I’ve toyed around with an Olympus 12-50 mm EZ lens today. I got this together with an OMD-EM5 (the original one) for a really good price. I love the EM5 but had not given the 12-50 much attention.

The lens has been discussed a lot when it came out in 2012, also for UW use, and I suppose pretty much everything has been said and posted about it. It’s a slow, decent but not brilliant lens with a moderate macro mode at 43 mm focal length. Some of the users here might have it lying in a drawer, collecting dust.

So why do it over?

Something has changed since 2012, and that is we now have AI-powered image touch-up possibilities. My approach is to use an algorithm that promise to recover unsharp shots (a myth) at a low intensity setting to improve the IQ of modest kit lenses. I explained this before in more detail on this site, many companies offer tools like that. Let’s see what this can do for the macro-mode. The 43 mm focal length is interesting as it is not too far away from the 60mm + MFO3 combination that many here like for the flexibility and outstanding image quality. The M43 30 mm macro lenses are great for the somewhat larger things but a bit limited for high-magnification by short working distances. The 45 mm Panasonic (Goldilock's compromise?) was sometimes described as a bit slower focusing.

I only have the Panasonic 30 mm for a direct comparison and it’s all in air (can’t dive this year). I took the shots (sunflower) at a kind of UW-reasonable setting – hand-held, ISO 200, f 10, 1/200 sec and light coming from a flashgun. I tried to do this at the minimal focusing distance of the 12-50 EZ macro, so should be 1:3’ish.

These are 100% crops from close to the center, a bit of "classic" noise-reducion & sharpening applied.

12-50 EZ in macro mode:

 

 

Pana 30mm with a roughly similar field of view:

 

 

The Panasonic 30 mm has better IQ, I think, though the focus may be ever so slightly different (try to look at the stigma to the left). But the difference is not all that big in this center part.

The f 10 probably limited the Panasonic 30 mm somewhat, but realistically that's what many of us will use for sufficient depth.

Now how does this look after my ON1 touch-up? (same raw-files, 65% AI noise reduction, 23% detail, 15% AI sharpening)

 

12-50 EZ macro:

 

 

 

Panasonic 30 mm:

 

 

 

Conclusions:

1)     BOTH lenses benefit from this treatment. The 12-50 gets better than the “native” Pana 30 mm but after touch-up the Pana still wins clearly.

2)     While I insist that recovering blurry images with this tool doesn’t work, it looks like the procedure CAN extend the focal depth a bit. Won’t save a truly ruined shot, but can be pleasing – or not, if shallow depth of view is what one wants. The Bokeh definitely gets busier for things that are just out-of-focus.

 

AF performance: In air, I found the Olympus 12-50 EZ (macro mode) to be slightly faster than the Panasonic 30 mm. Both lenses will hunt occasionally, but the 12-50 will only focus out to ~1.2 m in the macro mode. Maybe that makes a difference? I only have bodies with contrast-detection AF, the newer phase-decetion systems may give different results. But the two lenses are not far apart.

If you think that this might be an interesting 43 mm macro option for you, look around in the local classifieds as this lens has been discontinued. Reasonable prices will be 100-120 € if you buy from a private seller or less if you're lucky. I would not spend more than that. The lens should fit in any port designed for the 60 mm macro (12-50 EZ is just 1 mm longer). Add a +5 diopter if you need higher magnification.

I certainly don't expect this to reach the IQ of the 60mm + MFO3 combination (those two lenses bought new are about 10x the cost of a pre-owned 12-50). I can't compare but that would be against all common sense. Nontheless, I think the image quality is good enough out-of-camera for sharing on social media and it can be improved post-processing for larger prints.

Edited August 16Aug 16 by Klaus
typo, added "classic" NR info

It was my go-to lens when I shot M4/3 and honestly I doubt anything else on any other system is quite as versatile.

That said it was never particularly sharp and I personally am averse to using AI in any way.

This is a perfectly valid point of view (= no AI whatsoever) and I certainly understand anyone who chooses this approach.

I have always used technology to alter my pictures according to what I want to achieve. Red filters for dramatic skies on b/w film, polarizing filter for crystal-clear water on my Ektachrome slides, shading and burning when making prints in the darkroom … and the non-AI part of our image processing programs have a slew of sliders that can do all this and more. I see no harm in using an AI-tool to remove noise and improve sharpness/contrast. This does not alter the composition, it “only” makes the image look like I had a better camera and lens when I released the shutter. I think this is a much less invasive step than e.g. manually “stamping” away unsightly backscatter. I also have no problems declaring that I used the tool should that be asked for: I simply spent money on a software tool, rather than excellent & heavy glass. The results are very similar.

Using AI to alter the composition, like removing objects or inserting a beautiful sky, is a very different thing. I am not ready for that kind of manipulation, even though I used the red filter back in the aRgentic days and of course I remove backscatter. I am also a big supporter of the EU rule that fully AI generated images now need to be marked. I have not bothered to find out whether a sky-swap falls into that category as well, but the touch-up I am doing certainly doesn’t (but no problem if it did). Most of the latest-generation camera bodies will have some sprinkle of AI in their jpg engines and our smartphones a lot more. It may become difficult to fully escape from AI at some point, but that remains nonetheless a valid goal. There is no good or bad in all of this, just personal preference.

 

A long time ago in a forum far, far away (Wetpixel 2012) the founding fathers all shared the same headache: managing to shoot macro and mid-range subjects on the exact same dive 🤔

But it was a dark but hopeful time!

Alex Mustard had recently reviewed the Olympus EM5 but felt a bit awkward because he did not know exactly which forum section to use... He opened his post with a candid admission: Yes, I know it is not a DSLR (but I am not sure where else to post). It doesn't have a mirror. 😇

Meanwhile, Phil Rudin was geeking out over the new M43 lenses on the horizon, and rumors were spreading among enthusiasts that the Olympus 60mm would finally show up by the end of the year.

Back then, acronyms like WWL, WACP, MFO-1 and MFO-3 were pure science fiction, stuff not even Isaac Asimov could have come up with...

Ultimately, in those pioneering days, the Olympus 12-50mm lens, announced in 2011 and launched in 2012, was the classic Swiss Army knife, the hero of the two worlds.👑

I’m not sure if Nauticam still makes the special port that allowed to flip the macro mode of the lens on and off again. It was the only one offering that functionality. Without that particular port, you have to decide whether to dive general-purpose (12 and 50 mm electronic zoom positions) or whether to switch it into macro before closing the housing and use it as a dedicated 43 mm macro lens that will do up to 1:3 . A close-up lens can be added in both scenarios, but it will result in higher overall magnification when combined with the macro mode. Or, in other terms, you need a stronger diopter if you use it in the normal mode. I cannot currently test which option gives better image quality under water, but the macro mode of this lens has a somewhat better reputation than the 50 mm zoom position. And the 12 mm position may result in vignetting depending on how narrow the port glass is - the Olympus ports from that time were really wide. There are dome ports for this lens, but then you can’t add a diopter. So, unless you can dive with the vintage Nauticam port, there probably are better all-rounder options than this lens today.

I think the 12-50 can be used with any setup designed for the 60 mm when it is switched to macro mode. Essentially, an affordable and perhaps faster focusing alternative to the Lumix 45 mm (but consider the diopter as well). It will not focus to infinity, just like when you mount the MFO3.