Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro. The ultimate zoom lens for micro four thirds?

In my last post I waxed lyrical about my recent purchase of the Nikon D200 for tickling my DSLR-shooting fancy. Whenever I purchase any new (second hand) equipment, I get excited about the 'potential' other purchases that could be involved. This generally means lenses. And so I started downloading Nikon lens brochures and going giddy over the prospect of a 24-70mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f2.8 to really make the D200 shine.

Nikon's Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 Pro lens - sexy!

But then, suddenly, I had a rare moment of lucidity (hey, at least I admit it). As nice as the Nikon D200 is, I have an even better system that I really should be focusing my attention on.

I wrote in my last post that my 'main' kit is my Olympus OM-D E-M1. I've built it up into quite a comprehensive system, with zooms, primes, grips, extra batteries and external flashguns. But with my recent surgery, a rather damp winter, and focusing most of my attention on peripheral areas like film and DSLR's, the Olympus hasn't been getting a lot of love.

I'm still totally blown away with how amazingly good the OM-D E-M1 actually is. In many ways, it's more camera than I can handle, with features and controls that I will probably never ever use. As a stills photographer, I'm not really interested in its video capabilities (although I have used it for video), and the Art Filters also don't get used since I prefer to do effects myself later on in post. I've never played with Live Composite (although I would like to one day), or Silent Shutter (which again, might come in handy?). I have it set up very simply - almost like a film camera - and prefer to use single-shot, center focus point and recompose. My one concession to technology is the eye focus tracking when shooting portraits. Watching the focus point follow the subjects face as they move around the frame is just magical, and it's been consistently reliable with focus accuracy.

But.... (yes folks, there's always a but), what I've felt I've always lacked in my kit is a truly stellar lens - something similar to a Nikkor or Canon 24-70mm f2.8 professional lens. Truth be told, I've never owned the Canon or Nikon versions either - but I've always wanted to. I have owned a few Canon 'L' lenses, and without exception they were worth every penny (even second hand). So instead of dreaming about a Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 for my D200, why wasn't I dreaming about the equivalent lens for my Olympus E-M1? Why not indeed....

The title page from Olympus USA for the Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens

The 'ultimate' zoom to use as a walk-around, shoot anything, style of lens has to be the Olympus M. Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 Pro. It even says so on their website 😉

I've lusted after this lens since moving to micro four thirds. I've even shot with one - briefly - for an afternoon (see post here). That was the shoot that convinced me I wanted an E-M1 (I owned the E-M5 MkII), and of course I was also impressed with the IQ from the 12-40mm f2.8. When I eventually sold my E-M5 to get the E-M1, I didn't have a big enough budget to get the 12-40mm as well - ending up with the 12-50mm EZ f3.5/6.3 instead. And as great as that lens is, it ain't no f2.8 Pro!

The construction of the 12-40mm f2.8 is astonishing. Equipped with a full metal body, the lens is fully sealed against dust and moisture, and is freeze-proof down to -10 degrees. It has one EDA lens, two Asperical lenses, one DSA lens, two ED lenses, two HR lenses and one HD lens (and no, please don't ask me what that all means) for 10 elements in 9 groups. It has a 7 bladed circular aperture ring, goes from f2.8 to f22, has a 62mm front filter thread, an MSC mechanism for smooth video, and Olympus's 'Zero' coating on the front element for extra dust, dirt and fingerprint resistance. This was Olympus's first professional zoom for the micro four thirds system, and as such, they threw everything they had at it!

It was released the same time the OM-D E-M1 was, as the perfect lens to pair with their first professional micro four thirds body. I guess you might even consider it to be the E-M1's 'kit' lens. And yes, that's very tongue-in-cheek, because no matter how you look at it, the 12-40mm f2.8 Pro is no kit lens.

But it is the perfect partner for the E-M1, in the same way that Canon and Nikon's 24-70mm f2.8 lenses are the perfect partner for their flagship DSLR's. At 12-40mm the Olympus has an equivalent focal range of a 24-80mm lens in full frame terms - and of course it has the constant f2.8 aperture.

Yes, we all know by now that all apertures are not created equal when it comes to creating a shallow depth-of-field. The sensor size will dictate a lenses ability to create that creamy background 'bokeh' - and a full-frame sensor is always going to give you the ability to create a shallower depth-of-field. But it's not impossible to create shallow depth of field at f2.8 on micro four thirds - and I'd rather have f2.8 at 40mm than the f5.6 I have at the moment with my other zoom. So I'm getting one - right?

Well actually yes, I am. I've decided to sell all the other lenses I own for micro four thirds - just to get the one lens: the M. Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 Pro. I've already sold a couple, and have a couple to go. Once they are all sold I'll have enough to buy a brand new 12-40mm lens direct from Hong Kong. It's a bit cheaper doing it that way (around $900NZ as opposed to $1300NZ from a camera store), and although I'd like to buy locally, the saving really can't be ignored. It's how I brought my 12-50mm EZ originally, and I've been very happy with it.

At some point in a photographer's career, when they start getting 'serious' about the hobby, they are told by some wise old sage to invest in glass. Camera bodies come, and camera bodies go (at an alarming rate), but good glass practically lasts forever. And can sometimes even go up in value. No photographer ever regretted buying pro-quality glass for their camera (although their bank balance may disagree).

Most reviews on the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens are positively glowing. Some even call it the best zoom lens they've ever used, on any system, period. That's impressive and exciting praise for perhaps the 'ultimate' lens for micro four thirds. I can't wait.....

OMG - I brought a D200!

Ok, I'll admit it. I've got too many camera systems. Way too many.

