Olympus 12-45 F4 suitable for UW photograhy?

I might be looking in the wrong places, but I haven't been able to locate reviews about the fairly new Olympus 12-45 F4. Reviews for underwater use that is.

If the lens has been reviewed, can you point in the right direction?

I'm curious to know how much you would lose (in practical terms) at the wide end, compared to the existing 9-18mm lens. And as the lens appear quite a bit bigger (longer) than the 14-42 kit lens, whether port extension are needed (likely) & available (unknown). I'm using a Olympus PEN housing with the Zen WA-100-EP port. Zen does sell an extension ring, but that's specific for the 60mm macro lens.

If the loss of wide angle is acceptable, this one might be a good replacement for both the 9-18 and kit lens in one handy package! And so I'm a bit surprised that this lens isn't getting more attention.

Thanks for your insights!

This lens is nothing exciting but surely more compact than the 12-40 pro

In terms of compatibility you need to work out a zoom gear first of all. Until then there is no point bothering with ports and extension

Considering the uncertain future of Olympus we need to see if anybody will bother investigating more their range there are already so many ports on the market

In terms of fov compared to 9mm the difference is substantial 84 vs 100 degrees

I'm intrigued by this lens for underwater use.  Here's why:  I currently shoot an M1 with a 170mm Inon dome.  With a 2" extension, that dome works with the Panasonic 8-18, Olympus 12-40, and Olympus 7-14 2.8.  Possibly more, but those are what I can personally confirm.  When I remove the 2" extension, the Olympus 8mm works great.  My thinking is that the the 12-45 may- possibly-might just work in the dome without the extension as well.  IF that also holds true for the upcoming 8-25 Olympus lens, then that could simplify travel and reduce monkeying around with my port.  There's no need for f2.8 underwater, and the price really isn't that bad.  For the OP, the 12-45 would give them the ability to shoot a Pro zoom lens in a Pen-style housing.  As far as a zoom gear, I suggest reaching out to Deepshots to see if they have anything on the horizon.

No reason it wouldn't work well, it's reported to be quite sharp throughout zoom range, max magnification of 0.25x compared to the 12-40 at 0.3x and similar close focus distance - 23cm vs the 12-40 at 20cm.  The missing part is the zoom gear - you could always get one custom made.

Regarding INON ports and extensions the 12-45 is 70 long x 63 and the 12-40 is 84 x 70, so it's 14mm shorter, assuming similar construction the entrance pupil is probably in a similar position so likely needs about 35mm of extension in the sample quoted rather than 50mm.  it may work sub-optimally with none but the lens extends when it zooms so quite possibly would hit the dome.  I know my 12-40 comes very close to the dome at max zoom.

On the question for the Zen port on a PEN housing, in Nauticam the 14-42 lenses and 9-18 both use the 4"wide angle port - same extension.  And with the 180mm dome port Nauticam specifies the same extension for the 12-40 and 9-18.  The extension is specified based on the wide end, so likely is close to what is needed - but would need to be tested to be sure.

 The problem may you run into is that 9-18 is 77mm long in operation and doesn't change length much, the Zen port is very shallow glass and to me looks quite close to the lens inside.  I can't find dimensions of the zoomed in lens but scaling a photo makes it look to be about 100mm long zoomed in to 45mm.    Do you have 30mm space between the 9-18 lens front element and the dome?  you would need that much space  to make use of the maximum zoom.  You may need some extension to allow zooming but that may cause the lens to vignette wide.

Thanks for the responses!
From the looks of it, there might just be enough room before the front element would hit the glass. But it would be too close for comfort.

Zen does offer an extension ring to accomodate macro lenses with their domes; that might be an idea; though that would limit the lens even more on the wide end; reducing the advantage over the 14-42 kit lens. So probably it's a dead end idea. Let's invest in more strobe power before looking into better lenses

Still it would be interesting to see a review; maybe it would fit the Nauticam 4inch port. I'm currently using an Olympus own housing but for the next "step upwards" I'm looking at Nauticam OM-D setup.

Nauticam updated the port chart for MFT (2021-01-04).

Now the 12-45 is added.
Beside the 180 Glas dome and the 7" Acrylic dome there is a option with a flat Port:
Two 20 extension ring and the 35mm Macro port.

Does anyone already tested the Flat port Option? Does it vignetting when Zoomed to 12mm? Or is this option only for Macro.

