I've always been a bit of an "Aperture Snob" and never wanted to purchase the 12-100 Pro, but wound up getting it for our studio manager as a one lens solution for her to do BTS video. I finally gave in and gave it a try and have been blown away ever since! Looking forward to adding the 12-45 Pro to our stable. Thanks Jimmy & Tracey, I enjoyed the video!
I love taking my Oly gear out in bad weather.. You get such a different perspective on everything.. No crowds, reflections for miles, crazy clouds, etc.. Classic London weather! Such that, at 11:10 we see an example of that characteristic English 'can do' spirit & resolve.. Where else would you find someone casually taking their baby out for a stroll in the pouring rain? The buggy even has it's own built in umbrella, which means this is quite common.. Enough so, that English buggies are sold with the "Umbrella option"! Gotta luv it..
Just bought this lens before Christmas. Love it, I was using a panny 12-32 on my em1x, that's a great lens for the money but the oly 12-45 f4 is a step above it. Its not too small for the larger body. I have a slight hand tremor and I found I can hand hold the larger body better than the em1 mk2. With the panny on the em1x it was like there was no lens on it at all.
I need a weather sealing lens but the choice is a little difficult because I already have three fixed lenses (17, 25,45 1.8) for my em5 mark III and I'm happy with it . Is the f4 aperture very limited compared to the 12-40 because it is said that the brightness has improved on the 12-45?...
Great real world usage review Jimmy. Thanks Tracey for enduring the weather to film this! Now we need to see this lens on the EM-1 MK iii, you know, just to see how the new processor handles this lens and how well the Starry Sky AF feature works :)
very interesting comparison, jimmy. i have found that even a small swing of the camera strap can effect high-res mode shots, perhaps this is present in the slightly softer 12-40Pro shot. What does stand out is the higher contrast of the 12-40, but there may also be a hint that the 12-45 allows a little bit more light through at a given aperture? ie- slightly better transmission from the coatings? At the the same aperture, the 12-45 seems a tiny bit more exposed. Could just be changing light levels of course, if you were in manual mode.
Well, my test isn't exactly scientific. For a more proper comparison, should be done inside a controlled environment like a studio with test chart. But I am viewing it as a real-life thing. Yes, agreed with hi-res photos, you need a very still platform. I did check the regular 20mp files, they are about the same and only one file that exhibit a little blurred from slight movement.
Curious. If you extend the lens zoom all the way out and water gets on the barrel, when you zoom back in, is it safe to say that the water will not get inside the lens? Or we have to be cautious and wipe off the moisture before zooming back in? This is why I prefer internal zoom lenses if i can help it.
Seeing you take the photos in the traditional English weather gave me shudders as it doesn't compute that you should be able to do it. I got the em5v3 with a pro lens and wouldn't say I am looking forward to using it in the wet, more next time I am out if its raining, it be so what. Nice upload.
Jimmy, a very useful and interesting comparison. As an extreme photography professional, size is important, as is the light-gathering capability. I am now convinced that both the 12-40 f/2.8 and the 12-45 f/4 have a place in my kit. Thank you. Not sure about the IPX1 weather sealing rating. My experience of the other PRO lenses is that they're well above a "1". I'd love to see Olympus submit all of their lenses to IPX testing. I'm sure, even in the cheaper non-sealed lenses, there would be a few surprises. Rick
That was a very good comparison. The close focussing is nice because for travel photography you want one lens to do it all. I think the price is a bit too much. Maybe Oly will add it as a kit lens for the E-M5 III, that could be good deal.
Thanks Jimmy, I bought the 12-40 f2.8 for that British rain, living in Manchester it seemed a good call to have one lens that could match the weather sealing on my EM5 mkii. I wouldn't buy the 12-45 f4 but I can see it is a choice. The image comparison was also interesting to show they are all very good and there are marginal improvements on the F4 that you might never need but are still a fact. Like other commentators I also preferred the contrast on the f2.8.
Cheers Pete. Very often that you will see f4 lenses outperform 2.8. This is seen in both Nikon and Canon's samples. Because f4 are simpler, easier to construct and design. Also less complicated so resulting in sharper images overall.
Thanks for this fantastic review. You have cleared up any doubts I had, as I used to own a 12-40 (I don't have it now) and loved it, but this 12-45 is much more suited to my needs. I will buy the 12-45 soon, no doubt about it (now). Best regards :)
Depends on what you shoot. I mentioned it that there are two types of photographers, one needs speed and shoot low light more, other needs depth of field and travel light. I work in low light a lot so 2.8 would be a better choice if I have to choose between the two.
The key word in Jimmy's reply is 'work'. When you need to deliver photographs in bad lighting you need a faster lens. For leasure and traveling f/4 is a better choice imo - it is lighter and you can always throw in the bag few 1.8 primes.
I found it straight as I shot both the 1240 and 12100 and I don't remember them to be that soft, especially at the center. I am curious about what happened there.
Well, you won't see the difference in 20mp files, I can assure you. That's why I want to see it in Hi-Res shots. They are all sharp for any M43 cameras and I can guarantee that :)
I don't usually bother with these comparisons but on this occasion I did watch and enjoy the teams damp efforts. Well done. I'm staying with the fantastic 12-40mm 2.8 Pro.
In your 12 mm comparison in the corners, the 12-45 F4 seems to be focused slightly closer than the other two (the background is less sharp), thus resulting in more sharpness on the 999. But still impressive results for this lens, and being shorter might have helped with stability compared to the 12-40 F2.8 at 40 mm.
