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

[Darmok N Jalad]

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.

I see it a bit differently. Yes, you can get closer to more distant subjects with 100mm, but to me the extra reach comes in handy on things up-close, especially since the 12-100 has an even shorter MFD than the 12-60. You can achieve quite a bit more up-close separation at 100mm than you can at 60mm, and you can even get closer to the subject, if you want relatively thin DOF.

 

[dwkdnvr]

is there a 'had it, but sold it, but will probably buy it again?' category?

I had the 12-100 on my E-M5.2, and can't disagree with any of the accolades. Just an unbelievable 1-lens solution. I left M43 for a bit, and when I came back it was an agonizing decision process, but I decided that Olympus had come up with a potentially more interesting option - the 12-45 + 40-150/4 combo. So, I got an E-M1.2 +12-45 and am tentatively pairing it with the cheapie 40-150/R to see how I do with a 2-lens kit before springing for the f/4. I think there is at least even odds that I eventually come back to the 12-100, but we'll see.

 

[John King]

is there a 'had it, but sold it, but will probably buy it again?' category?

I had the 12-100 on my E-M5.2, and can't disagree with any of the accolades. Just an unbelievable 1-lens solution. I left M43 for a bit, and when I came back it was an agonizing decision process, but I decided that Olympus had come up with a potentially more interesting option - the 12-45 + 40-150/4 combo. So, I got an E-M1.2 +12-45 and am tentatively pairing it with the cheapie 40-150/R to see how I do with a 2-lens kit before springing for the f/4. I think there is at least even odds that I eventually come back to the 12-100, but we'll see.

I've just bought the 8-25 to go with my 12-100 ...

I will also see how that goes. So many great choices.

BTW, to the forum.

 

[DaveJP]

I bought the 12-100 about two years ago, took it on holiday to The Lake District for a week, then returned it for a full refund when I got back! The lens is very sharp and the I.S. is excellent, but with the lens hood it's nearly 600g, which is the sort of lens weight I switched from full frame to get away from. I found it pulled the camera down when walking and bounced around; it needed a hand to steady it most of the time. It was quite a relief to get back to my 12-40.

 

[John King]

I bought the 12-100 about two years ago, took it on holiday to The Lake District for a week, then returned it for a full refund when I got back! The lens is very sharp and the I.S. is excellent, but with the lens hood it's nearly 600g, which is the sort of lens weight I switched from full frame to get away from. I found it pulled the camera down when walking and bounced around; it needed a hand to steady it most of the time. It was quite a relief to get back to my 12-40.

to the forum, Dave.

I have three basic 'kits', depending on how fit/feeble I'm feeling ...

BTW, the 12-100 weighs about 561 grams, or 640.8 grams with both caps and a Hoya Pro1 72mm filter fitted.

Regardless of size/weight, there is no other lens made by anyone with the FL range and optical quality. It is simply the best lens I have ever owned, including Leitz, Rodenstock, Schneider-Kreuznach, etc, etc.

It looks to me as if my recently acquired 8-25 is in the same league. Time will tell, I guess. It 'only' weighs about 411 grams, I presume that's 'naked'. I didn't weigh it with filter and caps.

 

[wee-pics]

I've just bought the 8-25 to go with my 12-100 ...

I will also see how that goes. So many great choices.

BTW, to the forum.

Please let me know your experiences with the 8-25. I've been thinking for some time to add it to my set. The reports both from testers and users are so positive that they are a serious threat to my purse.

 

[John King]

Please let me know your experiences with the 8-25. I've been thinking for some time to add it to my set. The reports both from testers and users are so positive that they are a serious threat to my purse.

Lenstip review seems good:

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 8-25 mm f/4 PRO - LensTip.com

Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.

www.lenstip.com

[Edit] Review actually starts here, for those not familiar with Lenstip.

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 8-25 mm f/4 PRO review - Introduction - LensTip.com

Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.

www.lenstip.com

[End edit]

 

[wee-pics]

I see it a bit differently. Yes, you can get closer to more distant subjects with 100mm, but to me the extra reach comes in handy on things up-close, especially since the 12-100 has an even shorter MFD than the 12-60. You can achieve quite a bit more up-close separation at 100mm than you can at 60mm, and you can even get closer to the subject, if you want relatively thin DOF.

