DPReview TV: Olympus 12-45mm F4 Pro review

The color puple?

I want a smaller lens - I buy the overpriced 12-45f4
I want a lighter lens - I buy the overpriced 12-45f4
I want the "cheaper" lens - I buy the overpriced 12-45f4

....
But this nagging feeling I just had to take 130€ more and buy the better f2.8 lens will remain as long as you don't but the f2.8 lens.

That's my point :))))

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

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

If someone would offer an equivalent in terms of DOF 24-90mm f8 FF lens for 650$ people would go nuts.

Canon just released 24-105 f4.0-7.1 lens

Thank you Richard. I am aware of that and I wasn’t being explicit just ball park. However, the aspect you mention is one generally overlooked.

Yes it's a bit of a mystery. I know how the lenses differ but really, has anyone complained that the 12-40 was too big and heavy to the extent of opting for the Pana instead? Don't think so. Perhaps their planned production run of the 12-40 was up so they took the opportunity to redesign. I wouldn't mind betting that in a year or two users will start complaining that the 12-45 is too slow. But what would I know about the intricacies of lens marketing.

NZ Scott:
OK, I'll give you that. Actually I bought an Oly 45mm f1.8 to add the 12-40 because I wanted a small light walk around lens and it is very small and light. It's a great value fun lens but I wasn't expecting the extent of spherical aberration in scenes with back lit out of focus branches. You get what you pay for :)

@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.

I don't think so. FF is slowly going away, really unless I'm making 4'x5' prints...

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.

"slower readouts" - Same readouts in crop mode though.
"worse IBIS" - Better IBIS in crop mode combined with digital sensor stabilization.
"haven’t really been convinced by the ergonomics/features combination of any FF mirrorless body" - EOS 6D/5D ergonomics are the best, Canon knows how to do it properly. But, I must admit that EOS R is a "button apocalypse". I hope that they will never mess up like that ever again. While, honestly, Fuji retro knob-fest "ergonomics" are the worst. Can't comment on Nikon Z or Sony A7, I'm not a Nikon or Sony guy. However, ergonomics don't affect the actual images so much. I would gladly trade my highly ergonomic camera for a 907X Hassy, which is essentially a box with a screen and a lens mount.
We can use any cameras with exposure bracketing to produce high bit-depth images. Doing it all in-came is overrated and pointless.

“EOS 6D/5D ergonomics are the best, Canon knows how to do it properly.”
Possibly, but those are DSLRs. I have a personal preference for mirrorless, which is why the R5 looks potentially exciting.

“However, ergonomics don't affect the actual images so much. I would gladly trade my highly ergonomic camera for a 907X Hassy, which is essentially a box with a screen and a lens mount.”

Ah, personally, I would not. Ergonomics are very important to me. I do photography as a hobby for enjoyment, so I would prefer it to be enjoyable.

“We can use any cameras with exposure bracketing to produce high bit-depth images. Doing it all in-came is overrated and pointless.”

Just to clarify, I didn’t mean doing the merging in-camera. I meant that the stabilization keeps the sensor perfectly steady throughout the bracket, even from one image to the next, thus minimizing any alignment issue, and the fast burst rate means that it’s over quickly, minimizing subject movement.

You miss a point that changes everything: pixel density. I suppose you are right with all you saied but pixel density of m43 20mp vs 20 mp FF is so much different, that diffraction level would be seen at smaller aperture in ff. To have the same levels of diffraction you need the same pixel size. So comparing 20 mp sensors, yes diffraction wise the Ff has more usable aperture values and comparing m43 with 80 mb ff sensor diffraction should appear at about the same aperture value. But even at this case ff wins on smthg: print size: with same levels of diffraction with ff you gain size. This also means that for same mp sensors, you print the same max size but ff has more usable aperture values ( and shorter dof for same apertures). Of course you practically do not need more dof than F5.6 on m43 and f8-f11 on ff so the pixel density could reach these levels that diffraction starts.

ecka84's post about the RF 24-105 F4-F7.1 "which is equivalent to m4/3 12-52F2-3.6" caught my attention.

I use a mixture of Canon full-frame, Canon APS-C and Olympus MFT. I mostly use MFT for "travel" as the Canon gear is big and heavy. However having recently been using the Canon gear a lot more I've been reminded how much better the high ISO is, including the APS-C body, compared to my E-M1 II.

