owyhee wrote:
Sunrise at Redfish Lake
12-50mm with 10 stop ND. Is the 9-18mm noticeably sharper than the 12-50mm?
EX Shot. I am thinking of getting into the OM-D system. Is 12-50mm worth the price? How sharp is it as a walkaround lens and how are the colors?
leo11877 wrote:
I am thinking of getting into the OM-D system. Is 12-50mm worth the price? How sharp is it as a walkaround lens and how are the colors?
It's an OK lens with respectable macro capability. Good value for the price.
As bobby stated the 12-50mm is an ok lens. Very versatile and sharp enough at the right apertures. I think center sharpness is best at f5.6. A good lens during the day on on a tripod but not so good in low light. To get a better zoom lens in this range you would have to buy the Panasonic 12-35mm at 3 times the cost of the 12-50mm. It all depends on what you want out of your images.
owyhee wrote:
As bobby stated the 12-50mm is an ok lens. Very versatile and sharp enough at the right apertures. I think center sharpness is best at f5.6. A good lens during the day on on a tripod but not so good in low light. To get a better zoom lens in this range you would have to buy the Panasonic 12-35mm at 3 times the cost of the 12-50mm. It all depends on what you want out of your images.
It's good but not outstanding at normal working distances. It's actually best when shooting in macro mode. Not the best lens in the system, but when working with its strengths (range, sealing & close-range shooting) it's rather good. Note the original Panasonic 14-45 OIS and 14-42 X OIS Powerzoom are both optically better than the 12-50 for non-macro shooting.
That said, I really wish it could approach the performance of the 4/3rds Olympus 14-54's which cost around the same.
If you shoot on a tripod, getting a 14-54 and an MMF-3 will allow you to maintain full weather sealing and give you a faster, optically superior package at a reasonable cost and without too much of a size penalty (the 14-54 on a MMF-3 is similar in size to the Panny 35-100/2.8)
I find it to be satisfactory as a walk around lens. Build quality is decent, though not pro, IQ is decent though again, not top shelf exactly… except under certain conditions. Images are better than most kit lenses IMO, but the edges suffer a bit. The macro is a surprise that boosts its usefulness, but only if you will use it.
Thanks! I came from a full frame Canon system (5D2 and host of lenses) and sold that off in favor of the OM-D. Since working with it and a few lenses, I have not looked back and am happy with that decision. The 60 macro and 75 f/1.8 are two of my best lenses with the 75 rivaling anything I've ever owned in the Canon lens system. The images, straight out of camera (I shoot in raw mode only), are amazing.
There are (obviously) weak points about the OM-D system (well documented elsewhere) but not show-stoppers for what I shoot - portraits and landscapes.
That's good to hear ... as I am in agreement with you, totally. I have said before that the 75/1.8 is better than the Canon 85/1.2L II which I used to love, but it suffers from front and back focussing issues which prevented me from using it wide open for portraits and head shots, so what good is that over the inexpensive 85/1.8 version? The 75 is sharp wide open, and bokeh or blur quality is amazing and every bit as good as the 135L. There is certainly a lot of room for improvement on the OM-D body/sensor and I can't wait to see how much better it will be over the E-P5 which is already better than the E-M5. And I am looking forward to some new lenses from Olympus, to Panasonic's 42.5/1.2 and 150/2.8 lenses, and the new Schneider lenses. Good times ahead!
CarlG wrote:
Bobby,
Thanks! I came from a full frame Canon system (5D2 and host of lenses) and sold that off in favor of the OM-D. Since working with it and a few lenses, I have not looked back and am happy with that decision. The 60 macro and 75 f/1.8 are two of my best lenses with the 75 rivaling anything I've ever owned in the Canon lens system. The images, straight out of camera (I shoot in raw mode only), are amazing.
There are (obviously) weak points about the OM-D system (well documented elsewhere) but not show-stoppers for what I shoot - portraits and landscapes. ...Show more →
Yes Bobby, it's the lenses that I wish Olympus would improve on. Granted, there are some really stellar primes (and I have a few), but where I feel they are really lacking is on the wide-angle side, both primes and zooms. I'd go for the 7-14 but the show-stopper for me is the natural inability (ie, no "rigged" apparatus) to accept filters. I shoot a ton of landscapes too and use ND filters as part of my kit.
Their 9-18 zoom is quite good but not stellar. I am looking forward to their version of 12-35 and 35-100 zooms which I do think will be better than the Panasonic versions. And it would be terrific to see MFT versions of their legendary 4/3 SWD lenses.
CarlG wrote:
Yes Bobby, it's the lenses that I wish Olympus would improve on. Granted, there are some really stellar primes (and I have a few), but where I feel they are really lacking is on the wide-angle side, both primes and zooms. I'd go for the 7-14 but the show-stopper for me is the natural inability (ie, no "rigged" apparatus) to accept filters. I shoot a ton of landscapes too and use ND filters as part of my kit.
leo11877,
I think the 12-50 would be a much better walk around lens than the 14-150. Right now in the m43 system there are only two zoom lens that really stand out. They are the Panasonic 12-35mm and 35-100mm. They are very expensive. All the other m43 zooms are good but not great. I can't remember if you already have the OMD or are soon to buy one? If you are buying it, getting he 12-50mm as the kit lens is a no brainer. Do it. If you already have the OMD I would get the Panasonic 20mm or the Panasonic 25mm and the Oly 45mm and zoom with your feet.
I am sure what ever decision you make you will have great time taking photographs with the OMD. I sure do.
