Go for both! But you must be more comfortable with your instinct than listening to many baseless hearsay.
Oly Pro 12-40 f2.8 - Many on BNS - Why?
- Thread starter JoePro
- Start date
Go for both! But you must be more comfortable with your instinct than listening to many baseless hearsay.
Do go ahead
Just keep in mind that so far most of the ones who've invested into the 12-40mm see it as a worthy investment. Peace of mind is definitely impt. One thing that is an improvement in the EM-1 is :
'Fine Detail Processing 2 (FPD2) is implemented in Olympus' latest image processing engine, the Truepic 7. The benefits of having the FDP2 is being able to create flaw-corrected, optimized JPEG files, straight out of the camera. FDP2 applies various corrections and compensations on image property flaws (chromatic aberration, loss of resolution due to diffraction, etc). We all know that software correction of distortion and chromatic aberration are not unheard of, and have been widely implemented on newer cameras and lenses, but Olympus took a step further by having the E-M1 to recognize each individual lens separately, and apply the relevant corrections in correspondence to that particular lens only. Each lens profile information (applicable to Olympus lenses only) has been stored within the E-M1, and as the lens is used the FDP2 will adaptively correct the lens flaws. Also, the level of JPEG sharpening will be applied varyingly depending on which lens being used. Obviously the lens sharpness of a macro lens, such as the M,Zuiko 60mm F2.8 macro will be a lot better than, say the kit lens M.Zuiko 14-42mm F3.5-5.6, thus practically less sharpening should be applied on the images taken with the macro lens.'
lifted whole-sale from Robin Wong's website.
You can easily find a good prime in MFT, some are the O75/1.8, O45/1.8, O17/1.8, P25/1.4, P20/1.7 to name a few.
Do go ahead
One thing that is an improvement in the EM-1 is :
'Fine Detail Processing 2 (FPD2) is implemented in Olympus' latest image processing engine, the Truepic 7. The benefits of having the FDP2 is being able to create flaw-corrected, optimized JPEG files, straight out of the camera. FDP2 applies various corrections and compensations on image property flaws (chromatic aberration, loss of resolution due to diffraction, etc). We all know that software correction of distortion and chromatic aberration are not unheard of, and have been widely implemented on newer cameras and lenses, but Olympus took a step further by having the E-M1 to recognize each individual lens separately, and apply the relevant corrections in correspondence to that particular lens only. Each lens profile information (applicable to Olympus lenses only) has been stored within the E-M1, and as the lens is used the FDP2 will adaptively correct the lens flaws. Also, the level of JPEG sharpening will be applied varyingly depending on which lens being used. Obviously the lens sharpness of a macro lens, such as the M,Zuiko 60mm F2.8 macro will be a lot better than, say the kit lens M.Zuiko 14-42mm F3.5-5.6, thus practically less sharpening should be applied on the images taken with the macro lens.'
lifted whole-sale from Robin Wong's website.
You can easily find a good prime in MFT, some are the O75/1.8, O45/1.8, O17/1.8, P25/1.4, P20/1.7 to name a few.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I've done some more due diligence and found this article which is worth a read from a guy who is from LensRentals - and given their experience on lenses and mounts its a good read - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/assumptions-expectations-and-plastic-mounts
and it seems that on forums there are only perhaps 3 cases of this lens mount issues described as an issue - i guess it may still be early days yet and as more use the Pro zoom lens perhaps a few more may surface. Some of course could be due to user mis-management, but time will tell.
Since web famous photogs like Steve Huff, Ming Thien and the recently referred to Robin Wong (who has amazing pics in his web review using the 12-40 f2.8)seem to unreservedly endorse the new lens, it seems like it is not 'crap' at all as described by one CS member earlier.
I'm still at the crossroads. Looked at the Lumix 25mm f1.4 earlier which looks really nice, and it could be a starting point for me, unless i go for the zoom. The other prime that is interesting to me is the 12 by Olympus. The Sigma 60mm looks like a nice inexpensive option (used) for portraits too.
Thanks for pointing out the new processing mode (Fine Detail Processing 2) that works with Oly lenses (minus some points for the 25mm aspiration) and the advice given.
Last edited:
Bro ,
Great article u shared. I definitely learnt from reading the article
It's really true how nowadays people can form all sorts of assumptions without verification.
For example weather sealed doesn't imply one can dunk that piece of equipment deep into a river. There's this also weird obsession that a plastic mount equates higher fragility when this is so much common nowadays with most brands.