A Canon EOS RP, with the RF 24-105 F4-F7.1 would be of similar size and weight to the E-M1 II with the 12-40 2.8. Of course that Canon body/lens combination isn't weather sealed and I'd lose other nice features which the E-M1 II has and I like the physical ergonomics of that body.

Erm, I know equivalence, thank you very much. And if the response to some of the disadvantages is “use crop mode”, why go to the trouble of getting a larger sensor in the first place? If one wants pixel density such that crop mode has as much resolution as a crop sensor, the price difference is anything but gone (especially if you want stabilization in the lenses to make up for the worse IBIS, which digital stabilization will only compensate 1. across frames and 2. if you read a larger area). Do you think I haven’t looked into it?

The Sony A9 could match what I want spec-wise but it costs much more and has worse ergonomics. Likewise with the A7R III or IV. Plus, Sony cameras apparently struggle a lot with sensor dust and I would rather not have to worry about that.

Until all of this is addressed within a single system (not just one aspect in a Nikon camera and another one in a Canon body), M43 has real advantages for me.

@spider-mario
Well, I don't use crop modes. Once I tried FF, I don't want the crop anymore. I stitch to Medium Format. 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? You want bells and whistles more than image quality? Fine. FF is perfectly capable of providing those too. And if you'd know equivalence and some handy camera tricks, you wouldn't question it.
The A9 is running circles around your m4/3. If ergonomics prevent you from taking a decent picture, then perhaps photography isn't for you. Many thousands of people are using Sony cameras to produce amazing results. And if I had to choose between a 20mp m4/3 snapshot and a 40+mp FF reproduction of the same thing, I'd take FF. And you can't stop me :). That puny sensor is just not enough. Why can't Oly make a FF camera with 2x crop mode for all the hardcore m4/3 masochists and see what happens? :) They should let people choose, instead of preaching lies about FF.

How does it destroy the price argument? The m4/3 is more expensive than FF.

m4/3 prevents me from taking high-def pictures instead of snapshots :)

"I want the process to be enjoyable" - Well, I want to enjoy the result even more than the shooting process.

"trying to squeeze the maximum IQ out of my M43 camera (with ETTR, stacking, etc.) is a fun challenge that I enjoy" - Like I said ... masochism :). People pay extra to feel the pain :) while calling it fun and joy. Well, it's your life.
"Struggling with a badly-designed grip that makes my wrists sore" - Just grab it by the lens. The E-M1 is not the only m4/3 camera, there are plenty of badly designed ones too.

A lot of people trying to justify their purchase of big expensive cameras.
It makes them feel less insecure I guess.

@spider-mario
People who are fine with crop tend to not care much (or at all) about the megapixels. I mean, all they want is a snapshot for their social media. Which can be like 3mp or smaller. You don't need the A7RIV to crop. Stop overexaggerating.

"Solving problems" - Yeah. Everyone does it. Except Oly. They want to be selling you the same camera for ever :).

The E-M1II design is no better than the EOS R design. No back wheel, no joystick.

"too much fear of rolling shutter" - Right. So, you've found yourself a problem. Now go fix it :). Reduce the fear :).
And how a rolling-shutter-free snapshot is going to help me? It's useless, just like shooting 60 snaps per second instead of a single really good one. It's a solution looking for a problem.

M4/3 SYSTEM is more expensive than FF. Not the camera body. For example, the $1300 Zuiko 25F1.2 "PRO" is like FF 50F2.4. Nikon's new MEGA-expensive Z 50F1.8 S is only $600. Half the price! Can't you see what's wrong?

@BJL
Equivalent lenses are the same size/weight for all formats.
RF100-500F4.5-7.1L on FF is like 65-326F2.9-4.6 on APS-C.

“People who are fine with crop tend to not care much (or at all) about the megapixels.”
Good for them, but I do. In part because, imagine that, I can crop further!

“You don't need the A7RIV to crop.”
Indeed, I don’t need it. ;)

“"too much fear of rolling shutter" - Right. So, you've found yourself a problem. Now go fix it :). Reduce the fear :).”
Rest of the Mark Manson quote: “If you feel like you have problems that you can’t solve, you will […] make yourself miserable.”
Rolling shutter is just not the kind of problem that I want to deal with. (How would I even go about solving it? I am not a sensor engineer.)

“And how a rolling-shutter-free snapshot is going to help me?”
You? I don’t know. Me? I just don’t enjoy this kind of distortion, especially in video.

