Guys and girls, let's start a "go fund me" to get Perer Forsgård weather sealed. Poor guy, standing out there in that arctic weather, while we watch sitting in front of a roaring fire, a glass of whiskey in our hand, and the purring cat curled up in our lap. Peter needs our help: if we can't raise enough to get him properly weather sealed, at least we can sponsor a tub of Bear Grease. Laughingly yours, Rick Bear
For me - 12-100/f4 is perfect lens for daily use. Fast , flexible, weather -sealed and with Dual IS. When you really need a fast lens, f 2.8 is usually to dark, so i use backup of small 45/1.8 or 12/2. Zoom 2.8 is "neither fish nor flash".
I really like to see you laughing in the rain that makes you even more sympathetic. Also not looking for pixel peeping but concluding all these three lenses have the same image equality shows us that everybody has to make a choice on his own what lens is the best for his purpose. Greetings from Germany where it is also raining and thank you for your work, Peter.
Hi Peter, thanks for your review. Already owning the 12-100 f4 and 12-40 f2.8, I'm not rushing out to buy the 12-45 f4. I value the 12-40 f2.8 lens being faster in low light and the manual clutch. Having carried the combination of the EM1 and the 12-40 f2.8 lens for 3 months last year journeying from Eastern to Western Canada as well as Alaska, I am more than happy to say this combination was beautifully light. In my opinion, why loose a low light ability and a manual clutch to achieve the loss of a couple of grams? In my view, if a lens were to be classified as heavy, I would have to say my 12-100 f4 for its' size and capability is heavy, to the point I would choose my 40-150 f2.8 instead. Both lenses combined, I have a low light capability, a manual clutch with a reach of 12-150mm, all at f2.8. The 12-150 f2.8 can be fitted with a 2 times teleconverter, achieving 300mm, but at f5.6. The only argument against, is the extra stop of stabilisation using the 12-100 f4 and EM1. I find the EM1's IBIS more than adequate in any situation without using the 12-100 f4. Please keep in mind, this is only my opinion and other lenses my suit other people.
Thanks for the review Peter. Certainly ambitious comparing 3 ‘pro’ lenses in 15 minutes. I wholeheartedly agree that small is beautiful which is why my favourite lens is none of the above. Part two could cover the macro/close focus capabilities of the lenses...
Hi Peter, I already have the 12-100 f4 lens and am very happy with the quality and flexibility of that lens. I would appreciate the lighter weight of the 12-45mm but wouldn't want to sacrifice the focal length range so won't be changing. For me, the strongest argument for either the 12-40 or 40-150mm f 2.8 lenses would not be 'speed' as such but would be bokeh. So a video comparing the bokeh potentials of these three lenses would be interesting.
Currently I'm thinking about getting the 12-45 or the 12-100. In the past I've been using the 14 150 and I was very happy with the focal range just like you said. But I'm not sure if it's too heavy or not...
@@julianrohloff2811 Hey, I know it's really a long time ago but right now I'm struggling to choose between these 3 lenses you mentioned here. How did you decide and did you keep the 14-150?
I moved away from Olympus a little while back due to the uncertainty of where it was going, especially after my local AD dropped the brand. It is great to see it still going strong and being a motorsport shooter I do miss the advantage that m4/3 gives. The 12-100, 100-400, a prime and a macro would be all I ever need. You had me 😂 when you said ‘the camera lady was laughing because she thinks I am funny, but I am not.’
Dear Peter, thanks for the video to compare these 3 lenses. The one I am using is 12100 f4 seemingly the best one of which equipped lens stabilizer and longer focal length however a bit heavier. Again, appreciate your funny acts in the video made the cold and wet in Finland looked lovely.
Peter -- who says that you are not funny?!? Your camera woman recognizes your funniness! And so do we -- at appropriate times of course! Thank you for all of the work comparing these lenses.
Thank you Peter, I was waiting for this test! I used to own the 2.8 12-40 and the 2.8 40-150, sold them both after I bought the 4.0 12-100. I am very happy with my Em1 Mk2 and the 4.0 12-100, now I really break free, because I go out with one lens only, plus it is extremely sharp! I do't think I would consider the new 4.0 12-45 although I can imagine it could be versatile for street photography for example. If I buy a second lens it will probably be one of 1.2 primes, maybe the 1.2 25mm to use indoor in low light situations. Regarding the test I noticed that in one picture of the new 4.0 12-45 the leaves of the palm tree were not so sharp, whereas the 2.8 12-40 and the 4.0 12-100 are both very sharp corner to corner. Thank you for reading, and.. bye for now
If you can handle the lens size properly, then the 12-100 mm F4 with IS stabiliser and focus clutch will be the best choice by all measures, as it covers all photographic situations, including Video Recording.
Hi Peter, the 12-40 F2.8 was on sale for half price in Australia for a short period, which is why it cost less than the new 12-45mm F4. We're back to normal now, so the 12-45 F4 is about $AU1000 and the 12-40 F2.8 is back to $1499. So balance has been restored to the Olympus world!
I sure as hell hope you didn't buy a 12-40 for $1499. It's been around $900AUD for ages, and usually can find cheaper. It would not make any sense to get 12-45 until the price comes down (which I'm sure it will, it's just pricy cuz it's new). eg JB hifi www.jbhifi.com.au/products/olympus-ez-m1240-m-zuiko-digital-ed-12-40mm-f-2-8-pro-lens?gclid=Cj0KCQiAnL7yBRD3ARIsAJp_oLapvKLp2jAw48m24tIl4xMSOumJHJcNzsHWzFr30Gb6iyUw54zrLIUaAuBSEALw_wcB
I already own the 12-40 2.8mm so I'm good. Low light shooting is important to me. I used it 80-90% of the time. Also, I don't have money for another lens that is a little redundant.
The sizes of the two smaller lenses are not that much different, nor are their focal lengths. Therefore I will take the faster 2.8 lens any day. P.s. the sound of the raindrops was very relaxing. Something about a rainy day! 😆
It would've been interesting to have the 12-200 (non-pro, but weather-sealed) in this comparison; most likely worse image quality (unless stopped down somewhat). I'm thinking about having the 12-45 as "everyday" lens, the 12-200 as my "landscape and nature" lens (so taking only the lens with me that suits the purpose best). Hmm …
Peter, I'd strongly suspect that the 12-45mm f/4 lens's "brighter image" is an illusion created by the camera's lens adjustment software. After all, Olympus know this lens's weakness is it's only an f/4, therefore, that's where buyers will be looking for a weakness. By telling the camera software to boost the brightness, they disguise what's really happening, especially if someone put the 12-40mm against the 12-45mm with both lenses at full aperture f/2.8 vs f/4. Making an f/4 image look brighter hides the difference. It's a cheat. Does it matter? No. It doesn't matter, because buyers of PRO grade lenses will know how an aperture affects the usability of a lens. I'm a professional photographer, and I'd welcome the smaller size and weight of the new 12-45mm f/4 for use in assignments where those things matter more than lens brightness. Once again, we're seeing the importance of lens software, over its physical attributes, and this is something we'll see more of in the future. I shall be buying this new 12-45mm f/4 lens to use alongside my existing 12/40mm f/2.8 lens. I also hope that Olympus will release further small and lightweight Semi-PRO lenses in this series. One final point: are Finnish people not weather sealed? Gee, we English guys are weather sealed from birth 😂. Rick Bear
I like the 12-45mm f/4, the 20mm f/1.4, or in good weather I tend to use the 17mm f/1.8, 25mm f/1.8 or 45mm f/1.8 in that order, paired with the OM-5. I'd prefer if there was a bit smaller 17mm or 25mm weather-sealed pro lens at perhaps f/2.
I recently bought the 12-45 as a Black Friday bundle along with my EM5 Mk3. It is my first pro grade lens, so I don't have much of a point of comparison. On a recent trip to photograph lighthouses around lake Michigan, I only pulled out my trusty Tamron 14-150 twice when I wanted significantly more reach. I did still pull out my Laowa 7.5mm a lot because I love dramatic wide shots. I expect my normal travel kit may now consist of the 12-40 and the Laowa. The 12-100 sounds appealing, but it is a lot more money and I like traveling light. I've photographed in some very dim conditions with the 12-45 already.
@@bettylin3787 I believe it was about $1300 USD for the combo. That was now 1 1/2 years ago. I think I saw the same deal last year, however. I've also since obtained a used 12-100 as my default lens.
Very handy comparison Peter, especially seeing the relative sizes of the lenses. I already assumed all 3 lenses would have excellent sharpness corner to corner, so that's not a surprise.
Great review Peter. Weathersealing is important, most of the time i have to stay home beacuse my current camera gear is not weathersealed and that is sad. But one thing is how important is weathersealing amway? I think of the images doesen't look good if the weather is bad and there is no sunlight. But that is if you care about sunlight i guess. I mean that if it is raining it is gray and dark cloud on the sky.