FYI, there's been talk of an Oly 25/1.8 launching soon. FT3* rumour.
http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-olympus-25mm-f1-8-to-be-announced-in-february/
*FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
Do go ahead
One thing that is an improvement in the EM-1 is :
'Fine Detail Processing 2 (FPD2) is implemented in Olympus' latest image processing engine, the Truepic 7. The benefits of having the FDP2 is being able to create flaw-corrected, optimized JPEG files, straight out of the camera. FDP2 applies various corrections and compensations on image property flaws (chromatic aberration, loss of resolution due to diffraction, etc). We all know that software correction of distortion and chromatic aberration are not unheard of, and have been widely implemented on newer cameras and lenses, but Olympus took a step further by having the E-M1 to recognize each individual lens separately, and apply the relevant corrections in correspondence to that particular lens only. Each lens profile information (applicable to Olympus lenses only) has been stored within the E-M1, and as the lens is used the FDP2 will adaptively correct the lens flaws. Also, the level of JPEG sharpening will be applied varyingly depending on which lens being used. Obviously the lens sharpness of a macro lens, such as the M,Zuiko 60mm F2.8 macro will be a lot better than, say the kit lens M.Zuiko 14-42mm F3.5-5.6, thus practically less sharpening should be applied on the images taken with the macro lens.'
lifted whole-sale from Robin Wong's website.
You can easily find a good prime in MFT, some are the O75/1.8, O45/1.8, O17/1.8, P25/1.4, P20/1.7 to name a few.
Ah hahahaha... so essentially, MTF measurements by review websites now have to be scrutinized more carefully.
I wonder if Olympus has decided to cook the RAW the way Sony does too.
Never mind that the idea of an open mount is going to get mocked very thoroughly now.
Last edited:
Essentially , all websites , reviews or ones full of charts have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Shouldn't this always be case ?
To the casual user, having issues corrected in camera is a good boost to have while I guess there may also be purists who will prefer otherwise.
Obviously it's not cheap to make good quality glass always and as such I guess the trend now is if it can be resolved by in camera calibrations , why not ?
Anyway , bro , u r sure Sony cooks it's Raw files ?
The point being is that sharpness now depends mightily on the camera body people use and not on the sensor native resolution. It's the same with the FujiFilm X series cameras and the MTF modifying sharpening filters they apply. It also means that mounting a 12-40 on a Panasonic camera will not yield the same MTF, with or without the AA filter, as one would on an Olympus camera. Obviously both companies hope to lock you into their brand despite the pretense of an open mount, but well, I suppose this was going to happen anyway.
If you use Sony's Raw converter, they would input the changes they made to jpegs to the raw output. I'm not sure about other raw converters, but even MFT raw can be "cooked" depending on the raw converter used because they do include jpeg correction parameters in the raw. At least in the case of Photoshop, distortion adjustments are added immediately.
Last edited:
The idea of an 'fully' open mount wasn't valid since long ago when users realized banding issues of some Pana lenses on Oly bodies (still unfixed ) and that Oly bodies running Pan lenses doesn't correct fully for CA.
I'm pretty sure using the 17/1.8 on the EM-1 as compared to the GX7 isn't going to give the same results. I had long ago preferred to tell myself that it's just that nothing can ever be perfect and it's a opportunity to learn better by also learning about the equipment's limitations and working around them
Well, these are relatively minor issues compared to twisting the MTF about... SOme of the algorithms out there could raise the MTF by as much as 10-20% judging by the comparisons I have seen for FujiFilm.The idea of an 'fully' open mount wasn't valid since long ago when users realized banding issues of some Pana lenses on Oly bodies (still unfixed ) and that Oly bodies running Pan lenses doesn't correct fully for CA.
I had long ago preferred to tell myself that it's just that nothing can ever be perfect and it's a opportunity to learn better by also learning about the equipment's limitations and working around them
A long winded story by the lensrentals people. Basically semantics. When normal people talk about lens mount, they refer to the part at the exposed rear of the lens that bayonets into the camera body. But the lensrental people have purposely chosen to interpret the lens mount as the internal structure of the lens into which the bayonet is screwed. That is how they insist that many lenses have "plastic" mounts.
actually my purpose in that link was to show a few things - and reading it again i'd like to summarise what was relevant to me - not in order of importance though
1. what a 'pro lens' really is/is not based on assumptions, expectations and how marketing plays a large part in all this.
2. how experts (or would be experts) don't really have a clue about what they are talking about sometimes (empty vessels make the most sound)
3. Oly 12-40 based on their 'rental experience' don't have a higher incidence of mounts that fail (plastic, metal bayonets or whatever...)
4. the internet is too unregulated so all opinions mask the gospel truth or real facts behind things - he refers to it as 'internet hysteria'
5. Some Pro lenses (famous ones too) do come with a plastic mount
Think he got it off BnS and sold it off very soon after. I wonder why...
Seller is keeping the original receipt too. Weird?
Seller is keeping the original receipt too. Weird?
