We all have different opinions as to what constitutes the best walk around outfit. I rejected the 12-100 for being too big and heavy, although the combination I've been using for about four years is the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 and Lumix 35-100 f2.8. The combined weight of these two lenses is greater than that of the 12-100, but only half the weight is on the camera at any one time. I'm thinking of trading in the 35-100 for an OM System 40-150 f4 zoom. It would be about the same weight as the 35-100 and it provides 50mm more focal length. It also has a closer minimum focusing distance, which combined with the greater focal length makes it better for occasional close ups. The only problem is I'd lose one stop of light, but an aperture of f4 doesn't seem to bother the 12-100 enthusiasts much.
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
Micro 4/3 Olympus 12-100/4 Pro: Flexibility vs Portability
I love mine & it's optics are superb.
- Location
- Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
- Name
- John ...
to the forum, mate.That is, until you end up shooting in DIM light.
I may like my 12-100/4, but I shoot the 12-40/2.8 in the gym, for that reason.
And I am thinking of switching to f/1.8 primes.
- Location
- Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
- Name
- John ...
I would think that the f/1.8 75 might suit your use very well?
I took the 12-100 on our trip to NZ pre-covid (2 weeks on the South Island). It was fabulous. I might have swapped the PL15 on for a couple shots, but otherwise it was on the camera the entire time, and it made everything so easy. I have hiked with it as well, and honestly it wasn't really the weight as such that was annoying, but the length made it more unwieldy/floppy. That's ultimately what made me try the 12-45 - much more comfortable as a walk around, but obviously the question of whether I'll actually bother to change lenses in the field is significant. I bought used from MPB, so ultimately I'm not out much if I backtrack and swap back to the 12-100.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.
I've seen mention of another 1 or 2 midrange zooms on the roadmap, but I have to admit I'm confused by them. I guess I just don't have the experience to understand why a 50-200 is likely to be successful when there are already THREE different 40-150s available, with the 2.8 pro taking the 1.4 TC to cover the range up to 200 already albeit with some sacrifice of absolute quality. I have to assume that if a 50-200 appears it'll be something intended to pair with the 150-400, which means a big, heavy, expensive specialty lens not aimed at me. I can see how a 50-200/4 might have been a more interesting lens to pair with the 12-45, but now that they have the 40-150/4 I have to think that ship has sailed.
- Location
- Tanagra
The only thing I can think is the 50-200 would be like the PL50-200, which isn't that big and works with TCs. It's a variable aperture lens though. The 40-150 F4 is compact above all else, and doesn't offer any switches or buttons. Maybe the 50-200 replaces the 40-150 2.8 and throws in some wizardry?
I got into m4/3 for one reason, and one reason only. The excellent selection of tiny, fast, sharp, light, & relatively inexpensive primes. Lenses such as the Oly 12-100, are the absolute antithesis of this. And I'm not singling out just the 12-100 here, the PL 10-25 f1.7 falls into the same category for me as well. It's an outstanding lens, worth every penny, I can afford one, I know I'd love what it's capable of, but I simply wouldn't enjoy carrying it around with me all the time. And to me, the whole purpose of buying excellent quality gear, is to use it at every opportunity. Carry it around everywhere, and try & wear the damn things out. Use the sh!t out of it, & enjoy every second of it. I paid good money for it, I want to make the most use of that money that I can, in my allotted time. So far, about the only thing I have managed to wear out, is my tiny little Lumix 42.5 f1.7. Which hasn't upset me in the least, i've replaced it with the Oly 45 f1.8. Can you see where I'm going here?
Last edited:
- Location
- Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
- Name
- John ...