Mats, you make some extremely valid points. I'd say that weather sealing is less important than price for the vast majority of photographers. I used to be an "extreme photographer", so weather sealing was essential. Strapped to the bow of a ship in a Forcec 8 gale, with the seas breaking over you. That's when you rely upon weather sealing to earn your money. These days, I take things easy. Quite soon, I'll probably be a "fair weather" photographer. I don't like getting cold and wet, and (often) can't be bothered with the technicalities of getting pictures in low light. I wouldn't worry too much if I took non-sealed lenses out in the rain. It's the camera body that it's crucial is weather sealed. Anyhow, I like your thinking, Mats. Rick Bear
Mats Brodin there is an absolute gem of an mft weather sealed lens now discontinued by Olympus. It is the 12-50 f3.5-6.3 (f6 at 45mm or f5.8 at 40mm). There’s one for sale on eBay right now for less than a ton.
In Africa dust sealing is such an important thing, before I switched, I used to send gear up to 3 time a year to get cleaned by the manufacturer! Three years of that and your buying new gear... I think those Asian boys visited Africa and decided to build equipment for us. They put the big boys to shame when it comes to weather sealing.
I think weayher sealing is very important in many ways. It does not really matter what the weather is when photographing. Bad weather is quite nice time to photograph, except of course when it is really grey.
I've been looking at the Olympus 2020 lens roadmap and it looks to me like this lens (the 12-45 f4) may be the first of the holy trinity of f4 zooms for landscape photographers. With a wide f4 and long f4 still to come. If you are predominantly a landscape photographer you don't need f2.8 and any size and weight saving that can be made while out hiking with camping gear is most welcome. So even though this lens doesn't save much on size or weight on it's own compared to the f2.8. I suspect there will be a more noticeable size and weight reduction once you can compare the three f4s vs the three f2.8s. Time will tell I guess :)
Last week during Olympus Indonsia's event, i try and hold EM1 III with 12-45mm PRO. The lens really small and light. For the performance, as my eyes sees it Peter, it's on par with 12-40 PRO. But of course with 12-40 PRO we have the benefit of F2.8.
I don't know whether to get the 12-45 and the 40-150 F4 or just the 12-100. I like to do the odd bit of wildlife which you can get at 300mm but 200 is a stretch. I'd only be paying £200 for the 12-45 if I bought it along with the OM5, which I want anyway. The 40-150 is £600. So £800 in total the same as the 12-100 on its own. So more range at the expense of lens swapping and a little more weight in the bag. I do find 150mm surprisingly useful from the plastic fantastic days. Any thoughts?
The 40-150mm F4 is a good lens. I like the size and there really nothing wrong with the image quality. Only thing was the lack of MF-Clutch and of course that it is not compatible with extenders, if I remember correctly. Not a big thing, but MF-Clutch is quite handy. Fron those optiuon for wildlife I would go with the 40-150mm F4. One option is to look fora second hand 40-150 F2.8. It is slight ly bigger, but you can use the MC-14 extender with it.
Thanks. I like the extra reach but I also like not swapping lenses. I'm thinking the 12-45 focuses a bit closer than the others. So that would be useful.
I wish they had made this new lens unique in some ways such as image stabilization, or macro abilities or a wider angle such as 10 mm on the wide end. Although it may be a good lens optically, an f 4 lens with no special characteristics is a big disappointment when there are already great offerings like the 12-40 f 2.8 already available. The one lens I sorely need for my GH5s is a wide angle prime lens with image stabilization, something like a 10 mm f1.8 or even a 12 mm f 2.8. Please some company make this for m43.
What about the Panasoniic 12mm F1.4? No, it's not 8mm or 7.5mm but it is wide and it is fast? I can't remember whether it's has internal IBIS but my guess is that it does.
Oh well.. this is the Helsinki winter these days. You are pretty tough vlogger man to perform on this weather by the coast line, jeez. BTW, I now have the Pana 12-60mm Leica which covers my need here, thanks.
Great comparison ! But no reason for me to order another lens ; thank goodness !! The camera/lens I would love to see Olympus make would be their version of the Lumix Fz300 . While Em1 is the best camera I have owned ; the little Fz300 in the most versatile with 25-600 mm consistent F2.8 lens . IMO; the better travel camera these days is the phone in our pocket. However a few years ago it would have been a camera body and one fixed focal length standard lens that suits my personal needs. Where have you been all my life ? . I'm really enjoying your videos .
Nice review! Thanks! You didn`t mentioned min focus distance for 12-45. It`s 12 cm (actually less) and it`s really good for macro. And now it has realy good price on promo with em-1 mark II. Actually it goes free with body in my country ;)
if I would have to choose today I would make it dependent on the other lenses I have in my bag. As I own the 40-150 pro, the12-100 is not really the best option to me. And I like the faster aperture of the 12-40, f 2.8 was always the minimum aperture for me for a pro zoom lens.
I have the 12-100 and the 40-150. The 12-100 is great - what I would really like is an f4 100-200 or f4 100-250. This would make a better combination and should be smaller and lighter than the 40-150.
Seems to me that the advantages are that it is smaller and lighter than the 12-40mm f2.8. Interestingly though in Australia the f2.8 is cheaper retailing for around AUD699 compared to AUD999 for the 12-45mm f4.0 Therefore in Australia if you want to 'break free' you have to pay a price premium of around 30%. That's alot of money for minor weight and size savings.
I have had the 12-45 f/4 since last May and recently purchased the EM-5 III. I am enjoying the combination a lot particularly because of its light weight; 40% less than the original EM-1 and the 12-60 F/2.8-4 pairing I used for several years. I tend to carry a camera while bicycling, hiking, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing and a light load is less work and interferes less with balance. I was interested in your impression that the 12-45 might really be f3.5, so 1/3 stop faster than advertised. Have you found out anything more to confirm this since you did this three lens comparison? Thanks.
Very interesting as usual and thanks for the info on the palm trees... very strange for Helsinki! I would be interested, and I suspect maybe some others too, as to how much better - as in sharper - the 12-45 is compared to the 14-42ez?
Hi Peter - I love your videos ... great work and informative. Please advise the brand of your gloves - I assume that the grey tips allow you to touch the screen on the camera.
12-100mm has a quite close focusing distance. it is only 20cm. For portraits all these is quite the same. Maybe the 12-40mm has a small advantage. It is a f2.8 lens and has a bit smaller DOF.
I understand a lot of the praise for the 12-45, but there is also an inescapable truth : it replaces the M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50 mm f/3,5-6,3 which had a lot of similarities (pro-level build, weather sealing, close focusing distance, non-rotating front element), some welcomed features that are conspicuously absent from the 12-45 (electronic zoom, L-Fn button, constant size) and some shortcomings (sliding aperture, soft corners at the long end). The 12-50 retailed circa ~300 € (100€ on the 2nd hand market) but is now discontinued. Sadly, the 12-45 is twice as expensive for basically the same use case. This is a major price hike for a little improvement. I would have understood maybe a 25%-50% markup ; but 100% is outrageous. If I were looking for an entry-level transtandard zoom, I would certainly hunt a 12-50 on the classifieds instead of shelling close to the 12-40 price for a consumer-grade lens. The 12-50 was a pro-grade lens at a consumer price. The 12-45 is the reverse : a consumer lens at a pro price.
@@ForsgardPeter : Oh I don't doubt it's a better lens, and it should be ! I'm speaking in terms of lineup. Previously you had the consumer end, 14-42 in its various guises, the prosumer mid-range offering, the 12-50, and the pro option, 12-40. The step up from 14-42 to 12-50 wasn't too steep in price, and offered a compelling reward (weather sealing, pro build, L-Fn switch, electronic and mechanical zoom, macro position, constant size lens, non-rotating front, 2mm more a the wide end and 7mm at the long end...). The 12-50 gave a true taste of the pro offering at a price point consumers could afford. With the 12-50 discontinued, the prosumer offering has shifted away from the consumer end, and the package is less compelling. No more electronic zoom for videos, no more L-Fn switch, no clutch (it was used on the zoom rather than as a MF clutch on the 12-50 but it was there), no constant size. The glass is obviously better and the constant aperture is of course an incredible improvement, but the target market isn't anymore evolving consumers, it's either pros lightening up or advanced amateurs already knowing what they will reap. My worry isn't about the lens itself, it's about the way budding photographers are treated by Olympus. Olympus glass has always been on the expensive side, but the 12-50 was a marked exception paving a way up. The ladder has been removed.
Thanks for the comparison Peter. I still don’t really “get” this lens, but thanks for trying. Your thumbnail sums it up. It’s only slightly smaller, but lacks a lot of features of the other two. Why no MF clutch? BTW, in my testing the 12-40 is slightly sharper and slightly more contrasty than the 12-100. Not that you would notice in normal shooting.
Dear Peter thanks for sharing the video. It is great and interesting like always. I am interested in new lenses and the last one seems very good. I put it in my wish list. Last thing: it is a bad idea to grow a palm tree in Finland I am for sure because I live in Sicily ahahaha ahahahah Ciao from Syracuse Marco
I think of primes being faster that zoom lenses as their main advantage, love the Oly 17mm f1.8. On the subject of f factor many people think of it as apertures (in reality is focal length/aperture ) so when you say that the aperture should not be corrected by the crop factor you are referring to the real aperture right ?
