Image Quality
When a lens has the word “PRO” in its official designation, hopes are very high for outstanding optical performance. Thankfully, the 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO lives up to those expectations.
Sharpness
The Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 is a very sharp lens, and that includes performance throughout the focal range, and even at wide apertures. The center of the image is very sharp right from f/2.8 at any point in the zoom range. The borders are a bit softer, but are still very good. Stopping down a stop or two increases sharpness across the frame, from wide-angle to telephoto.
With the E-M5 Mark II, I was also able to test the extremes of resolution with the 12-40mm due to the High Resolution mode of that camera. Good sharpness was maintained across the frame in the 40 Megapixel mode, though the 64 MP RAW files only show limited improvement with this lens. Still, if you’re looking for a versatile lens to take advantage of this feature, the 12-40mm is a good candidate.
Thankfully, the lens is as strong at infinity as it is when focusing closer, with only the very closest focusing distances showing a slightly softer image at f/2.8. While the lens doesn’t reach true macro-lens levels of magnification, it does a darn good impression of one with its extremely close focusing capabilities. The 12-40mm f/2.8 is capable of 0.3x magnification, which is about as good as one can get from a standard zoom. Stopping down to f/5.6 or so is a good idea when focusing this close, as it brings sharpness back up, and adds needed depth of field for such close shooting.
Bokeh
With a fast f/2.8 aperture, the 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO can produce nicely blurred backgrounds at the long end of the zoom range, or at closer magnifications. Overall, the lens performs very well in this department, with smoothly rendered backgrounds and evenly illuminated specular highlight discs in out of focus areas. While you certainly won’t mistake the lens for something like the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 in this area, the performance is great for a standard zoom lens.
Contrast, Color and Chromatic Aberration
The 12-40mm f/2.8 features nice strong contrast at all apertures, without being overly bold. Color response is quite good and rich accurate colors pop without the need for excessive post processing.
Unfortunately, in the area of chromatic aberration, the 12-40mm stumbles a bit. The lens produces visible lateral chromatic aberration in the form of cyan and magenta fringing, especially at the edges of the frame, throughout the zoom range. CA is highest at the wide-angle settings. CA can be corrected with post-processing tools and is managed in-camera when shooting JPEGs, but it will result in some minor loss of accutance vs. a better corrected lens.
Distortion, Flare and Vignetting
With regards to distortion, the 12-40mm requires a caveat. The lens has virtually no visible distortions throughout the range, if you are looking at JPEG images or utilizing a RAW converter that reads the built-in distortion profiles, such as Lightroom. However, if you shoot RAW and use a converter that doesn’t read this profile, you can see that the lens has dramatic barrel distortion at the wide end of the zoom range (and a notably wider field of view).
Before Adobe Camera RAW was updated for the E-M5 Mark II, I was processing RAW files in PhotoNinja. Immediately, it became apparent that the lens uses software correction to achieve the final field of view and low distortion at the wide end of the zoom range. However, given the very high image sharpness, even at the edges, in the corrected images, I don’t view it as a very big deal. To see the difference in field of view and distortion, see the shot below, showing the same RAW file at 12mm processed in Photo Ninja, which has no distortion profile, and Adobe Camera RAW, which automatically corrects for the distortion. The uncorrected version has a notably wider field of view, but also pronounced barrel distortion.
The 12-40mm performs very well with regards to vignetting, with minimal light falloff at wide apertures, and essentially zero stopped down a bit. The lens is prone to flare in the right circumstances, but it’s not a bad performance in this area. If the sun is placed off-center in the frame, large purple and green ghosts can occur, though loss of contrast is less than with many other lenses. It certainly does a nicer job with regards to flare resistance than the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8, which suffered from terrible flare with the sun in the frame.
Seems like a must have lens. But is it a necessary lens if you already have the Zuiko 12-60 with adapter, imagewise. Of course I know about the ƒ4 at long end and the size, but in any other way?
I haven’t shot with the 4/3 12-60 f/2.8-4, so I really can’t comment intelligently about their relative merits optically. I would imagine, at the very least, that the 12-40 would focus a fair bit faster, as it’s my understanding that the 4/3 lenses with adapter aren’t exactly blazing fast when it comes to autofocus speed.
