This is the second time I have purchased this lens and...I'm honestly not sure how I feel about it. It's such a weird lens. It's sharp, but not near prime sharp like the 12-40, 12-45 or 12-35. It's got a decent aperture, but not fast enough for indoor use. The sync IS is neat, but I haven't had magical increases in handheld speeds like other people claim. It's really big and heavy for a m4/3 lens. When I look at shots taken with it and the 14-140 II, I'm just not seeing a lot of difference. I guess it has more contrast in the rendering? A few sample images below. Does anyone else get a 'meh' feeling from this lens?

I don't agree it's not as sharp as the 12-40 or 12-45 or at least  mine certainly is.Works well as a one lens solution for travel, 14mm is just not wide enough for me.

It's okay to not really like a lens. I agree the images don't stand out, but your photos look good.Why do you keep buying it? Lol

I always thought the original 12-40/2.8 was a bit weak, although it performs well wide open at the wide end. It didn’t really excite compared to my FT normal zooms.Lenstip has the 12-100 being noticeably better across the frame than the 12-40 at f5.6.Maybe that’s why you keep buying it?Your images look OK to me.  Perhaps you just don’t like the rendering, although it seems OK to me.  I try objective comparisons in different model use cases to try and ground my feelings in something I can see.Andrew

Funkmon wrote:It's okay to not really like a lens. I agree the images don't stand out, but your photos look good.Why do you keep buying it? LolI keep thinking I am missing something and every time I'm just like...meh.

ahaslett wrote:I always thought the original 12-40/2.8 was a bit weak, although it performs well wide open at the wide end. It didn’t really excite compared to my FT normal zooms.Lenstip has the 12-100 being noticeably better across the frame than the 12-40 at f5.6.Maybe that’s why you keep buying it?Your images look OK to me. Perhaps you just don’t like the rendering, although it seems OK to me. I try objective comparisons in different model use cases to try and ground my feelings in something I can see.AndrewI think it's the case where I just understand why I'm lugging this much weight around for what is to me, an average lens (optically). When I look at the first two images and compare them to the 14-140 II in the last two, it doesn't scream "Yes, this is worth twice the weight and money!" to me.A lens like the PL 200mm f/2.8? Yes, that is a lens that screams it's worth the weight and money. The Olympus 75mm f/1.8? Yep, irreplaceable. This lens....ehhh...maybe I'm just a prime shooter at heart.

If it isn't sharp then it is total rubbish......sharp ! sharpSHARP cried the BIF

I just returned from a weekend trip to Savannah (where I saw no less than a dozen micro43 cameras), I happened to run into a lady with an OM-1 with the 12-100, she commented on my 5 Mark II and I asked her about her impressions of the 12-100.  She stated that she loved it especially for travel and I really think that's its wheelhouse.  Back in the film days I traveled a lot with a 28-80, and it was nice but I often wished for more wideness or more reach or both.  The 12-100 seems just about right as a walk around lens to complement the 25 1.4.

Like most photo gear, there are compromises. We get a great range, that would normally require two lenses, good close focus ability, and excellent sharpness across the range, and the price is size and weight (but only one lens so less swapping).as a side note,I did sell my 12-40 f/2.8 within a month of getting mine after doing lots of real world tests. I shoot mostly at or around f/5 - f/5.6, and almost never used f/2.8, so I lost nothing. Of course the lens is not for everyone and we are spoiled for choice

Optically there is no difference between 12-40 and 12-100. Actually 12-100 might be even sharper. I have owned both of these in 2 samples.Though I do not like any of these. Both of them are quite heavy and 12-100 is too large.I prefer primes + if I need some useful zoom Panas 12-32mm is optically very good. It costs nothing and you can always have it with you no matter what.Cheers

Dunsun wrote:Optically there is no difference between 12-40 and 12-100. Actually 12-100 might be even sharper. I have owned both of these in 2 samples.Though I do not like any of these. Both of them are quite heavy and 12-100 is too large.I prefer primes + if I need some useful zoom Panas 12-32mm is optically very good. It costs nothing and you can always have it with you no matter what.CheersThis is the feeling I get. I feel like I'm lugging around a lot of weight for not much benefit. I too have a 12-32 and always keep it in my bag beside the 20mm f/1.7. I think this lens is going to MPB.

melnais wrote:If it isn't sharp then it is total rubbish......sharp ! sharpSHARP cried the BIFIt's not about sharpness, it's about whether the total package justifies the weight and size. From what I've seen comparing it to the 14-140, that answer is 'No'.