At the moment I have the 14-150 mm zoom (for general outside travel use), the 17mm f1.8 (for inside dimly lit museums/galleries/churches/castles use and for street photography in nice weather), and the 14-42mm kit lens (for casual, portable, use where image quality is no big deal). Given that the 14-150 is weather sealed, is there any great advantage to upgrading to the 12-100 in terms of image quality or something else ? Mostly I use the zoom to zoom in on outside architectural details (statues on churches, wall murals etc) during daylight. The uses which I do not have well covered during travel is 1) zooming inside cathedrals and palaces in dim light and 2) a weatherproof small lens for street photography in cold or wet weather. My camera is an EM5 II. Perhaps I should mention that I am not a pixel peeper, use bokeh only sparingly and only buy lenses for specific purposes not covered by my existing set (not a gear collection addict). Any suggestions as to good lenses to consider given my needs would be appreciated.
You are pretty much covered and it is only about matter of taste. The 12-100 f4 is a pro lens, so the image quality is very good. On the hand the image quality of the 14-150mm is not bad either. The 12-100mm f4 has build in stabiliser and it works together with the IBIS. That could be an improvement?
@@ForsgardPeter Thank you. Good points ! The faster F4 constant max aperture and the in lens stabiliser may indeed be of benefit in dimmer light. I'm thinking that for the inside dim light zooming issue, however, I should maybe consider a longer f1.8 prime or two to supplement my 17mm instead of the 12-100. Inconvenient and risky compared to the 12-100 perhaps since it requires lens changing in sometimes awkward places but would likely give better results I think. Anyway, I will have at least 6 months to think about it before my next trip to Europe :-) Thank you for your advice :-)
It depends on your budget. 12-100 F4 is a great all around lens. What you lose is focal lengths for 101-150mm. If that is something you need then get the combo.
I need a weather sealing but it's a little difficult to make a choice because I already have three fixed lenses (17, 25,45 1.8) for my em5 mark III and I'm happy with it. I hesitate between the 12-45 f4 (completed later by the 40-150 f4-5.6) and the 14-150. With the 12-45mm lens is the focus lost when zoom in and out during video recording ? Is this kind of parfocal lens? Thank you.
In fact, the reason why I won't buy the 12-100 is image quality at 100 (what we can't see on your video of course). Currently I have a G9 and a 12-40 for travel, a 75 for portraits, and a 25 F/1.4 for every day shoot (mainly street photo). And this 75 is so good, even if I decided to go back to FF one day, I'll keep this small and very sharp lens. So all in all 12-40 + 75 is a better combo than only a 12-100 for me.
Good summary of the differences. I've opted for the 12-100mm now as I need versatility more than speed. I have primes for that. Anyone mentioned how hypnotic those grey tips on your gloves are as you gesture? Couldn't take my eyes off them, lol.
I’m still on fence. The 12-45 is cheaper in my area and lighter which is pro but am concerned about lower light. I am getting into star trails so curious if the f2.8 would be that much better than f4? Or can I get by with f4? Cheers!
I’m sure the F4 lens is wonderful but it’s for a limited number of people who use it. And including it with the EM3 makes no sense to get new people into Olympus cameras. They should have included one of the pro primes for the price of that F4 lens with that new EM3.
I don't know if others are experiencing it too but here in Australia, the 12-40 f2.8 just doubled in price. Even on the 2nd hand market, the used lens is now the same price as the original price of a new lens. Does it mean Olympus just boned their customers?
Some one said that the 12-40mm f2.8 has been in sale and now it is back to its normal price. But not sure what is going on with the prices in Australia.
Our old prices varied between 699 to 869 depending on the seller. We can still buy them at these prices. It has been like that for years. Now with the F4 lens, F2.8 went up to 1,499 and F4 is selling at the 800 range. Discounts are usually only temporary.
Thanks Peter for another great video. Really interesting comparison. Best regards from Sweden. P.S you and sultan have the best videos. Concider to invade Finland to make it a part of Sweden again ,-)
The fact that you have to explain why we need the 12-45 F4 makes it doubtful people will buy it. TBH the f2.8 is better in almost every single way. Size difference isn’t significant at all. Why bother?
If i look at the 3 lenses next to each other, the 12-45 and 12-40 are not much different in size. At my camera store in Melbourne, Australia, the 12-40 is A$699 and the new 12-45 is A$999.
@@ForsgardPeter thank you for acknowledging that's crazy in pricing mate. If it were Robin Wong he would have argued that I am the crazy one for douting Olympus' "vision".
So why do I keep hearing that overcast, gloomy days are good for taking photos? Yes -- there are not harsh highlights and deep shadows to deal with -- but aren't those part of the challenge of taking photos? I love taking photos in strong sunlight -- to pick out the detail in objects, and try to get the exposure (especially with film) to give me most of the image but without blowing out the highlights. Shooting in overcast just seems so dull and gloomy -- the objects in the photo blend together, there isn't much to make specific objects standout. Or maybe I am missing something! Help!!!
@@ForsgardPeter -- OK. Well, enlighten me on what you think would help my "attitude" about shooting photos under overcast/"gloomy" skies? Much of this time of year in my area (Maryland, USA, near Baltimore) tends to be cloudy, overcast, sometimes rainy, occasionally snowy. And I spend a lot less time out taking photos due to my personal preference for sunny skies. But what are some challenges, subjects, compositions which you seek out in overcast weather? Where it's not all "50 shades of grey" but where subjects actually benefit from the duller, more even lighting? Thanks!
@@ForsgardPeter I am really excited by this lens as it fits in with all the values that I see in Olympus, My OM1n was the most compact slr and this lens will fit with that vision. I would like the 12-100 pro but it's just too big. This will be a good lens on my pen-f too
a) You, Robin Wong and me we all took M5 Mark III ... You claim that its a great match for 12-45mm F4 Pro, while using a grip. Robin claims the same without a grip. I claim that M5 Mark III was for me a larger body on itself (compared to my original M10) which allows me to handle 12-40 F2,8 much easier, even without a grip. b) Size vs Aperture vs IS This is a good point. 12-45 F4 is the smallest, i might probably miss MF clutch. 12-40 F2,8 is still for me the best all round zoom lens. 12-100 F4 is the largest, but on top of its zoom range offers IS which compensates with 1 stop of aperture. On 12-100 F4 the additional IS makes of course the most sense. Interestingly, M5 Mark III was recommended to be used with the largest lens in this comparison... and so much that optical IS was sometimes added on review sites to IBIS. M1 Mark III was surprisingly released with the smallest zoom lens and most reviewers received sample kits with it.
I have no idea why they bothered with the 12-45 f4 when it was already covered. They ought to have spent the R&D on something they do not have, rather than duplicating something they do. the weight difference and size difference is so insignificant as to be irrelevant.
Irrelevant on it's own maybe, but I think we may have the beginning of an f4 set. It wouldn't surprise me to see both a wider f4 zoom and a longer f4 zoom to make the holy trinity of f4 landscape lenses. These together could be a much smaller and lighter package than the current f2.8 set. It'll be interesting to see what happens next.
A new f4 lens line-up can be something that Olympus is giving us. There are two more zooms in the lens road map. Then there is the already announced 100-400m.
@@ForsgardPeter I would love a smaller/lighter 7-18 or so f4 lens. I love wide angle but the 7-14 f2.8 is too pricey/heavy for me. Been eye-ing the panasonic 8-18mm but maybe will hold out for a bit longer.
I have just bought (but not received yet!) my 12-45/4.0 lens - to complement my 12-40/2.8 lens. Well, your comparison of them at F5.6 is useless to me: I want to know what my trusty 12-40 is at 2.8 vs the newer and smaller 12-45. It is well expected that at 5.6 they are very similar. Well, I will find out soon myself.
I think choice is always a good thing. Too bad the 12-45mm couldn't be just a bit smaller. I've basically stopped using the 12-40mm since I got my 12-100mm for travel. Funnily enough when I go travelling I pair the 12-100mm with the panasonic 12-32mm pancake lens for when I want something super small/light when I go to the restaurants etc for casual snaps (it's quite a good lens at the wide end). Many ppl will like pairing their 12-100 with the 12-45 in the future I'm sure for travelling. I will also be recommending the 12-45mm to my friends who are starting out with an e-m10 etc (once the price comes down of course).
