Oly Pro 12-40 f2.8 - Many on BNS - Why?


Good point. I didnt take into account that he bought the entire kit.. Heh
 

Anyway good news is that bns price is $900 for em1 kit lens, I think this is reasonable since brand new is $11xx full box.
 

Think he got it off BnS and sold it off very soon after. I wonder why... Seller is keeping the original receipt too. Weird?

For Oly , u don't need both original receipts and warranty cards to obtain warranty.
 

Lol that was me you guys talking about . The reason I sold off cause I prefer prime lenses. Already have the O12mm f2. Now waiting to get the Nokton 42.5mm f.95
 

I just wonder, for such expensive lens, is it worth taking risk and buy second hand? Its hard to check the lens IQ on the spot, a laptop to zoom in the detail w be better. Maybe be people who bought a sour lemon try to offload to another? haha
 

Anyone paired the 12-40 with their older EM-5 body? Is the image quality comparable to EM-1?

Not sure if it's worth the upgrade from my EM-5 to EM-1. Still thinking....
 

Anyone paired the 12-40 with their older EM-5 body? Is the image quality comparable to EM-1?

Not sure if it's worth the upgrade from my EM-5 to EM-1. Still thinking....
Comparing the EM-1 with EM-5, under best lighting conditions, no obvious difference in image quality, but under poor lighting conditions, a world of difference. This observation will hold true whichever lens you use on the 2 cameras. ;)
 

Comparing the EM-1 with EM-5, under best lighting conditions, no obvious difference in image quality, but under poor lighting conditions, a world of difference. This observation will hold true whichever lens you use on the 2 cameras. ;)

:) agree.
 

Comparing the EM-1 with EM-5, under best lighting conditions, no obvious difference in image quality, but under poor lighting conditions, a world of difference. This observation will hold true whichever lens you use on the 2 cameras. ;)

is it because at higher ISOs EM-1 is better? Reviews indicate so.

but if lets say both setting at 1600 and below, would there be much difference in image quality?

or are you referring to the lower shutter speed you can use on EM-1 handheld?
 

is it because at higher ISOs EM-1 is better? Reviews indicate so.

but if lets say both setting at 1600 and below, would there be much difference in image quality?

or are you referring to the lower shutter speed you can use on EM-1 handheld?
Besides better high ISO performance, the E-M1's autofocusing is also better able to cope under low lighting conditions which can cause the E-M5's AF to hunt or worse not achieve AF. Also, the image stabilisation of the E-M1 seems to be noticeably more effective than that of the E-M5. All these together make for a more satisfying user experience.
 

is it because at higher ISOs EM-1 is better? Reviews indicate so.

but if lets say both setting at 1600 and below, would there be much difference in image quality?

or are you referring to the lower shutter speed you can use on EM-1 handheld?

At 1600, there's some but relatively unnoticeable difference.. below that is actually not much different..

Definitely I can commend on the lower shutter speed while handheld.. being a "shaky hand" I can take a shot at 1/8 without worrying even after a whole day of shooting (hands get more shaky towards the end of the day)... I couldn't have done that with my em5 though..
 

At 1600, there's some but relatively unnoticeable difference.. below that is actually not much different..

Definitely I can commend on the lower shutter speed while handheld.. being a "shaky hand" I can take a shot at 1/8 without worrying even after a whole day of shooting (hands get more shaky towards the end of the day)... I couldn't have done that with my em5 though..

wow 1/8 is pretty low...
 

wow 1/8 is pretty low...

Yea it is.. I was surprised that I could get a clear shot at that speed.. it's also enough to get some blur from a fountain for the silky water effect..
 

Back
Top