PDA

View Full Version : Comparing the new 12-40 Pro with the 12-60 SWD on an E-M1


Ian
15th September 2013, 02:02 PM
Today, despite overcast weather and, at the end, spits of rain, I shot some back/back comparisons of the new 12-40 and the old favourite 12-60 SWD using an E-M1, fitting the 12-60 via an MMF-3 adapter.

The ISO was 200, and for the JPEGs the noise filter was switched off. A link to the RAW file is provided as well. Each lens was used at 12, 25 and 40mm and each focal length was used at full aperture, f/4.0, f/5.6 and f/8.0.

The JPEGs were imported into Lightroom 5.0 for inspection and selection but no image changes were made. These images were not taken under laboratory conditions - and the 12mm shots may have had some spots of rain in the lens surface. But the camera and lenses were tripod mounted and levelled as best as I could. The lenses were only focused once for each focal length on each lens photographed. A 2 second delay was used to allow the camera to settle before each exposure was made.

IMPORTANT

These images are Copyright Ian Burley. They are provided for your personal evaluation only. If you are going to post these images or part of these images elsewhere on the Web I request that you post a link back to http://fourthirds-user.com and acknowledge my copyright. PLEASE DON'T POST LINKS TO THE FILES ON OUR SERVER! If you want to post the entire file, download it and serve it from your own web space (provided you include a link back to http://fourthirds-user.com) and acknowledge my copyright).

Micro Four Thirds M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro:


12-40mm, f=40mm, @ f/2.8 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150133.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150133.ORF).
12-40mm, f=40mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150134.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150134.ORF).
12-40mm, f=40mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150135.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150135.ORF).
12-40mm, f=40mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150136.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150136.ORF).
12-40mm, f=25mm, @ f/2.8 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150168.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150168.ORF).
12-40mm, f=25mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150169.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150169.ORF).
12-40mm, f=25mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150170.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150170.ORF).
12-40mm, f=25mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150171.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150171.ORF).
12-40mm, f=12mm, @ f/2.8 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150176.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150176.ORF).
12-40mm, f=12mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150177.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150177.ORF).
12-40mm, f=12mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150178.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150178.ORF).
12-40mm, f=12mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150179.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150179.ORF).


Four Thirds Zuiko Digital 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 w/ MMF-3 adapter:


12-60mm, f=40mm, @ f/3.8 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150147.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150147.ORF).
12-60mm, f=40mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150148.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150148.ORF).
12-60mm, f=40mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150149.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150149.ORF).
12-60mm, f=40mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150150.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150150.ORF).
12-60mm, f=25mm, @ f/3.4 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150155.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150155.ORF).
12-60mm, f=25mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150156.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150156.ORF).
12-60mm, f=25mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150157.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150157.ORF).
12-60mm, f=25mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150158.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150158.ORF).
12-60mm, f=12mm, @ f/2.8 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150189.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150189.ORF).
12-60mm, f=12mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150190.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150190.ORF).
12-60mm, f=12mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150191.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150191.ORF).
12-60mm, f=12mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9150192.jpg) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9150192.ORF).

Ian
15th September 2013, 02:11 PM
If anyone does not follow the linking and copyright instructions I will remove these files.

Ian

David M
15th September 2013, 02:19 PM
So which is it Ian? Not that I plan on replacing my 12-60. It's only the second zoom lens I've kept in nearly 4 decades. The 7-14 was the first.

Ian
15th September 2013, 02:22 PM
I haven't actually spent any time comparing them - just getting the shots taken, sorted and uploaded!

I have to do the shopping and cook the Sunday roast now so I will reserve my judgement for later! :D

Ian

snaarman
15th September 2013, 02:24 PM
Interesting. I had a quick compare of the 12mm f2.8 files and figured one of them was very very slightly sharper (by which time I forgot which was which).

Checking, it looks like the new one has the edge :) If so, well done Olympus.

benvendetta
15th September 2013, 02:32 PM
Interesting. I had a quick compare of the 12mm f2.8 files and figured one of them was very very slightly sharper (by which time I forgot which was which).

