I do know enough about macro to know that these are terrible. I tried auto and manual focus. I have focus magnify turned on and focus peaking. I found the focus magnify to be not very helpful when taking these shots. Both lenses are metal and weather-sealed. It is worth bearing in mind that the weather-sealing makes more sense when combined with a weather-proof body such as the Olympus OM-D E-M1 or Panasonic Lumix GH4. Olympus claims that the 12-40mm is dust, splash and freeze proof, while the Lumix is only dust and splash proof. No one is saying the exposure changes when you engage a crop mode. In fact that article and several of my comments spell out that the standard exposure model is designed to work across formats. Distortion is well corrected in camera, but without corrections applied, Imatest detected 5.51% barrel distortion at 12mm being replaced with only 0.965% pincushion distortion at 40mm. The level of distortion at 12mm will be quite noticeable in images with lines parallel to the edge of the frame, although the distortion pattern is uniform across the frame throughout the zoom range, which should make applying corrections in image editing software afterwards, relatively straightforward.

Those worried about there being a dramatic difference in sharpness between the two zooms can rest easy – both perform very well throughout the zoom and aperture ranges. Neither is quite as sharp as a prime lens but the results are more than enough for most purposes. GX8, 1/1250, f/5.6, ISO 200 – M.Zuiko 12-40mm at 12mm GX8, 1/125, f/9, ISO 200 – Lumix 12-35mm at 31mm GX8, 1/1000, f/5.6, ISO 200 – M.Zuiko 12-40mm at 24mm GX8, 1/4000, f/2.8, ISO 200 – Lumix 12-35mm at 35mm Unsurprisingly, you can find the best performance from both lenses between f/4 and f/5.6 across the focal range. That said, anything up to f/11 is perfectly useable. It does seem that the M.Zuiko is more capable of extracting very fine detail across the frame at these apertures but the difference really is minimal. Off center performance is good enough that I’m not at all reluctant to put subjects well off center. Yes, this is the full frame I took. The Panny 35-100 F2.8 ii would, for many, get you the range 12-100 F2.8 in a smaller combo, but, since you only want to buy Oly lenses, the two Oly Pro zooms would be my recommendation.The Olympus 12-40mm ƒ/2.8 Zuiko PRO represents a new category for Micro Four Thirds lenses, and as such, there arenot many direct competitors that can be seen as alternatives. Nevertheless, there are options out there.

I have very little experience with macro but my camera club challenge for this month is macro so I decided to give it a try. Since I haven't done it hardly at all I haven't invested in a macro lens but I remember reading here that the 12-40 can be used for macro so that was my plan. The lens also shows some vignetting when wide open at f/2.8. This is easily corrected in post. I guess Olympus tried to keep this constant f/2.8 zoom as small as possible and that means the image circle only just covers the micro 4/3 sensor. The build quality is really good. Just like the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8. The Olympus is bigger and slightly heavier though. For a 24-70 f/2.8 equivalent it's pretty small of course. This is a lens that really makes me wonder if I should keep the Olympus 12mm f/2. The prime is slightly sharper in the center, but I doubt it will be visible in real world photography. I'm under the impression that the zoom is sharper in the corners, impressive! The lens that many working photographers consider an essential part of their kit, regardless of the system they use, is the 24-70mm constant aperture zoom (full frame equivalent). It is an especially useful range for events such as weddings or conferences where you are dealing with moving subjects, tight spaces and varied compositions, from wide-angle shots of the location to close-ups of attendees and specific details. Though these zooms don’t deliver the same sharpness or brightness as high-quality prime lenses, they are useful for fast-paced events where changing lenses isn’t practical. No M43 shooter is worried about that, we know the performance will be a bit nosier than the FF and the resolution will likely be a bit smaller, we're fine with that.When used individually, both lenses come across as very compact and light considering that they are constant aperture mid-range zooms. Comparing them side-by-side, however, you’ll soon notice that the 12-40mm is slightly taller (8.4cm vs. 8cm at 12mm and 13cm vs. 10cm with the front element fully extended), heavier (382g vs 305g) and wider than its counterpart. The two zooms extended to their longest respective focal lengths So this is 'nice' but which is the bit you really want to show - and why? If you think "I must show a close up of pistils & stamens so that the pollen grans can be seen" then you will have a purpose and know much better if it works or not. Otherwise you'll keep taking 'nice' shots and be unhappy with them. These specs were taken from the LensRentals listing. Go ahead and rent one from them using our hyperlink. Angle of View