Possibly due to focal plain differences. It wasn't a straight on shot but the central sharpness is definitely shows how sharp the new lens is. Also, given the historic samples from Nikon and Canon, all f4 lenses almost guarantee to outperform 2.8 lenses due to simpler optical design because to optimise 2.8 lenses, it's very tricky and complicated.
@@Red35Photography I thought about focal plane curvature, I've seen it in old lenses. It might play a role here. But you gave the major argument for this lens: It can withstand London weather … ;-)
It is f/8 equivalent only in terms of Depth of field. But it lets in as much light on the sensor as f/4 does on full frame camera. If you are really after the portret shots with a creamy background then you need f/1.2 - f/1.8 primes for it.
Are you building Full Size Previews, either during import or before the review for everything you plan show at 1:1? Just wondering if that might speed up the load time. Thanks for the review, really appreciate it.
No, not my general workflow. I work with thousands of images at any one time, generate 1:1 preview takes up too much space and too long to render during import. Only a preference but for me, I need to work quick :)
I do wonder if there is a difference in how stopped down the lens can be before refraction sets in between the three lenses. For landscapes, stopping down to maximize focal depth is common, but if the image looses sharpness earlier then another it might for a different purchasing decision.
LOL at 3:30 Jimmy... you funny bastard! Phooo, Phooo.... And BTW, no more specs please unless a spec is essential to the story eg f4, weather proof, light weight. That is enough. Let the nerds do their own search for the specs. They absolutely love doing that! Don’t deny them their JOY. Specs are easy to find, so no need to ruin your video with them. Thanks champ!
I was the "mate" that felt you should have showed off the weather sealing potential of the new 12-45 during your un-boxing video. You were looking pretty cozy in your warm dry home. As I re-read my comment, I realize I may have come off a little harsh. Almost troll like. I apologize. Everyone needs a day off once in a while. Thanks for the videos. I often learn something. Today I learned Olympus now has an IPX rated lens.
I don't, but if you want to get one, get a good one, because you are adding another layer in front and you want the best quality, so you can maintain the top result from the lens. So. pro grade Hoya or similar is good.
While this lens looks nice I don't see a need for it myself. If Olympus comes out with a great f4 wide say 8-25 like the patent they submitted then we would have something very cool. That and a 40-150 with a 2x teleconverter would give you a very light and flexible two lens kit with a huge range. The 7-14 2.8 is a bit heavier so that might give a really big weight savings. I hope they follow the 12-45 f4 up with an f4 wide. That is the one I want to get. Let's make it happen Olympus.
Evan McKnight i wonder if the Olympus is actually going to complete their f4 holy trinity soon. Since their cameras have great IBIS i think that would be a great idea. F4 lenses would be a lot lighter.
The 12-45 is a great upgrade from the,14-42 kit lens. I have lost shots because the electronic zoom function is too slow and unpredictable more then the f/5.6 on the long end. The 12-45 is a good alternative to the pancake which gives you reliable performance without becoming too bulky. As a landscape photographer... I would buy the 12-40 just to use it at f/5.6-8 anyways. The 12-45 gives me more reach, a lighter lens, and it costs less.
I know Jimmy cares less about this tip. 😜😁 Tip on macro/close-up shots using a zoom lens, extend your lens to longest end to prevent shadows coming from the lens/hood. Many lenses, the minimum focus stays the same or improve and with lens compression, it may eliminate some background distraction. The 14-150mm is not very good at close-up but as you get past 70mm to 150mm it greatly improves on small subjects.
P.S.: Regarding the close focusing ability? Imagine the possibilities of foreground/background composition in street photography. Whole new game! We didn't have such a lens that can do this below 30mm (60mm FF equiv).
Hi . I wanted to consult with you about purchasing another lens. I have the following equipment: Body: EM10-Mark 2 Lenses: 1.Kit 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 2.45mm f1.8 3.75mm f1.8 4.40-150mm f4-5.6 What do you want to recommend as my next lenses? I have found in Germany a good deal on 12-45mm F4.0 PRO only for 300 Euro. Does that make sense to buy these lenses?
This lens makes carrying the 40-150mm 2.8 also far easier. The 12-40 and the 40-150 together are quiet a burden. This setup? Not so much. Add the teleconverter and you can get rid of the 75-300 also. Really 12-45 and 40-150 is the perfect combination. Add a lightweight 1.8 prime and perhaps the 60mm macro from time to time and you're good.
I personally think Olympus should have made the 12-45 f/4 as a 12-60 f/4 which would have sat very nicely between the 12-40 and 12-100 lenses. I'd personally prefer the 12-40 over the 12-45 and the 12-100 due to it's increased focal range.
@@thegirlwholeftthefridgeopen The thing is you can get the Panasonic 12-60 f/3.5-5.6 with a free G80 bundled giving dual stabilisation for the same price as the Olympus lens. But possibly not for long as Panasonic seem disinterested in any development outside of full frame effectively saying get a phone. They are just running existing lines and even an old model like the G80. The G80 works fine so you wonder how much useful development has really happened over the years for most of us, especially for still photographers as most reviews now are about the camera's use for video blogging with the camera on a stick about the camera. The 12-60 may not have a fixed focal ratio or such effective weatherproofing but Olympus is an expensive option with no wide affordable zooms. The 14-42 Olympus kits seem stuck in a very ancient rut in the road. Panasonic also have the tiny 12-32 but no manual focus on an Olympus body.
Dang....I have 2 of the 3 lenses and will get the 3rd (12-45 f4) to put on a mint E-M5 ii that I just bought. Jimmy, you are fueling my GAS! LOL...no worries, you only live once and the gear is fantastic...and FUN.