Yes.I got into m4/3 for one reason, and one reason only. The excellent selection of tiny, fast, sharp, light, & relatively inexpensive primes. Lenses such as the Oly 12-100, are the absolute antithesis of this. And I'm not singling out just the 12-100 here, the PL 10-25 f1.7 falls into the same category for me as well. It's an outstanding lens, worth every penny, I can afford one, I know I'd love what it's capable of, but I simply wouldn't enjoy carrying it around with me all the time. And to me, the whole purpose of buying excellent quality gear, is to use it at every opportunity. Carry it around everywhere, and try & wear the damn things out. Use the sh!t out of it, & enjoy every second of it. I paid good money for it, I want to make the most use of that money that I can, in my allotted time. So far, about the only thing I have managed to wear out, is my tiny little Lumix 42.5 f1.7. Which hasn't upset me in the least, i've replaced it with the Oly 45 f1.8. Can you see where I'm going here?
However, others make other choices, for their reasons.
Can you see where I'm going here?
And where am I disputing that? Personally, I can't even get interested in the 12-60's, I bought a 12-35 f2.8 a little while back, it's a fabulous lens, but I simply don't enjoy shooting with it as much as I do with my tiny primes. Been through the 24-105 phase with full frame -and that's the equivalent of f2 in m4/3 speak, didn't really get enthused with that either. Owned a Canon APSC body with the 15-85 for many years, enjoyed the little EF 40 pancake more. Just how I roll. Shoot whatever makes you happy.
- Location
- Hampton, NH
- Name
- Rich
You might consider the Oly 12-45 F4 lens. It is smaller and lighter than the PL12-60 or 12-35. Sure, it isn't as small as one of those primes, but I think it does hit the sweet spot for high-quality standard FL zoom lens.
Selection of a prime depends on where I am shooting from, and what I am shooting.
With APS-C, I usually use a 35/1.8. Seems to be the best compromise when using just one lens.
For volleyball I sometimes also carry the 50/1.8.
For M43, I am planning to use 17/1.8 + 45/1.8.
A 25 + 75 might be another combo. The 25 matches the APS-C 35, for general use. And the 75 has better reach to the far court. But I have neither lens.
Ha ha. I've got quite enough ultrawide lenses already
The one thing I thought that was missing in m4/3 was a fastish rectilinear ultrawide prime. So the first lens I bought was the Lumix 14mm f2.5 and I got hold of the Panasonic 3 lens converter set -fisheye, ultrawide and macro. Shot that for a year or so, while contemplating third party options. The Kowa was a bit big, as was the Voightlander. Panasonic released the excellent PL 8-18, so I kind of reluctantly bought that. Basically to use at the wide end, and not any heavier than the two lenses mentioned. Fabulous lens, love it, but still had the tiny, light prime itch.
Laowa released the 10mm f2, had to have it, I'd given up on Panny and Oly ever releasing one. Bought it online at release, another brilliant lens.
Then Panasonic released the 9mm f1.7 out of the blue, at an unexpected very reasonable price, had to have that too. Main attraction being autofocus. Another brilliant little lens. It's made the system complete, in my opinion, a fabulous tiny light option for prime lovers such as myself.
In between, someone gave me the idea of trying the wide angle adaptor/converter lens on my Lumix 12-32. It works surprisingly well, I think better than on the 14mm pancake. So I really don't have any interest in another wider angle lens, especially a zoom, as the whole reason I dived into m4/3 was the selection of tiny light prime lenses available. I'm sure the 12-45 is a fine lens, but f4, and starting at 12mm just doesn't do it for me. My Lumix 12-32 sort of just sits in my camera bag, as a "just in case" option, which is a little bit shameful, as it's really much better than that, and fits my tiny, light and relatively inexpensive criteria
- Location
- Tanagra
I get you. I've had various general purpose zooms that start at 12 and went up to 60, and for as much as I like the lenses, I rarely used them. I prefer a decent UWA, then I don't really take off until 50mm+ all the way to a long zoom. For the everyday range, a couple good fast primes have been sufficient for me--25mm and 45mm seems to do the trick.Ha ha. I've got quite enough ultrawide lenses already
The one thing I thought that was missing in m4/3 was a fastish rectilinear ultrawide prime. So the first lens I bought was the Lumix 14mm f2.5 and I got hold of the Panasonic 3 lens converter set -fisheye, ultrawide and macro. Shot that for a year or so, while contemplating third party options. The Kowa was a bit big, as was the Voightlander. Panasonic released the excellent PL 8-18, so I kind of reluctantly bought that. Basically to use at the wide end, and not any heavier than the two lenses mentioned. Fabulous lens, love it, but still had the tiny, light prime itch.