Checking, it looks like the new one has the edge :) If so, well done Olympus.

Even if the 12-40 is sharper, the attraction of my already paid for, and superb performing 12-60 is a compelling reason just to get the em1 body.

David M
15th September 2013, 02:37 PM
I'm not going to attempt viewing the files on this BlackBerry. But as my sample of the 12-60 is so good it doesn't really matter.

bredman
15th September 2013, 03:46 PM
That's fantastic, just the comparison i called for in another thread. Looks to me that at 12mm and 25mm the 12-40 has the edge over the 12-60. At 40mm it's not so clear cut with the 12-60 being sharper at the edges generally. At 25mm the 12-40 seems to outperform the 12-60 by some margin at the edges.

Two fantastic lenses for Oly m43 (in the guise of the EM-1).

Bruce Clarke
15th September 2013, 04:57 PM
Thanks Ian. The 12-40 generally looks slightly better. The 12-60 at f=25mm, @ f/3.4 looks pretty soft on the left edge, but fine on the right, and at the other two focal lengths.

Bruce

mige0
15th September 2013, 05:00 PM
Today, despite overcast weather and, at the end, spits of rain, I shot some back/back comparisons of the new 12-40 and the old favourite 12-60 SWD using an E-M1, fitting the 12-60 via an MMF-3 adapter.

Great work, Ian !

The rain left some soft spots on either lens, so this part already seems to be confirmed :)

At a first glance examining the jpg only, there is a slight difference in exposure between the two, which makes the new 12-40 come out darker thus seemingly with a tad more contrast.

As for resolution, for now I didn't see anything that would make me consider to switch to the new 12-40 nor to say the 12-60 is way ahead.
Less distortion is a real benefit tough and of course the low min focus distance of that lens. Biggest con to me is the relatively small zoom range.

Interested what your findings will be.

Ian
16th September 2013, 08:05 AM
OK, I have now spent some time looking at the images. Based on examination of the JPEG images, sadly, I have to put my hand up and admit two failings; the 12-60 40mm shots are very slightly mis-focused compared to the 12-40 shots and the 12-60 lens sample does look de-centred, with the top right looking sharper than the top left.

Therefore I have decided to re-shoot the entire exercise and will use a different 12-60 and hope it is a better sample. The weather today is much better and sunny although forecast to deteriorate this afternoon. I need to wait for the light to shine on the front of the building later this morning before I can start but I will publish new images this afternoon.

But given the above comments, at 25mm, comparing the best areas of the 12-60 to the 12-40 there is not much difference except of course the 12-40 is 2/3 or so stops brighter fully open and doesn't seem to lose much to the 12-60 at f/3.4. At 12mm wide open and this time both at f/2.8 I think the 12-40 has a very slight edge in sharpness but we'll have to see how a different 12-60 sample works out. Surprisingly, given that the E-M1 is supposed to correct Four Thirds lenses for distortion in the JPEGs there is still quite a bit of barrel distortion with the 12-60 compared to the 12-40. I should also add that the 12-40 was more consistent in focus accuracy (using CDAF) than the 12-60 (PDAF) although the conditions weren't ideal.

Finally, the previous comments elsewhere that have referred to reduced sharpness at f/5.6 - I can concur and can only think that is a diffraction issue as it appears to affect both lenses.

Ian

Ian
16th September 2013, 11:37 AM
Here is a new set of comparison images shot today using a different 12-60. This doesn't look very sharp on the extreme right of the frame in the 40mm shots, but I think it's more representative than the first lens I tried.

Unfortunately the clouds raced in so these shots are again taken in overcast conditions.

The ISO was 200, and for the JPEGs the noise filter was switched off. A link to the RAW file is provided as well. Each lens was used at 12, 25 and 40mm and each focal length was used at full aperture, f/4.0, f/5.6 and f/8.0.