Jimmy, you're HighRes shot comparison is not very correct, I'm sure there was a slight movement at 12-40 and 12-100 lenses, especially the shots at the longer end. Use a regular shot, to be sure everything is fair, but if you use High Res I think the best processor for them is Olympus Workspace.
Cheers Anastas for your comment. LR is now fully compatible with High Res shots. I've checked the regular 20mp shots, it is softer, only just. Not that you will notice in 20mp files, there was one file that has slight movement, strange as it's on tripod but next time, I will use 2 sec timer for high res. 0.5 sec isn't enough.
Red35 Photography Jimmy, when I do such shots I usually use the phone app to trigger the camera. If there is no artificial light you can use also electronic shutter. In any case very interesting video.
Modern photographers seem to believe in magic. This is one of the first Olympus products recently that has impressed me but, alas it isn't something I would buy, this isnt a useful lens range for me. Twenty years ago everybody knew that fast lenses were less sharp; every half stop of speed was bought by increasing aberrations which required increasingly sophisticated optics to mitigate but never fully overcome. Nowadays all pretence has been swept away and the manufacturers assume (a fair assumption based on the ravings of most celebrity RUclips "bokeholic" reviewers) that fast lenses will be used mostly wide open so sharpness is optimised at this setting at the expense of other parts of the range. My photography is mostly about hyperfocal image quality which rules out most fast lenses. You said you weren't interested in this geek stuff but your first geek number was the most interesting thing in the review; it is the elephant in the room; the number of lens elements and the lower this figure the better the hyperfocal performance. Glass surfaces destroy image quality and the fewer the number of elements the less scatter in the image. This lens has 12 elements which is damned good. The best zoom I have ever used ( I still use it) is the 10 element Leica 18-56 Vario- Elmarit-TL and it outperforms most primes. I would have expected, just looking at the specs, for this lens to out perform the others, which you have shown it does, except for the Pro lens at f2.8 for which it will be optimised. You see how important the geek stuff is; it sets limits to performance which you can check without even trying the lens allowing you to decide which lenses to test in your final short list; any lenses with 16 or more elements I would eliminate from any short list I would make). The problem is manufactures are now starting to realise the problem and have started to hide this information. Try looking at the specification for fast lenses now and you will usually find lens elements missing. I usually find this info eventually; sometimes by counting the elements shown in a split diagram photo. I call this omission being economical with the truth. Now if the data is missing I assume they are hiding it and wont look at the product further. Why wont I buy this excellent lens; i dont like zooms. I use an optically superb 12-32mm pancake for travel and a 14-140mm for the zoo and wildlife. For everything else I use a low glass prime. All the Olympus premium f1.8 primes are under 10 lens elements and perform almost as well as my leica Summilux; I draw a veil over most of the Pro primes which are very definitely not Vici lenses; they will be ultra sharp wide open but wont have the clarity in extreme hyperfocal depth resolution I crave; the superb 17mm f1.8 is about the best of the bunch in my 3 prime set. Have fun and hope you haven't caught your death in that rain - winks ;-)
Absolutely Vici, I know you like your primes :) I do like this simple little lens. Great for street and landscape. Bokeholic?? haha yes, I just read a comment about this lens has no bokeh LOL!!!! Well, what can you say when there are people who worship 'bokeh' thinking it's the holygrail in photography....
Vici Martynov Enjoyed reading your comment. It answered a lot of questions i had about lens selections. I’m now more convinced what type of photographer I have been wanting to be.
@@snowwalker9999 Thank you. I think you will enjoy reading this article a must read. It summarises a lot of theory on lenses and lens selections. yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics
That is right. Glass is the enemy :-) This guy have some interesting theories on the matter, yannickkhong.com/lens-articles P.s. do you have the 12mm f2? How does it behave in hyperfocal?
To be honest, no one makes a pro lens this size and has superior image quality. I shoot group photos a lot with this lens and at f4, it is sharp from centre to corner.
Great review Jimmy. Recent trip to Scotland, no weather sealed glass, learned a lesson. So 12 to 45mm high on my list, then 12 to 50mm, 14 to 150mm,( one, not all), all weather sealed. Mainly on a tripod, so a fast lens not needed, an advantage for slow shutter speed,s, without filter,s.
IPX1 is quite low. I think a lot of us have been using our PRO lenses at IPX2 (water from non-vertical angles) or higher (3: able to withstand spray from any angle, or 4: you can splash it)
I already own 12-40 F2,8 PRO and its the best all-round lens i ever had and it fits perfectly to M5 Mark III body with FL-600R flash for handheld photography (which is all i carry with me + extra battery pack, SD card, cleaning cloth). I have been considering 12-100mm F4 PRO VS 40-150mm F2,8 for months now. The latter one is simply too big, therefore i was aiming for 12-100 F4, but by chance i came along Lumix Vario 35-100. If someone would be interested, i did few test shots M.Zuiko 12-100 vs Lumix 35-100: M. Zuiko 12-100 F4 has better contrast, and even when its quite large lens, it does not cast shadow when using FL-600R flash, even on widest zoom. Lumix Vario 35-100 F2,8 has much better histogram. Out of all three lenses its the smallest and the most lightweight. I usually find myself in situation where 12-40 is enough. I could pick 12-100 while i would sacrifice portability, weight and one stop of aperture. But in indoor photos i usually do, the matter of using 100mm focal lenght vs doing one-two steps ahead with 40mm and get the framing i want... Lumix Vario 35-100 or M.Zuiko 40-150 are both 2,8, Lumix has IS while the focal lenght up to 100mm (200mm FF) is from my previous experience all I need for outdoor photography.
