Did you try using a tripod? That will make it much easier to judge focus, and to get your focus precise. You need to stop down as well because depth of field will be so narrow. Without a tripod autofocus is easier for close-up, but you still need to stop down for enough DOF. A macro focusing rail for a tripod is also a very useful thing, because it's often difficult to position a tripod exactly where you want it. The lens has one L.Fn button located about where you would usually have your thumb if you’re holding your left hand under the lens. I outline the L.Fn functions in my 40-150mm review. Panasonic camera owners should be aware that the 12-40mm f/2.8 does not have image stabilization. This might be a deal breaker for some Panasonic camera users (Olympus uses sensor-based stabilization). Vignetting on the Olympus 12-40mm lens is very well controlled throughout the entire aperture range and at all focal lengths. There is some vignetting at apertures wider than ƒ/5.6, but light falloff never even reaches half a stop. In fact, most focal lengths show closer to a quarter of a stop of light falloff between ƒ/2.8 and ƒ/5.6 (12mm shows a little more between ƒ/2.8-ƒ/4).

Standard zoom lenses, whether premium or kit, start from 12mm or 14mm. This gives you an equivalent angle of view of 24/28mm which gives you lots of flexibility if you’re interested in landscapes or architecture. Of course you don’t get the extreme view shorter focal lengths can deliver, but you have a longer reach when zooming in. 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. In terms of features, the M.ZUIKO Digital 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro lens has quite a lot to offer. For starters, it has a so-called L-Fn button, which allows users to temporarily suspend continuous auto focus when something suddenly comes between the lens and your intended subject. This is mostly useful when shooting a movie clip with C-AF enabled, but the feature can also be used when photographing action. I would like to produce something presentable for my meeting on Friday. Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong? The first one is just to show you what I'm trying to capture with the second one.Overall, combined with the OM1, it feels a bit like the Nikon z9 before firmware updates. That’s to say that it’s good; but not fantastic. It’s miles ahead of the Fujifilm X Pro 3 comparatively speaking. At the same time, the Sony a7r III — a far older camera — can outdo this lens with a third-party option on it. 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.

This past month was the first time I actually had the two zooms side-by-side for an extended period of time, so I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to write up an official comparison! The concerns of a M43 user about equivalence are mainly focal length so they know what FoV they're getting. Maybe a little DoF concern so they can get some subject separation. Overall I would rate the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 as one of the best zooms I have used. It is very well-built and combined with my EM5II or an EM1 series body offers excellent weather-sealing and a very useful focal range. As with most m4/3 lenses these days, the assumption is that you're going to be shooting JPEGs and using in-camera correction, or using a raw convertor that has lens corrections. So "performance" is getting a little tougher to define these days. Let's start with the "corrected" parameters of the lens: Its IP53-rated seal protects against ingress of dust and water, and the lens is freezeproof down to 14°F / -10°C. This enables you to shoot in the most inhospitable environments, whether that's dust, rain or snow.

On an EM1, both of these lenses balance and handle much better than on the EM5s, which feel comparatively slippery, unbalanced and not secure when holding one handed. Personally, I sold the 12-40/2.8 and kept the 12-35/2.8, because I enjoy the better balance and the reduced weight when traveling, and I've yet to regret it. IQ wise, both lenses deliver. No complaints. Same with close focus abilities, though I understand the 12-100 is even better. 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. Stopping down to ƒ/4 to ƒ/5.6, you have the "sweet spot" of apertures for critical sharpness at all focal lengths. Corner to corner, the lens displays fantastically sharp images in this range of apertures. We did see some diffraction softness come into play at the smaller apertures such as ƒ/16-ƒ/22, but overall it wasn't very severe.

Biggest problem here is that the coloris clipped badly. Dial it down in post. If you shot raw this might be recoverable. Hard to see what else is happening here because of the clipped color. Sorry if this lens is a rude word ;p but maybe give it 5mins consideration, I think it's a beautifully operating and looking lens. The M.Zuiko 12-40mm is a 24-80mm equivalent, meaning that you have more reach on the telephoto end compared to the Lumix 12-35mm. In a real world situation, I haven’t found that having those extra 5mm makes a huge difference but it does make the 12-40mm a more suitable portrait alternative. E-M5 II, 1/20, f/2.8, ISO 1600 – M.Zuiko 12-40mm at 40mmIn other words, there’s little that I’d use to distinguish between the two lenses. We could quibble. If you’re mostly shooting at the wide end, the Olympus is probably the better choice, but if you’re mostly shooting at the telephoto end, the Panasonic probably is the lens of choice, despite it’s 5mm shorter length. But I don’t think most people think of a workhorse mid-range zoom that way: they want it to be useful across the board. Both these lenses are, just with different nuances as you move through the focal and aperture ranges. There are two rings on this lens, the zoom ring and the focus ring. The zoom ring is located closer to the camera body and is about one inch long and has metal ribbing for an easy grip. It rotates smoothly, but has a nice resistance, which is stiff enough that it won't creep, but it definitely takes two fingers to rotate. This lens, while an internally focusing lens, is not an internally zooming lens, and will extend while zooming. It actually extends ever so slightly from 12mm until about 18mm, then from 18mm onwards, it extends more significantly, about an extra inch or so. Overall, the new Olympus 12-40mm ƒ/2.8 Zuiko PRO is a very sharp lens, even wide open and throughout the entire zoom range. There's also very little corner softness at ƒ/2.8 at each focal length we tested. We saw just a bit more corner softness at 40mm at ƒ/2.8, but it was extremely minor. Impulses: "I'd be curious how well those hold up at 42-61MP" -- not great... which is often better than the very best MFT lenses have ever done. ;-)

Image Quality – Through the lens E-M1, 1/100, f/10, ISO 200 – M.Zuiko 12-40mm at 28mm GX8, 1/160, f/11, ISO 200 – Lumix 12-35mm at 33mm Focal Range

Olympus PRO Advantage Registration

Chromatic aberrations are well controlled throughout most of the zoom range. Between 12mm and 18mm fringing only exceeds half a pixel width when stopped down to between f/11 and f/22. At 40mm fringing just exceeds three quarters of a pixel width towards the edges of the frame at f/2.8, but even so, this low level should be difficult to spot.