I Afraid vignetting, the port has only 67mm and the 12-45 goes in while going wide angle.

I ask myself if it could replace the 12-50.

I've been asking myself that exact question, maybe replacing the 12-50. If it doesn't vignette in the flat port it should also not vignette in the 4" wide angle port (no ideas how the corners would look but 12mm MFT is not that wide). Usually Nauticam writes if the lens does vignette and the lens only extends by about 2cm I think.

 Another thing that might be compatible is the MWL-1, but trying that is even more expensive. Kraken has got a competitor/clone at half the price but that's still a good amount of money. 

Zoom gear is not a problem. It's really easy designing an adapter to existing Nauticam Zoom gears. I made one for the 8-18, because I refuse to pay 200€ for something that simple and I already had a 12-40 zoom gear which I got with my housing. You can also design one from scratch but it's a bit more tricky because you have to figure out a fastening mechanism or get the friction fit just right. That requires prototyping, which I've never done because I rely on 3d printing services. I've done gears from scratch for my parents Subal Housing though (Panasonic 45mm, Panasonic 12-60mm), so it's harder but certainly not impossible. I'm not an engineer by the way.

The info in the port chart seems to apply use with the two CMC lenses and provides maximum magnification and working distance data. 

It's highly unlikely that anyone has tested it apart from Nauticam when they produced the new charts, but 24mm full frame equivalent through a flat port is never going to be great.  As for vignetting you can do a calculation knowing the angle of view of the lens and distance from the end of the flat port.  Assuming 30mm from the edge of a 67mm ID opening, the diameter of an 84° cone is 54mm, I assume this will be from the edge of the entrance pupil which is a little behind the front of the lens and is 3mm diameter (12mm f4) so would add 3mm to the diameter.  So assuming the 30mm dimension is correct it is probably not going to vignette.

In addition to the 180mm dome, the Zen 170mm dome for the 12-40 would also work, probably the N120 dome with just the 47mm N85-N120 adapter

The limitation on the design of zoom gears is going to be the diameter of the zoom gear, the zoom gear for the 12-40 won't fit through the Nauticam flat ports, so you'll need one of about the right size to start with. 

It seems to me that most flat ports are just a straight extension of the port opening, tapering only towards the end and that this is the same as the 7" Acrylic port, which I use with the PL8-18 on a modified 12-40 zoom gear. I have no flat port to try it, as my only flat port is the 12-50mm flat port which might be wider (it has a 77mm thread). Designing from scratch would still be an option though, if the 12-50 zoom gear doesn't fit.

4 hours ago, hyp said:

It seems to me that most flat ports are just a straight extension of the port opening, tapering only towards the end and that this is the same as the 7" Acrylic port, which I use with the PL8-18 on a modified 12-40 zoom gear. I have no flat port to try it, as my only flat port is the 12-50mm flat port which might be wider (it has a 77mm thread). Designing from scratch would still be an option though, if the 12-50 zoom gear doesn't fit.

Nauticam flat ports have a bolt on plastic ring for the port mounting, it is a smaller ID than the dome ports.  It is just under 70mm ID.

Guess in that case you would just have to create a zoom gear from scratch or use a smaller one as a base. Either way it's not really the biggest of problems. Figuring out if the port actually suits the lens and if that gives you anything worthwhile over what's currently being used is the harder to answer problem. Solving that will probably require buying the ports. The 35mm flat port with a total of 40mm extension has been tested by Nauticam (it is on the port chart) and will work with macro lenses, so it most likely can replace the 12-50mm with only slightly less magnification and likely higher quality. The bigger domes suggested on the port chart will also work, but at that point you might as well use the tried and tested 12-40mm. 

I think the 4" wide angle port might be the most interesting option to make this lens into a true general purpose lens, but it's uncertain if it will work and personally I'm uncertain if I would want to try it given the cost of about 500€ for the lens and 500€ for the port. Lenses can usually be returned after testing, but with UW gear it's not quite so easy. 

Resurrecting this old thread since it's the first thing that comes up in a search for "Olympus 12-45 underwater", and I think this info is valuable.  While looking closely at the AOI port chart, I noticed that they show two options for this lens- one is a PEN mini-dome intended for the 9-18, the other is a larger OMD dome that would require the OMD to PEN adapter for PEN housings like my AOI EMIII (they also show the OMD dome as a path for OMD housings), and they list two different zoom gears, depending on PEN or OMD port.  Since I got the housing last year, I've used a 170mm Inon dome for the 12-40 with the PEN-OMD adapter; it's effective, but clunky and bulky with lots of steps to remove the camera.

