nearly-an-old-codger wrote:on the windy sandy beaches around my area its not a great place to swap lenses or around the steaming hot springs in yellowstone for that matter. but i get your point:-DIf I had a point but I don't, just wondering

unhappymeal wrote: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?There is nothing particularly noteworthy about your images.  I do not think that has any bearing on the lens.

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.Bold by me.  I think you nailed it with that comment.John

wats0n wrote:Considering the size of these sensors a lens like this is just too slow to be of any real world value. You're honestly better off with a cheap zoom combined with fast primes.F4 is too slow to be of any real world value.Replace it with some fast primes... and throw in something slower as well.

c8imager wrote:Is your camera set up for focus priority? The second shot is a bit soft, almost as though you mashed the shutter button as the lens was coming to focus and focus priority was not selected.My 12-100 just does what I ask of it, no muss, no fuss. Sharpness is not lacking. Test results that I have seen show that the lens is sharpest in the center wide open. Yes, it is rather large and heavy (for the format), but I can't fault its performance, and the versatility is unmatched.I was playing with HHHR there, so it could be a computational issue;.

VI KING wrote:unhappymeal wrote: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?There is nothing particularly noteworthy about your images. I do not think that has any bearing on the lens.I never said there was. It's test shooting with a lens. The entire point is to look at banal situations where light or composition wouldn't skew the results. When I look at it objectively, I'm not seeing anything over the 14-140. This is a super zoom. It's job is to always be on the camera to capture snapshots if needed.

OldGuy-Yuri wrote:unhappymeal wrote: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?Being Objective, and looking at the images for focus and focal point and what else might cause focus issues. #1 seems the focus point might be on the STOP sign? DOF for M43 80mm at f4 is quite shallow at that distance. If one looks at the street stones (even though they're not image center) the sharpest point is just before the heels of Blue Maria. Red Maria is already quite out of what might be the acceptable DOF. DOF is receding quickly on Blue Maria's head and everything else thereafter. AND the sharpest areas are not very sharp - my perception for a $1200 lens compared to a kit lens... #2 Nothing seems much 'infocus'- where is the center of focus? There's no where on the street stones/block (Katzenköpf) where focus settles... Nowhere on the letters is focus sharp, nowhere else. If focus was an important element of the image, I'd be very disappointed. ;-( #3 Focus seems to be on the facial side of the 'infused' Nordstream pipleine patient. DOF receding in both dept directions puts the people out of DOF. #4 Is a small crop and so quite hard to determine if the Focal point is even in the image as shown - and, as I've found my both my 14-140s, focus gets soft after about 120mm... This can sometimes when one focuses and then re-composes. Overall, I would also be very disappointed in this particular 12-100. I'd send it back, as I just did with a 40-150 f4 PRO (also not up to my expectations). Possible issue with the photog using the equipment? Maybe, and training does continue, some days better than most - But I can't 'Return' him, OEM stuff... LOL! If the camera has given much sharper images with other lenses, then it's not likely a camera body/focus issue. If I had this lens. Before returning, I would try to set up an imaging session which takes as many variables out of consideration as possible. Shoot something which would clearly show focal point and DOF, shoot on a tripod with decent light. Shoot with at least 2 other lens you consider 'good' and cover also same Focal Length & f-stop. I think f5.6 for this type of lens should give good results, for center sharpness. Then decide, irrespective of what the 'Group Speak' is... Occam's razor... Vielen dank YuriThanks Yuri, I appreciate your feedback. Regarding #1, I intentionally focused on the sign. For #2, I was playing with the Handheld High Res, so it might not be the lens and could be the in-camera stacking. For #3 and #4, yep, DoF is going to be tight at those focal lengths.

nearly-an-old-codger wrote:in the mistaken pursuit of greatness in the ff arenaBeen there, done that... twiceThis thread is interesting for me as I'm currently looking at getting some kind of travel zoom. I liked the 12-40 when I used Olympus the first time around and disliked the 12-32 I had in that era for similar reasons as those expressed elsewhere in the thread, but after forays into other systems and back in the micro 4/3 camp the only wide zoom I have is an ancient but rather good 12-32 that came with a GM5 I recently re-acquired so I've revised my opinion of it - it's actually quite good optically but still an annoying little lens to use.I use mainly Olympus 1.8 primes on Panasonic bodies often lacking IBIS, so a longer zoom will ideally have OIS; the 12-100  has OIS but it comes at a huge size/weight cost over the shorter and often faster zooms. I don't completely dismiss the Panasonic zooms but I generally prefer Olympus lens rendering and I'm currently leaning towards the shorter, *much* lighter 12-45... but maybe I'll just go for the cheap and cheerful Panasonic 12-60 kit zoom at about the same weight but with OIS.Decisions, decisions...

