Messier Object wrote:That's the trouble with all-purpose lens, they do everything but don't particularly excell at anything.IMO the 12-100/4 excels as a travel lens.On a vacation, walking in city streets etc, I have zero interest in carrying around a bunch of little primes and worse, changing lenses at busy venues, end even worse getting the “hurry up and take the shot” from my wife while I put the right lens on the camera.The 12-100/4 excels as an all-purpose lensPeterPeter, you nailed the situation--LOL.  However, for me, my 35-100 f2.8 serves the same purpose.  I seldom want something wider.

Siralgovia wrote:With a Ricoh wide converter I can bring it down to almost 19mm.Interesting. Which Ricoh converter do you use? I like the Olympus 12/2 and use it a lot but often miss the Samyang 18/2.8 I used to use on FF - but not often enough to shell out big money on a Panasonic 9mm. This might just fill the gap, I've used Ricoh wide converters on Ricoh camera over the years and they've always performed better than expected.

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.Exactly this--usefulness is subjective.  Size & weight are not problems for me for almost all m4/3 lenses.  Aperture is.  And I don't mind changing lenses.  With 2 of my lenses, I can cover the same FL with wider apertures.  Unless I'm shooting landscapes and some types of architecture, I want more background blur that what one can get with a constant f4.  The OP's photos demonstrate this--too me (subjective of course), his backgrounds are too sharp, or rather, too much in focus.  Again, to me, this is one of the reasons the photos don't "jump" off the page.  I recognize, of course, that background in or out of focus is relative to the shooter and to the purposes of taking the shot.

brentbrent wrote: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.No worries Brent. I know you didn't call me stupid, that was just me rambling. I was mostly replying to the "subjective" ruling. I am just as subjective as the next person but when it comes to lenses I keep it generally boils down to personal tests which I don't feel are at all subjective.My copy of the 12-100 was also a tad soft on one side at the longer focal lengths. No where near as bad as my first PL12-60 and in fact also a 12-35II that I tried, thinking to upgrade my original. And, as I kind of said, I would have kept the 12-100 if my 12-60 was in saleable condition. Oh well. Anyway, carry on.

John Bean (UK) wrote:Siralgovia wrote:With a Ricoh wide converter I can bring it down to almost 19mm.Interesting. Which Ricoh converter do you use? I like the Olympus 12/2 and use it a lot but often miss the Samyang 18/2.8 I used to use on FF - but not often enough to shell out big money on a Panasonic 9mm. This might just fill the gap, I've used Ricoh wide converters on Ricoh camera over the years and they've always performed better than expected.Forget the product name but will look at it later on and let you know.

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.I have to mention that I updated my original 14-140 with the weatherproof ii version and it has richer colors and better contrast. I took comparison shots and posted here a while ago I believe.Not sure but maybe the lens coatings were updated as otherwise it appears to be the exact same lens just more moisture and dust resistant.My copy is fantastic, all looks centered, there is no visually week focal length (not pixel peeped) and edges are great throughout the range. I am not an edges/ corner fanatic. If things get a tiny bit softer toward the edges it doesn't bother me as long as it doesn't completely stand out. Just looking at the pictures non pixel-peeped all looks very acceptable.

Siralgovia wrote: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.I have to mention that I updated my original 14-140 with the weatherproof ii version and it has richer colors and better contrast. I took comparison shots and posted here a while ago I believe.Not sure but maybe the lens coatings were updated as otherwise it appears to be the exact same lens just more moisture and dust resistant.My copy is fantastic, all looks centered, there is no visually week focal length (not pixel peeped) and edges are great throughout the range. I am not an edges/ corner fanatic. If things get a tiny bit softer toward the edges it doesn't bother me as long as it doesn't completely stand out. Just looking at the pictures non pixel-peeped all looks very acceptable.Consider yourself a lucky manIt took me 3 purchases  of the 14-140 , not mentionning the Oly 14-150 that I resold almost immediately so bad that lens was, to finally find an acceptable and fairly sharp copy . That's how bad I wanted a travel lens , and now I'm not so sure anymore I want that option , lol .