As I'm pretty cheap (I know, wrong hobby), I was curious if I could make the 12-45 work with my small Inon PEN dome for the Olympus 8mm fisheye.   The lens trombones out enough that it bumps into the glass at about 40mm, but I also happen to have an AOI 34mm PEN port extension- it fits perfectly.  Even better, testing in a tub out in the backyard shows pretty good performance at 12mm, 28mm, and 45mm- each tried out at f4, f5.6, and f8.  There was a very small bit of corner softness in some of the shots, but I think part of the deal there is that the camera wasn't  completely square to the  subject.  Also, focus was slow at 45mm- could be because of the shadowing, but it also could be expected for the lens or just my particular copy that I acquired used.

As you can see from the images, my testing was pretty cursory but this might be a pretty good one port option for those with a dome for the 8mm- an extension ring takes up a lot less room than a second dome while traveling, and I would be bringing the ring anyways as it's part of my macro set up.  Oddly, I rarely dive with the 8mm but when I got the housing immediately after it was released, the OMD-PEN adapter was just rumored so I thought it would be the only viable wide angle solution (I'm not a fan of the 9-18 or Panasonic 7-14).  I've also tested the Panasonic 9mm f1.7 in the same Inon dome- it works, but not well- the corner softness extends about a quarter into the frame, and only marginally improves when stopped down.  When I was shooting with the M1mk1 / Oly housing, my wide angle preference was the Panasonic 8-18 in the Inon 170mm dome- it worked great, but my Deepshots zoom gear won't play nice with the OMD-PEN adapter zoom arrangement as-is; I think if I cut the gear down it might work with the bigger dome but I haven't got around to it yet.  I also tried the Oly 8-25; it's a great lens topside but it did not work with the Inon 170mm dome and, frankly, the AOI 8" plastic dome isn't much better if your composition has stuff in the corners.

If the extension is the wrong length the lens exhibits additional barrel or pincushion distortion. You shoud shoot a grid to see if that is the case

On the other hand I would try this lens with the 4" wide angle port that is used on the Olymous 9-18mm itself

I am sure results are suboptimal compared to other options proposed by Nauticam but some people just don't seem to care 

At 24mm the field of view is sufficiently narrow that dome dimensions does not necessarily have a large impact however depending on working distance smaller ports may require significantly longer extension

Again many people are more concerns if the lens works and if the lens does not vignette it will 'work' how much resolution loss there will be is the question. If you use a 12 megapixel camera or shoot 4K video you may not even see the loss compared to a higher resolution body

Not sure if the resolution gain of the 12-45 PRO is worth it against the Olympus 12-50 which is actually tested in the port. Surely the 12-50 is not the sharpest lens in the Olympus lineup, but it's not that bad. On the other hand, no one can say if Nauticam just decided to never try the lens in the 4" port. 

Btw, what is the FoV difference between 12mm behind Flat Port vs Dome Port? I use the 12-50mm in it's dedicated port and sometimes 12mm doesn't seem that bad, although obviously corners are nothing to be proud of... Quite often it's just not wide enough though, so I'm considering investing in the 4" port.

11 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

On the other hand I would try this lens with the 4" wide angle port that is used on the Olymous 9-18mm itself

I am sure results are suboptimal compared to other options proposed by Nauticam but some people just don't seem to care 

I think you're missing the point; the dome for the 9-18 may or may not be better (my guess is that they'll be the about the same, performance-wise because neither are specifically designed around this lens), but if you don't own one but do have a dome meant for the Olympus 8mm, you're in business with an extension ring that you might already have and the option to travel with just one dome.  Nauticam is a non-starter in my existing AOI set up and even if it were doable, they also don't make a port specifically for this lens- the ports they suggest are likely to have the same results as the ones I'm using since they're all more or less designed around the same lenses and same optical design choices.   I could shoot the 12-45 through my bigger domes, but I'd lose the petite form factor of the PEN mini-dome for quite possibly not a significant gain (if any) in photo quality due to those same design parameters and compromises.  