I quite agree with you as to the MDF. This lens has become my favourite with blossoms when I don't have the 2.8/60 macro or the 1.8/75 with me. You can get rather close and get a separation from the background and a nice bokeh in addition.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

all cross-posts

 

[Herbert Hound]

is there a 'had it, but sold it, but will probably buy it again?' category?

I had the 12-100 on my E-M5.2, and can't disagree with any of the accolades. Just an unbelievable 1-lens solution. I left M43 for a bit, and when I came back it was an agonizing decision process, but I decided that Olympus had come up with a potentially more interesting option - the 12-45 + 40-150/4 combo. So, I got an E-M1.2 +12-45 and am tentatively pairing it with the cheapie 40-150/R to see how I do with a 2-lens kit before springing for the f/4. I think there is at least even odds that I eventually come back to the 12-100, but we'll see.

I have the same camera + 2-lens set up as you and I'm constantly tempted by the 12-100mm... it's just the size, weight and price that's putting me off, plus I don't use the 40-150/R very often! (Not much then!)

However; if I had that extra 45-100mm available without a lens swap then I would probably find a lot more use for it, especially as a lot of my photography is done while I'm out walking my dog so lens swapping's a pain. But then that extra size and weight while I'm walking the dog..... and I'm back to square one! *sigh* Perhaps the 14-150mm??

I don't know if you're aware, but Olympus have a 50-200mm PRO in the pipeline which you might prefer to the 40-150mm PRO, or which other people may prefer so putting some 40-150mm PRO lenses onto the used market. Just a thought.

 

[DaveJP]

This thread has prompted me to give some more thought to the 12-100. As mentioned in my earlier post I bought this lens, but returned it because of its size and weight. I wondered how people would feel about the 12-100 as a walk around outfit compared to the combination of 12-40 and new 40-150 f4?

 

[John King]

This thread has prompted me to give some more thought to the 12-100. As mentioned in my earlier post I bought this lens, but returned it because of its size and weight. I wondered how people would feel about the 12-100 as a walk around outfit compared to the combination of 12-40 and new 40-150 f4?

Dave, my walk around on serious days is E-M1 MkII + 8-25 + 12-100.

 

[DaveJP]

I can appreciate the versatility of an outfit like that, but the extra reach afforded by the 40-150 f4 is very tempting!

 

[John King]

I can appreciate the versatility of an outfit like that, but the extra reach afforded by the 40-150 f4 is very tempting!

Quite right. Just in the other direction.

We each have our individual wants and needs.

If you look at my gear in my profile, you will see that it covers a wide set of needs and situations. Leaving aside my original OM1 gear starting in the 1970s, I've collected quite a range of digital gear. Mainly because I never sell anything.

 

[ac12]

I can appreciate the versatility of an outfit like that, but the extra reach afforded by the 40-150 f4 is very tempting!

Everything depends on the specifics of the use case.
Examples:

For just walking the neighborhood or travel, I would take the P-Lumix 12-60 or Olympus 14-150, because they are small and light.
Small and light are the #1 requirements.
I got the 14-150, because I kept second guessing my purchase of the 12-60, and seeing when I could use a bit more reach beyond 60mm.

For shooting certain events, I take the 12-100. I want the IQ, and I accept the bulk and weight.
But this is not a lens that I use for LONG shoots, or where I have to carry my kit for days (like on vacation).

For gym games, I use the 12-40/2.8. I need the extra stop of speed, more than I need the extra reach to 100mm.
In fact I am thinking of going to the f/1.8 primes for the gym, for another stop more speed. Give me a 15-60/2

While I do not have an ultra wide zoom . . . yet. Looking at the 8-25/4.
I do pair the 12-100 with either a 75-300 or a 40-150/2.8+MC20, to get the extra reach out to 300mm.

 

[wee-pics]

This thread has prompted me to give some more thought to the 12-100. As mentioned in my earlier post I bought this lens, but returned it because of its size and weight. I wondered how people would feel about the 12-100 as a walk around outfit compared to the combination of 12-40 and new 40-150 f4?

To answer your question Dave, I have the 2.8/12-40 pro as well. Of course it's lighter. But it's by far not as often on my E-M5 as the 12-100.
So far I have never found the 12-100 too heavy or too bulky, quite on the contrary. Compared to Canon etc. lenses it's small and an absolute lightweight. Having it in my left hand the camera-lens combo is nicely balanced. The weight allows me to get even longer expositions handheld with perfect sharpness. And the 120mm focal length in addition (in relation to 35mm format) makes my 12-40 stay on the shelf most of the time (except when I need it a bit faster).
So for me it has become the perfect walk-around lens, a sort of "eierlegendes Wollmilchschwein" (egg-laying woolly pig) as we call something you can use for a good variety of purposes.