IMPORTANT

These images are Copyright Ian Burley. They are provided for your personal evaluation only. If you are going to post these images or part of these images elsewhere on the Web I request that you post a link back to http://fourthirds-user.com and acknowledge my copyright. PLEASE DON'T POST LINKS TO THE FILES ON OUR SERVER! If you want to post the entire file, download it and serve it from your own web space (provided you include a link back to http://fourthirds-user.com) and acknowledge my copyright).

Micro Four Thirds M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro:


12-40mm, f=40mm, @ f/2.8 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160203.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160203.ORF).
12-40mm, f=40mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160204.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160204.ORF).
12-40mm, f=40mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160205.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160205.ORF).
12-40mm, f=40mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160206.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160206.ORF).
12-40mm, f=24mm, @ f/2.8 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160215.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160215.ORF).
12-40mm, f=24mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160216.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160216.ORF).
12-40mm, f=24mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160217.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160217.ORF).
12-40mm, f=24mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160218.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160218.ORF).
12-40mm, f=12mm, @ f/2.8 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160219.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160219.ORF).
12-40mm, f=12mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160220.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160220.ORF).
12-40mm, f=12mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160221.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160221.ORF).
12-40mm, f=12mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160222.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160222.ORF).


Four Thirds Zuiko Digital 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 w/ MMF-3 adapter:


12-60mm, f=40mm, @ f/3.8 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160207.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160207.ORF).
12-60mm, f=40mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160208.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160208.ORF).
12-60mm, f=40mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160209.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160209.ORF).
12-60mm, f=40mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160210.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160210.ORF).
12-60mm, f=25mm, @ f/3.4 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160211.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160211.ORF).
12-60mm, f=25mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160212.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160212.ORF).
12-60mm, f=25mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160213.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160213.ORF).
12-60mm, f=25mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160214.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160214.ORF).
12-60mm, f=12mm, @ f/2.8 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160223.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160223.ORF).
12-60mm, f=12mm, @ f/4.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160224.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160224.ORF).
12-60mm, f=12mm, @ f/5.6 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160225.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160225.ORF).
12-60mm, f=12mm, @ f/8.0 (JPEG) (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/jpeg/P9160226.JPG) - RAW file (http://fourthirds-user.com/files/e-m1/12-40/raw/P9160226.ORF).

Ross the fiddler
16th September 2013, 11:40 AM
I decided to try opening the RAW file (P9150179.ORF) of the 12-40 lens at 12mm, f8 in a Win8 app Foto & it did showing just how much barrel distortion there was before the correction had been applied to it (in the jpeg) which includes a fair amount of crop too, (which is how it opens in Olympus Viewer 3 (version 1.1)). Of course it shows it rather flat too without settings applied.
I just though it would be interesting to mention it. *yes

BTW, OV3 also shows the Color Creator in the Picture Mode selection too as well as the Highlight & Shadow Control (which can't be used on E-M5 RAW files).

*chr

Ian
16th September 2013, 05:52 PM
I decided to try opening the RAW file (P9150179.ORF) of the 12-40 lens at 12mm, f8 in a Win8 app Foto & it did showing just how much barrel distortion there was before the correction had been applied to it (in the jpeg) which includes a fair amount of crop too, (which is how it opens in Olympus Viewer 3 (version 1.1)). Of course it shows it rather flat too without settings applied.
I just though it would be interesting to mention it. *yes

BTW, OV3 also shows the Color Creator in the Picture Mode selection too as well as the Highlight & Shadow Control (which can't be used on E-M5 RAW files).

*chr

Thanks for that - there are some comments on the same topic on FTU now.

I have shot some comparisons between the Panny 12-35 and 12-40 as well as the 12-60 in better light and will sort them out and upload tomorrow.

Ian

Bill Gordon
16th September 2013, 06:36 PM
I haven't actually spent any time comparing them - just getting the shots taken, sorted and uploaded!

I have to do the shopping and cook the Sunday roast now so I will reserve my judgement for later! :D

Ian

Gosh Ian...Sunday Roast??? Haven't had one of those for a long time...can I come over for din din??

I looked at a couple of your posts and can't see any diff........they are sharp!! Than's all that matters!!

benvendetta
16th September 2013, 06:43 PM
The 12-60 will always be a damn fine lens with a great range, despite the new kid on the block.