“It's useless, just like shooting 60 snaps per second instead of a single really good one.”
Sometimes, the “single really good” moment is very brief. This feature makes it more feasible to capture it without superhuman timing.

Essentially, it’s easy to dismiss some advantages as “useless” and then claim that there are none. Maybe they are indeed useless to you. But that doesn’t make them non-existent.

For your apparent use case, yes, it seems that large sensors are probably the right choice. But that’s not everyone’s use case. And before you jump to hyperboles, just because someone prioritizes certain features over a higher-resolution sensor than they have, that doesn’t mean that they would be happy with Instagram resolution. (Do you realize the irony in your telling me not to exaggerate?) Everyone has their criteria in various dimensions, and it’s all trade-offs. You have chosen yours, I have chosen mine. And everybody is happy :)

"I am not a sensor engineer" - Engineers don't cure phobias.
"I just don’t enjoy this kind of distortion" - What about other kinds of distortions? What about the lacking ultra-wide angle on m4/3? You just want to use silent shutter all the time? While most circumstances and places where it is really needed don't involve any kind of fast movement for you to shoot. You are being unreasonable.
"Sometimes, the “single really good” moment is very brief" - And that is why photography is so fun :). You have to capture the moment. Not spray the hell out of it and then fix it later, "trying to squeeze the maximum IQ out of my M43 camera". Such masochism makes no sense. Unless you are trying to make money with your camera while knowing nothing about photography. Which is sad. No wonder it makes your wrist sore. You are doing it wrong.
"superhuman timing" - It's called experience :)

“Engineers don't cure phobias.”
Who said anything about phobias?

“What about the lacking ultra-wide angle on m4/3?”
What happened to the wonders of stitching? But I have a 10mm rectilinear lens and an 8mm fisheye, that’s wide enough for me.

“You just want to use silent shutter all the time?” Yes.

“And that is why photography is so fun :). You have to capture the moment.”
Strictly speaking, I don’t have to do anything. But I prefer to maximize my chances than leave it to luck. What’s wrong with that?

“Such masochism makes no sense. Unless you are trying to make money with your camera while knowing nothing about photography.”
What does it have to do at all with trying to make money?

“No wonder it makes your wrist sore. You are doing it wrong.”
The A7R III/IV made my wrist sore when I tried them at a store. My E-M1 II still has not.

It is you who dismiss some essential advantages, to justify your own choice of a camera system. You don't have to do that. I'm not trying to take it away from you. Just be honest with yourself (and others). Crop systems are overpriced and they don't deliver FF result as promised. 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.

"Who said anything about phobias?" - You said :). You fear the rolling shutter too much and I suggested you to get rid of that phobia. Not to design a sensor. Can't you read?

"The A7R III/IV made my wrist sore when I tried them at a store. My E-M1 II still has not." - I don't believe you. Stop lying :)

"my preferences are wrong?" - Your attitude is wrong :). Look, my camera is not the best camera. I know that. And don't believe nonsense like - "the best camera is the one you have with you" - No. That's BS. The best camera is the one that you cannot afford (yet) or it doesn't exist (yet). The are no right ways. There's the right direction. Size matters.

"why punish me?" - Who's punishing you? Nobody is punishing you ... You punish yourself. Remember? m4/3 image rescue masochism? :) Pain is joy? :) No pain, no gain? :) Whatever is your excuse ;). Don't blame me. I'm here to tell you that FF is a better idea.
And it's not even about FF. If Medium Format was cheaper than FF, then I'd be bashing FF right now :).

I don't know. If your preference is to feel pain, then perhaps it was the right choice :). It's not my business really.
"“Your attitude is wrong :).” How so?" - You are blindly worshiping the m4/3.
"I settle for what exists" - And generates pain :). But not for your wrists. I get it.
OK then, I wish you the best light. Your tiny little sensor needs it :).

"there can be reasons to prefer it" - Sure. And for that you have to ignore a lot of FF advantages, including the price.

@BJL
Well, yes, larger sensor cameras are supposed to be more expensive, but, unfortunately, that doesn't make the MFT systems any cheaper. Because camera gear companies love to make more money and people are easy to fool with meaningless F-stops and ISOs.
RP+24-105/4–7.1 would still have the advantage of cleaner low ISOs. And we don't have any equivalent APS-C 16-70F2.6-4.6 or MFT 12-52F2-3.6 alternatives.