I sold my 12-100 recently.  It was a good lens but I never felt it lived up to the hype.  My original version 12-35 is sharper across the frame at f4 and at every matching focal length.  My PL12-60 is sharper in the center but to be fair,  not even close to the 12-100 on the edges.  For travel I like the range and performance of the 12-35 plus the PL50-200 so something had to go and the PL12-60 stopped manual focusing which I'm not inclined to fix again.  I replaced the ribbon cable behind the mount (guessing that was the easiest thing I could replace myself) and it worked fine for 2 months and then manual was gone again.  It's possible I never really fixed it the first time - just jogged something enough to make it work for a time but in either case I wouldn't sell it like that so bye bye to the 12-100.

unhappymeal wrote:melnais wrote:If it isn't sharp then it is total rubbish......sharp ! sharpSHARP cried the BIFIt's not about sharpness, it's about whether the total package justifies the weight and size. From what I've seen comparing it to the 14-140, that answer is 'No'.Your first comment is about sharp.....so it must be important

melnais wrote:unhappymeal wrote:melnais wrote:If it isn't sharp then it is total rubbish......sharp ! sharpSHARP cried the BIFIt's not about sharpness, it's about whether the total package justifies the weight and size. From what I've seen comparing it to the 14-140, that answer is 'No'.Your first comment is about sharp.....so it must be importantSharpness is a part of the package. You expect a 1.2k lens to be sharp, no?

Not the prime requirement but it's the usual cry here sharp, sharp sharp whines the mft forum as per replies....same same as usual.

melnais wrote:Not the prime requirement but it's the usual cry here sharp, sharp sharp whines the mft forum as per replies....same same as usual.Is it reasonable to expect modern lenses not explicitly designed for a type of photography to not be sharp?

Your cause is not backed up by posting pretty ordinary images. that have no bearing on the lens's performance

unhappymeal wrote:ahaslett wrote:I always thought the original 12-40/2.8 was a bit weak, although it performs well wide open at the wide end. It didn’t really excite compared to my FT normal zooms.Lenstip has the 12-100 being noticeably better across the frame than the 12-40 at f5.6.Maybe that’s why you keep buying it?Your images look OK to me. Perhaps you just don’t like the rendering, although it seems OK to me. I try objective comparisons in different model use cases to try and ground my feelings in something I can see.AndrewI think it's the case where I just understand why I'm lugging this much weight around for what is to me, an average lens (optically). When I look at the first two images and compare them to the 14-140 II in the last two, it doesn't scream "Yes, this is worth twice the weight and money!" to me.A lens like the PL 200mm f/2.8? Yes, that is a lens that screams it's worth the weight and money. The Olympus 75mm f/1.8? Yep, irreplaceable. This lens....ehhh...maybe I'm just a prime shooter at heart.The 14-140 does have a good reputation.  At least my A vs B is the 40-150/2.8 vs the Plastic Fantastic.  Room for both, and a 35-100 kit lens as well.If you like primes, then there are some very heavy, very expensive and absolutely stunning ones for more than one FF mirrorless mount.My favourite FLs seem to have gaps at 15-18mm and 55-80mm, so the Laowa 10/2, PL 25/1.4 and adapted Zuiko 50/2 macro work for me, along with the f2.8 zooms.The 12-100/4 seems to be an excellent lens, designed not to fit my needs.Andrew

My view is at times it comes in very handy, for example a one lens solution for travel. Doesn't cost anything to keep and not my only lens that doesn't get loads of use.