Wonder where the price will settle in at? Is it worth $399 or $349 or ??? A slower and less sharp lens for a fairly high price --- am I missing something here? - ----- I really like the 45mm f1.8 lens purchased for $249 -- now that's bargain. -Loren
12-45mm corner performance ain't superior. It just has field curvature toward camera, while others are at infinity. You can see the sharpness difference in the corner background building. Where 12-45mm doesn't render details on buildings, while 12-40mm and 12-100mm does have clearly high definition buildings at background. The 12-40mm as well was better in center when looking the light pole center of frame, even with youtube compression.
Jimmy: are your rain jacket and gloves special or custom made gear or are they readily available at sporting goods stores? How about Amazon.com or Amazon.ca?
@@robinwong Like the 12-32 pany f3.5-5.6 at 70g. If like me you own it and the 12-40 f2.8 Pro the 12-45 is difficult to justify though it is an interesting lens.
How can Olympus call a short range zoom lens of f4 a Pro lens??, it is cheaper lighter smaller with no Fn button no focus clutch and slower than the current f2.8 Olympus standard lens, I currently have three Olympus mft camera’s, to me this is a kit lens for the O-md e5 mkiii like the Lumix 12-60mm kit lens for Panasonic camera’s.
What the heck is this do you want to be you tube friends I am seeing on channels more and more from posters? Anyways when I’m not using my two favorite primes that 12-40 pro is just as sharp as a prime at all f stops and great when I need a little reach. Just not fast enough sometimes in a few situations.
Yes, I understand, that'll probably my take on this lens too. I like it but I am a prime guy but this can be in my bag as it's small. So if I need that flexibility for something, it's there.
A 12-45 4.0 pro lens makes no sense on M4/3. I would have loved to see a 12-45 2.0; more Bokeh and greater range. Olympus should have created a 12-45 4.0 prosumer kit lens to replace the 14-42. The 12-40 2.8 is already small and lightweight so it only makes sense to come out with a faster lens with a greater range even at the slight expense of size and weight.
The second video of yours I have seen and again THE EXCELENT BACKGROUND ATTITUDE! Awesome! Great atmosphere in your videos.
Great video. I was amazed at the close focusing ability of the new lens. I love how you did the video out in a rain storm.
Thanks David!! hahaha... I know everyone likes to see us getting wet! It's a tough video to film, because it's just super harsh condition.
I've always been a bit of an "Aperture Snob" and never wanted to purchase the 12-100 Pro, but wound up getting it for our studio manager as a one lens solution for her to do BTS video. I finally gave in and gave it a try and have been blown away ever since! Looking forward to adding the 12-45 Pro to our stable. Thanks Jimmy & Tracey, I enjoyed the video!
I love taking my Oly gear out in bad weather.. You get such a different perspective on everything.. No crowds, reflections for miles, crazy clouds, etc..
Classic London weather!
Such that, at 11:10 we see an example of that characteristic English 'can do' spirit & resolve..
Where else would you find someone casually taking their baby out for a stroll in the pouring rain? The buggy even has it's own built in umbrella, which means this is quite common.. Enough so, that English buggies are sold with the "Umbrella option"!
Gotta luv it..
Just bought this lens before Christmas. Love it, I was using a panny 12-32 on my em1x, that's a great lens for the money but the oly 12-45 f4 is a step above it. Its not too small for the larger body. I have a slight hand tremor and I found I can hand hold the larger body better than the em1 mk2. With the panny on the em1x it was like there was no lens on it at all.
I need a weather sealing lens but the choice is a little difficult because I already have three fixed lenses (17, 25,45 1.8) for my em5 mark III and I'm happy with it . Is the f4 aperture very limited compared to the 12-40 because it is said that the brightness has improved on the 12-45?...
I have the same request, I would be interested in the answer.
Great real world usage review Jimmy. Thanks Tracey for enduring the weather to film this!
Now we need to see this lens on the EM-1 MK iii, you know, just to see how the new processor handles this lens and how well the Starry Sky AF feature works :)
I am still looking for opportunity to test the starry AF
I just ordered my new 12-45 f4 for my EM1MKII. Thanks a lot for the nice review!!!!
very interesting comparison, jimmy. i have found that even a small swing of the camera strap can effect high-res mode shots, perhaps this is present in the slightly softer 12-40Pro shot. What does stand out is the higher contrast of the 12-40, but there may also be a hint that the 12-45 allows a little bit more light through at a given aperture? ie- slightly better transmission from the coatings? At the the same aperture, the 12-45 seems a tiny bit more exposed. Could just be changing light levels of course, if you were in manual mode.
Well, my test isn't exactly scientific. For a more proper comparison, should be done inside a controlled environment like a studio with test chart. But I am viewing it as a real-life thing. Yes, agreed with hi-res photos, you need a very still platform. I did check the regular 20mp files, they are about the same and only one file that exhibit a little blurred from slight movement.
Hey Red, that E-M5 III you're shooting with is also IPX-1.
The macro ability of this lens is a spectacular bonus feature. I just bought one last month for my E-M5 ii.
Support!
Want to buy this lens with my em5iii body.
It's really good for travelling.
Cheers
Curious. If you extend the lens zoom all the way out and water gets on the barrel, when you zoom back in, is it safe to say that the water will not get inside the lens? Or we have to be cautious and wipe off the moisture before zooming back in? This is why I prefer internal zoom lenses if i can help it.
