Micro 4/3 Olympus 12-100/4 Pro: Flexibility vs Portability

What’s your experience with the Olympus 12-100?

  • Never Owned It/Not Interested

    Votes: 7 21.2%
  • Never Owned It/Interested

    Votes: 9 27.3%
  • Owned It/Sold It

    Votes: 4 12.1%
  • Own It/Rarely Use It

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Own It/Use It Often

    Votes: 10 30.3%
  • Own It/Never Leaves My Camera

    Votes: 3 9.1%

  • Total voters
    33

John King

Member of SOFA
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Name
John ...
Just because I got curious about the 60mm vs the 100mm reach, I snapped one on each of the two, first is 60mm, second one 100mm:

View attachment 310268View attachment 310269

There is an obvious difference, but I am not entirely convinced that the difference is as groundbreaking, as it is hyped up to be?

Pictures straight from the camera and what was at hand covering the reaches (G6/45-175) with a push on the auto button in LR upon import, for both of them.
Jens,

a) there's a pretty noticeable difference in AoV

b) also look carefully at the difference in definition of where the grout and tiles meet

There is a visible difference, whether due to the lens, or steadiness.
 

RAH

Rookie
Location
Hampton, NH
Name
Rich
Just because I got curious about the 60mm vs the 100mm reach, I snapped one on each of the two, first is 60mm, second one 100mm:

There is an obvious difference, but I am not entirely convinced that the difference is as groundbreaking, as it is hyped up to be?
Well, that's kind of my complaint about the size of the 12-100 - its added reach isn't enough to justify the added size and weight. I mean, for a lens like this - I think of all of these lenses -12-60, 12-40, 12-45, etc, etc as "standard" focal-length lenses - 100mm somehow isn't enough added to make it worthwhile, IMHO. 150, yes, then we are talking enough increase (obviously like the 14-140 and 14-150s they already make). But then, presumably, they cannot achive the IQ of the 12-100 with such a wide FL range. In fact, on the good side, the 12-100 seems to be an outlier - a very high IQ with almost a 10x zoom. So, as I said originally, I want to like the lens, but no.

Meanwhile, you guys missed an egregious error I made - I said the Canon 15-85 had more reach than the 12-100 - YIKES!! I realized it while getting into bed last night (I don't have much to think about nowadays). Talk about a brain-freeze! So not only was I comparing apples and lemons, according to @John King (well, maybe apples and pears, I'd say), but I got it VERY wrong. I have corrected it.

Anyway, I agree that it is worth trying out the 12-100 if it is close to what a person wants. My 12-60 is fine for my needs and since the OP was asking for thoughts on the issue... :)
 

JensM

Top Veteran
Jens,

a) there's a pretty noticeable difference in AoV

b) also look carefully at the difference in definition of where the grout and tiles meet

There is a visible difference, whether due to the lens, or steadiness.
John, we are not in disagreement about A.

As to B, I assume full responsibility for that, these are true snapshots, mostly for my own enlightenment and taken with what was at hand without even moving out of my chair, shot handheld with a non-stabilised camera on A priority for a quick grab of the AoVs.

Personally, I have some troubles visualizing scale on a "detail" level such as this, and found it helpful and thought it could benefit others as well. :drinks:
 
Location
Florida
Name
Todd
I had it paired with the EM-1 Mkii. It was, without a doubt, the very best lens I have ever owned. In the end though it was just too large and heavy for me to enjoy carrying it and it is to expensive to just be a special occasion lens. I sold it after owning it for about a year.
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Name
John ...
@RAH Rich, you are right, I missed that. Looked at the figures with my brain disengaged! Just assumed you were talking about mFTs equivalence ... DOH!

Anyway, having used the FTs 14-54 MkII as my standard lens since about late 2008, I agree with you about its excellence as a FL range for general purpose use. The various 12-60 lenses being even better.

No way would I want the 12-100 as my walk-around lens on smaller bodies! E-M5 range included. Suits the E-M1 range very well though. As does my FTs 14-54. The only good thing about the 12-100 on my E-PM2 is that the lens has terrific ILIS, and the body has all but useless IBIS.

An interesting poll, and interesting replies though. Thanks to @11GTCS for bringing it up.
 
Well, that's kind of my complaint about the size of the 12-100 - its added reach isn't enough to justify the added size and weight. I mean, for a lens like this - I think of all of these lenses -12-60, 12-40, 12-45, etc, etc as "standard" focal-length lenses - 100mm somehow isn't enough added to make it worthwhile, IMHO. 150, yes, then we are talking enough increase (obviously like the 14-140 and 14-150s they already make). But then, presumably, they cannot achive the IQ of the 12-100 with such a wide FL range. In fact, on the good side, the 12-100 seems to be an outlier - a very high IQ with almost a 10x zoom. So, as I said originally, I want to like the lens, but no.

Meanwhile, you guys missed an egregious error I made - I said the Canon 15-85 had more reach than the 12-100 - YIKES!! I realized it while getting into bed last night (I don't have much to think about nowadays). Talk about a brain-freeze! So not only was I comparing apples and lemons, according to @John King (well, maybe apples and pears, I'd say), but I got it VERY wrong. I have corrected it.

Anyway, I agree that it is worth trying out the 12-100 if it is close to what a person wants. My 12-60 is fine for my needs and since the OP was asking for thoughts on the issue... :)

Is it an 'equivalence' thing with smaller numbers gnawing away at the ex-film photographer's subconscious?

24-200mm vs 24-120mm sounds much more impressive than 12-100mm vs 12-60mm.

"All that extra weight for a measly 40mm".
 