I also have the Panasonic 12-32 as a light alternative to the 12-40 2.8, wouldn't have bought it outright but it came with my GX7, but it's great for what it is. I haven't used it much but on the GX7 it's pocket sized, whereas the 12-40 feels more at home on my EM5 MII (both being the "kit" lens for both my respective ageing bodies!). Having both these makes the 12-45 redundant to me, but can see why others would buy it as a compromise single lens between the 2.8 of the 12-40 and the tiny size of the 12-32 (or other similar "kit" type lens). I'm torn with selling my 12-40 (which I almost exclusively use for travel) and getting the 12-100 to replace when I can afford it. But I love the 12-40 so thinking of getting the non Pro 12-200 instead to replace it for my main "outside" travel (where I don't need the 2.8 or even 4.0) but taking the 12-40 for "inside" shots of museums/cathedrals/etc where the woefully short 40mm isn't so limiting but the 2.8 is quite useful. The price difference between the 12-200 and 12-100 is about what I can get for selling the 12-40, plus getting the former means I keep the lovely 12-40 😁 Did you try the 12-200 before you got the 12-100? If it's reasonably sharp up to 150mm or even 100mm it still seems a much better travel lens, especially for the money, or at least for me as I seem to only go on bright holidays (sunny countries) lately... This is mainly a question to you as I think I asked Peter something similar a long time ago, and still hoping he one day gets time to do a direct comparison between them 😊
@@stuartnelson3202 unfortunately I've never used the 12-200mm. However I've never been very impressed with super-zooms. I started out in photography with a Nikon D90 and 18-200mm lens, and I still remember the first time I took photos with my new (bought much cheaper than the 18-200mm) sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 lens and the contrast and sharpness blew me away even on the back of the camera screen! It was the same when I moved into full frame cameras. Looking at the online review sample images it appears the corner sharpness falloff for the 12-200mm is very quick and you have to stop down dramatically (f8 etc) to get decent mid (not even edge) sharpness. (One can talk about pixel peeping etc, but tbh if I didn't care about some form of sharpness, I would just take photos with my phone's 3 lenses and be done with it..) Keep in mind also how fast it stops down as you zoom. Here's a quote: "Unfortunately, the aperture narrows down very quickly as you zoom in, dropping to f/4.1 by 15mm, f/5 by 31mm and f/5.6 at 45mm. By 112mm, the lens is at its slowest maximum aperture of f/6.3." So at 100mm its almost 1.5 stops slower than the 12-100mm. I guess the question is always this: how much zoom do you need, and how much are you willing to give up for it? tbh I think 100mm is already plenty (and hardly used to me). If you don't zoom much, maybe just add a light zoom lens to your 12-40 (eg. 40-150mm f4.5-5.6)? Btw the 12-100mm was the first "super-zoom" that reviewers were saying was as sharp as the 12-40 and primes etc. And I agree with that. Also I can handhold it for 2-3second shots without trying, and usually reach up to 4-6seconds when I try (or if I brace myself against something), which I can't do with my 12-40mm. Let's just say I didn't miss the f2.8 for my interior photos when I traveled, and preferred the extra dof of the f4 actually. Finally, I note that the 12-200mm ain't that cheap either.. I actually bought the 12-100mm for a very good price and had a 20% ebay discount (for a local product, not grey market). So I can probably sell it second hand right now and get more $ than I bought it for :) All the best with your difficult decision. Just note that I have not met or read about a single person who regretted their 12-100mm purchase, despite the $ :)
@@kevinvo6144 thanks for the reply! I guess it's highly going to depend on the price difference when I go to buy it and my budget. My (albeit limited!) experience tells me if it's nearly useable at 200 then it'll be at least useable at 100. When I looked at the pictures quite some time back it seemed soft at 200 while the 100 pictures seemed pretty good. But there's probably a lot more pictures out there now as that wasn't long after the lens came out. My main buying thought is if it's useable to 100 it still covers the range of the 12-100 (even though it's obviously not going to be as good as that lens!) so if it's significantly cheaper at the time it's a no brainer (for my purposes) even without the extra reach which is a bonus. I've found I often need a bit more than the upper end of the 12-40 while on holiday, even if it's just to 60 or 80. Perhaps I'll just end up buying the Panasonic 12-60 or one of the 14-150 type lenses, the problem with the latter being I'll probably moan that the 14 isn't wide enough then 😂 (sometimes I find even the 12 isn't ideal but still no where near as often as the 40 isn't enough reach and sometimes I find it woefully short). I have to admit the thought of having a magical lens that does a massive range is clouding my vision somewhat... But I think I'm going to have to rethink closer to the time.
I have the M.Zuiko 14 - 150 on my omd mk2. I would like to see a comparison between it and any M.Zuiko Pro lens. I recently watched a comparison between a kit lens and a pro lens on a cannon camera. Two of the three tests showed essentially the same results. ua-cam.com/video/wsGmn0sVZ8Y/v-deo.html
@@bestpix100 Peter CLEARLY said that if you own one of the three lenses there is no need for another!!!! Please watch the video again I think you missed some important details...
Kind of weird, that you need to explain why Olympus created 12-45 . In case of 12-40 it's self-explanatory, 12-100 same story. 12-45, let's say, not the first thing that you need, you don't loose much if you just skip this lense. IMHO.
And I thought i was the only one crazy enough to make a video even when it was raining! Maybe I should show off my Olympus umbrella.
You have an Olympus umbrella and do not use it! Over there it is at least a lot warmer when it rains, here Finland it is usually really cold!
I was thinking the poor bugga's home didn't have walls, or a roof :lol: . Very different world to mine (Outback Australia)
Guys and girls, let's start a "go fund me" to get Perer Forsgård weather sealed. Poor guy, standing out there in that arctic weather, while we watch sitting in front of a roaring fire, a glass of whiskey in our hand, and the purring cat curled up in our lap. Peter needs our help: if we can't raise enough to get him properly weather sealed, at least we can sponsor a tub of Bear Grease.
Laughingly yours,
Rick Bear
Watch the Appel comparison video, he sends out a duplicate Peter to film outside. Besides the guy has a orange umbrella.
😂, good stuff.
A Liberal spreading of goose grease will not only insulate him but will provide di-hydrogen monoxyde protection too!
For me - 12-100/f4 is perfect lens for daily use. Fast , flexible, weather -sealed and with Dual IS. When you really need a fast lens, f 2.8 is usually to dark, so i use backup of small 45/1.8 or 12/2.
Zoom 2.8 is "neither fish nor flash".
In English, we usually say that something is "neither fish nor fowl." 😉
I really like to see you laughing in the rain that makes you even more sympathetic. Also not looking for pixel peeping but concluding all these three lenses have the same image equality shows us that everybody has to make a choice on his own what lens is the best for his purpose. Greetings from Germany where it is also raining and thank you for your work, Peter.
Thanks. Yes, you are right everyone has to make their decision based on their needs.
Hi Peter, thanks for your review. Already owning the 12-100 f4 and 12-40 f2.8, I'm not rushing out to buy the 12-45 f4. I value the 12-40 f2.8 lens being faster in low light and the manual clutch. Having carried the combination of the EM1 and the 12-40 f2.8 lens for 3 months last year journeying from Eastern to Western Canada as well as Alaska, I am more than happy to say this combination was beautifully light. In my opinion, why loose a low light ability and a manual clutch to achieve the loss of a couple of grams? In my view, if a lens were to be classified as heavy, I would have to say my 12-100 f4 for its' size and capability is heavy, to the point I would choose my 40-150 f2.8 instead. Both lenses combined, I have a low light capability, a manual clutch with a reach of 12-150mm, all at f2.8. The 12-150 f2.8 can be fitted with a 2 times teleconverter, achieving 300mm, but at f5.6. The only argument against, is the extra stop of stabilisation using the 12-100 f4 and EM1. I find the EM1's IBIS more than adequate in any situation without using the 12-100 f4. Please keep in mind, this is only my opinion and other lenses my suit other people.
Thanks for the review Peter. Certainly ambitious comparing 3 ‘pro’ lenses in 15 minutes.
I wholeheartedly agree that small is beautiful which is why my favourite lens is none of the above.
Part two could cover the macro/close focus capabilities of the lenses...
Hi Peter, I already have the 12-100 f4 lens and am very happy with the quality and flexibility of that lens. I would appreciate the lighter weight of the 12-45mm but wouldn't want to sacrifice the focal length range so won't be changing. For me, the strongest argument for either the 12-40 or 40-150mm f 2.8 lenses would not be 'speed' as such but would be bokeh. So a video comparing the bokeh potentials of these three lenses would be interesting.
Currently I'm thinking about getting the 12-45 or the 12-100. In the past I've been using the 14 150 and I was very happy with the focal range just like you said. But I'm not sure if it's too heavy or not...
@@julianrohloff2811 Hey, I know it's really a long time ago but right now I'm struggling to choose between these 3 lenses you mentioned here. How did you decide and did you keep the 14-150?
I moved away from Olympus a little while back due to the uncertainty of where it was going, especially after my local AD dropped the brand. It is great to see it still going strong and being a motorsport shooter I do miss the advantage that m4/3 gives. The 12-100, 100-400, a prime and a macro would be all I ever need.
You had me 😂 when you said ‘the camera lady was laughing because she thinks I am funny, but I am not.’
