Personal View site logo
12-40mm F2.8 Olympus lens
  • 106 Replies sorted by
  • Further tests with the 20mm: retesting the 20mm, I don't see a difference here. I think it is too close to call, the 20mm is perhaps a tiny bit sharper in the center. I don't see a reason to keep the 20mm, but it is so great as a travel lens.
    Olly 45: it is true that the edges are not so great on this prime, but that is part of the charm for portraits. Another thing about the Olly 12-40 is that most reviews don't specifically test the 14mm setting. It is really very good at 14mm. The lens extension reverses direction as you go from 14 into 12 and back again, so it could be 14mm is the native focal length.
    Lumix 35-100 owners: if you have both lenses, the 35 to 40mm range on the 35-100 is slightly better, but it isn't a big difference.

  • Just for a lark, I bolted my Canon budget 10-18mm zoom onto my G85 and compared it to my not-so budget Olly 12-40.
    I had read that the 10-18 does not work, would vignette, blah blah total BS of course with bad math to prove it.
    At 100 percent crop, at 12mm, I could not see a difference, nor at 200 percent.
    At 400 percent, the Olly is slightly sharper in the center, and the Canon is sharper in three of the four corners.
    The Canon has IS in the lens which is completely silent, which is interesting. Focus is silent.

    Canon 10-18.jpg
    662 x 422 - 47K
    Olly 12-40.jpg
    650 x 462 - 40K
  • Basically, they look the same. I mean, if you pixel peep there are some differences. Metabones T adapter with no glass.
    Obviously I'm keeping the Olly, just interesting.