This thread is also interesting for me as I am contemplating a 12-100 as my main lens for those focal lengths. I currently use a 12-32 and 45-175 combo, but find the hassle of changing lenses while walking a pain. Yes, I know it's a quick and easy routine but it is still something I do not enjoy - the diminutive 12-32 is so small it is difficult to hold, for example, and I hate carrying lenses for even a moment in pocket with no protection at either end.I also do not know if the Oly lens is definitively better enough at 12mm than the small Panny - is it worth 10x as much for that focal length? In an ideal world I'd probably buy another GX8, stick a 12-60 (the 2.8 if i could find one for a decent price) on one and the 50-200 on another. That would suit my use perfectly. And then of course, I could throw the P30 on one and the Oly60 on another when chasing bugs - as each have their little advantages.To echo, decisions, decisions....

Olympus /OM can you please give us a 14-85 f4 the size or a hair bigger than the PL 12-60 ?That would cover 100% of my needs as an all-purpose travel lens .

John Bean (UK) wrote:nearly-an-old-codger wrote:in the mistaken pursuit of greatness in the ff arenaBeen there, done that... twiceThis thread is interesting for me as I'm currently looking at getting some kind of travel zoom. I liked the 12-40 when I used Olympus the first time around and disliked the 12-32 I had in that era for similar reasons as those expressed elsewhere in the thread, but after forays into other systems and back in the micro 4/3 camp the only wide zoom I have is an ancient but rather good 12-32 that came with a GM5 I recently re-acquired so I've revised my opinion of it - it's actually quite good optically but still an annoying little lens to use.I use mainly Olympus 1.8 primes on Panasonic bodies often lacking IBIS, so a longer zoom will ideally have OIS; the 12-100 has OIS but it comes at a huge size/weight cost over the shorter and often faster zooms. I don't completely dismiss the Panasonic zooms but I generally prefer Olympus lens rendering and I'm currently leaning towards the shorter, *much* lighter 12-45... but maybe I'll just go for the cheap and cheerful Panasonic 12-60 kit zoom at about the same weight but with OIS.Decisions, decisions...In my personal experience:Lumix 12-32 is a fantastic piece of plastic, very annoying but optically more than decent.Lumix 12-60 is (copy variation may factor in) e great inexpensive walk around lens providing very useful range. A good copy is worth keepingPL12-60 offers the same convenient coverage of the above but in a weather resistant package and better optics. faster and heavier.Oly 12-40Prois beautiful professional grade built lens but lacks the coverage of the two above, therefore somewhat less interesting for travelling.Oly 12-100. is the masterpiece traveller's lens. It has all the facilities, including an excellent build, a superb optical stabilisation, a constant (F/4) aperture, and excellent optical qualities from 12 all the way up to 100mm.All of the above are good lenses and have their own utilisation.

Albert Valentino wrote:Like all photo gear, there are compromises.Ftfy.

The 12-100 mm f/4 is not meant to be like half dozen lenses in your bag.You don't get the fast shutter speeds (light gathering) like with f/1.8 or f/2.8 lenses, but it does great with f/4 as ISO performance has been so great since 2012.You don't get light weight and tiny size as with 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 EZ or 40-150 mm f/4-5.6 combo, but you don't need to switch lenses.You don't get the macro capabilities like with 30 mm f/3.5, 60 mm f/2.8 or 90 mm f/3.5 macros offer. But you have great close-up capability, and if you do the 16 mm close-up + TC2 trick, you can get to macro level.You don't benefit from faster shutter speeds with OIS "The sync IS is neat, but I haven't had magical increases in handheld speeds like other people claim." like with any other lens, as they are meant to be used only for a slower shutter speeds, and if you have good stable posture in first place, you get away with IBIS alone anyways for common subjects.But there is not a single lens that offers that same 12-100 mm, doing it with f/4, weather sealed and great sharpness that is like a prime lens (good zooms are usually sharper than primes in some range of their focal length, but not in whole range).The 12-100 mm f/4 is a lens that you take for a landscape, for architecture photograhy, for the documentary, holiday, event etc. It is the general purpose lens.ItIt is not to replace any other lens, but to replace the bag of multiple lenses.It isjack-of-all-trades-master-of-none.I have three lenses that I really admire, regardless I own almost all PRO lenses and primes.Why I admire those? Because they are all about what the photography is about, and m4/3 to produce it. When I want something casual and usual in bad weather, it is 12-50 mm. It offers good close-up performance in nature.The daily driver is the 14-42 mm EZ because I can have it in one pocket and E-PM2 body in another and they don't weight or take space at all.The 40-150 mm is the go-to lens when it comes to portraits, nature, street photography, landscape and just hiking around. Great for close-ups as well.I can take any two-lens combo from those three, and get things done.I have many times questioned to get a 14-150 mm f/4-5.6 but sometimes I need that 12 mm, and often I don't have space for 40-150 mm or 12-50 mm.The 12-100 mm f/4 is one-for-all but in PRO series.Why I don't own it. I want to, I have severe GAS to it. But after loaning it for a month and multiple times moving, I don't see much reason for myself to get it. I want, but my wisdom just says clearly "NO". I might be stupid in old age to give up eventually for it, because I just spent 5 minutes searching around various used gear sites to check the price and for 650-700 € it would be almost free. But I know it doesn't suite me as I have everything else! And when I want to use PRO lens, then i don't take anything else than PRO lens sets with me and at that point that lens doesn't make sense almost at all!