@Sir Laslo
Technically, a 2x TC makes any FF telephoto lens as good as MFT lens of the same focal length and aperture.
That $900 Zuiko 75F1.8 is a very nice lens. But I'm a happy owner of a beautiful Sigma 150F2.8 APO Macro, which is equivalent to MFT 75F1.4 APO Macro. Of course, it is 3 times larger and heavier, but it is a more powerful lens and somehow its release price was those same $900. So the actual BS is how much the MFT costs. We can use FF 70-200F4 and just forget about the MFT 75F1.8 and a whole bunch of other overpriced MFT toys in this range.

Guys, please don't respond to ecka84 anymore. He is a renowned anti-m43 troll. No matter how much proof you show, he isn't here to discuss. He is here to bash.

I'm the EQUALIZER! :)) Fear me! :)) m43 trolls ...
Seriously? How much proof you got? All your favorite anti-FF nonsense is debunkable.

Sir Laslo, as I said ecka84 isn't here to discuss. He is here to troll.

@Sir Laslo
$500 crop kits are no better than P&S cameras. Only larger. And when you try getting better pictures out it, you end up paying more than FF would cost you, plus you won't get anything comparable to FF. Phones are replacing $500 cameras.
I already answered your telephoto trolling. Can you show a single MFT super-tele image that is as good or better than FF? Please.

@spider-mario
Photography is about the picture. Not about silently paprazzing the hell out of everything at 60fps :). Drugs make things easier. But it's a bad thing in the long run. Tiny sensor is easier, yeah, use your phone.
The only reason why you are advocating for MFT is because you can't imagine what you could do with all that extra FF goodness. Same way you can try arguing that $10'000'000 is better than $40'000'000, because you don't know what to do with the rest $30'000'000.

@ozturert - You talk too much :)

“Photography is about the picture. Not about silently paprazzing the hell out of everything at 60fps :).”

Sometimes, that’s what gets you the picture.

“use your phone.”
I am not satisfied by phone picture quality (or ergonomics, for that matter). I am satisfied by M43 quality. Again with the hyperboles. It’s all-or-nothing with you, isn’t it?

“The only reason why you are advocating for MFT is because you can't imagine what you could do with all that extra FF goodness.”

That, or I don’t think it’s worth what I have to sacrifice to get it.

There is nothing wrong with having $10 000 000 instead of $40 000 000 if $10 000 000 is enough for you and you would rather not do what it takes to earn the other $30 000 000.

Mr. Terrible has never been proven wrong! :)
I miscalculate sometimes :)

"I am not satisfied by phone picture quality" - Then you know how I feel about the lousy overpriced crops. They are not good enough. All the crop companies do is they spread lies about FF, to survive. It's pathetic. Why can't they compete fairly? I don't hate cameras. Camera engineers are doing what they can. It's not their fault. I hate cheaters and liars who make money by fooling people.

"There is nothing wrong with having $10 000 000 instead of $40 000 000"
- See, you are predictable :).

“Then you know how I feel about the lousy overpriced crops.”

How you feel is not how everyone has to feel. Some people are satisfied with their phones, and that’s fine. I am not, so I use something else. You are not satisfied by what I use, so you use yet something else. And in turn, it is possible for phone or M43 users not to be satisfied by what you (or I) use, for reasons that go beyond image quality (or price, for what it’s worth).

“See, you are predictable :).”

I am fine with being consistent, so I will take that as a compliment. Thank you. :)

'It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.'

Feel free to use whatever you like. But don't preach nonsense about smaller format superiority. Stop spreading ignorance and lies. That's all I'm asking.

When did I start doing that?

Nice one ;) but, as I am sure you actually understood, that was a way of conveying that to the best of my knowledge, I have not started at all. Therefore, I cannot stop.

On the other hand, you very much seem to believe in the “superiority” of large sensors for everyone.

Yeah, this BS started before you came along. But, sure, you are unstoppable :)
Look, FF is superior. Specially because it is cheaper than MFT. And shooting 60 snaps per second doesn't compensate for anything. Would you prefer a phone camera if it could shoot 200 snaps per second? Why not just shoot video (silently) and then grab a few frames out of it for stills. And doing it on FF would probably be as good as MFT 60fps.

“Look, FF is superior. Specially because it is cheaper than MFT.”
Sure, getting “a” FF camera is cheaper than some M43 setups. But one that would satisfy me as much, for what I use mine for? Doubtful. I have already looked into it, believe it or not.