Great video, im looking for the 12-40 or the 12-45 love the small size, but what will be better for getting bokeh a bit far? Maybe for car photos.
Seeing you take the photos in the traditional English weather gave me shudders as it doesn't compute that you should be able to do it.
I got the em5v3 with a pro lens and wouldn't say I am looking forward to using it in the wet, more next time I am out if its raining, it be so what.
Nice upload.
Jimmy, a very useful and interesting comparison. As an extreme photography professional, size is important, as is the light-gathering capability. I am now convinced that both the 12-40 f/2.8 and the 12-45 f/4 have a place in my kit. Thank you.
Not sure about the IPX1 weather sealing rating. My experience of the other PRO lenses is that they're well above a "1". I'd love to see Olympus submit all of their lenses to IPX testing. I'm sure, even in the cheaper non-sealed lenses, there would be a few surprises.
Rick
20:50 it has motion blur
he didn't took a second shot to be sure = Not pro
When the lens is extending during zoom, and it is raining - won't you pull moisture into the lens?
Great work !!! I do wish that the 12mm F2.0 could also have been a part of this study.
That was a very good comparison. The close focussing is nice because for travel photography you want one lens to do it all. I think the price is a bit too much. Maybe Oly will add it as a kit lens for the E-M5 III, that could be good deal.
I think they will.
Thanks Jimmy, I bought the 12-40 f2.8 for that British rain, living in Manchester it seemed a good call to have one lens that could match the weather sealing on my EM5 mkii. I wouldn't buy the 12-45 f4 but I can see it is a choice. The image comparison was also interesting to show they are all very good and there are marginal improvements on the F4 that you might never need but are still a fact. Like other commentators I also preferred the contrast on the f2.8.
Cheers Pete. Very often that you will see f4 lenses outperform 2.8. This is seen in both Nikon and Canon's samples. Because f4 are simpler, easier to construct and design. Also less complicated so resulting in sharper images overall.
Thanks for this fantastic review. You have cleared up any doubts I had, as I used to own a 12-40 (I don't have it now) and loved it, but this 12-45 is much more suited to my needs. I will buy the 12-45 soon, no doubt about it (now). Best regards :)
Do they sell the em5 mkiii with 12-45 as kit?
Not as yet but I presume they will make a kit.
Thanks for the video, would you buy the lens if it was a choice between that and the 2.8?
Depends on what you shoot. I mentioned it that there are two types of photographers, one needs speed and shoot low light more, other needs depth of field and travel light. I work in low light a lot so 2.8 would be a better choice if I have to choose between the two.
The key word in Jimmy's reply is 'work'. When you need to deliver photographs in bad lighting you need a faster lens. For leasure and traveling f/4 is a better choice imo - it is lighter and you can always throw in the bag few 1.8 primes.
I found it straight as I shot both the 1240 and 12100 and I don't remember them to be that soft, especially at the center. I am curious about what happened there.
Well, you won't see the difference in 20mp files, I can assure you. That's why I want to see it in Hi-Res shots. They are all sharp for any M43 cameras and I can guarantee that :)
thanks man! lovely review!
I don't usually bother with these comparisons but on this occasion I did watch and enjoy the teams damp efforts. Well done. I'm staying with the fantastic 12-40mm 2.8 Pro.
Glad you enjoyed us getting wet!
In your 12 mm comparison in the corners, the 12-45 F4 seems to be focused slightly closer than the other two (the background is less sharp), thus resulting in more sharpness on the 999. But still impressive results for this lens, and being shorter might have helped with stability compared to the 12-40 F2.8 at 40 mm.
Possibly due to focal plain differences. It wasn't a straight on shot but the central sharpness is definitely shows how sharp the new lens is. Also, given the historic samples from Nikon and Canon, all f4 lenses almost guarantee to outperform 2.8 lenses due to simpler optical design because to optimise 2.8 lenses, it's very tricky and complicated.
@@Red35Photography I thought about focal plane curvature, I've seen it in old lenses. It might play a role here. But you gave the major argument for this lens: It can withstand London weather … ;-)
Isn’t f/4 on m43 equivalent to f/8 on FF as far as DOF is concerned? If it is the use case would be fairly limited.
Exactly. The F/4.0 on m43 does not sound like Pro to me.
It is f/8 equivalent only in terms of Depth of field. But it lets in as much light on the sensor as f/4 does on full frame camera. If you are really after the portret shots with a creamy background then you need f/1.2 - f/1.8 primes for it.
i am wondering... my wife has 6d2 and 50 macro sigma 2.8, but no IOS at all, should we sell and go for em1-3 and 12-45?
Are you building Full Size Previews, either during import or before the review for everything you plan show at 1:1? Just wondering if that might speed up the load time. Thanks for the review, really appreciate it.
No, not my general workflow. I work with thousands of images at any one time, generate 1:1 preview takes up too much space and too long to render during import. Only a preference but for me, I need to work quick :)
Do you have a video where you test that camera also on video ? great video ✌️
I do wonder if there is a difference in how stopped down the lens can be before refraction sets in between the three lenses. For landscapes, stopping down to maximize focal depth is common, but if the image looses sharpness earlier then another it might for a different purchasing decision.
is the zuiko an autofocus lens?
Great lens...great channel!
I’m liking the overall look of the 12-40 over the 12-45. Has a much better contrast look to it that just makes the photos pop.
I've noticed the same thing. But it also might be the different lighting conditions.
Thought the same at first but now thinking the 12-45 may just be a bit brighter at f4.