Tom Caldwell wrote:I don't know why I still persevere with my ancient GM5 camera bodies even though the 12-100/4.0 and all the other stabilised lenses make for a well stabilised body as well ....Maybe I should try FF? Oh .... I forgot the S1 is quite a lot larger.Could you please not bring up the GM5 all the time, you are triggering my GAS and I don't want to go listen my therapists to hammer some wisdom that I don't need it, as I have GM1 and E-PM2 already.You as well make me hate Panasonic even more, that they ended that line.

Bingo!HHHR mode can work amazingly well, BUT, it is also a bit finicky, and camera movement even slightly outside what it expects can result in a disappointing result.  At 1/60 second, it is possible that your steadiness was not ideal for HHHR.  To confirm, look at the .ORI (or .jpeg) file of that image to see what it looks like.

I thought the same thing when i had one. In the end i sold it. Not enough (for me ) difference in IQ and versatility. More than happy with 14-140 ii and 12- 45.

I can testify the optical stabilisation is fantastic. Even on the G9, without the benefit of the dual IS.

unhappymeal wrote:VI KING wrote:unhappymeal wrote: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?There is nothing particularly noteworthy about your images. I do not think that has any bearing on the lens.I never said there was. It's test shooting with a lens. The entire point is to look at banal situations where light or composition wouldn't skew the results. When I look at it objectively, I'm not seeing anything over the 14-140. This is a super zoom. It's job is to always be on the camera to capture snapshots if needed.These are different subjects, different distances, different days.  The high res shot looks like you moved before the shots had finished capturing.  The out of focus areas in the 12-100/4 are much more pleasing than the 14-140.Try shooting both lenses at the same backlit subject and show us how they handle flare and contrast. Shoot a chrome bumper in the sun so we can see how they handle CA. Shoot a 4s image at 100mm to see how they each handle stabilization. Shoot a brick wall at the wide end so we can see corner sharpness and distortion.Posting some snapshots and saying "meh" can be done for any lens.

unhappymeal wrote:...Thanks Yuri, I appreciate your feedback. Regarding #1, I intentionally focused on the sign.For #2, I was playing with the Handheld High Res, so it might not be the lens and could be the in-camera stacking. For #3 and #4, yep, DoF is going to be tight at those focal lengths.An important consideration you forgot to mention... LOL!Foolin with features is not a good way to consider the very foundation of camera and lens. Honestly, I'd not pick any of these image situations for testing, especially resolution and rendition. For images 1 & 2 is there really anything you can say about the 12-100? I don;t think so. Either image could have resulted from a Kit 14-42... which puts faint praise on the 14-42. Thx Yuri

Certainly nothing wrong with preferring different lenses.In terms of sharpness, I've tested my 12-100 against both 12-40, 12-45 and a handful of primes (I'm fussy about lenses so I'm certain I have good copies of each).  At F4/F5.6 the 12-100 is at least as good as the others in the ranges they overlap.I would agree that the 12-100 is probably overkill for the sorts of examples you posted.  Those kinds of situations don't really demand much of a lens.  That's not a criticism.  Just an observation about shooting scenarios and most likely output viewing options.Where the 12-100 excels for me is in nature photography and landscapes.  Especially on the borders it is a stellar lens, essentially as good as primes and better than the other M43 super zoom options.  Compared to other superzoom options if you're just looking at center sharpness there might not be much of a difference.  But move out of the center of the frame and it's noticeable.The SYNC IS is really useful in low light, outdoor, landscape type situations.  I can keep ISO to 200 in nearly every dusk/dawn situation, even in cloudy conditions or in deep forest.  It's really, really useful in those sorts of circumstances.I've also used it indoor concert/sports situations.  Of course I'd prefer 2.8 in those conditions and will use my 40-150 2.8 if I know I'll be mostly shooting long.  But, the value of having a lens from 12-100mm is worth it to me.  ISO of course has to go up, but it works in a pinch, especially with modern sensors and noise reduction applications.