Some other thoughts- the test shots I paid the most attention to were taken at the absolute closest focusing distance I could get, but test shots from a few inches further away were just as sharp.  At 12mm and 28mm the dome sunshade was resting on the bottom of the tub- that's pretty darn close, closer than I can get with the 12-40 in my 170mm dome and closer than I could ever think about getting with the 12-50 in non-macro mode (I shot it for about year before acquiring the 12-40).  At 45mm, the dome was probably 4" off the bottom and the overall magnification was worse than at 28mm.  At it's longest focal length, it probably ends up being a wash with the 12-40 as far as close-up abilities, which is a bit of a downer as I hoped the extra reach would help with skittish subjects.  Really, though- all this is academic until I dive with it.  Speaking of, most of what I do is shore diving in the Pacific Northwest; this set up with the 12-45 appeals to me because of the size, the fact that it saves me just shy of a pound in weight, and that it's lots cheaper overall (there's always a financial risk in this hobby- ditching, falling dome-first onto jetty rocks, etc.).  As long as the photo quality is there, the only tradeoff with using this as a one-dome solution is that split shots are a lot trickier with the 8mm than with my bigger domes and wider angle stuff- not unexpected, and not a huge concern given our typical conditions.

7 hours ago, hyp said:

Btw, what is the FoV difference between 12mm behind Flat Port vs Dome Port? I use the 12-50mm in it's dedicated port and sometimes 12mm doesn't seem that bad, although obviously corners are nothing to be proud of... Quite often it's just not wide enough though, so I'm considering investing in the 4" port.

A quick Google search gave magnification numbers in the 25-28% range for a flat port vs dome port. So 12 mm would behave like 15mm.

I shoot my 12-50mm kit lens exclusively in the Nauticam port for the 60mm macro lens but it vignettes below 14mm. I rarely care about WA but assume that is unacceptable for most people who do care.

On my last trip I did care about WA because I needed to document fish habitats, not just the fishes themselves. I ended up getting an UWL-09F wide angle wet lens which worked great with the 12-50mm kit lens. It can focus on a subject that touches the front of the wet lens and it is crazy wide (at least to someone not used to WA photography). You can also zoom through the 14-50mm range to select your field of view and you can take it off and get that semi-macro shot on the same dive.

The disadvantage of the wet lens is ~1000g more in my luggage and ~US$1000 less in my wallet. But I bet a good dome port isn't cheap and light either and the wet lens is actually pretty compact.

9 hours ago, Wapiti said:

I think you're missing the point; the dome for the 9-18 may or may not be better (my guess is that they'll be the about the same, performance-wise because neither are specifically designed around this lens), but if you don't own one but do have a dome meant for the Olympus 8mm, you're in business with an extension ring that you might already have and the option to travel with just one dome.  Nauticam is a non-starter in my existing AOI set up and even if it were doable, they also don't make a port specifically for this lens- the ports they suggest are likely to have the same results as the ones I'm using since they're all more or less designed around the same lenses and same optical design choices.   I could shoot the 12-45 through my bigger domes, but I'd lose the petite form factor of the PEN mini-dome for quite possibly not a significant gain (if any) in photo quality due to those same design parameters and compromises.  

Some other thoughts- the test shots I paid the most attention to were taken at the absolute closest focusing distance I could get, but test shots from a few inches further away were just as sharp.  At 12mm and 28mm the dome sunshade was resting on the bottom of the tub- that's pretty darn close, closer than I can get with the 12-40 in my 170mm dome and closer than I could ever think about getting with the 12-50 in non-macro mode (I shot it for about year before acquiring the 12-40).  At 45mm, the dome was probably 4" off the bottom and the overall magnification was worse than at 28mm.  At it's longest focal length, it probably ends up being a wash with the 12-40 as far as close-up abilities, which is a bit of a downer as I hoped the extra reach would help with skittish subjects.  Really, though- all this is academic until I dive with it.  Speaking of, most of what I do is shore diving in the Pacific Northwest; this set up with the 12-45 appeals to me because of the size, the fact that it saves me just shy of a pound in weight, and that it's lots cheaper overall (there's always a financial risk in this hobby- ditching, falling dome-first onto jetty rocks, etc.).  As long as the photo quality is there, the only tradeoff with using this as a one-dome solution is that split shots are a lot trickier with the 8mm than with my bigger domes and wider angle stuff- not unexpected, and not a huge concern given our typical conditions.

