12-40 or?

[garethlovering]

Do I get the 12-40 lens or the 12, 17, 25, & 45mm lenses?

[Bikie John]

Re: 12-40 or?

Things to think about:

- fast aperture primes vs convenience of zoom (f/1.8 vs f/2.8)
- do you need weather sealing? The 12-40 is, the primes aren't
- do you want a lightweight prime lens option? Someone here (forgotten who, sorry) memorably described the 12-40 as a "chunky monkey".

John

[IamFisheye]

Re: 12-40 or?

I have the same dilemma myself. What are you mixing it with? So far I have a EM-1 with the 17mm f1.8, 45 F1.8, 9-18mm, 75-300mm and the 12-50mm.

As I still have a lot of 4/3 zooms (and an E-3) I don't feel the need just yet to buy the 12-40 as I'm holding out for the 40-150mm F2.8 and may add a 25mm prime sometime soon.

Until I move right away from 4/3 and sell my 14-54, I don't see the need. The EM-1 & 17mm is a great combination.

[garethlovering]

Re: 12-40 or?

So far I have the 9-18, 14-150 & the 75-300 to use on the EM-1. Don't really need weather sealing. Thanks for your thoughts gents.

[benvendetta]

Re: 12-40 or?

I have the 12-40, the 12-50, the 25 and the 45. It is good to have choices.

[Ricoh]

Re: 12-40 or?

Is the 12-40 a pro lens the manufacturers would have us believe? I have read reports of a very flimsy attachment between the bayonet mount and the body of the lens. On all accounts the metal bayonet is screwed directly into a plastic mould, with plastic threads. I would have hoped for a metal inset in the plastic, star shaped (there's probably a better description, but you get the idea hopefully) to spread the load.

[pdk42]

Re: 12-40 or?

I've got too many lenses (is there a lensaholics anonymous where I can seek treatment!). I have the 12, 17, 25 and 45 (amongst others...) but somehow also managed to pick up a Panasonic 12-35 (before the 12-40. was launched). I sometimes feel I should downsize, but there are definitely times when I like using the zoom and others when I prefer the primes. Max aperture is only a part of the choice though - it's as much about size and weight too.

Some say that shooting with a prime also improves one's composition and "eye" for a shot. Personally, I've never really agreed with this since I think if you know the look you're after for, then a zoom will deliver that just as well as a prime.

[StephenL]

Re: 12-40 or?

Is the 12-40 a pro lens the manufacturers would have us believe? I have read reports of a very flimsy attachment between the bayonet mount and the body of the lens. On all accounts the metal bayonet is screwed directly into a plastic mould, with plastic threads. I would have hoped for a metal inset in the plastic, star shaped (there's probably a better description, but you get the idea hopefully) to spread the load.

I don't know who told you the 12-40 was flimsy, but that's one thing it isn't. It feels the best-made zoom lens I have ever handled. I've not taken mine apart, but the mount appears to be secured onto a metal body.

[pdk42]

Re: 12-40 or?

There is a long thread over on u43 about this. A small number of users have had failure of the plastic turrets that secure the mount to the lens carcass (which is also plastic - the metal feel of the lens seems to mostly a shell - or at best, only partially metal). There are 4 self-tapping screws that pass through the mount into these turrets and the failed lenses suffered shearing at the base of the turret.

It seems all the failures were the result of drops or bangs and there is dispute whether the impact warranted such a catastrophic result. It seems that in most cases Oly repaired or replaced FOC. Photographs of the failed turrets raise eyebrows about the design - the cross-section of the plastic isn't large. However, I'm sure Oly know what they're doing and TBH, there don't seem to be ongoing reports of failures.

The 75mm by comparison though has an all-metal carcass and the mount is secured using proper screws into a tapped metal hole.

[OM USer]

Re: 12-40 or?

If you are going to miss shots by having to swap lenses in a hurry (or have an impatient partner) then get the zoom.

[Greytop]

Re: 12-40 or?

Like Stephen my 12-40 seems and extremely well built lens not quite in SHG territory but certainly HG or better build and feel. Optically it's a lovely piece of glass but I do also enjoy using my 7.5, 17 and 45, mostly on my other body (E-M5).

[tmy999]

Re: 12-40 or?

I must admit I'd longed for the 12-40 and bought it besides having quite a few of the primes mentioned. I love the primes but I often just grab the 12-40 for convenience.

It is a chunky thing though and makes the combo quite heavy. Built like a tank imo.

The quality of the primes cant be denied but the convenience of the 12-40 is also so attractive. If you are after quality then go for the primes - I'm mesmerised by my 75mm, otherwise grab the 12-40 for the one stop shop!

Its great to have a choice! Otherwise buy both!

[Porthill]

Re: 12-40 or?

Coming new to mFT with the E-M1 I found it easy to choose the 12-40, although the primes were very tempting. What swung it for me was the versatility plus weather sealing, the latter is I think (unfortunately) missing from the primes with the exception of the 60 macro. Having that range, with a constant bright aperture, without having to change lenses is a real bonus when you're out in all weathers, (as an aside I have used the E-M1 with both the 12-40 and the FT 50-200 in torrential rain in Wales earlier this year with no rain cover in sight, and all worked perfectly).

Back to the 12-40, and I've not been disappointed at all. I too had seen the reports of breakages, but - touch wood - I've not dropped it and in normal use it feels reassuringly solid. It's not the lightest mFT lens but for me it just feels right, and is far better balanced with the E-M1 than the 12-60 FT lens was with the E-620. My favourite feature is the focus ring switching between auto and manual, although I note from recent posts not everyone's so keen.

What surprised me on holiday in the French Alps recently was that I was not tempted to reach for my old favourite 12-60 FT zoom. I sometimes missed the extra 20mm of the FT lens, but nothing that a little cropping or moving my position couldn't solve! After a few comparison photos for reassurance I even left the 50 macro FT lens in the bag - this was previously my standard for taking close ups of the alpine flora but the 12-40 managed so well that I didn't need to change lenses, though naturally it can't focus quite as close.

So while I can't help with a comparison between the 12-40 and the primes, I can recommend the 12-40 as a very good, extremely convenient lens that feels good to use. Hope this helps.

John

[dogsbody]

Re: 12-40 or?

I have just picked up a 12-40 from the hire service on this forum. Now that is a thing of beauty!

The lens that is..........

I seem to have spent more on bigger glass, and tried to save by buying 3rd party primes which are not in the same league as those made by Oly, but that is reflected in the price. I can live with that because normally I have a 50-200 swd on my camera.

Would I swap my Oly12-50, Sigma 19mm and 30mm add my EC14 in the mix for a 12-40 oh yes. But, hang on. The 40-150 with a rumoured 2x converter is just over the horizon. If that is as good as the 12-40 well........drooooool and after all, that suits the photography that I enjoy.

Just taken a few pointless snaps around the home, what a lens!

[Phill D]

Re: 12-40 or?

Dogsbody could you try a few comparison shots with the 12-50. I'd just like to see the difference.