Ross the fiddler
16th September 2013, 10:14 PM
Thanks for that - there are some comments on the same topic on FTU now.

I have shot some comparisons between the Panny 12-35 and 12-40 as well as the 12-60 in better light and will sort them out and upload tomorrow.

Ian

Thanks Ian & his is of much more knowledgeable content than mine, but I was a little surprised at the result. It will be interesting to see how the 12-40 lens performs on the E-M5 & I wonder if Oly now needs to do any firmware updates on the E-M5 & PENs or if what we get with them is what we get.

*chr

Ross the fiddler
16th September 2013, 10:22 PM
Gosh Ian...Sunday Roast??? Haven't had one of those for a long time...can I come over for din din??

It seems to me to be a die-hard practice for the British because we had the same in Australia for a long time as Dad was English, although it was at lunch time (midday). ;)

PeterMG
25th September 2013, 12:13 PM
Thanks for the comparisons Ian. Not much between these lenses, splitting hairs I would say.

I was able to try out an EM-1 at Clifton Camera's at the weekend and put my name down for one. At last we have a Camera from Olympus that is a worthy successor for 43 lens users.

I tried the 11-22 and 50-200 + EC-14. Didn't get a chance to try my 14-54 but would love to see some controlled side by side comparisons done with these older lenses on the EM-1. My tests were not as controlled as I would have liked and I made a mess of the 11-22 shots as I tried too sort out all the settings and get used to the Camera but my primary concern was would they focus well. The answer is yes, and given it was a very dull day I was impressed.

I was very impress with the way the EM-1 handled the 50-200 EC-14 combo, and comparison shots between it and the 75-300 left me in no doubt as to which was the best combo, by a huge margin I would say with just focus speed of the 75-300 wining out. I also tried the 12, 45 and 75 mm lenses and I brought my 100 2.8 OMZ manual focus lens to try out how easy it was for me to focus it. Again I was very impressed and can see my vast range of OMZ lenses getting some use again. All in all the best Camera Oly has released since the OM3 Ti

Simon
27th September 2013, 08:39 AM
Thanks for the comparisons Ian. Not much between these lenses, splitting hairs I would say.



I notice that the 12-40mm isn't as impressive at 60mm :rolleyes: I take a fair amount of my shots at the long end of this lens, so despite the 12-40mm edging it in definition, weight, bulk, focus speed (perhaps) etc., I'd be frustrated at its lack of reach. Maybe its a ploy by Olympus to get us to buy the new 40-150 too ;)

In my very limited time with the EM 1 at Sheffield I was very impressed with focus speed on the 12-60 over my E3, particularly on moving subjects (traffic, pedestrians). I was even more impressed with the focus speed on the ED 75-300 compared to the hunting on the E3, but what impressed me most was the lack of camera shake at 300mm. It was by no means an extensive test of the stabilization, but early impressions look very encouraging indeed.
Simon.

Ulfric M Douglas
27th September 2013, 10:37 AM
Great set of comparisons, and thanks to PeterMG for the bump : I missed the thread first time around.

Edit: the Jpegs at 12mmF5.6 seem to show the 12-40 is subjected to very formal straightening, and/or the old 12-60 isn't,
plus the old 12-60 is wider : interesting : considering that unless the tripod was moved, the front of the 12-60 lens was actually closer to the target.

Ian
27th September 2013, 10:42 AM
There is more to come! Just not had time to organise the latest shots...

An article on FTU will document all the samples.

Ian

Alex G.
25th February 2014, 09:36 PM
Hi there.

I know this is an old thread but I'm currently considering getting a 12-60 for my E-M1 since there is a huge difference on current prices between that and the 12-40.

My only worry is the barrel distortion. Is it just me or at 12mm f2.8, the 12-60mm suffers a lot more from distortion than the 12-40? can this be corrected further?