Welcome to England! What a sunny Sunday in London
Yeah man, this is our summer weather
LOL at 3:30 Jimmy... you funny bastard! Phooo, Phooo.... And BTW, no more specs please unless a spec is essential to the story eg f4, weather proof, light weight. That is enough. Let the nerds do their own search for the specs. They absolutely love doing that! Don’t deny them their JOY. Specs are easy to find, so no need to ruin your video with them. Thanks champ!
7:00 "Great...." LOL!!! Such a British reaction! Very good. Carry on then... :)
Great and interesting comparison. Much appreciated...
Hi mate, I just ordered one :) Cheers, Leigh
Nice review
I was the "mate" that felt you should have showed off the weather sealing potential of the new 12-45 during your un-boxing video. You were looking pretty cozy in your warm dry home. As I re-read my comment, I realize I may have come off a little harsh. Almost troll like. I apologize. Everyone needs a day off once in a while. Thanks for the videos. I often learn something. Today I learned Olympus now has an IPX rated lens.
LOL no worry mate. I was replying in a jokey way. Yes it was pretty wet and cold, you probably see how thick I was padding myself under the jacket!
Am waiting on my delivery. Thanks
Jimmy, do you use a lens protection filter? Do you recommend using one?
I don't, but if you want to get one, get a good one, because you are adding another layer in front and you want the best quality, so you can maintain the top result from the lens. So. pro grade Hoya or similar is good.
@@Red35Photography thanks!!!
While this lens looks nice I don't see a need for it myself. If Olympus comes out with a great f4 wide say 8-25 like the patent they submitted then we would have something very cool. That and a 40-150 with a 2x teleconverter would give you a very light and flexible two lens kit with a huge range. The 7-14 2.8 is a bit heavier so that might give a really big weight savings. I hope they follow the 12-45 f4 up with an f4 wide. That is the one I want to get. Let's make it happen Olympus.
I am hoping so too my self. It will be THE VLOGGING lens for many. I love the 2.8 but just way too heavy and not easy to use filters either.
Evan McKnight i wonder if the Olympus is actually going to complete their f4 holy trinity soon. Since their cameras have great IBIS i think that would be a great idea. F4 lenses would be a lot lighter.
What's the best lens for portrait with Olympus Em1 mark 3 ? Thanks
45mm 1.2 or 1.8 depends on your budget
Have been tested this with EM1 III, indeed it's small and light weight Jimmy and the result were not so different with 12-40 or 12-100mm.
Thanks for watching mate. Well, not that different when view in 20mp files.
The 12-45 is a great upgrade from the,14-42 kit lens. I have lost shots because the electronic zoom function is too slow and unpredictable more then the f/5.6 on the long end. The 12-45 is a good alternative to the pancake which gives you reliable performance without becoming too bulky.
As a landscape photographer... I would buy the 12-40 just to use it at f/5.6-8 anyways. The 12-45 gives me more reach, a lighter lens, and it costs less.
I know Jimmy cares less about this tip. 😜😁 Tip on macro/close-up shots using a zoom lens, extend your lens to longest end to prevent shadows coming from the lens/hood. Many lenses, the minimum focus stays the same or improve and with lens compression, it may eliminate some background distraction. The 14-150mm is not very good at close-up but as you get past 70mm to 150mm it greatly improves on small subjects.
Cheers mate ;)
P.S.: Regarding the close focusing ability? Imagine the possibilities of foreground/background composition in street photography. Whole new game! We didn't have such a lens that can do this below 30mm (60mm FF equiv).
Im still having a hard time to decide from the 12-45 and 12-40. BTW, do you sell your Lightroom presets?
Hi .
I wanted to consult with you about purchasing another lens. I have the following equipment:
Body:
EM10-Mark 2
Lenses:
1.Kit 14-42mm f3.5-5.6
2.45mm f1.8
3.75mm f1.8
4.40-150mm f4-5.6
What do you want to recommend as my next lenses?
I have found in Germany a good deal on 12-45mm F4.0 PRO only for 300 Euro. Does that make sense to buy these lenses?
300 euro is really good for 12-45!
This lens makes carrying the 40-150mm 2.8 also far easier. The 12-40 and the 40-150 together are quiet a burden. This setup? Not so much. Add the teleconverter and you can get rid of the 75-300 also. Really 12-45 and 40-150 is the perfect combination. Add a lightweight 1.8 prime and perhaps the 60mm macro from time to time and you're good.
I personally think Olympus should have made the 12-45 f/4 as a 12-60 f/4 which would have sat very nicely between the 12-40 and 12-100 lenses. I'd personally prefer the 12-40 over the 12-45 and the 12-100 due to it's increased focal range.
That makes sense
@@thegirlwholeftthefridgeopen The thing is you can get the Panasonic 12-60 f/3.5-5.6 with a free G80 bundled giving dual stabilisation for the same price as the Olympus lens. But possibly not for long as Panasonic seem disinterested in any development outside of full frame effectively saying get a phone. They are just running existing lines and even an old model like the G80. The G80 works fine so you wonder how much useful development has really happened over the years for most of us, especially for still photographers as most reviews now are about the camera's use for video blogging with the camera on a stick about the camera. The 12-60 may not have a fixed focal ratio or such effective weatherproofing but Olympus is an expensive option with no wide affordable zooms. The 14-42 Olympus kits seem stuck in a very ancient rut in the road. Panasonic also have the tiny 12-32 but no manual focus on an Olympus body.
So the close focus is so tempting
I do like going out in London with my camera when it is raining as it adds texture to my photography
Yes! Definitely mate.
Dang....I have 2 of the 3 lenses and will get the 3rd (12-45 f4) to put on a mint E-M5 ii that I just bought.
