilization, handheld. It works fine (unless you are shooting long exposures). And FF can offer much more pixels for cropping.
See, crop companies have been feeding you lies for the last decade, so that now you are in a cognitive shock. You are trying to find any actual FF disadvantages and you can't, because its one and only disadvantage (the price) is gone and the rest turned out to be BS propaganda. But, don't worry, it is going to be OK :). Learn equivalence, get a bigger monitor and start enjoying FF :). The grass is greener on FF :).

“But if you can't see the difference (which is why you are arguing) then why can't I use the crop mode as an argument?”
It’s not that you can’t, it’s that it destroys the price argument.

“If ergonomics prevent you from taking a decent picture, then perhaps photography isn't for you.”

If using a M43 camera prevents you from taking a decent picture, maybe photography isn’t for you either? ;)
(^ This is just a friendly taunt, no need to reply to it.)

But basically, I do photography as a hobby, to have nice pictures for myself and my friends and family. I want the process to be enjoyable, and with my E-M1 II, it is. All cameras have compromises, whether they have to do with image quality or not. To me, trying to squeeze the maximum IQ out of my M43 camera (with ETTR, stacking, etc.) is a fun challenge that I enjoy. Struggling with a badly-designed grip that makes my wrists sore would not be one.

There are happy m43 users, and there are trolls who just badmouth m43 no matter what. Here we see some of them.

“How does it destroy the price argument? The m4/3 is more expensive than FF.”
But not more expensive than a full-frame camera which performs as well in crop mode, that’s the point. A 24MP A7 III is close in price, but a croppable A7R IV or a fast A9 is not.

“Well, I want to enjoy the result even more than the shooting process.”
I enjoy both.

“Like I said ... masochism :). People pay extra to feel the pain :) while calling it fun and joy. Well, it's your life.”
It’s one pain or another, and here we get to choose. Compromises everywhere. To quote Mark Manson:
> Problems never stop; they merely get exchanged and/or upgraded.
> Happiness comes from solving problems. The keyword here is “solving.”

“Just grab it by the lens.”
That’s what I did with my left hand. My right wrist was still sore.

“The E-M1 is not the only m4/3 camera, there are plenty of badly designed ones too.”
Why would I care about them? The E-M1 II exists and is well-designed, and that’s what I have.

The $50 and $200 analogy is right.

A $200 meal might be better, but a $50 meal I’d going to be darn good.

Want a FF camera that shoots 15-20 FPS? Just get a smaller sensor camera that costs half as much.
What the best IBIS and less rolling shutter? Get the $50 meal.

Want to take a picture of two people with both faces in focus. That $50 meal will be just as good.

Sure sometimes a $200 meal is better, but not much. Most don’t even notice it. So you are probably wasting your money.

A7R3 shoots 10fps@61MP and Z7 shoots 9fps@45MP with mechanical shutter. E-M1III only does 10fps with mech shutter. I won't feel limited using any recent FF bodies that can do 10+fps for shooting sports.

And Nikon/Canon ergonomics are proven to be very, very good.

@nerd2 Personally, the reason why I want fast readout is not just for burst speed (which can reach 60 fps with the E-M1 II, by the way) but also so that I can use the electronic shutter without too much fear of rolling shutter effect, whether for silent stills or for video. My camera is pretty much always in silent shutter mode.

Canon ergonomics may be good, but as far as I am concerned, until the R5 is released, their cameras have shortcomings in other areas. As I said, it’s not enough for me that FF is theoretically better if the options that are actually available in practice are not. Those new FF mirrorless systems show promise but for my personal use cases, they are not quite there yet.

The price advantage for smaller formats looks real to me. Look at the entry level "EVF" bodies in M43, APS-C and 35mm format for a very obvious price difference. For example compare the Canon M50, Olympus E-M10 Mk III, Nikon Z50, Sony A6100, to the Canon RP, Nikon Z6 and Sony A7 III. (I omit some even less expensive and smaller models with no EVF.)

Look further up the scale if you want performance like 20FPS (or up to 60FPS) in the various formats.

It is irrelevant to compare the entry level bodies in 35mm format (RP, Z6 etc.) to the higher-end models in the smaller formats that have advantages like higher frame rates, better video specs, better weather resistance, and 5-axis IBIS (which already out-performs in-lens IS, and can combine with in-lens stabilization to give even better performance.)

I'm always amazed by people who can't understand the importance of the user experience for some of us. For me too, photography is a fun pastime, and I enjoy the journey just as much as the destination. Walking around looking for interesting scenes and subjects, and then using the camera to capture them, is as much part of the enjoyment for me as the final picture. And a camera with ergonomics that doesn't suit me absolutely detracts some from that enjoyment, it takes some of the fun out of my hobby. Even more so than slightly worse (but still good enough for me) IQ in the final picture.

@dimls "for same mp sensors, you print the same max size but ff has more usable aperture values ( and shorter dof for same apertures)."