I have used the 4/3 12-60mm with adapter and 12-40mm on the Olympus EM1. Focussing is faster with 12-40mm, and sharpness is better. Also camera is more compact to carry around.
Jordan,
Well written and balanced review 🙂
How do you compare and contrast the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 against the Fuji 16-55 f2.8?
Thanks,
Jim
Thanks. They’re fairly close optically. The 12-40 is considerably smaller, so it’s better for portability. The 16-55 will, of course, allow for more background blur if that’s your thing. They are both incredibly sharp lenses. The 12-40 is probably a little better across the frame at the wide end, but they’re pretty close at the middle and long ends. Both have nice bokeh, both have some CA. The 16-55 does a better job with optical distortion correction, and doesn’t rely on software correction like the 12-40 does, though in final images it’s essentially a wash. The 16-55 is a bit more solidly built, but the size comes back.
Neither is a reason to choose one system over the other, though: whichever system you shoot, you’ll be rewarded with an outstanding standard zoom lens.
Thank you, Jordan, for this review!
I always find it very helpful that you evaluate lenses not only at chart shooting distance, but also near infinity.
Do you recommend this lens over the Panasonic 12-35 F2,8 for landscape photography on a GX7?
Thanks, Peter.
Thank you very much for your review. I have been waiting for it to appear, since I’ve read your Panasonic 12-35mm review and wanted a comparison with this lens. I’m surprised you’re saying this lens is better optically and that it has rich color and contrast: to me the Panasonic lens has much better contrast and “pop”. The Olympus has great resolution and microcontrast but a somewhat paler flatter rendition. Are you able to post comparative photos from both lenses of the same subject, if you still have both on hand?
Something you said about the 12-35mm: “One note about out of focus rendering: For some reason this lens appears to have slightly more background blur than similar lenses at the same aperture. Not quite sure why, but it was something I tended to notice during shooting.” That is not the case with this 12-40mm lens, right?
Thank you very much, once again!
I did not compare them directly against each other. I never owned the 12-35mm, it was a review sample just like the 12-40, so it’s been 2.5 years since I shot with the Panasonic. Looking through images I took with each lens, the Olympus is sharper across the frame, especially at further focus distances where it’s quite significant. Otherwise, the two are somewhat close, though I think the Oly controls flare a little better too. I didn’t really compare contrast between the two lenses directly, and it would be hard to do without a head to head. It’s hard to talk about the relative ‘blur’ of the two lenses when so much time separates them, as I can’t really remember how far I was from each subject when I was shooting with the 12-35.
Thank you for your hard work writing these reviews!
“Color and contrast are excellent, bokeh is very pleasing and the prime-like sharpness makes this a phenomenal lens for landscape use and everyday utility.”
Based on various lab tests, including Lenstip, this zoom is as sharp or sharper than the primes from Olympus and Panasonic. Your statement would to most people sound like this zoom is similar or nearly as sharp. I think it would be more accurate and informative to say that this zoom is
sharper than most of those primes, 12mm, the 14mm, 15mm, both the 17mm, the 20mm, and I believe also the Olympus 25mm, leaving the only doubt the Panasonic 25mm. Have you found the zoom any less sharp than all those lenses in your experience?
As I say up front, “I review from a real world shooting perspective. You won’t find lens charts or resolution numbers here.”
There comes a point where the difference of a few lp/mm is irrelevant in field usage, and this is just such a case. The best primes, like this zoom, are capable of producing tack sharp images. As to which are measurably sharper? It doesn’t really matter to me…I just want an image that will show detail where I want it, and this lens does that. Once you reach a certain threshold, seeing any demonstrable difference between extremely high performing lenses with regards to sharpness becomes essentially impossible. Test rigs may pick it up, but it doesn’t matter with regards to the final image.
I will say that it’s notably sharper than the Panasonic 14/2.5, and probably the 12/2…the 25s and longer would be splitting hairs. The 42.5 Nocticron I would say is a smidge sharper, but it won’t matter for 99% of usage in the final print.
Thanks for an excellent review and your incredibly refreshing real-world approach!
I get so sick of reading reviews and opinions from all the nitpicking, chart waving, sharpness-above-all photo gear dweebs out there. Do they ever shoot actual photos? Oh, but that might require a few electrons worth of creativity… skip that thought. ????