Dear Peter, thanks for the video to compare these 3 lenses. The one I am using is 12100 f4 seemingly the best one of which equipped lens stabilizer and longer focal length however a bit heavier. Again, appreciate your funny acts in the video made the cold and wet in Finland looked lovely.
Thanks.
Nice review. If I get a new lens for the M1 I guess it will be the 12-40 2.8.
Peter -- who says that you are not funny?!? Your camera woman recognizes your funniness! And so do we -- at appropriate times of course! Thank you for all of the work comparing these lenses.
Thanks.
Peter, the BEST PART of this video was you laughing. I'm glad you didn't edit it out. Keep smiling and laughing!
Thank you Peter, I was waiting for this test!
I used to own the 2.8 12-40 and the 2.8 40-150, sold them both after I bought the 4.0 12-100. I am very happy with my Em1 Mk2 and the 4.0 12-100, now I really break free, because I go out with one lens only, plus it is extremely sharp! I do't think I would consider the new 4.0 12-45 although I can imagine it could be versatile for street photography for example. If I buy a second lens it will probably be one of 1.2 primes, maybe the 1.2 25mm to use indoor in low light situations. Regarding the test I noticed that in one picture of the new 4.0 12-45 the leaves of the palm tree were not so sharp, whereas the 2.8 12-40 and the 4.0 12-100 are both very sharp corner to corner.
Thank you for reading, and.. bye for now
If you have the 12-100 f4 then a fast prime, either the 1.8 or the 1.2 version, on the side is a better idea.
If you can handle the lens size properly, then the 12-100 mm F4 with IS stabiliser and focus clutch will be the best choice by all measures, as it covers all photographic situations, including Video Recording.
Greetings from South Africa.
Thanks Peter, a fantastic review as always. I really respect your opinion on olympus gear.
Hoepfner
Hoepfner Husselmann Good to know not the only S’African that enjoy Peter and Olympus
Thank you both.
I went with the 12-45mm f/4 because it's compact and has the best close focus. The telephoto end of the range is adequate for general photography.
I can't really see the point of the 12-45 unless it's significantly cheaper than the 12-40.
I agree that it should be cheaper. The size difference is there and that is a thing for some.
In Canada the 12-45 is significantly cheaper than the 12-40 ($850 vs $1,200 Canadian dollars).
Hi Peter, I love your videos. And NOW I love when you're laughing from time to time. Do more videos like this, because sometimes you're too serious.
Thanks, I try to do that more, but I am a serious guy so it is not that easy.
Hi Peter, the 12-40 F2.8 was on sale for half price in Australia for a short period, which is why it cost less than the new 12-45mm F4. We're back to normal now, so the 12-45 F4 is about $AU1000 and the 12-40 F2.8 is back to $1499. So balance has been restored to the Olympus world!
I sure as hell hope you didn't buy a 12-40 for $1499. It's been around $900AUD for ages, and usually can find cheaper. It would not make any sense to get 12-45 until the price comes down (which I'm sure it will, it's just pricy cuz it's new).
eg JB hifi www.jbhifi.com.au/products/olympus-ez-m1240-m-zuiko-digital-ed-12-40mm-f-2-8-pro-lens?gclid=Cj0KCQiAnL7yBRD3ARIsAJp_oLapvKLp2jAw48m24tIl4xMSOumJHJcNzsHWzFr30Gb6iyUw54zrLIUaAuBSEALw_wcB
That sounds better!
Thank you for you thoughts.
Any chance of side by side images at 100%?
That would have been good, but unfortunately not this time, at least not just right now.
I already own the 12-40 2.8mm so I'm good. Low light shooting is important to me. I used it 80-90% of the time. Also, I don't have money for another lens that is a little redundant.
If you already have the 12-40mm f2.8, you most likely do not need the 12-45mm f4 lens.
@@ForsgardPeter most certainly don't need
The sizes of the two smaller lenses are not that much different, nor are their focal lengths. Therefore I will take the faster 2.8 lens any day. P.s. the sound of the raindrops was very relaxing. Something about a rainy day! 😆
I agree, the sound of rain was nice. For smaller bodies the f4 version is quite nice.
It would've been interesting to have the 12-200 (non-pro, but weather-sealed) in this comparison; most likely worse image quality (unless stopped down somewhat). I'm thinking about having the 12-45 as "everyday" lens, the 12-200 as my "landscape and nature" lens (so taking only the lens with me that suits the purpose best). Hmm …
The 12-200mm would have been good in this comparison. Unfortunately I dnot have the lens at the moment.
Peter,
I'd strongly suspect that the 12-45mm f/4 lens's "brighter image" is an illusion created by the camera's lens adjustment software. After all, Olympus know this lens's weakness is it's only an f/4, therefore, that's where buyers will be looking for a weakness. By telling the camera software to boost the brightness, they disguise what's really happening, especially if someone put the 12-40mm against the 12-45mm with both lenses at full aperture f/2.8 vs f/4. Making an f/4 image look brighter hides the difference. It's a cheat.
Does it matter? No. It doesn't matter, because buyers of PRO grade lenses will know how an aperture affects the usability of a lens. I'm a professional photographer, and I'd welcome the smaller size and weight of the new 12-45mm f/4 for use in assignments where those things matter more than lens brightness.
Once again, we're seeing the importance of lens software, over its physical attributes, and this is something we'll see more of in the future.
I shall be buying this new 12-45mm f/4 lens to use alongside my existing 12/40mm f/2.8 lens. I also hope that Olympus will release further small and lightweight Semi-PRO lenses in this series.
One final point: are Finnish people not weather sealed? Gee, we English guys are weather sealed from birth 😂.
Rick Bear
Not sure if the bit brighter is that. The camera would need a firmware upgrade? Most likely it is that the T-value is different?
@@ForsgardPeter that's possible, Peter. Anyway, however they've done it, it looks like a useful purchase. -- Rick
I like the 12-45mm f/4, the 20mm f/1.4, or in good weather I tend to use the 17mm f/1.8, 25mm f/1.8 or 45mm f/1.8 in that order, paired with the OM-5. I'd prefer if there was a bit smaller 17mm or 25mm weather-sealed pro lens at perhaps f/2.
Have you done, or considered doing a Olympus 12 - 100mm F4 PRO vs Olympus 12-40 F2.8/ Olympus 40 - 150mm F4.0 battle?
Unfortunately I do not have those lenses anymore.
I recently bought the 12-45 as a Black Friday bundle along with my EM5 Mk3. It is my first pro grade lens, so I don't have much of a point of comparison. On a recent trip to photograph lighthouses around lake Michigan, I only pulled out my trusty Tamron 14-150 twice when I wanted significantly more reach. I did still pull out my Laowa 7.5mm a lot because I love dramatic wide shots. I expect my normal travel kit may now consist of the 12-40 and the Laowa. The 12-100 sounds appealing, but it is a lot more money and I like traveling light. I've photographed in some very dim conditions with the 12-45 already.
Hi, if you don’t mind me asking. How much was the lens/camera during Black Friday? That’s the exact combo that I’m interested in. Thank you!
@@bettylin3787 I believe it was about $1300 USD for the combo. That was now 1 1/2 years ago. I think I saw the same deal last year, however. I've also since obtained a used 12-100 as my default lens.
Very handy comparison Peter, especially seeing the relative sizes of the lenses. I already assumed all 3 lenses would have excellent sharpness corner to corner, so that's not a surprise.
Nothing wrong with the IQ. So if a zoom with this range is needed, then there are other things that matter.
For holiday: 12-100mm, home: 12-45mm & 40-150mm (f3.5-6.3)
Poor Peter. So cold and wet you nearly left the camera behind 😂. Appreciate your dedication to bringing us these videos 👍
Thanks. 😀
Great review Peter.
Weathersealing is important, most of the time i have to stay home beacuse my current camera gear is not weathersealed and that is sad. But one thing is how important is weathersealing amway? I think of the images doesen't look good if the weather is bad and there is no sunlight. But that is if you care about sunlight i guess. I mean that if it is raining it is gray and dark cloud on the sky.
Mats, you make some extremely valid points. I'd say that weather sealing is less important than price for the vast majority of photographers.
I used to be an "extreme photographer", so weather sealing was essential. Strapped to the bow of a ship in a Forcec 8 gale, with the seas breaking over you. That's when you rely upon weather sealing to earn your money.
These days, I take things easy. Quite soon, I'll probably be a "fair weather" photographer. I don't like getting cold and wet, and (often) can't be bothered with the technicalities of getting pictures in low light.
I wouldn't worry too much if I took non-sealed lenses out in the rain. It's the camera body that it's crucial is weather sealed.
Anyhow, I like your thinking, Mats.
Rick Bear
Mats Brodin there is an absolute gem of an mft weather sealed lens now discontinued by Olympus. It is the 12-50 f3.5-6.3 (f6 at 45mm or f5.8 at 40mm). There’s one for sale on eBay right now for less than a ton.
In Africa dust sealing is such an important thing, before I switched, I used to send gear up to 3 time a year to get cleaned by the manufacturer! Three years of that and your buying new gear... I think those Asian boys visited Africa and decided to build equipment for us. They put the big boys to shame when it comes to weather sealing.