True only when the larger format also uses a larger lens, which is likely to be heavier and more expensive. For example, it is true when you compare a 16-70/2.8 zoom in APS-C to an 24-105/2.8 in 35mm format, but not if you compare more more "equivalent" lenses of similar size (and cost?), like 16-70/2.8 vs 24-105/4.

Larger formats _allow_ one to get advantages like more speed and less DOF, but only by facilitating the use of bigger lenses with larger effective aperture diameter (focal length divided by aperture ratio) : so often it comes down to "bigger glass", not just "bigger silicon". For example, Canon's 24-105/4-7.1 and 100-500/4.5-7.1 are not offering any DOF or low-light handling that is not doable in APS-C, or probably even in Four Thirds.

Honestly, I find this conversation rather tiring, and I will stop here. I am happy with my choice and you are happy with yours (I believe). What are you even trying to convince me of? That my preferences are wrong? Wrong relative to what standard?

“It is you who dismiss some essential advantages, to justify your own choice of a camera system. You don't have to do that.”

And I don’t. I say that those advantages are not enough to me to justify other compromises, but I fully recognize that they are to others, including you apparently. That’s completely fine by me. Now please recognize it in the other direction.

“And every time a m4/3 rep compares their a lousy F2.8 or F4 zoom against F2.8 or F4 FF zoom, he is lying, he is preaching BS ignorance, he is trying to deceive everyone shamelessly and fool people into buying the product. I think that such dishonesty deserves to be punished.”

But I don’t do that, so why punish me?

“You fear the rolling shutter too much and I suggested you to get rid of that phobia. Not design a sensor. Can't you read?”
So it *is* that my preferences are wrong? I prefer not having rolling shutter. I also prefer not to drop my camera on the floor (or worse). Would you suggest that I should get rid of that fear too rather than buy a camera strap?

A phobia is commonly accepted to be “an irrational or obsessive fear”, or “a persistent and excessive fear of an object or situation”, not just any fear.

“I don't believe you. Stop lying :)”
I wish I were, because then maybe they would be more viable options than they currently are to me.

“Your attitude is wrong :).”
How so? I am genuinely curious.

“The best camera is the one that you cannot afford (yet) or it doesn't exist (yet).”
Right, but in my case it’s the latter, so I settle for what exists.

“Who's punishing you? Nobody is punishing you ...”
This discussion is, kind of. Like I said, defending my preferences gets tiring.

“m4/3 image rescue masochism? :) Pain is joy? :) No pain, no gain? :)”
It’s not pain to me. As a software engineer, I enjoy “problem” solving, to a certain extent. Not all kinds of problems, though. And most likely, I would do that on FF and MF, too. It’s just a fun process (to me), regardless of how needed it actually is.

I am deliberately putting “problem” in quotation marks because I have a vague feeling that otherwise, you will say something along the lines of “so it is a problem :) you said it yourself”.

I am not blindly worshipping anything. All I have said is that currently, with what exists and with all compromises considered, my M43 camera looks like the right choice for me. I think I have made it clear from the beginning that what I said was true for me specifically. I just shared it to show that there can be reasons to prefer it, not that everyone has to. That’s all.

I am enjoying these “IBIS is useless”, “60 Fps is useless”, “handheld high resolution is useless” posts.
Some will lie about anything Tehran they are insecure.

@ecka84: "Equivalent lenses are the same size/weight for all formats."
That's about right — but the bodies with larger sensors are more expensive (comparing with rough equivalence in other capabilities like frame rate, video, IBIS, etc) so a kit like RP+24-105/4–7.1 with big sensor and small aperture lens is an expensive way to get about what you could have in a smaller format; for example an APS-C body with f/3.5–4.5 zoom, or M43 with f/2.8–3.5.

P. S. When you refer to price as an advantage of 35mm format, are you ignoring camera body price, or deluding yourself that the larger format bodies have a price advantage?

"Equivalent lenses are the same size/weight for all formats."

Obviously this is BS.

Show me an 800mm (any aperture) lens that is as small as a 400mm MFT lens. What every you come up with is going to be 1600 on MFT with no FF equivalent too!

Someone asked for a 150/3.5 lens as small as the MFT 75/1.8
The FF fans either ran, made dumb excuses, or tried Manual Focus legacy lenses.

It is fun to watch the myths and lies insecure FF fans come up with.

Which recent FF camera sells for under $500 with a kit lens?

I keep reading this lie that FF cameras are as cheap as MFT.
MFT is simply more flexible. It can be as small as an rx100 (GM5) and it can sell for under $500 with a kit lens, or it can be larger and shoot 60FPS, or hand held High resolution, or have the best IBIS. At the moment no FF camera can do any of those.

Btw, where are the small 800mm FF lenses the FF fan boys keep taking about that are the same size as an MFT 400mm lens?

Who is trolling here? When I said that I enjoy things like ETTR, you called it pain and masochism, and when I said that my camera makes certain hard things easier, you replied about such hard things: “And that is why photography is so fun :).” You are entitled to your own preferences, as we all are, but I hope that you at least see the hypocrisy.