So, I’ve been considering getting a 12-40mm to use with my GX7 and simplify my travel kit… the Voigtländer Nokton 17.5mm and 42.5mm, which I love dearly, but I’ve been on a few trips where there were situations where swapping lenses was difficult at best. The extra range and close-focus ability put the 12-40mm ahead of the 12-35mm. Your review seems to be the kicker!
Thanks for an excellent review and your incredibly refreshing real-world approach!
I get so sick of reading reviews and opinions from all the nitpicking, chart waving, sharpness-above-all photo gear dweebs out there. Do they ever shoot actual photos? Oh, but that might require a few electrons worth of creativity… skip that thought.
So, I’ve been considering getting a 12-40mm to use with my GX7 and simplify my travel kit… the Voigtländer Nokton 17.5mm and 42.5mm, which I love dearly, but I’ve been on a few trips where there were situations where swapping lenses was difficult at best. The extra range and close-focus ability put the 12-40mm ahead of the 12-35mm. Your review seems to be the kicker!
The review covers exactly my experiences with this great lens. However, it is erroneous to assume that the hires mode requires an extremly high resolving lens. Keep in mind, the camera is still taking 16 MP frames! If a lens performs well with the “normal” 16 MP it will certainly perfome as good in hires mode.
@Chris
I’m not sure that you are right ? What would be the use to shift the sensor for the amount of a half pixel, if the lens doesn’t offer a resolving power higher than one pixel ? The shift would remain more or less unnoticed.
Tests I have seen show that when using so-so kit zoom the HighRes mode doesn’t add anything.
I agree to the point that a so-so kit zoom will not add anything to the hires mode. But i suppose this is due to the fact that these lenses not even deliver enough resolution for the 16 MP-sensor. Imho there is no lens on the market which would be able to resolve 40 MP with such a small pixel pitch.
At this point I refer to the author’s punch line: I don’t shoot test charts, I shoot impressions 😉 Have a nice day.
The sharpness of a lens beyond 16MP definitely matters in the High Res mode. You aren’t resolving a 16MP image…the lens isn’t shifting, only the sensor behind it, such that, with a static scene, it is exactly the same as having a true 64MP sensor behind the lens, with full RGB at each location. Well, probably closer to the 40MP that the JPEG uses because some of the pixels in the ‘offset’ sensor shift will overlap a bit with the standard grid since the pixels are the size of a 16MP sensor pixels, rather than the smaller pixel pitch of what a full 64MP sensor would be designed with. This will help with noise and a bit with diffraction, as well. It’s true that few lenses can resolve the detail needed to get pin-sharp images at 64MP, but most good lenses will see a notable benefit in final resolution.
Hi Jordan,
thank you very much for the calirficication. I overlooked the point that with the shift the drawbacks of the interpolation of a Bayer-Sensor are basically chanceled out by recording true color information for each channel on each pixel position.
Hello Jordan.
Thank you for a very refreshing and sound review.
I have been shooting with 5″X4″ Linholf KardenMaster, 500ELM 6c6cm and mainly Nikon for many years.
Now comes the apology: I remember laughing at the thought of anyone taking 4/3 seriously at it’s launch and to consider using it professionaly, ….. out of the question!
I am on my third Olympus the latest being the E-M5MkII. I also operate the GH4 for the Video.
These are superb instruments of trade, no question.
I also use my Nikon primes and in particular the 60mm f2.8 Macro via the german Novoflex adapter. You have to love m43.
Yes, I am using the Olympus 12 – 40mm f2.8 I concur with your findings.
Kind Regards, Barry M. Australia
If someone had wandered into my studio 20 years ago and handed me these cameras; I would have firstly wondered if something other than honey had been put in the bed-time milk?
It’s only on reflection that I know how lucky we are; … now to have access to these brilliant systems.
Nice review!
I’ve got some questions about the lens:
How does it handle with the Lumix GX1? (or a similary sized body)
Would that be uncomfortable to hold/use/carry?
Does the lens get in the way when you try to attach a quick-release-plate?
I really hope you’ve still got your GX1 sitting around somewhere. 😉
Oh…and does the focus clutch mechanism work with Panasonic bodies?
Thank you!
I just bought this lens along with Mark II 2 days ago. I have tried it indoor and Im happy with its result. I only have one question. I notice there is a sound I can hear whenever you will turn it upside down (when detached from the camera). Is it normal?