Projectdb wrote: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.Whose world?I rarely find apertures wider than f4 to be of value to me in a wide to short telephoto focal length.  It really depends on your photographic interest.However, I keep considering the Panasonic 10-25 f1.7 for those rare occasions.Replace it with some fast primes... and throw in something slower as well.

Sent it back after less than a week. I vastly prefer the PL12-60 in every aspect except the lower range of course.Not everyone has to love this forum-darling lens.

F4 with that ois is better than a F1.8 prime for me, without the hassle of having to swap lenses in the middle of my hike..

It all boils down yo a choice are you too lazy to change small primes or are you too lazy to carry a big heavy cylinder

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.1 & 2 the cloudy skies reduce contrast & dull colours but both look well focused. Easily remedied in post3 Backfocus, looks like focus is on on the branches behind the patient4 Almost focused on the woman's face, can't discern whether front or back focusedMight be slow to focus and unhappymeal is a tad trigger happy?Or might the AF be off (but doesn't explain good focus in 1 & 2)

No lens suits everyone's needs, so I can easily understand folks passing on the 12-100 because of size, weight, f/4, or range.I was a bit surprised, though, to read this thread and find multiple negative or "meh" comments on its image quality (four by my count: Unhappymeal, Ranlee, River Photography, jtokarz).  Perhaps it's due to lens sample variation, though I don't recall hearing that about this lens before, or it's just different subjective evaluations.Still, I would estimate that many dozens of posters here have highly sung the praises of this lens for image quality as well as versatility.   I'm one of those.  I think its IQ is significantly better than the 14-140 f/3.5-5.6 I previously owned.  I'm stunned by how good the 12-100 is throughout the range.For the few who have posted in this thread who are thinking about it and are on the fence, I'd say that if you are OK withwhatit is (size, weight, range, f/4), you are much more likely than not to be very happy withhow goodit is.

I've been following this thread with interest, so here's my two cents from someone who doesn't own the Oly 12-100mm lens.  I don't get a meh feeling about it all.  It's smaller and lighter than my PL50-200mm, so I already know I wouldn't have any issues carrying it around my neck for hours.  I carry the PL50-200mm around my neck for hours on hikes.For me it's just a matter of style so to speak when I travel.  I like to keep a lower profile when I'm in a city on vacation, so would rather carry a rangefinder with smaller lenses.  In the end my shoulder bag might have more weight than someone with one body and the 12-100mm as I'll carry two cameras.As to price, we'll I'm kind of thinking if I really take off with macro photography I'll end up spending more money getting the new Oly 90mm macro, but for not at least a year or more!

brentbrent wrote:No lens suits everyone's needs, so I can easily understand folks passing on the 12-100 because of size, weight, f/4, or range.I was a bit surprised, though, to read this thread and find multiple negative or "meh" comments on its image quality (four by my count: Unhappymeal, Ranlee, River Photography, jtokarz). Perhaps it's due to lens sample variation, though I don't recall hearing that about this lens before, or it's just different subjective evaluations.Still, I would estimate that many dozens of posters here have highly sung the praises of this lens for image quality as well as versatility. I'm one of those. I think its IQ is significantly better than the 14-140 f/3.5-5.6 I previously owned. I'm stunned by how good the 12-100 is throughout the range.For the few who have posted in this thread who are thinking about it and are on the fence, I'd say that if you are OK withwhatit is (size, weight, range, f/4), you are much more likely than not to be very happy withhow goodit is.Well Brent, I truly don't remember you borrowing my 12-35 to test against your 12-100.  Pardon my subjective self for liking the output of the 12-35 better when I did test it against my copy,  a test which I would suspect may be more objective than your "thoughts" on the matter or how many others sing its praises.  Heck, I thought the 12-40 was also better, stupid me.  And I did say it was good lens but still, to me, not even close to as versatile as the 12-35 and 50-200 combo.You are free to evaluate your choices as am I.  The fact that I may be in the minority doesn't diminish my observations.

unhappymeal wrote:I 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....I'm having this same conversation with myself, but the comparison I'm making is between my Sony RX100vii and  my micro 4/3 gear.   For my kind of photography, the Sony provides 95% of the image quality compared to the micro 4/3 stuff but it weighs like a third or quarter and can even be stuffed in a pocket.

Jamajuel wrote:Sent it back after less than a week. I vastly prefer the PL12-60 in every aspect except the lower range of course.Not everyone has to love this forum-darling lens.You don't have to love the lens. You can hate the lens. You can feel meh, about the lens.There's a size and weight penalty to the lens compared with other options. There's a speed penalty to the lens compared with other options. These are all things that are objective and easy to quantify.It's an optically excellent lens and across its focal range and at any aperture, it compares favorably to almost any lens in the system under similar conditions and is flat out optically better than most zooms. That's also objective and easily quantifiable.Is it worth the trade-off for speed, size, and weight? That's subjective.

Mk82 wrote: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.I am sorry, mea culpa.  I am simply forced to keep using mine because there is nothing since like it. So more tongue in cheek used.But I did want to put in a good word for the 12-100/4.0 as i quite like it.  It is fairly bulky when extended but I suggest that its lens-IS is good enough not to really need IBIS.It might be getting very hard to sell any camera body without IBIS these days and that, unfortunately throws another large rock in the path of an updated GM5 even though its replacement is very unlikely.I sometimes wonder why Panasonic just fits the latest 20mp sensor in exactly the same body and sells the result at a very competitive price.Would there be a ready market for such a camera - basic, but everything needed for good stills capture? ... and would the market sacrifice the frills for a quite capable systems camera made thus small?Or would the market see such a camera as only a supplementary pocket camera and limit it to tiny lenses? - something that killed the GM series in the first place.R&D would be minimal to recover and surely the well known design brief could result in some further revision of internal boards to enable more efficient assembly procedures.Cheap, rugged, tiny, and capable - might work .....