Uhm I think you are the one missing the point

A dome restores the field of view ONLY if it is positioned correctly. The size of the dome has an impact on field of curvature and edge sharpness depending on the angle of view of the lens. For a 12-45mm lens which is not that wide position is more important than absolute size.

If your dome is too close or too far away it introduces either barrel or pincushion distortion so you loose the field of view you thought you gained and you introduce additional aberrations. Hence I suggested to shoot a chart with a grid

Looking at lens diagram at 12mm the entrance pupil is around 2cm from the edge so if your dome is complete hemisphere this is where the radius should intercept the lens

16 hours ago, hyp said:

Not sure if the resolution gain of the 12-45 PRO is worth it against the Olympus 12-50 which is actually tested in the port. Surely the 12-50 is not the sharpest lens in the Olympus lineup, but it's not that bad. On the other hand, no one can say if Nauticam just decided to never try the lens in the 4" port. 

Btw, what is the FoV difference between 12mm behind Flat Port vs Dome Port? I use the 12-50mm in it's dedicated port and sometimes 12mm doesn't seem that bad, although obviously corners are nothing to be proud of... Quite often it's just not wide enough though, so I'm considering investing in the 4" port.

I do not have personal experience with the 12-45mm or the 12-50mm lenses behind flat- and domeports, but with similar lenses (12-40 pro (behind zen DP170) and 9-18mm (behind both flatport and DP170))...

As Glasseye Snapper already mentioned the difference at 12mm between flat port and domeport is, that behind a flat port you get the same magnification as behind a flat diving mask (approx. 25%), while a domeport restores the angle of view that one has on the surface in air...

In addition, IQ at 9mm (and less at 12mm, but clearly visible) suffers a lot behind a flatport, when away from the center, really bad (optical resolution of the lens itself is much better, even if it is a suboptimal lens as e.g. the 12-50). When placed correctly, the 12-40 Pro (and also 9-18mm (that is not an optical monster, maybe comaparble to the 12-50))  behind DP170 give excellent IQ, a great stepup compared to a flatport...

The same is likely to happen with 12-45 pro and 12-50 behind a domeport (I believe that even some mispositioning, if it is not too much, will not destroy real life IQ; flat port at 12mm is much worse). I do not know, however, how usable the macro function of the 12-50mm is, when correctly positioned behind a domeport...

Wolfgang

12 hours ago, Wapiti said:

I think you're missing the point; the dome for the 9-18 may or may not be better (my guess is that they'll be the about the same, performance-wise because neither are specifically designed around this lens), but if you don't own one but do have a dome meant for the Olympus 8mm, you're in business with an extension ring that you might already have and the option to travel with just one dome. 

I wouldn't assume that because a dome is designed for a particular lens it will be better.  If you look at the dome for the 9-18 it is a very shallow section of a sphere and the lens needs to be positioned well forward of the optimal position to avoid vignetting.  It's a compromise to allow them to produce a cheap compact dome for that lens. 

The dome for the fisheye lens is a hemisphere so placing the front element at the base of the dome will get the entrance pupil much closer to the right position and have a better chance of performing well, though the dome radius is smaller than the 9-18mm dome so the fisheye dome will have more corner problems.  It's all a trade off.  The 12-45 should perform similarly to the 12-40 - in a 170mm dome the image quality of the 12-40 is very nice. 

5 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

I do not know, however, how usable the macro function of the 12-50mm is, when correctly positioned behind a domeport...

As far as I know, no domeport exists that allows use of the macro function of the 12-50, although I think the 4" dome could maybe retrofitted with a gear similar to the one on the dedicated port. I may explore that option at some point in time, because I'm still looking for a decent all-round solution. I'm doing a lot of vacation diving that often is very unpredictable in terms of subject choice. I just returned from a trip to Elba and had dives where I was told we were going to a specific dive site in the afternoon and then plans got changed because they had to also accommodate some snorklers. Focusing on either macro or wide angle often leaves me frustrated, because generally most european dive sites are not that target rich, so you need to shoot what you get to see. Unfortunately with a small kid, overseas destinations are not going to be in my travel plans for the next years.

The 12-50 (even in flat port, as I'm currently using it) is still one of the best jack of all trades options out there. It allows 12mm Flatport FoV all the way to 1:1 Macro with a wetlens. Apparently, with the 4" dome you can still add a Wetlens and get up to 0.8x Magnification, so it seems like a clear upgrade to me and I will explore this option before my next dive trip (hopefully next year).