Jimmy, you are fueling my GAS!
LOL...no worries, you only live once and the gear is fantastic...and FUN.
Jimmy, you're HighRes shot comparison is not very correct, I'm sure there was a slight movement at 12-40 and 12-100 lenses, especially the shots at the longer end. Use a regular shot, to be sure everything is fair, but if you use High Res I think the best processor for them is Olympus Workspace.
Cheers Anastas for your comment. LR is now fully compatible with High Res shots. I've checked the regular 20mp shots, it is softer, only just. Not that you will notice in 20mp files, there was one file that has slight movement, strange as it's on tripod but next time, I will use 2 sec timer for high res. 0.5 sec isn't enough.
Red35 Photography Jimmy, when I do such shots I usually use the phone app to trigger the camera. If there is no artificial light you can use also electronic shutter. In any case very interesting video.
@@AnastasTarpanov lol, only because we got so wet hahaha
@@Red35Photography yeah, Olympus cameras are tougher than us! :)
Great video, Jimmy. Does it come with the lens hood ?
Yes it does. See my unboxing video from last week.
Modern photographers seem to believe in magic. This is one of the first Olympus products recently that has impressed me but, alas it isn't something I would buy, this isnt a useful lens range for me. Twenty years ago everybody knew that fast lenses were less sharp; every half stop of speed was bought by increasing aberrations which required increasingly sophisticated optics to mitigate but never fully overcome. Nowadays all pretence has been swept away and the manufacturers assume (a fair assumption based on the ravings of most celebrity RUclips "bokeholic" reviewers) that fast lenses will be used mostly wide open so sharpness is optimised at this setting at the expense of other parts of the range. My photography is mostly about hyperfocal image quality which rules out most fast lenses. You said you weren't interested in this geek stuff but your first geek number was the most interesting thing in the review; it is the elephant in the room; the number of lens elements and the lower this figure the better the hyperfocal performance. Glass surfaces destroy image quality and the fewer the number of elements the less scatter in the image. This lens has 12 elements which is damned good. The best zoom I have ever used ( I still use it) is the 10 element Leica 18-56 Vario- Elmarit-TL and it outperforms most primes. I would have expected, just looking at the specs, for this lens to out perform the others, which you have shown it does, except for the Pro lens at f2.8 for which it will be optimised. You see how important the geek stuff is; it sets limits to performance which you can check without even trying the lens allowing you to decide which lenses to test in your final short list; any lenses with 16 or more elements I would eliminate from any short list I would make). The problem is manufactures are now starting to realise the problem and have started to hide this information. Try looking at the specification for fast lenses now and you will usually find lens elements missing. I usually find this info eventually; sometimes by counting the elements shown in a split diagram photo. I call this omission being economical with the truth. Now if the data is missing I assume they are hiding it and wont look at the product further. Why wont I buy this excellent lens; i dont like zooms. I use an optically superb 12-32mm pancake for travel and a 14-140mm for the zoo and wildlife. For everything else I use a low glass prime. All the Olympus premium f1.8 primes are under 10 lens elements and perform almost as well as my leica Summilux; I draw a veil over most of the Pro primes which are very definitely not Vici lenses; they will be ultra sharp wide open but wont have the clarity in extreme hyperfocal depth resolution I crave; the superb 17mm f1.8 is about the best of the bunch in my 3 prime set. Have fun and hope you haven't caught your death in that rain - winks ;-)
Absolutely Vici, I know you like your primes :) I do like this simple little lens. Great for street and landscape. Bokeholic?? haha yes, I just read a comment about this lens has no bokeh LOL!!!! Well, what can you say when there are people who worship 'bokeh' thinking it's the holygrail in photography....
@@Red35Photography I usually say, your photo seems to be mostly out of focus, what a shame - winks ;-)
Vici Martynov Enjoyed reading your comment. It answered a lot of questions i had about lens selections. I’m now more convinced what type of photographer I have been wanting to be.
@@snowwalker9999 Thank you. I think you will enjoy reading this article a must read. It summarises a lot of theory on lenses and lens selections. yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics
That is right.
Glass is the enemy :-)
This guy have some interesting theories on the matter,
yannickkhong.com/lens-articles
P.s. do you have the 12mm f2?
How does it behave in hyperfocal?
Jimmy, this is one of your best videos, and it’s putting my wallet at risk.
To be honest, no one makes a pro lens this size and has superior image quality. I shoot group photos a lot with this lens and at f4, it is sharp from centre to corner.
"This is pretty ridiculous but pretty fun." Yeah... You were doing macro like photography. If I remember right, your not a fan. Great video!
LOL not I am not a fan, but it's pretty... like you said, fun :)
Cheers mate! Like this video.
Thanks mate!! Hope you are well.
Great review Jimmy. Recent trip to Scotland, no weather sealed glass, learned a lesson. So 12 to 45mm high on my list, then 12 to 50mm, 14 to 150mm,( one, not all), all weather sealed. Mainly on a tripod, so a fast lens not needed, an advantage for slow shutter speed,s, without filter,s.
To be honest I wish Olympus would think outside the box and go with the 17, 25, 45mm f1.2 or 1.0, or a 7-17 f2 or f1.8
Edit: poor Tracy
They could do that, and the lenses would still be lighter than the FF equivalents IMO.
@@AlexRamosDrTaz right. So I want to see them do it. At least do something new.
Someone notice that the new 12-45 f/4 has less distorsion than the other two?
Marginal but yes :)
It's a nice kit lens replacement.
Haha...when Jimmy starts swearing, you know the lens is good!