I think weayher sealing is very important in many ways. It does not really matter what the weather is when photographing. Bad weather is quite nice time to photograph, except of course when it is really grey.
I have the 12-40 but have ordered the 12-45. A small kit is what I am looking for and if the f4 does the job the f2.8 is going.
I've been looking at the Olympus 2020 lens roadmap and it looks to me like this lens (the 12-45 f4) may be the first of the holy trinity of f4 zooms for landscape photographers. With a wide f4 and long f4 still to come. If you are predominantly a landscape photographer you don't need f2.8 and any size and weight saving that can be made while out hiking with camping gear is most welcome. So even though this lens doesn't save much on size or weight on it's own compared to the f2.8. I suspect there will be a more noticeable size and weight reduction once you can compare the three f4s vs the three f2.8s. Time will tell I guess :)
That is true that for landscape photography this lens is also very good. As you say 2.8 is not much needed.
Last week during Olympus Indonsia's event, i try and hold EM1 III with 12-45mm PRO. The lens really small and light. For the performance, as my eyes sees it Peter, it's on par with 12-40 PRO. But of course with 12-40 PRO we have the benefit of F2.8.
Choosing a lens is always a compromise.
I don't know whether to get the 12-45 and the 40-150 F4 or just the 12-100.
I like to do the odd bit of wildlife which you can get at 300mm but 200 is a stretch.
I'd only be paying £200 for the 12-45 if I bought it along with the OM5, which I want anyway.
The 40-150 is £600.
So £800 in total the same as the 12-100 on its own.
So more range at the expense of lens swapping and a little more weight in the bag.
I do find 150mm surprisingly useful from the plastic fantastic days.
Any thoughts?
The 40-150mm F4 is a good lens. I like the size and there really nothing wrong with the image quality. Only thing was the lack of MF-Clutch and of course that it is not compatible with extenders, if I remember correctly. Not a big thing, but MF-Clutch is quite handy.
Fron those optiuon for wildlife I would go with the 40-150mm F4. One option is to look fora second hand 40-150 F2.8. It is slight ly bigger, but you can use the MC-14 extender with it.
Thanks.
I like the extra reach but I also like not swapping lenses.
I'm thinking the 12-45 focuses a bit closer than the others.
So that would be useful.
I wish they had made this new lens unique in some ways such as image stabilization, or macro abilities or a wider angle such as 10 mm on the wide end. Although it may be a good lens optically, an f 4 lens with no special characteristics is a big disappointment when there are already great offerings like the 12-40 f 2.8 already available. The one lens I sorely need for my GH5s is a wide angle prime lens with image stabilization, something like a 10 mm f1.8 or even a 12 mm f 2.8. Please some company make this for m43.
What about the Panasoniic 12mm F1.4? No, it's not 8mm or 7.5mm but it is wide and it is fast? I can't remember whether it's has internal IBIS but my guess is that it does.
Chris Hoyt it doesn’t have ibis.
Good point, for me a super small 10-20 f4, pro IQ , no stab clutch or fn button,
Oh well.. this is the Helsinki winter these days. You are pretty tough vlogger man to perform on this weather by the coast line, jeez. BTW, I now have the Pana 12-60mm Leica which covers my need here, thanks.
Great comparison ! But no reason for me to order another lens ; thank goodness !!
The camera/lens I would love to see Olympus make would be their version of the Lumix Fz300 . While Em1 is the best camera I have owned ; the little Fz300 in the most versatile with 25-600 mm consistent F2.8 lens .
IMO; the better travel camera these days is the phone in our pocket. However a few years ago it would have been a camera body and one fixed focal length standard lens that suits my personal needs.
Where have you been all my life ? . I'm really enjoying your videos .
Thank you!
My travelling lenses for now are 12-200 and 100-400 mm lenses combined with omd em1 mark ii. /Niklas
Yes, Peter, you can be funny ! Made me chuckle. Agree that weather sealing and the MF clutch are Major Olympus benefits !
Thanks.
Nice review! Thanks! You didn`t mentioned min focus distance for 12-45. It`s 12 cm (actually less) and it`s really good for macro. And now it has realy good price on promo with em-1 mark II. Actually it goes free with body in my country ;)
Sounds like a good deal. Actually all those three lenses are quite good lenses for close-up.
if I would have to choose today I would make it dependent on the other lenses I have in my bag. As I own the 40-150 pro, the12-100 is not really the best option to me. And I like the faster aperture of the 12-40, f 2.8 was always the minimum aperture for me for a pro zoom lens.
Rom Meyer I agree with you. 👍
I have the 12-40 f2.8 and is looking foreward to get a 40-150 f4.0 - anyway around that size and a lot more lightweight.
Rom Meyer Once you try the 12-100 f/4 there is no going back. I have the 40-150 f2.8 too, but the wider low end and the IS is hard to beat!
I have the 12-100 and the 40-150. The 12-100 is great - what I would really like is an f4 100-200 or f4 100-250. This would make a better combination and should be smaller and lighter than the 40-150.
Seems to me that the advantages are that it is smaller and lighter than the 12-40mm f2.8. Interestingly though in Australia the f2.8 is cheaper retailing for around AUD699 compared to AUD999 for the 12-45mm f4.0 Therefore in Australia if you want to 'break free' you have to pay a price premium of around 30%. That's alot of money for minor weight and size savings.
I do not understand how the price of the 12-45mm f4 is more than the price of 12-40mm f2.8.
I have had the 12-45 f/4 since last May and recently purchased the EM-5 III. I am enjoying the combination a lot particularly because of its light weight; 40% less than the original EM-1 and the 12-60 F/2.8-4 pairing I used for several years. I tend to carry a camera while bicycling, hiking, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing and a light load is less work and interferes less with balance. I was interested in your impression that the 12-45 might really be f3.5, so 1/3 stop faster than advertised. Have you found out anything more to confirm this since you did this three lens comparison? Thanks.
Hi Peter good comparison review of the Olympus standard zoom lenses
Thanks.
And then there's the old 12-50 mm lens. Perhaps overlooked and under-rated?
12-50mm is just that.
Thank you for the comparison!
Very interesting as usual and thanks for the info on the palm trees... very strange for Helsinki! I would be interested, and I suspect maybe some others too, as to how much better - as in sharper - the 12-45 is compared to the 14-42ez?
Comparing the 14-42mm EZ with the new 12-45mm f4 lens could a good idea. Lets see what I can do about that.
Hi Peter - I love your videos ... great work and informative. Please advise the brand of your gloves - I assume that the grey tips allow you to touch the screen on the camera.
Yes, they are great with touch screens. I got those from Olympus, but there must other option available too.
How about: „Makro“ & Portrait?
12-100mm has a quite close focusing distance. it is only 20cm. For portraits all these is quite the same. Maybe the 12-40mm has a small advantage. It is a f2.8 lens and has a bit smaller DOF.
I understand a lot of the praise for the 12-45, but there is also an inescapable truth : it replaces the M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50 mm f/3,5-6,3 which had a lot of similarities (pro-level build, weather sealing, close focusing distance, non-rotating front element), some welcomed features that are conspicuously absent from the 12-45 (electronic zoom, L-Fn button, constant size) and some shortcomings (sliding aperture, soft corners at the long end). The 12-50 retailed circa ~300 € (100€ on the 2nd hand market) but is now discontinued.
Sadly, the 12-45 is twice as expensive for basically the same use case. This is a major price hike for a little improvement. I would have understood maybe a 25%-50% markup ; but 100% is outrageous.
If I were looking for an entry-level transtandard zoom, I would certainly hunt a 12-50 on the classifieds instead of shelling close to the 12-40 price for a consumer-grade lens.
The 12-50 was a pro-grade lens at a consumer price. The 12-45 is the reverse : a consumer lens at a pro price.
I have tested the 12-50mm f3.5-5.6. It had its place and it is not a bad lens. The 12-45mm f4 is a better lens.
@@ForsgardPeter : Oh I don't doubt it's a better lens, and it should be ! I'm speaking in terms of lineup. Previously you had the consumer end, 14-42 in its various guises, the prosumer mid-range offering, the 12-50, and the pro option, 12-40. The step up from 14-42 to 12-50 wasn't too steep in price, and offered a compelling reward (weather sealing, pro build, L-Fn switch, electronic and mechanical zoom, macro position, constant size lens, non-rotating front, 2mm more a the wide end and 7mm at the long end...). The 12-50 gave a true taste of the pro offering at a price point consumers could afford.
With the 12-50 discontinued, the prosumer offering has shifted away from the consumer end, and the package is less compelling. No more electronic zoom for videos, no more L-Fn switch, no clutch (it was used on the zoom rather than as a MF clutch on the 12-50 but it was there), no constant size. The glass is obviously better and the constant aperture is of course an incredible improvement, but the target market isn't anymore evolving consumers, it's either pros lightening up or advanced amateurs already knowing what they will reap.