“And shooting 60 snaps per second doesn't compensate for anything. Would you prefer a phone camera if it could shoot 200 snaps per second?”
No I would not, because it would have other shortcomings. Why do you always have to resort to exaggerations? Between 15fps with rolling shutter and FF quality at one end, and 240fps with phone quality at the other end, 60fps with M43 quality is the compromise I like best. It’s as simple as that.

“Why not just shoot video (silently) and then grab a few frames out of it for stills. And doing it on FF would probably be as good as MFT 60fps.”
Sure, those H.264-compressed 8-bit files with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling and at most 8MP would be as high quality as my 20MP RAW files. Who’s trolling, really?

Don't you think that 60fps is an exaggeration too? See, you are putting 60fps MFT quality against 10fps (which is plenty) FF quality.
Well, if it could shoot 60fps non-stop, then it could be useful as a RAW video feature :). But a few seconds of it, without AF, is only good for staged shots, pretty much.
"H.264...8-bit...4:2:0...8mp..." - Oh, so now you care about the image quality? :)) What about the image quality difference between 20mp MFT RAW and 30+mp FF RAW?
I'm pretty sure that you are not even utilizing the full potential of your MFT camera. That's why it is all the same to you.

“Don't you think that 60fps is an exaggeration too?”
No, because once more, the fact that it’s able to do 1/60s readouts also means less rolling shutter than a slower sensor.

“Oh, so now you care about the image quality? :))”
Yes, as always? Up to a certain point, such that 20MP M43 RAW is enough and a compressed video frame is clearly not. Why is that seemingly so hard for you to understand? Actually, I’m pretty sure that you do understand, you just pretend not to.

“What about the image quality difference between 20mp MFT RAW and 30+mp FF RAW?”
At that level, I might care a little, but not enough to sacrifice other advantages.

It really seems as though you have trouble understanding the fact that just because you care about a certain dimension up to a certain point does not mean that you need to maximize it at all cost. At some point, the marginal cost (not just monetary) exceeds the marginal benefit.

OK then, $40 000 000 for me and $10 000 000 for you :)

My problem with you guys is that it feels like I'm talking to blind people here :). The MFT can produce fine images, in a studio. Nothing spectacular though. But, overall, even FF doesn't deliver the oomph every single time in whatever situations. I don't understand this boring snapshot culture/generation. I don't understand how or why you justify the high price you pay for the crop. It really seems like a waste when I'm looking at the actual results, editing them, trying to make it work. It really is a pain :). It is mind-boggling to see someone traveling to the other end of the world, shooting some sort of once in a lifetime event and bring back home a freaking snapshot (or what you call a "20MP RAW"). My old 6D has a 20mp sensor too, but the images it produces contain more detail and less noise.
"I would be curious to know what you base that assumption on."
- On the fact that you see no reason why sensor size is relevant.

"I really feel like I am repeating myself" - Yeah, and every time you make no sense to me :).
"it’s not *sufficiently* relevant *to me*" - The FF is objectively and empirically 4 times (2 stops) more relevant :).
The way I'm seeing it, cameras are evolving. With time, newer models gather more and more data, which means higher image quality. Higher quality means that we can view larger (have more megapixels) and have less noise. Modern photography gear is capable of producing large (60x40-ish), high-def, lifelike, amazing looking images. But somehow, you people are satisfied with tiny little snapshots. JZS! What is wrong with you guys?! :) Open your eyes, for nerds sake. There's a whole new world waiting for you. Get a new large monitor and start enjoying digital photography. Instead of 'snobbering' around the pseudo-"color-science", film simulations, rolling shutters, magical F-stops on overpriced lenses, retro camera body design, etc.

OK, keep exploring :).
I have no idea if your TV can act as a proper monitor/display. TVs tend to kill all the oomph with too much brightness, sharpness, contrast and saturation. They are not meant for close up viewing. So, be careful :). I think that a 40+" UHD IPS would do better. Viewing pictures on 65" TV from far away isn't any better than viewing them on an iPad. It's pointless.

That's because you have problems :)

But we don't have mental problems :). We don't need therapy ...
See, people like you (with problems) come to camera gear web sites to tell us stop using cameras, stop caring about cameras, stop talking about cameras. Man, you are insane :))

8-25mm will be interesting to see. Panasonic recently released their 10-25mm, but that is F1.7 and huge. Before that, I'm only aware of the Canon 17-40mm which comes close.

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