Lots of spam comments suddenly 🤔
In fact, I recognize several of those exact same spam accounts from commenting on my videos...
No idea where they came from, they were also the first to comment too!
thanks
IPX1 is quite low. I think a lot of us have been using our PRO lenses at IPX2 (water from non-vertical angles) or higher (3: able to withstand spray from any angle, or 4: you can splash it)
12-40 cap always annoying me as well! WTH they did not put a release button on the outside of the cap like every other pro lens cap?
It's just slightly smaller with the barrel pushed in...
I already own 12-40 F2,8 PRO and its the best all-round lens i ever had and it fits perfectly to M5 Mark III body with FL-600R flash for handheld photography (which is all i carry with me + extra battery pack, SD card, cleaning cloth).
I have been considering 12-100mm F4 PRO VS 40-150mm F2,8 for months now. The latter one is simply too big, therefore i was aiming for 12-100 F4, but by chance i came along Lumix Vario 35-100.
If someone would be interested, i did few test shots M.Zuiko 12-100 vs Lumix 35-100:
M. Zuiko 12-100 F4 has better contrast, and even when its quite large lens, it does not cast shadow when using FL-600R flash, even on widest zoom.
Lumix Vario 35-100 F2,8 has much better histogram. Out of all three lenses its the smallest and the most lightweight.
I usually find myself in situation where 12-40 is enough. I could pick 12-100 while i would sacrifice portability, weight and one stop of aperture. But in indoor photos i usually do, the matter of using 100mm focal lenght vs doing one-two steps ahead with 40mm and get the framing i want...
Lumix Vario 35-100 or M.Zuiko 40-150 are both 2,8, Lumix has IS while the focal lenght up to 100mm (200mm FF) is from my previous experience all I need for outdoor photography.
"Tracy is looking like a chicken because she has that yellow coat on" cut to Jimmy in bar in yellow coat😅🦅
Wonder where the price will settle in at? Is it worth $399 or $349 or ??? A slower and less sharp lens for a fairly high price --- am I missing something here? - ----- I really like the 45mm f1.8 lens purchased for $249 -- now that's bargain. -Loren
12-45mm corner performance ain't superior. It just has field curvature toward camera, while others are at infinity. You can see the sharpness difference in the corner background building. Where 12-45mm doesn't render details on buildings, while 12-40mm and 12-100mm does have clearly high definition buildings at background.
The 12-40mm as well was better in center when looking the light pole center of frame, even with youtube compression.
I've noticed the same thing. The corner sharpness of 12-45 gets much better if you stop the lens down to f/5.6 according to Peter Forsgard review.
Jimmy: are your rain jacket and gloves special or custom made gear or are they readily available at sporting goods stores? How about Amazon.com or Amazon.ca?
Olympus should have sold much earlier. This is a summit of a micro four-thirds system that pursues compactness and lightness.
Il keep my 12to40 f2.8👍
OH! The 12-45 is sharper than the 12-40? CRAZY!!!!
📝
I'll stick with the 12-40mm f2.8 Pro. You're only saving 128 grams (less than five ounces). Both are good lenses, but I prefer the 2.8.
You do know some Olympus lenses weigh less than 128g? That is the weight of another lens there.
@@robinwong, good point.
I'm 6'3" and weigh 230lbs (104 kg), so I just don't notice it.
@@robinwong Like the 12-32 pany f3.5-5.6 at 70g. If like me you own it and the 12-40 f2.8 Pro the 12-45 is difficult to justify though it is an interesting lens.
How can Olympus call a short range zoom lens of f4 a Pro lens??, it is cheaper lighter smaller with no Fn button no focus clutch and slower than the current f2.8 Olympus standard lens,
I currently have three Olympus mft camera’s, to me this is a kit lens for the O-md e5 mkiii like the Lumix 12-60mm kit lens for Panasonic camera’s.
The same way Canon and Nikon can have f4 pro lenses in the same range I would guess.
The pro distinction is simply based on the fact that it's weather sealed
看到封面写落汤鸡好亲切哈哈哈 I would say f4 is definitely enough for studio work.
so you speak Cantonese.
Yes I do, and Mandarin too, just a bit rusty
Red35 Photography well this lens have not been sold in China yet. I have no idea what its price would be sold in China market.
@@chijollen It will be cheaper in China/HK as you guys don't have VAT. So I guess it will be around 4500-4800 yuan
Thanks掂呀喂
Great! Chinese thumbnail, should make some Cantonese videos
Wait for my channel hahaha... this is an English channel but it won't stop me from speaking it every now and then.
What the heck is this do you want to be you tube friends I am seeing on channels more and more from posters? Anyways when I’m not using my two favorite primes that 12-40 pro is just as sharp as a prime at all f stops and great when I need a little reach. Just not fast enough sometimes in a few situations.
Yes, I understand, that'll probably my take on this lens too. I like it but I am a prime guy but this can be in my bag as it's small. So if I need that flexibility for something, it's there.
3g
36kw
979/980pcl
16:
153/154c
36147E36148c
A 12-45 4.0 pro lens makes no sense on M4/3. I would have loved to see a 12-45 2.0; more Bokeh and greater range. Olympus should have created a 12-45 4.0 prosumer kit lens to replace the 14-42. The 12-40 2.8 is already small and lightweight so it only makes sense to come out with a faster lens with a greater range even at the slight expense of size and weight.
你喜欢吃西洋菜还是家常菜😄
Tough choice man!!!
Red35 Photography 哈哈 thanks for reply me
Hello落湯雞😂
First! :P