For a start, I have a medium format Bronica ERTS 6x45 (with a standard and wide angle lens) for my 120 medium format film fix. As well as a Nikon F4 and F90 for my 35mm film hankerings. An IS-3000 Olympus 'Bridge' camera was a bit of a crazy purchase recently, and a Fujifilm Instax 210 Wide camera rounds out the film portion of my collection. That's quite a few film cameras.

The situation isn't much better when it comes to digital. Of course my main kit is my Olympus OM-D EM-1 micro four thirds with several lenses and accessories etc - but I also have a battered and bruised (but still working) Canon 50D with grip and several lenses, as well as a Nikon D70 that I hold on to for sentimental reasons (it was my first DSLR). So I don't need anymore cameras - right?

But who am I kidding? I established with myself a long time ago that when it comes to camera gear, it's never really about what I 'need', and much more about what I 'want'. And what I found that I 'wanted' was a fully featured 'pro' Nikon DSLR body to work in tandem with my F4 so I could swap lenses and shoot both film and digital at the same time. Why not...?

Enter the Nikon D200. A 13yr old (released in 2005), 10.2MP CCD sensor, 5fps, weather-sealed, magnesium alloy bodied, CF card shooting beast of a camera!

Many reading this in 2018 and beyond will more than likely be suffering from the 'but it's only's'. But it's only 10.2MP. But it only has one CF card slot. But it only has 11 focus points. But it's only 5fps. But it only shoots images (no video - and no live view!). But it's screen is only 230,000px. But it only shoots up to ISO1600 natively (and even then it's best not to go over 800ISO). But it's 13 years old!

I grant you every last one of those 'but it's only's', how could I not? They're all true.

BUT - in all honesty, do ANY of the points mentioned above stop this from being a drop-dead amazing image making machine? No, people - no, they do not. I don't know how many times I've written on this blog that I believe 10MP to be MORE THAN ENOUGH for 90% of the worlds photographers. Who are you shooting for that you need more? Seriously.

Maybe you regularly take photos and then crop in heavily on just a small portion of the image to blow it up to a 10x12" print. If that's you, then stop it. Seriously - stop it. Compose, frame and crop in-camera. Then you'll find that 10MP is plenty enough for an A3 sized print. I crop about 5% of my images. 95% of the images I shoot are composed and cropped in-camera. But what if, I hear you say, you can't get close enough? I have two responses to that. First - get a longer telephoto lens. That's what they're for. And second - you'll just have to be content with not getting the shot. Tuff. Here's a news flash for you - you're going to miss a lot of shots. Either because you didn't have the 'right' gear for the job, you couldn't get close enough, or you weren't quick enough. Get over it.

The rear of the D200. Ergonomic perfection

The 'old sensor' low-ISO performance complaint is another one of my pet hates (sorry - I'm  about to rant again...). I can hear it now - "the D200 is too old. Low-light performance will suck".... blah,blah, blah. Who the hell are these people? Why has being able to shoot a black cat in a coal mine 'noise'-free become a 'thing 'that concerns so many damn photographers?

Ok, maybe that's a bit extreme? Other, more measured critics might say something like "it won't be any good for weddings in low-light church environments". This argument seems to suggest that once a camera has been replaced by a 'newer' model, it instantly becomes unfit for any 'serious' photography. I have no doubt that Nikon's D500 is a 'superior' camera than the D200 in every respect. It damn well better be, since it's 12 years newer. But does that really mean that the D200 is now no longer capable of being used as a professional tool? Of course not! I shot weddings for 10 years, and started with a Nikon D70! Yes folks, I shot weddings 'professionally' with a 6MP D70 for a couple of seasons, and never, ever had a client complain - or even comment - about 'noise' in an image. Never. The only people who care about noise in a photograph are other photographers. Period.

Jessie. D200 with 18-55mm 3.5/5.6 G II. F4.5 @ 1/30th, ISO 800.

All the rest of the 'stuff' that the D200 lacks over more modern DSLR's is just 'fluff' as far as I'm concerned. No, it doesn't have Live-view. You don't need it. Millions of photographers lived without live-view before it was ever an option. It therefore doesn't shoot video. Don't get me started on that rant. You want video, buy a Go Pro. You want to make movies - buy a movie camera. Nuff said.

What I'm trying to say is that for 'most' photographers, the D200 - even at 12 years old - is more camera than most of us need - despite what we may want. I would seriously encourage anyone who may be looking at buying an 'entry-level' DSLR to consider something like a used D200 (or D80, D90, D300) instead. And on the Canon side, an older 40D, 50D or even 5D Mk1 would be a much better choice - for less money - than the latest digital Rebel.

The used D200 I just purchased was $200NZ body only. It's in immaculate condition, and has a 15,000 shutter count. That's 15% of the shutter's 100,000 shot life expectancy. The entry level D3400 with 18-55mm kit lens is $699NZ retail at the time of writing this. That's basically a $500NZ difference. For another $100NZ I also purchased a Nikkor 50mm f1.8. The D3400 has 24MP, Full HD video, Bluetooth connection etc. The D200 doesn't. And yet, with only $300 invested, I could also get an 85mm F1.8 Nikkor and have a prime lens kit that would run rings around the D3400.

When it was released all those years ago, the D200 was second-only to Nikon's D2x Pro body. In fact Nikon packed so much into the D200 that many 'pros' called it the baby D2x and used it as a back-up body. Pick one up and you will understand why. It's an ergonomic masterpiece - a joyous photography tool to handle and use. It inspires confidence and screams professionalism. It may not have Bluetooth connectivity or Live-view, but what it lacks for in techno-frippery it more than makes up for in ergonomic superiority.

I guess it's obvious how I feel about the Nikon D200. Is it a 'modern' classic? Yes, it is. Is it the cutting edge of techno-wizardry in camera technology? No it's not. But does that therefore make it an obsolete, outdated, unusable camera? Oh no. No, it does not....