OM System 12-45mm f/4 vs. 12-40mm f/2.8

[David]

I'm only interested in hearing from those who have both so if you don't have both (or either) and reply, don't be offended if I ignore you, don't take it personally.

Camera is an OM-5. Going to be traveling abroad and am trying to decide on taking either my 12-45mm f/4 and my 12mm f/2 (for lower light interiors) or the 12-40mm f/2.8 alone.
I can see advantages with either choice. The 12-45mm which I'll be using probably 80+% of the time is a bit smaller/lighter but it means carrying the 12mm f/2 along with me. The 12-40mm on the other hand is not that much heavier and with f/2.8 it's fast enough that I can leave the 12mm at home.

So again, for those who have both, what would you recommend?

 

[gary0319]

I've had/have both and used with my E-M5III and OM-5. My experience is that my copy of the 12-40 f/2.8 was sharpest when stopped down to f/4 whereas my 12-45 is sharp wide open, so no advantage to the f/2.8 for me. Actually, I never found the f/2.8 to be that great for low light and usually ended up with an f/1.8 prime for low light. The 12-45 f/4 is so much lighter that eventually I sold off the 12-40 and have not missed it at all. However, it seemed to me that the 12-40 did better with my 16mpx cameras than with the newer 20 mpx bodies. I really had great results from it with my E-M10 II.... less so with my OM-5.

 

[Downunder]

Interesting to know. When I bought my OM5 I was trying to decide which zoom to mate it with, but decided to stick with the Panasonic GX 12-35 f/2.8 which I had previously with a GX85 kit - that lens was sharp to the pixel into the corners wide open at f/2.8. No regrets. I tend to shoot in A mode wide open at f/2.8 most of the time and it can deliver a modest bokeh on close subjects.

 

[gary0319]

For low light, I've been experimenting using HHHR with the 12-45 on my OM-5. Getting some good results if not too much subject movement .

From the other night...

 

[MEDISN]

I'm only interested in hearing from those who have both so if you don't have both (or either) and reply, don't be offended if I ignore you, don't take it personally.

Camera is an OM-5. Going to be traveling abroad and am trying to decide on taking either my 12-45mm f/4 and my 12mm f/2 (for lower light interiors) or the 12-40mm f/2.8 alone.
I can see advantages with either choice. The 12-45mm which I'll be using probably 80+% of the time is a bit smaller/lighter but it means carrying the 12mm f/2 along with me. The 12-40mm on the other hand is not that much heavier and with f/2.8 it's fast enough that I can leave the 12mm at home.

So again, for those who have both, what would you recommend?

I have owned both lenses...just not at the same time to do comparison. I am with Gary on this one. My choice for travel would be the 12-45/4 + a fast prime of your choice. For indoor work in low light, the Panasonic 15/1.7 or one of the many 25mm compact primes in the system.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I'm only interested in hearing from those who have both so if you don't have both (or either) and reply, don't be offended if I ignore you, don't take it personally.

Camera is an OM-5. Going to be traveling abroad and am trying to decide on taking either my 12-45mm f/4 and my 12mm f/2 (for lower light interiors) or the 12-40mm f/2.8 alone.
I can see advantages with either choice. The 12-45mm which I'll be using probably 80+% of the time is a bit smaller/lighter but it means carrying the 12mm f/2 along with me. The 12-40mm on the other hand is not that much heavier and with f/2.8 it's fast enough that I can leave the 12mm at home.

So again, for those who have both, what would you recommend?

For someone who has historically more interested in telephoto I seem to have developed some sort of addiction to 12mm.

I have the 12/2.0 Limited for a long time and the 12-40/2.8 and 12-100/4.0 IS from more recently. I think that they are all great lenses and the utility value is obvious - they range from fast/compact to versatile/larger. Each is one stop apart and the use-purpose is pretty obvious. You sacrifice lens speed for versatility and sacrificed compact size.

The 12/2.0 is sometime criticised but I paid the premium for the black limited when the cheaper version could only be had in silver. Not sure if the 'Limited' received any special considerations in build quality or QC but I have had no issues with mine.

I cannot see that there are any real issues outside physical size - lens speed - zoom versatility. Only the 12-100/4.0 has image stabilisation and I don't think we really need brain surgeon degrees to see that it is probably the only one of the trio that really needs stabilisation. Image wise they are all quite good.

 

[gary0319]

For someone who has historically more interested in telephoto I seem to have developed some sort of addiction to 12mm.

I have the 12/2.0 Limited for a long time and the 12-40/2.8 and 12-100/4.0 IS from more recently. I think that they are all great lenses and the utility value is obvious - they range from fast/compact to versatile/larger. Each is one stop apart and the use-purpose is pretty obvious. You sacrifice lens speed for versatility and sacrificed compact size.

The 12/2.0 is sometime criticised but I paid the premium for the black limited when the cheaper version could only be had in silver. Not sure if the 'Limited' received any special considerations in build quality or QC but I have had no issues with mine.

I cannot see that there are any real issues outside physical size - lens speed - zoom versatility. Only the 12-100/4.0 has image stabilisation and I don't think we really need brain surgeon degrees to see that it is probably the only one of the trio that really needs stabilisation. Image wise they are all quite good.

However, That dual stabilization of the 12-100 does put it in a class above the IBIS-only of the others, IMO. I'm 79 years old and can hold the 12-100 for about 4 seconds and get good HHHR shots. Pretty hard to duplicate with my 12-45 f/4 where 3 seconds is about the limit.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

However, That dual stabilization of the 12-100 does put it in a class above the IBIS-only of the others, IMO. I'm 79 years old and can hold the 12-100 for about 4 seconds and get good HHHR shots. Pretty hard to duplicate with my 12-45 f/4 where 3 seconds is about the limit.

Another oldie here ....

The 12-100/4.0 is an ideal lens on a GM5 camera body (which has no IBIS of course). Rock steady and no need for dual. In fact on my G9 the lens IS shuts out the G9 and the combo only has the 12-100 Lens IS and is obviously 'just as steady as it is on the GM5'. Which is plenty steady enough for this old fellow ..... But I have not tried HHHR shots and that might test my confidence

 

[gary0319]

Another oldie here ....

The 12-100/4.0 is an ideal lens on a GM5 camera body (which has no IBIS of course). Rock steady and no need for dual. In fact on my G9 the lens IS shuts out the G9 and the combo only has the 12-100 Lens IS and is obviously 'just as steady as it is on the GM5'. Which is plenty steady enough for this old fellow ..... But I have not tried HHHR shots and that might test my confidence

I’m not familiar with the Panasonic HHHR, but the OM version has an internal alignment and stacking algorithm that is pretty close to magical, even adjusting for some minor subject movement.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I’m not familiar with the Panasonic HHHR, but the OM version has an internal alignment and stacking algorithm that is pretty close to magical, even adjusting for some minor subject movement.

Obviously goes somewhere towards offsetting the rah-rah of having a FF sensor. I have always wondered if allowing a smaller sensor to uprate the detail via multiple captures would close the gap of perception. With increasing capture speeds and a sophisticated algorithm it might just be getting there. But I have been using my gear more for quick capture documenting purposes rather than needing high resolution detail of something extra special. Must give it a try just to see for myself.