 

[Simonix]

I use a 12-40 and the new 40-150 f4.

I used to have the 12-100.

Reality is, for my purposes, I rarely needed more than 40mm in most cases.
If I was on a day out shooting where I needed over 40mm, then the chances were I needed more than the maximum 100mm too.

That mixed with the fact that my 40-150 f4 was sharper than my copy of the 12-100, and the faster, smaller and lighter 12-40 for most of my general purpose usage, meant I sold the 12-100.

It’s subjective. Everyone has their own requirements, opinions and preference.

Either way, the 12-100 is still a great lens no matter. And one things for sure, it’s fans are very protective over it….

 

[Ming P]

The premise of the Olympus 12-100/4 seems interesting. I tried it out in a store and sort of liked it.

I already have the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8, though. And the 12-100/4 (561g) weighs not much less than both Panasonic 2.8 zooms put together (305g + 357g = 662g). Having all the weight in my hands feels worse than having half of it in my bag. Not to mention, it's a stop slower. That's a lot of trade-offs. It would be redundant for me to own all three, so it would have to be a replacement for me, and I'm not sure I want to make that exchange.

I could see myself renting it for hiking, or other rare scenarios where I really don't want to change lenses.

Or, I suppose, if someone puts one up for sale at a sufficient discount, I could see myself impulse buying first and asking questions later.

 

[pdk42]

On the suze/weight thing, here’s my 2c worth:

- I’m not a huge fan of “walkabout”, unless it’s in a city with the potential for both cityscapes and street. Either way, I really don’t see the 12-100 as a good fit. It’s too big for a city walkabout IMHO, and even worse for candid/street. The 12-40 is a better fit for both, but of course a nice prime like the 17 or the 25 is the ideal for street.

- HOWEVER, for dedicated photo outings, esp landscape, the 12-100 is really excellent. Its combination of range, IS, and IQ is unparalleled. Its size & weight is completely manageable in this scenario. In fact, given how good Sync IS is, I can leave the tripod at home which saves A LOT of weight. Overall, I could survive with the 12-100 as my only lens (but I prefer to add a UWA to give me a wider option too).

So, in conclusion, I see the 12-100 not as a walkabout lens (where its size and weight mitigate against it), but as a fantastic dedicated photo tool for landscape shooting.

 

[pdk42]

The premise of the Olympus 12-100/4 seems interesting. I tried it out in a store and sort of liked it.

I already have the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8, though. And the 12-100/4 (561g) weighs not much less than both Panasonic 2.8 zooms put together (305g + 357g = 662g). Having all the weight in my hands feels worse than having half of it in my bag. Not to mention, it's a stop slower. That's a lot of trade-offs. It would be redundant for me to own all three, so it would have to be a replacement for me, and I'm not sure I want to make that exchange.

I could see myself renting it for hiking, or other rare scenarios where I really don't want to change lenses.

Or, I suppose, if someone puts one up for sale at a sufficient discount, I could see myself impulse buying first and asking questions later.

I had the 12-35 and 35-100 f2.8 zooms and swapped them (literally - I found someone who had the 12-100 and wanted the Panasonic pair instead!) for the 12-100. I‘ve never regretted it. The clincher is the Sync IS, but the ability to handle the entire range without swapping lenses is a massive benefit too. But I mostly shoot landscapes where its size/weight isn’t such a big issue and where f4 presents no limitation since nearly all my shots are at f5.6

 

[Holoholo33]

This thread has prompted me to give some more thought to the 12-100. As mentioned in my earlier post I bought this lens, but returned it because of its size and weight. I wondered how people would feel about the 12-100 as a walk around outfit compared to the combination of 12-40 and new 40-150 f4?

For a walk around kit, I definitely prefer the 12-100 than two lenses like the 12-40 and 40-150. No lens swapping, weather sealed, Sync IS, and sharp over the entire range. Plus, it focuses close enough at 100 not to need a macro much of the time. And, the kit with the 12-100 is lighter than with the 12-40 + 40-150 f4 Pro.