Ghostbuggy

Regular
Location
Hoher Fläming, Germany
Name
Phill
I was never really interested in the lens, although I am very sure this lens is (surprisingly) excellent, not only because of the range coupled with the provided image quality and sharpness, but also the ability to use Sync-IS in combinations with my Olympus / OMDS bodies, the size and weight just wasn't for me. As a general lens for walking around it is too large and heavy on paper for my taste, especially compared to the excellent 12-45 f4. This and the fact I typically prefer using a trio (or duo) of primes on my Pen-F, pretty much rendered this lens uninteresting for me.

If I really want more reach, I rather pack the 75-300 II and get a ton of additional reach in combination with the compact 12-45 Pro.
 
Well, that's kind of my complaint about the size of the 12-100 - its added reach isn't enough to justify the added size and weight. I mean, for a lens like this - I think of all of these lenses -12-60, 12-40, 12-45, etc, etc as "standard" focal-length lenses - 100mm somehow isn't enough added to make it worthwhile, IMHO. 150, yes, then we are talking enough increase (obviously like the 14-140 and 14-150s they already make). But then, presumably, they cannot achive the IQ of the 12-100 with such a wide FL range. In fact, on the good side, the 12-100 seems to be an outlier - a very high IQ with almost a 10x zoom. So, as I said originally, I want to like the lens, but no.

Meanwhile, you guys missed an egregious error I made - I said the Canon 15-85 had more reach than the 12-100 - YIKES!! I realized it while getting into bed last night (I don't have much to think about nowadays). Talk about a brain-freeze! So not only was I comparing apples and lemons, according to @John King (well, maybe apples and pears, I'd say), but I got it VERY wrong. I have corrected it.

Anyway, I agree that it is worth trying out the 12-100 if it is close to what a person wants. My 12-60 is fine for my needs and since the OP was asking for thoughts on the issue... :)
When i want go travel light i use the Panasonic 14-140 but with a Panasonic body for the dual IS
That lens with a G85 or G95 is a really light combo and the lens is not that far behind the Oly 12-100
 

Mrs B

Regular
Yes, you do have a point (up to a point) there. But even though 80mm doesn't sound so measly, well, it still is! :rolleyes:
I suppose it depends on what you need the extra length for. I take a lot of photos at horse competitions (dressage/showjumping/x-country) I think the extra 80mm is what I have been missing on a lot of my shoots with the PL12-60. I usually have the PL12-60 on one body and the Oly 40-150 on another. By adding the Oly 12-100 the extra 80mm reach this give would make photographing and filming more effective and also I would not need to carry the 40-150 unless at the x-country events, then I can add the TC1.4 or TC2.0 and still have a good overlap. And ... as I like learning to do new things (in Excel) I though I would visualise what I mean into a chart (geek? me?? noooo :unsure:)
1652555221433.png
 
Last edited:

pdk42

Veteran
Location
Royal Leamington Spa, UK
Name
Paul
It's a fantastic lens for the sort of photography I do (mostly landscape) and probably the reason why I'm still with m43 and didn't stay with Nikon Z when I tried it a couple of years ago. I had the 14-30 and the 24-70 with the Z7 and got the 24-200 to round off the system and give me the equiv zoom range I was using with the EM1.2 I had at the time. Compared to the 12-100, the 24-200 was a big disappointment. It's not a bad lens, but it fell a long way short of the 12-100 - in IQ, handling, IS, build quality, and feel.

Sure, the 12-100 is a big lens for m43, but it's smaller and lighter than any two zooms that would match the same range, and although a "superzoom" it has none of the optical compromises that such lenses tend to have. On top of all that, its Sync IS is insane. I can reliably do exposures of 10s or so at the wide end on the EM1.3. Quite astonishing and for landscapes it means that a tripod is not always necessary - even for blurring water etc.
 

Be More

New Member
Well, that's kind of my complaint about the size of the 12-100 - its added reach isn't enough to justify the added size and weight. I mean, for a lens like this - I think of all of these lenses -12-60, 12-40, 12-45, etc, etc as "standard" focal-length lenses - 100mm somehow isn't enough added to make it worthwhile, IMHO. 150, yes, then we are talking enough increase (obviously like the 14-140 and 14-150s they already make). But then, presumably, they cannot achive the IQ of the 12-100 with such a wide FL range. In fact, on the good side, the 12-100 seems to be an outlier - a very high IQ with almost a 10x zoom. So, as I said originally, I want to like the lens, but no.

Meanwhile, you guys missed an egregious error I made - I said the Canon 15-85 had more reach than the 12-100 - YIKES!! I realized it while getting into bed last night (I don't have much to think about nowadays). Talk about a brain-freeze! So not only was I comparing apples and lemons, according to @John King (well, maybe apples and pears, I'd say), but I got it VERY wrong. I have corrected it.

Anyway, I agree that it is worth trying out the 12-100 if it is close to what a person wants. My 12-60 is fine for my needs and since the OP was asking for thoughts on the issue... :)
I had the PL12-60mm and it was great, paired with my G9 at the time. Beautiful rendering and plenty sharp.

Yet I was curious about the MZ12-100mm as I had found myself wanting a little extra reach, yet not wanting to sacrifice the wide end or IQ. So I found a good deal on eBay and decided to see if it was worth the extra size and weight. I was quite surprised at how much sharper it was from corner to corner. Similar level of sharpness in the centre but the edges of the 12-100 were so much better and throughout the entire range. And the stabilisation was significantly better than the 12-60, even on the G9. The lens IS also allowed me to use the G9's tripod HR mode hand held. Extra reach, sharper images, better stabilisation from the lens IS alone than I had with the DUAL IS previously for a little extra size and weight. I almost never used the12-60 again and after a couple years of it sitting on the shelf I ended up selling it.
 
Top