My worry isn't about the lens itself, it's about the way budding photographers are treated by Olympus. Olympus glass has always been on the expensive side, but the 12-50 was a marked exception paving a way up. The ladder has been removed.
Thanks for the comparison Peter. I still don’t really “get” this lens, but thanks for trying. Your thumbnail sums it up. It’s only slightly smaller, but lacks a lot of features of the other two. Why no MF clutch? BTW, in my testing the 12-40 is slightly sharper and slightly more contrasty than the 12-100. Not that you would notice in normal shooting.
Did not really see any difference other than the 12-45 f4 lens producing slightly brighter image with same settings.
Do not forget the 4/3 lens 14-54 F2.8-3.5 , a bit larger and heavier but with more reach
Have not had the chance to test the 4/3 lenses. They are hard to get.
Dear Peter thanks for sharing the video. It is great and interesting like always. I am interested in new lenses and the last one seems very good. I put it in my wish list.
Last thing: it is a bad idea to grow a palm tree in Finland I am for sure because I live in Sicily ahahaha ahahahah
Ciao from Syracuse
Marco
Hi Peter. I am waiting in the next days for 12-45 to use it on my Lumix gx9... 12-60 leica is too big.
I think of primes being faster that zoom lenses as their main advantage, love the Oly 17mm f1.8. On the subject of f factor many people think of it as apertures (in reality is focal length/aperture ) so when you say that the aperture should not be corrected by the crop factor you are referring to the real aperture right ?
I was referring to the exposure.
The Olympus visionnaires are weather sealed too. I definitely have to have one of these cameras :)
I can speak only about my weather sealing and it is not very good. But nothing much can be done up here in the North.
I can buy 1240pro with 3500HKD while 1245 f4 price is over 5000HKD
Venttac K that will change soon and prices will reverse.
Venttac K yeah, doesn’t make sense right? A fool would only buy the F4 over the 2.8
At the moment I have the 14-150 mm zoom (for general outside travel use), the 17mm f1.8 (for inside dimly lit museums/galleries/churches/castles use and for street photography in nice weather), and the 14-42mm kit lens (for casual, portable, use where image quality is no big deal). Given that the 14-150 is weather sealed, is there any great advantage to upgrading to the 12-100 in terms of image quality or something else ? Mostly I use the zoom to zoom in on outside architectural details (statues on churches, wall murals etc) during daylight. The uses which I do not have well covered during travel is 1) zooming inside cathedrals and palaces in dim light and 2) a weatherproof small lens for street photography in cold or wet weather. My camera is an EM5 II. Perhaps I should mention that I am not a pixel peeper, use bokeh only sparingly and only buy lenses for specific purposes not covered by my existing set (not a gear collection addict). Any suggestions as to good lenses to consider given my needs would be appreciated.
You are pretty much covered and it is only about matter of taste. The 12-100 f4 is a pro lens, so the image quality is very good. On the hand the image quality of the 14-150mm is not bad either. The 12-100mm f4 has build in stabiliser and it works together with the IBIS. That could be an improvement?
@@ForsgardPeter Thank you. Good points ! The faster F4 constant max aperture and the in lens stabiliser may indeed be of benefit in dimmer light. I'm thinking that for the inside dim light zooming issue, however, I should maybe consider a longer f1.8 prime or two to supplement my 17mm instead of the 12-100. Inconvenient and risky compared to the 12-100 perhaps since it requires lens changing in sometimes awkward places but would likely give better results I think. Anyway, I will have at least 6 months to think about it before my next trip to Europe :-) Thank you for your advice :-)
I can't decide how to choose between 12-100f4 and 12-40f2.8+40-150 f4.
It depends on your budget. 12-100 F4 is a great all around lens. What you lose is focal lengths for 101-150mm. If that is something you need then get the combo.
I need a weather sealing but it's a little difficult to make a choice because I already have three fixed lenses (17, 25,45 1.8) for my em5 mark III and I'm happy with it. I hesitate between the 12-45 f4 (completed later by the 40-150 f4-5.6) and the 14-150. With the 12-45mm lens is the focus lost when zoom in and out during video recording ? Is this kind of parfocal lens? Thank you.
It is not parfocal, unfortunately.
It is a slight problem if you need to zoom and have a shallow depth of field.
Serious Question: why not the 14-42mm (collapse) ? -> ultimate break free from heavy gear!!
It has it advantages. I personally do not like the electronic zoom. You have a point.
In fact, the reason why I won't buy the 12-100 is image quality at 100 (what we can't see on your video of course). Currently I have a G9 and a 12-40 for travel, a 75 for portraits, and a 25 F/1.4 for every day shoot (mainly street photo). And this 75 is so good, even if I decided to go back to FF one day, I'll keep this small and very sharp lens. So all in all 12-40 + 75 is a better combo than only a 12-100 for me.
Good summary of the differences. I've opted for the 12-100mm now as I need versatility more than speed. I have primes for that.
Anyone mentioned how hypnotic those grey tips on your gloves are as you gesture? Couldn't take my eyes off them, lol.
Hypnotic gloves! I got them a few years ago from Olympus.
What about image quality of all 3 lenses set at f4 instead of 5.6? Love your videos
Not really a difference with f4 either.
I’m still on fence. The 12-45 is cheaper in my area and lighter which is pro but am concerned about lower light. I am getting into star trails so curious if the f2.8 would be that much better than f4? Or can I get by with f4? Cheers!
For astrophotography I would go with f2.8.
@@ForsgardPeter perfect thanks!
I’m sure the F4 lens is wonderful but it’s for a limited number of people who use it. And including it with the EM3 makes no sense to get new people into Olympus cameras. They should have included one of the pro primes for the price of that F4 lens with that new EM3.
It's not part of a kit with the em-1 mkiii. It is sold separately, but it really should be kitted with the em-5 mkiii.
Brian Launchbury then one of the ambassadors was mistaken because they have said it would be sold with the em3 as a kit.
The em5mk3 and em10mk3's are currently shipping with a free 25 f1.8 in Australia which is a great move by Olympus.
I don't know if others are experiencing it too but here in Australia, the 12-40 f2.8 just doubled in price. Even on the 2nd hand market, the used lens is now the same price as the original price of a new lens. Does it mean Olympus just boned their customers?
Some one said that the 12-40mm f2.8 has been in sale and now it is back to its normal price. But not sure what is going on with the prices in Australia.
Our old prices varied between 699 to 869 depending on the seller. We can still buy them at these prices. It has been like that for years. Now with the F4 lens, F2.8 went up to 1,499 and F4 is selling at the 800 range. Discounts are usually only temporary.
I would rather have seen that they made a 12-35 f: 4 to reduce the size even more.
That would have also been a very good focal length.
Super video
10:26 That's a big lens Peter..!
Thanks Peter for another great video. Really interesting comparison.
Best regards from Sweden.
P.S you and sultan have the best videos. Concider to invade Finland to make it a part of Sweden again ,-)
Thanks! 😀
When i hear they bring a New 12-45, i think a New 2.8 with ios. But no, its a 4.0.
The fact that you have to explain why we need the 12-45 F4 makes it doubtful people will buy it. TBH the f2.8 is better in almost every single way. Size difference isn’t significant at all. Why bother?
Are the Olympus cameras made in Finland ?
No. It is a japanese company. They have a factory in China and Vietnam.
If i look at the 3 lenses next to each other, the 12-45 and 12-40 are not much different in size. At my camera store in Melbourne, Australia, the 12-40 is A$699 and the new 12-45 is A$999.
I really do not understand why the new lens is more expensive than the f2.8 lens. It is crazy.
@@ForsgardPeter thank you for acknowledging that's crazy in pricing mate. If it were Robin Wong he would have argued that I am the crazy one for douting Olympus' "vision".
Very good Peter... Olympus lenses are great!!!!
Yes, they are!
So why do I keep hearing that overcast, gloomy days are good for taking photos? Yes -- there are not harsh highlights and deep shadows to deal with -- but aren't those part of the challenge of taking photos? I love taking photos in strong sunlight -- to pick out the detail in objects, and try to get the exposure (especially with film) to give me most of the image but without blowing out the highlights. Shooting in overcast just seems so dull and gloomy -- the objects in the photo blend together, there isn't much to make specific objects standout. Or maybe I am missing something! Help!!!
No, you are not missing anything. Thats why I love Photography. We all have our own preferences and nobody is doing it the wrong way.
@@ForsgardPeter -- OK. Well, enlighten me on what you think would help my "attitude" about shooting photos under overcast/"gloomy" skies? Much of this time of year in my area (Maryland, USA, near Baltimore) tends to be cloudy, overcast, sometimes rainy, occasionally snowy. And I spend a lot less time out taking photos due to my personal preference for sunny skies. But what are some challenges, subjects, compositions which you seek out in overcast weather? Where it's not all "50 shades of grey" but where subjects actually benefit from the duller, more even lighting? Thanks!
Will the 12-45 focus stack if I fit my Raynox onto it?