Laowa released the 10mm f2, had to have it, I'd given up on Panny and Oly ever releasing one. Bought it online at release, another brilliant lens.
Then Panasonic released the 9mm f1.7 out of the blue, at an unexpected very reasonable price, had to have that too. Main attraction being autofocus. Another brilliant little lens. It's made the system complete, in my opinion, a fabulous tiny light option for prime lovers such as myself.
In between, someone gave me the idea of trying the wide angle adaptor/converter lens on my Lumix 12-32. It works surprisingly well, I think better than on the 14mm pancake. So I really don't have any interest in another wider angle lens, especially a zoom, as the whole reason I dived into m4/3 was the selection of tiny light prime lenses available. I'm sure the 12-45 is a fine lens, but f4, and starting at 12mm just doesn't do it for me. My Lumix 12-32 sort of just sits in my camera bag, as a "just in case" option, which is a little bit shameful, as it's really much better than that, and fits my tiny, light and relatively inexpensive criteria
He he. Yeah, I knew it was time to change when I was looking at my zoom lens, setting particular focal lengths, and foot zooming from there
And spending a lot of time banged up against the stops at either end.Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against zooms, when I go to the race track my PL 50-200 is brilliant. If I was an event shooter, and "had to get the shot" every time, and at short notice, I'd think differently for sure. But I'm not, I have the luxury of time and only shooting to please myself, so that's how I roll. I can go to an event, most likely a car/bike show, and pretty much shoot the whole thing with 2 primes. An ultrawide, and standard lens. Previously that was my Laowa 10mm or PL 8-18 jammed at 8mm, and Siggy 30. Or PL 25. Can get so much variety just with those 2 focal lengths.
- Location
- Massachusetts
We all have our reasons. After all, the difference of opinions is the only thing that makes horse races interesting. My opinion is I use the 12-100 when it’s appropriate. When is that, you might ask… When I go walking with my dog or paddling, expecting to act like a wildlife shooter, one camera has the O100-400 mounted and the other has the 12-100. I took the 12-100 to the Galapagos a few years back. The 12-100 is almost always tasked with making whichever shots the 100-400 (or the currently mounted telephoto) can’t. OTOH, when I traveled to Alaska earlier in the year, expecting a lot of murk, I supplemented the 100-400 with the 12-40 and the 40-150 Pro lenses. We got luckier with the weather than we had any right to expect and I could have taken the 12-100, after all. Still, the 40-150 handled excursions on which the 100-400 seemed overkill and was undoubtedly the correct choice, especially given its compatibility with the MC-14 and -20. I end up choosing on a case-by-case basis. I don’t want to carry any more weight through an airport than I will end up using profitably when I get to the destination. The 12-100 is a great lens, incredibly useful and I’m never unhappy to own it — even if I have my reasons and I’m not using it at the time.
kivis
Regular
- Location
- South Florida, USA
seem like this will be my next purchase.
pdk42
All-Pro
- Location
- Royal Leamington Spa, UK
- Name
- Paul
I’m building a modest FF system with the Panasonic S5 and just a few days ago added the 24-105 f4. It’s slightly bigger and heavier than the 12-100 but covers half the FOV range. I guess that’s what FF gets you! In other words, stop whining about the 12-100 - it’s an amazing lens for what it does.
- Location
- Hampton, NH
- Name
- Rich
Well shoot, I have a Canon 15-85mm lens, which gives equiv 24-136 on my APS-C Canon 80D. It's slightly heavier than the 12-100 and has a lot less focal range. So that's what even APS-C gets you. So yeah, the 12-100 is a good size for its reach and supposed to be great IQ too (but both these lenses are too heavy for my taste, but that's just me...)