Thanks!

ozzie
25th February 2014, 09:52 PM
Even though the image results are very similar there is one BIG difference size/weight.
I have just spent three weeks with my em1 and 12-40 with grip doing a trip round Tasmania and I can tell you for certain It was a much more pleasant experience than lugging my e5 / grip and 12-60.
If the images are as good as I expect when doing PP then I will buy another em1 and go all micro, the experience has been that good for me.
Cheers
John

benvendetta
25th February 2014, 09:53 PM
I have the 12-60 and to be honest I don't even think about it. It is a fine lens although it is bulky, especially with the MMF3 on my E-M1. I have contemplated moving to the 12-40 but I figure that it will cost me maybe 500+ more plus I would lose 20mm at the long end. Maybe there will be some deals at the NEC at the Photography Show.
But to recap, I wouldn't worry about the distortion, just get and enjoy the 12-60. It is supposed to be the best standard zoom lens from any manufacturer.

RogerMac
25th February 2014, 11:01 PM
Hi there.

I know this is an old thread but I'm currently considering getting a 12-60 for my E-M1 since there is a huge difference on current prices between that and the 12-40.

My only worry is the barrel distortion. Is it just me or at 12mm f2.8, the 12-60mm suffers a lot more from distortion than the 12-40? can this be corrected further?

Thanks!
In my experience the 12-60 suffers from a complex distortion that can be partially corrected in viewer - but it leaves a bit of simple pincushion that can be corrected in most editors, making full correction a two stage process. Having said that the distortion is not usually visible in most shots (interiors are an exception) and the 12-60 is undoubtedly a truly excellent lens.

StephenL
26th February 2014, 08:08 AM
I'm not commenting on optical performance, but thanks to a good deal at SRS I had the opportunity to change from the Panny 12-35 to the Oly 12-40. The Oly is just so well engineered. Better than the Panasonic. And yes, better made than the 12-60. It feels like it is turned from one solid billet of metal.

Bruce Clarke
26th February 2014, 07:20 PM
I always thought the Pana 12-35 felt well engineered, so that sounds good. Sadly though, the 12-40 only has a metal skin over mainly plastic construction, as shown by the various cut in half shots around, and the odd one that has had the mount screws pull out of the plastic body. It's hard to believe this would happen without some force though.

The 12-35 may be the same? I'm sticking with my Panny pair for now (12-35 and 35-100), as I'm still very happy with them, and the E-M1 removes the CA from the JPGs.

Bruce

dralum
9th March 2014, 08:29 AM
There is more to come! Just not had time to organise the latest shots...

An article on FTU will document all the samples.

Ian

Thanx for the 12-40 vs 12-60 comparison Ian, brilliant... *chr
I would be curious to see the comparison with the 12-35 as well, but unfortuantely I couldn't figure out what does the "An article on FTU will document all the samples" means... I search the forum up & down but no luck (yet)... :confused: I would really appreciate some help... Thanx in advance... ;)

Ian
10th March 2014, 10:42 AM
Now that we have some better weather and I have a 12-40, 12-35 and 12-60 all at the same time I will re-shoot the samples (especially as the original 12-60 sample quality wasn't 100%).

Ian

dralum
10th March 2014, 10:47 AM
Now that we have some better weather and I have a 12-40, 12-35 and 12-60 all at the same time I will re-shoot the samples (especially as the original 12-60 sample quality wasn't 100%).

Ian

You're a Star, Ian... Thanx in advance... *chr

Ian
10th March 2014, 10:52 AM
Hopefully Wednesday as it's cloudy today and the forecast is for sun mid-week.

Ian

Hermboy
11th March 2014, 09:21 AM
Thanks for the shots. Having just taken the decision to move to MFT & I've been wondering how good the 12-40 would be against my 12-60. I hadn't even considered the Panny 12-35, more food for thought ! Look forward to the next instalment :)

090657
14th May 2017, 10:00 PM
I have only owned my E-M1 Mk 2 for 5 weeks and it came with the 12-40 2.8 PRO. As very much a `learner` I think the lens is superb and a brilliant `all rounder`. I took the attached shots last week at the Mary Rose display in Portsmouth Dockyard. No flash, from behind glass and at JPEG settings and was more than pleased. Expensive but worth it in my opinion.

