PDA

View Full Version : 12-40 or 12-35


Crazy Dave
12th June 2014, 12:00 PM
I bought my Panasonic 12-35, 18 months ago at the same time that I bought the OMD EM5, so far so good. Having just sold all my Nikon gear (2 cameras, 4 lenses), the proceeds are burning a hole in my pocket. So am considering swapping the 12-35 for the 12-40.

A kind friend lent me a 12-40, I took a few photos in the garden on a tripod using both lenses. Apart from the extra reach of the Oly and probably slightly better colour rendition the images were very similar. Decision made - stay with the lighter 12-35 and get over the urge to splash the dosh. That was until yesterday. I went to our local high street, 12-40 on the camera, took a portrait of Sophie and am staggered by the quality and detail. I cropped the image to the eye area (about 1% of the total) and can see reflections of nearby cars in Sophie's eyes. Dither, dither any ideas, suggestions?

StephenL
12th June 2014, 12:22 PM
I went from the 12-35 to the 12-40. Don't regret it. Slightly better quality but much more of an ergonomic match with the E-M1.

zuiko-holic
12th June 2014, 12:31 PM
I would definitely prefer the Zuiko 12-40 over the Panasonic 12-35.

If not for everything else but for the confidence it would give me in rainy conditions.

Thery are both excellent lenses, Panasonic is probably more consistent according to some review, not very good against bright though.

Greytop
12th June 2014, 05:18 PM
I had the Lumix 12-35 and also moved to the Zuiko 12-40 both are great lenses but the 12-40 slight edges it for me, basically everything Stephen said.

drmarkf
13th June 2014, 12:59 PM
I'm keeping the 12-35 for now: I tried the 12-40 at one of the Oly days in London and, yes, it handles slightly better for me.

I didn't have long enough with the Oly lens to assess relative image quality properly, but having looked carefully online I don't think the IQ improvement sufficient to outweigh the size and weight disadvantages. I don't have particular flare problems with the 12-35.

My standard travel combo is the 12-35 plus the 40-150 which share the same filter size, so that would be a relative disadvantage for me.

oly_om
13th June 2014, 01:13 PM
+1 for the 12-40

Had both lenses, but the 12-40 is a nicer handling lens and doesn't purple fringe against bright light the way the 12-35 does. It looks a lot nicer on the E-M1 too! :-)
I like the bokeh on the 12-40 better too, and its close-focussing is a wee bit better too.

I still think that both lenses veil-flare too much - I would have hoped for better, but the issue is a marginal one.

Andy

damianmkv
23rd January 2015, 04:44 PM
bump of an old thread - am looking at these lens...the Panny is lighter and smaller but more expensive by £100 or so ( grey )

I have an e-m10 by the way and am not a fan of grips ( rightly or wrongly ) so which would be "better" ? The reason I went from Nikon to m43 was due to size / weight

Greytop
23rd January 2015, 09:14 PM
bump of an old thread - am looking at these lens...the Panny is lighter and smaller but more expensive by 100 or so ( grey )

I have an e-m10 by the way and am not a fan of grips ( rightly or wrongly ) so which would be "better" ? The reason I went from Nikon to m43 was due to size / weight

Yes the Panny is smaller and has inbuilt stabilisation but in all other areas the 12-40 pulls ahead.
Close focus, build, manual focus clutch and sharp corner to corner where as the 12-35 softens up a little at the extremes even when stopped down.
The 12-40 still gets my vote.

damianmkv
23rd January 2015, 09:20 PM
The old size isn't everything eh ?

pdk42
23rd January 2015, 09:38 PM
I'm very happy with my 12-35. It's quite a remarkable lens. Its smaller size is important too - I got into u43 for compactness and it seems to me that the latest Oly zooms are heading into regular DSLR territory.

Greytop
23rd January 2015, 10:06 PM
I'm very happy with my 12-35. It's quite a remarkable lens. Its smaller size is important too - I got into u43 for compactness and it seems to me that the latest Oly zooms are heading into regular DSLR territory.

I agree with Paul, the Panny is far from a bad lens in fact it's very very good but having had both the 12-40 ticks more boxes for me.

drmarkf
23rd January 2015, 11:58 PM
As a small update from me, I have replaced the 40-150 4-5.6 with the Panny 35-100 f2.8, and I love the combination with the 12-35 for a compact travel kit (again they share the same filter size, and handle identically).

Comparing this combination with the 12-40 plus 40-150 Pro adds a heck of a lot of glass and cubic inches which for me doesn't feel appropriate.

If I want the absolutely best distortion and sharpness, plus faster speed, I use one of the Oly primes.

It's really all down to personal preferences/requirements plus bank balance: we should just be really grateful now to have such a wonderful choice of m4/3 lenses!

Crazy Dave
24th January 2015, 08:35 AM
Since starting this post, I have got to appreciate the 12-35 even more, it hardly leaves the camera, I also have the 20, 45 and 35-100. Looking back, I wonder why I started considering swapping for the 12-40, would it really improve my photography apart from some barely noticeable improvements? I have a friend who takes much better pictures than I do, what does she use? An Olympus Trip that cost £1 in a local charity shop. Every time I get I get gear envy I try, not always successfully to bear that in mind.
Most of my stuff is taken on the street, weight and size are very important.

Kiwi Paul
24th January 2015, 09:05 AM
Since starting this post, I have got to appreciate the 12-35 even more, it hardly leaves the camera, I also have the 20, 45 and 35-100. Looking back, I wonder why I started considering swapping for the 12-40, would it really improve my photography apart from some barely noticeable improvements? I have a friend who takes much better pictures than I do, what does she use? An Olympus Trip that cost 1 in a local charity shop. Every time I get I get gear envy I try, not always successfully to bear that in mind.
Most of my stuff is taken on the street, weight and size are very important.

I'm the same, the 12-35 is absolutely fine for my purposes and I have no issues with the handling or performance at all. There is no way I could justify losing money selling the 12-35 for any marginal differences the 12-40 may make.

Zuiko
24th January 2015, 10:44 AM
Spare a thought for those of us "stuck" with just a 12-50mm and would love either a 12-35mm or a 12-40mm, don't mind which. But would such a lens improve my photography? Well, sometimes. Not really in terms of sharpness or resolution (my present lens is adequate for my level of photography) but on certain occasions the ability to shoot around two stops lower ISO would be a great advantage.

So my message is, if you own either a 12-35mm or 12-40mm ..... be happy! *chr

damianmkv
24th January 2015, 01:31 PM
I don't own either - I keep thinking of a 17mm 1.8 but that's £260ish used ....so for "just" £240 more I could get the 12-40 which would fill the range below my 45. I don't need wider than 12mm ( I used to have a sigma 10-20 and sold it due to it being under used )