Ranlee wrote:Well Brent, I truly don't remember you borrowing my 12-35 to test against your 12-100. Pardon my subjective self for liking the output of the 12-35 better when I did test it against my copy, a test which I would suspect may be more objective than your "thoughts" on the matter or how many others sing its praises. Heck, I thought the 12-40 was also better, stupid me. And I did say it was good lens but still, to me, not even close to as versatile as the 12-35 and 50-200 combo.You are free to evaluate your choices as am I. The fact that I may be in the minority doesn't diminish my observations.No need to get defensive, Randy. I don't think I diminished your observations (that was definitely not my intention), and I certainly didn't call you or anyone stupid. I was truly surprised by the "meh" comments in this thread and had to count to see how many hold that view.You are of course entitled to your own opinion, and you probably engaged in more detailed testing than I. But for those who may be considering the lens, I thought it useful to point out that "meh" is indeed the minority view, and I'm sure many in the majority have done their own detailed testing. I didn't guarantee that anyone else would be satisfied with the 12-100's IQ, but I do think (and said) that is more likely than not based on what the majority view of it is.And, FWIW, I didn't compare it to the 12-35, which I also own and regard highly. I think the 14-140 is a more likely alternative to the 12-100, and my observation is that the latter is considerably better.

Funkmon wrote:I carry it and I bought it. Its utility is entirely based on it existing. It is soft. It is slow. It zooms the wrong way. It's annoying to use.Sorry but it's definitely not soft ! I have owned 3 samples of this lens. All with a metal mount.There is a huge variation QC. 2 of my samples were decentered in any way.The last one is excellent ! Once you stop it down to 5.6 the corners are not brutally sharp at 12mm but they are very good. At all other FL it's very sharp, corner to corner.By the way you can not compare a pancake lens that can be purchused on a used market for less than 80 EUR with Olympus PRO lenses that are much much more expensive and they look like the giants.Cheers

Projectdb wrote:Is it worth the trade-off for speed, size, and weight? That's subjective.Exactly. But every time this lens is mentioned in this forum, some folks bend over backwards trying to "prove" that it’s the bestest thing since sliced bread.For me, the trade offs in weight, price, and aperture do not work.

Got rid of mine also, prefer my 14-140. I feel its been hyped up into cult status.

Even though I have Panasonic G9 and don't have Oly lenses, I agree with your opinion.  In daylight (on vacation especially) I almost always have the Panasonic 14-140mm zoom on the G9 because that way, as you said, I don't have to change lenses (almost) ever.

The Olympus 12-100 is one of the reasons I carry this system.  It is welded to my EM1 bodies.  I have used the Olympus 14-140 it is a fine lens for half the price.  The Panasonic 14-140 I have used was very soft away from center so I avoid.  Both of these lenses are built like kit lenses.  Okay for casual use but not pro grade.  I have used other super zooms in Sony and Nikon system.  Both left me with the same budget build feeling.The 12-100 is pro build, fast AF, fully featured with SYNC-IS, programmable Fn button and snap focus clutch, superb optics and rendering, in a single zoom solution over a popular focal range.  This is why it is more popular than all the other zooms mentioned.

upptick wrote:unhappymeal wrote:I 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....I'm having this same conversation with myself, but the comparison I'm making is between my Sony RX100vii and my micro 4/3 gear. For my kind of photography, the Sony provides 95% of the image quality compared to the micro 4/3 stuff but it weighs like a third or quarter and can even be stuffed in a pocket.if you do not use the AI features such as focus stacking and live composite then the sony makes sense. i love and use the ai along with nd. i sold my RX100v ii for that reason.  great for what it does though.

Jamajuel wrote:Projectdb wrote:Is it worth the trade-off for speed, size, and weight? That's subjective.Exactly. But every time this lens is mentioned in this forum, some folks bend over backwards trying to "prove" that it’s the bestest thing since sliced bread.For me, the trade offs in weight, price, and aperture do not work.That is absolutely what matters.My only objection, when these threads pop up, is when its optical quality is pointed to as a reason to brush off the lens. If someone doesn't like the rendering, that's quite fine. I don't think copy variation is a huge concern with this lens, but I couldn't rule it out.It is, optically, right there with the best zooms in the system, as shown by methodical testing and MFT charts. I don't really care about those too much, but I've not seen any anecdotal testing that shows it as soft or finds any fault that isn't present in the systems best zooms.I fully understand that it doesn't work for everyone, and it doesn't work for me all the time. When I want it for what it excels at, I've never found it's equal in any system. When I want something to stroll around the neighborhood with, it stays at home.

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?I haven't tried the 12-100 yet, but was very interested in it for a while. I bought the Leica 12-60 instead but ended up selling it and kept the 14-140ii.I actually prefer the 14-140ii images. They are closer to reality for me. The 12-60 had such a strong base contrast. I can get the right contrast by boosting it on my 14-140ii if I choose to, but lowering contrast on my Leica did not give me the results I liked. Whether the Leica is better when pixel-peeped or not I have no idea. But the 14-140ii keeps me in the system. For a more cinematic look I use my Fujis. If I want to go wider I put the little 12/2 in my pocket as well. With a Ricoh wide converter I can bring it down to almost 19mm. I use it with the 14-140ii on my G9 for a light versatile travel combo with a very realistic output.