RobEW
11th January 2018, 03:21 PM
12-60 seems to be selling for peanuts on EBay nowadays. E.g. 275 (Buy it Now) for an ex display model (no hood). Used ones in excellent condition go for less. Unbelievably good value for an E-M1 user.

Ross the fiddler
12th January 2018, 05:44 AM
12-60 seems to be selling for peanuts on EBay nowadays. E.g. 275 (Buy it Now) for an ex display model (no hood). Used ones in excellent condition go for less. Unbelievably good value for an E-M1 user.

I bought one in early 2016 at a bargain price, but then a year later the aperture blades started sticking (& eventually stayed stuck) so I decided to go for the 12-40 f2.8 lens while on sale after Christmas, since Olympus (Sydney) didn't want to touch the (12-60 SWD) lens anymore.

DerekW
12th January 2018, 03:44 PM
I have been comparing some pictures I took in 2013 with the 12 - 60 on the EM5 and pictures taken recently on the OMD EM1 MK11 with 12-40 and the 12-100 lenses.

I was not specificly comparing but selecting images for slideshow type use from two trips. After a period of reviewing I thought that the 12-60 images were not as sharp as the later lenses. There are several other variables - the use or not of image stabilisation and the use of two different RAW convertor processors (Aperture vs Lightroom) and the two different camera bodies.

Ross the fiddler
12th January 2018, 10:02 PM
I have been comparing some pictures I took in 2013 with the 12 - 60 on the EM5 and pictures taken recently on the OMD EM1 MK11 with 12-40 and the 12-100 lenses.

I was not specificly comparing but selecting images for slideshow type use from two trips. After a period of reviewing I thought that the 12-60 images were not as sharp as the later lenses. There are several other variables - the use or not of image stabilisation and the use of two different RAW convertor processors (Aperture vs Lightroom) and the two different camera bodies.

The E-M5 may be showing some shutter shock perhaps & why I usually use both E-M1's with Anti-Shock on, plus the latter Mk II will show a little more detail, but I haven't used my 12-40 lens much yet to really compare.

Bruce Clarke
13th January 2018, 12:20 AM
I have been comparing some pictures I took in 2013 with the 12 - 60 on the EM5 and pictures taken recently on the OMD EM1 MK11 with 12-40 and the 12-100 lenses.

I was not specificly comparing but selecting images for slideshow type use from two trips. After a period of reviewing I thought that the 12-60 images were not as sharp as the later lenses. There are several other variables - the use or not of image stabilisation and the use of two different RAW convertor processors (Aperture vs Lightroom) and the two different camera bodies.

It could have been shutter shock, but more likely using the 4/3 lens on the E-M5. Without the PDAF sensors of the E-M1 (I or II), the AF is never going to be great. Even on the E-M1s, you may still need to calibrate the AF. I still use my 12-60 on my E-M1 sometimes, and if not in a hurry, use magnified peaking with MF. Sharp as anything I have.

IainMacD
14th January 2018, 05:21 PM
Slightly off topic, but when I first received my mft 12-40 I did some comparison shots with the old 12-60 and found that the 12-60 was wider at 12mm than the 12-40. I just had a look for the shots but can't find them; has anyone else found any difference in the field of view?

Ross the fiddler
14th January 2018, 10:36 PM
Slightly off topic, but when I first received my mft 12-40 I did some comparison shots with the old 12-60 and found that the 12-60 was wider at 12mm than the 12-40. I just had a look for the shots but can't find them; has anyone else found any difference in the field of view?

I took photos of my back lawn with buildings in it I noticed the distortion in it with the 12-40 lens but when I adjusted the raw file in Capture One & took the Distortion back to 0% from 100% then I got the wider detail (undistorted) back.

OOC JPEG (Vivid)
http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/M1138822-s.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/96928)

Adjusted in Capture One with 0% distortion (saturation reduced).
http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/M1138822_CaOne_adj_1-s.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/96929)