Yes, with the latest firmware the 12-45mm f4 can be used for in-camera focus stacking.
@@ForsgardPeter I am really excited by this lens as it fits in with all the values that I see in Olympus, My OM1n was the most compact slr and this lens will fit with that vision. I would like the 12-100 pro but it's just too big. This will be a good lens on my pen-f too
On olympus cameras what do the fn1, fn2 and fn3 mean?
You can customize those buttons to different features.
Peter Forsgård the fn buttons are what make the camera better lol!
a) You, Robin Wong and me we all took M5 Mark III ...
You claim that its a great match for 12-45mm F4 Pro, while using a grip.
Robin claims the same without a grip.
I claim that M5 Mark III was for me a larger body on itself (compared to my original M10) which allows me to handle 12-40 F2,8 much easier, even without a grip.
b) Size vs Aperture vs IS
This is a good point. 12-45 F4 is the smallest, i might probably miss MF clutch. 12-40 F2,8 is still for me the best all round zoom lens. 12-100 F4 is the largest, but on top of its zoom range offers IS which compensates with 1 stop of aperture. On 12-100 F4 the additional IS makes of course the most sense.
Interestingly, M5 Mark III was recommended to be used with the largest lens in this comparison... and so much that optical IS was sometimes added on review sites to IBIS. M1 Mark III was surprisingly released with the smallest zoom lens and most reviewers received sample kits with it.
I have no idea why they bothered with the 12-45 f4 when it was already covered. They ought to have spent the R&D on something they do not have, rather than duplicating something they do. the weight difference and size difference is so insignificant as to be irrelevant.
Irrelevant on it's own maybe, but I think we may have the beginning of an f4 set. It wouldn't surprise me to see both a wider f4 zoom and a longer f4 zoom to make the holy trinity of f4 landscape lenses. These together could be a much smaller and lighter package than the current f2.8 set. It'll be interesting to see what happens next.
A new f4 lens line-up can be something that Olympus is giving us. There are two more zooms in the lens road map. Then there is the already announced 100-400m.
@@ForsgardPeter I would love a smaller/lighter 7-18 or so f4 lens. I love wide angle but the 7-14 f2.8 is too pricey/heavy for me. Been eye-ing the panasonic 8-18mm but maybe will hold out for a bit longer.
Your fingers tips are so funny.. Hahaha.. Nice video
Thanks!
I have just bought (but not received yet!) my 12-45/4.0 lens - to complement my 12-40/2.8 lens. Well, your comparison of them at F5.6 is useless to me: I want to know what my trusty 12-40 is at 2.8 vs the newer and smaller 12-45. It is well expected that at 5.6 they are very similar. Well, I will find out soon myself.
Kiitos
Ole hyvä!
I think choice is always a good thing. Too bad the 12-45mm couldn't be just a bit smaller. I've basically stopped using the 12-40mm since I got my 12-100mm for travel. Funnily enough when I go travelling I pair the 12-100mm with the panasonic 12-32mm pancake lens for when I want something super small/light when I go to the restaurants etc for casual snaps (it's quite a good lens at the wide end). Many ppl will like pairing their 12-100 with the 12-45 in the future I'm sure for travelling. I will also be recommending the 12-45mm to my friends who are starting out with an e-m10 etc (once the price comes down of course).
I also have the Panasonic 12-32 as a light alternative to the 12-40 2.8, wouldn't have bought it outright but it came with my GX7, but it's great for what it is. I haven't used it much but on the GX7 it's pocket sized, whereas the 12-40 feels more at home on my EM5 MII (both being the "kit" lens for both my respective ageing bodies!).
Having both these makes the 12-45 redundant to me, but can see why others would buy it as a compromise single lens between the 2.8 of the 12-40 and the tiny size of the 12-32 (or other similar "kit" type lens).
I'm torn with selling my 12-40 (which I almost exclusively use for travel) and getting the 12-100 to replace when I can afford it. But I love the 12-40 so thinking of getting the non Pro 12-200 instead to replace it for my main "outside" travel (where I don't need the 2.8 or even 4.0) but taking the 12-40 for "inside" shots of museums/cathedrals/etc where the woefully short 40mm isn't so limiting but the 2.8 is quite useful. The price difference between the 12-200 and 12-100 is about what I can get for selling the 12-40, plus getting the former means I keep the lovely 12-40 😁
Did you try the 12-200 before you got the 12-100? If it's reasonably sharp up to 150mm or even 100mm it still seems a much better travel lens, especially for the money, or at least for me as I seem to only go on bright holidays (sunny countries) lately...
This is mainly a question to you as I think I asked Peter something similar a long time ago, and still hoping he one day gets time to do a direct comparison between them 😊
@@stuartnelson3202 unfortunately I've never used the 12-200mm. However I've never been very impressed with super-zooms. I started out in photography with a Nikon D90 and 18-200mm lens, and I still remember the first time I took photos with my new (bought much cheaper than the 18-200mm) sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 lens and the contrast and sharpness blew me away even on the back of the camera screen! It was the same when I moved into full frame cameras.
Looking at the online review sample images it appears the corner sharpness falloff for the 12-200mm is very quick and you have to stop down dramatically (f8 etc) to get decent mid (not even edge) sharpness. (One can talk about pixel peeping etc, but tbh if I didn't care about some form of sharpness, I would just take photos with my phone's 3 lenses and be done with it..) Keep in mind also how fast it stops down as you zoom. Here's a quote: "Unfortunately, the aperture narrows down very quickly as you zoom in, dropping to f/4.1 by 15mm, f/5 by 31mm and f/5.6 at 45mm. By 112mm, the lens is at its slowest maximum aperture of f/6.3." So at 100mm its almost 1.5 stops slower than the 12-100mm.
I guess the question is always this: how much zoom do you need, and how much are you willing to give up for it? tbh I think 100mm is already plenty (and hardly used to me). If you don't zoom much, maybe just add a light zoom lens to your 12-40 (eg. 40-150mm f4.5-5.6)?
Btw the 12-100mm was the first "super-zoom" that reviewers were saying was as sharp as the 12-40 and primes etc. And I agree with that. Also I can handhold it for 2-3second shots without trying, and usually reach up to 4-6seconds when I try (or if I brace myself against something), which I can't do with my 12-40mm. Let's just say I didn't miss the f2.8 for my interior photos when I traveled, and preferred the extra dof of the f4 actually.
Finally, I note that the 12-200mm ain't that cheap either.. I actually bought the 12-100mm for a very good price and had a 20% ebay discount (for a local product, not grey market). So I can probably sell it second hand right now and get more $ than I bought it for :)
All the best with your difficult decision. Just note that I have not met or read about a single person who regretted their 12-100mm purchase, despite the $ :)
@@kevinvo6144 thanks for the reply!
I guess it's highly going to depend on the price difference when I go to buy it and my budget.
My (albeit limited!) experience tells me if it's nearly useable at 200 then it'll be at least useable at 100. When I looked at the pictures quite some time back it seemed soft at 200 while the 100 pictures seemed pretty good. But there's probably a lot more pictures out there now as that wasn't long after the lens came out.
My main buying thought is if it's useable to 100 it still covers the range of the 12-100 (even though it's obviously not going to be as good as that lens!) so if it's significantly cheaper at the time it's a no brainer (for my purposes) even without the extra reach which is a bonus.
I've found I often need a bit more than the upper end of the 12-40 while on holiday, even if it's just to 60 or 80. Perhaps I'll just end up buying the Panasonic 12-60 or one of the 14-150 type lenses, the problem with the latter being I'll probably moan that the 14 isn't wide enough then 😂 (sometimes I find even the 12 isn't ideal but still no where near as often as the 40 isn't enough reach and sometimes I find it woefully short).
I have to admit the thought of having a magical lens that does a massive range is clouding my vision somewhat... But I think I'm going to have to rethink closer to the time.
I have the M.Zuiko 14 - 150 on my omd mk2. I would like to see a comparison between it and any M.Zuiko Pro lens. I recently watched a comparison between a kit lens and a pro lens on a cannon camera. Two of the three tests showed essentially the same results. ua-cam.com/video/wsGmn0sVZ8Y/v-deo.html
Stay biliser, Peter, not Stab iliser, in pronuciation.
I will try to remember that! Thanks for bringing it up.
The 12-100mm f4 looked like it consistently had a narrower field of view than the other two lenses by several degrees.
Don't YOU really wonder why they brought out that lens... totally irrelevant
No I dont, it is all about Break Free from Heavy Gear.
@@ForsgardPeter would you purchase it assuming you already own a 12-40 ?
@@bestpix100 Peter CLEARLY said that if you own one of the three lenses there is no need for another!!!! Please watch the video again I think you missed some important details...
@@hoepfnerhusselmann947 most Olympus owners would own one of the other two thus making the one irrelevant... not about breaking free
Kind of weird, that you need to explain why Olympus created 12-45 . In case of 12-40 it's self-explanatory, 12-100 same story. 12-45, let's say, not the first thing that you need, you don't loose much if you just skip this lense. IMHO.