You keep talking about cognitive dissonance and being honest with oneself, all the while performing sufficient mental gymnastics to reach the conclusion that e.g. there is no price advantage in M43. Could it be that *you* are in a cognitive shock that M43 may actually be a better fit for some people?

I am interested in friendly conversations, including with you, but you don’t always make it so easy.

Yeah ecka84 is trolling and he terrible at it too!
He’s been proven wrong like 5 or 6 times.

I don't know, I didn't read your posting history.

“I'm pretty sure that you are not even utilizing the full potential of your MFT camera.”

1. Possibly, but I would be curious to know what you base that assumption on.

2. I don’t even understand how that’s an argument in favor of FF, since it effectively means that I could get even better quality than already satisfies me without changing systems. So I could almost say that I hope you are right. :)

I really feel like I am repeating myself. It’s not that I see no reason why it’s relevant, it’s that it’s not *sufficiently* relevant *to me*. I considered getting a camera with a larger sensor, wondering “why not?”, then I actually looked at the why nots and they were too much for me with the current offerings. If new offerings appear that do not have those why nots, maybe I’ll switch. But at the moment, no.

“The FF is objectively and empirically 4 times (2 stops) more relevant :).”

In low light, that’s only true if you compromise on DoF, and possibly weight and minimum focus distance (or both). In bright light, if I feel limited in dynamic range, I just merge bursts, with great results.

“Get a new large monitor and start enjoying digital photography.”

Actually, I just tried looking at a few of my photos on a 65" OLED TV and they look great, so thank you for the suggestion. :) I even managed to get an HDR burst to display in HDR mode (and it looked great too), though I had to encode it as a video first (using http://lumahdrv.org/ ).

Guys, seriously, If I was you I would sell my camera gear and spend the money on a few sessions with a therapist.

Of course I have problems, but unlike you, I am self-aware of my problems. My recommendation to sell the camera gear and use the money for therapy sessions still stands.

Best of luck :)

Legitimately curious: what concrete problem do you perceive we have that would be made better with therapy?

@ecka84 Honey, denial is the first sign of a problem.

Nice to have a good quality lens that bucks the stupid, counter-productive trend of non-portable lenses in what should be portable cameras. Mirrorless was supposed to mean compact, light-weight. Instead, you got nose-drooping cameras stuck with 2lb lenses.

"Eh, would prefer a text review."
--
Same here.

I would prefer a short video COMBINED with a text review. There are situations when you can’t watch videos. For example: while sitting in the waiting room of a doctor, no cellphone data left when traveling, while reading DPReview at work with the boss sitting in the same room...

Having said this, once I have the time I enjoy watching those clips.

Me too, text is better for non native english listener. I use the auto translate, but it’s far from perfect.

I suppose the simplest explanation is that often people have laid out a bit stack of cash on their choice. That’s a huge incentive toward a conformation bias. No one likes the idea they’ve spent their money unwisely.

It does however annoy me that so many people seem unable to grasp any system has compromises. There are huge constructed scotoma especially it seems when it comes to MfT. People cheerfully trumpet the compact nature- the effective doubling of focal length, but then aggressively deny the light penalty, subject isolation difficulty with an effective two stop halfing of aperture value and also the same penalty in terms of noise at similar values. Of course for a lot of everyday shooting situations and normal print/viewing sizes, these things either aren’t that noticeable or not perceptible at all.

It’s frankly weird that people don’t accept I can be using the system knowing these drawbacks or will alternatively insist I’m just wrong and they don’t exist. Rather sad.

Tribalism is a defining characteristic of our species. Banding together provides a survival advantage in some circumstances. But there are downsides, manifest at the petty end by things like puerile bickering over brands and sporting teams.

Ever followed car blogs? Same thing. Mine is always better because if it's not, that would make me feel inferior and because I lack self confidence, I have to try and assert my position.

In a year's time or less, the f/4 lens will cost less than the f/2.8 lens.

By then you can better decide if you want the smaller/lighter and cheaper lens.

How much does this Canon lens weigh? How big is it? Unless it matches the Olympus in size and weight I will buy the Olympus...

I really like the Nikon Z6, but the lenses are larger and heavier than their m43 counterparts. So if you like something smaller m34 is still the way to go.

Also, how is the optical quality, build and weather sealing of the Canon lens? I'm not saying it's worse, because I don't know, but those are things that must be taken into consideration when comparing price. There are more variables than focal length and aperture.

Olympus has a 8-25mm f4 in their lens roadmap that will come soon

If you don't need smaller size and lighter weight there isn't much reason to be using m43.

@AbrasiveReducer

No. The Oly 12-40mm f/2.8 is still much smaller and lighter than FF and APS-C equivalent 24-80mm f/2.8 lenses.

But one day there will be the venerable 12-45 f/4 on the street for much less so the story goes on.