The previous post touched on a subject dear to my heart, analysing the character or actual photographic application of my arsenal of modest lenses.

The primes were easy, as they are consistent and relatively well known to me. Zooms on the other hand are difficult to pin down. By their very nature they will change as zoomed, both in technical performance and in visual characteristics.

Lets give it a try though.

The 12-40 f2.8

Fast becoming a favourite again after selling my first, this lens has a similar feel to the 25mm f1.8. It also has in common with the 25mm a good close focus range and a rich, glowing personality. This is an XP2 film like lens, able to be a little adaptable, never harsh, even if pushed, and reliable. Bokeh is generally “new school” again matching the 25mm. It blurs out so smoothly, it has been blamed for some softness, when poor attention to depth of field and/or focus was the actual culprit. Originally only purchased to give me a wide angle for work, I have become a convert to it’s charming ways. It just makes this “primes only” guy, feel all warm inside. The lens also balances perfectly on my EM1 and covers a good range up to the surprising kit 40-150.

The 12-100 f4

This one has pretty much the opposite character to the 12-40. The Bokeh can be a mixed bag, the sharpness is hard, even harsh and the micro contrast is through the roof. I once tested it against the 75-300 and although similar in edge sharpness at 100mm, the 12-100 showed a whole world of fine detail the 75-300 ignored. Insanely versatile and good at what it does for me (landscapes), I much prefer almost any other of lens for people and shallow depth work. This is like medium format Tri-X film, gritty tonally, but otherwise high quality. It also has very good close focus and stabiliser/AF performance.

The 40-150 (kit not Pro)

Bought in a cheap set with a second 45mm and new standard kit lens for my wife, I soon found myself treating it like one of the big guys. On my last two trips to Japan it became the invisible lens. Weightless and oh so handy, it went everywhere and was used indiscriminately. Strong micro contrast similar to the 12-100, lends it a feel of more than decent optical quality and other than it’s flimsy build quality, it offers good performance at a piffling price and weight. This lens has actually made me think of it as a “colour Tri-X” lens even before this process started. I feel what black and white will do for it is actually make it better. Without the limitations of slightly flat colour and middle of the road bokeh, it will shine as a tone and detail lens.

The 75-300

What more can I say that has not already be said of this lens on these pages. I love it, I respect it’s giant killing capabilities and I am grateful that Olympus supplied a more than decent “filler” lens in this space. Better optically than the kit 40-150, mainly due to superior colour and slightly nicer Bokeh, this lens surprises again and again. It falls very much in the same camp as the 12-40 and 25mm lenses and is my go-to for shiny cars and brilliant light detail. It has little micro contrast, which has the benefit of letting it make nice images, without too much micro contrast baggage. It hides polishing scratches and skin blemishes that lenses like the 12-100, 40-150 (pro or kit) and 17mm would reveal.

Scientific analysis? No. This is more of a mojo type of thing. It felt good to revisit the kit after a break and to re-align my thinking for mono work. Lets see if it comes to anything.