Siralgovia wrote: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.I have to mention that I updated my original 14-140 with the weatherproof ii version and it has richer colors and better contrast. I took comparison shots and posted here a while ago I believe.Not sure but maybe the lens coatings were updated as otherwise it appears to be the exact same lens just more moisture and dust resistant.My copy is fantastic, all looks centered, there is no visually week focal length (not pixel peeped) and edges are great throughout the range. I am not an edges/ corner fanatic. If things get a tiny bit softer toward the edges it doesn't bother me as long as it doesn't completely stand out. Just looking at the pictures non pixel-peeped all looks very acceptable.Where are your comparison shots , I'm really interestedThanks

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4596076I did not post sample shots back then, just realized. But let me look through my images of that year, I think I still have them.

My largest m43 camera is my EM5.ii (and EM5.iii) and that's the main reason for sticking with this format - small, light and competent.My first WR zoom lens was a Olympus 14-150. It's an OK lens when I needWRto go with my EM5's. Otherwise, I rather carry primes: 15/1.7, 25/1.8 and 45/1.8 for general street photography. I seldom need FL's longer than 45mm for street.Two years ago, I bought a 12-45/f4 as a replacement to 14-150.12-45, 12-100, 14-150I did 'look' at the 12-100.  No, thank you.  I'm keeping my 14-150 for those rare moments where I need 46-150mm.

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'.The range of the 14-140mm is really useful! I can always carry an ultra-wide if I need wider than 14mm. 12mm is nice, but 7mm is nicer. 😀When the 12-100mm was first released I went to B&H to try it out. This looked like THE LENS auto get! Was even trying to find ways to justify getting one. When I picked it up and mounted it on my GX8, the bulk of it was just a huge (pun intended) turn-off. The two salesguys at the Olympus counter were just shaking their heads at the size and weight of the thing and kept saying it was anti-M4/3. I had to agree. No Sale!Honestly, I have no problem carrying and using heavy, bulky lenses. My favorite Voigtländer lenses, the 17.5mm and 42.5mm each weigh about the same as the 12-100mm. I have several adapted Nikon macro lenses that are real chunks, but they’re not walkabout lenses.It’s just that the sheer size of the 12-100mm, which is about the same as the Panasonic 100-300mm (!!!!!), is not something I want to carry and manage all day long.ALSO, a lens that big is far from subtle and can attract unwanted attention. The 14-140mm and any of my Voigtländers barely get any notice. Other photographers sometimes nod approvingly at the Voigts.Yes, I hike with my 50-200mm + TC 1.4x, but I found a way to carry it without having to deal with it… mounted to my GX8 stuck in a lens case carried like a bandolier at my side. I just pull it out of the case to use it. Stick it back when I’m done. My hands are free. Besides, it’s a phenomenal lens!100-300mm - 12-100mm - 50-200mm14-140mm - 12-100mm

I am sure how I feel about mine; I use it often.I recommend that you sell it a second time and don't buy it again.I happen to like 12mm, I don't like swapping lenses, and I like a quick telephoto option.You might look at the PL 12-60 if you want some telephoto.

jeffharris 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'.The range of the 14-140mm is really useful! I can always carry an ultra-wide if I need wider than 14mm. 12mm is nice, but 7mm is nicer. 😀When the 12-100mm was first released I went to B&H to try it out. This looked like THE LENS auto get! Was even trying to find ways to justify getting one. When I picked it up and mounted it on my GX8, the bulk of it was just a huge (pun intended) turn-off. The two salesguys at the Olympus counter were just shaking their heads at the size and weight of the thing and kept saying it was anti-M4/3. I had to agree. No Sale!Honestly, I have no problem carrying and using heavy, bulky lenses. My favorite Voigtländer lenses, the 17.5mm and 42.5mm each weigh about the same as the 12-100mm. I have several adapted Nikon macro lenses that are real chunks, but they’re not walkabout lenses.It’s just that the sheer size of the 12-100mm, which is about the same as the Panasonic 100-300mm (!!!!!), is not something I want to carry and manage all day long.ALSO, a lens that big is far from subtle and can attract unwanted attention. The 14-140mm and any of my Voigtländers barely get any notice. Other photographers sometimes nod approvingly at the Voigts.Yes, I hike with my 50-200mm + TC 1.4x, but I found a way to carry it without having to deal with it… mounted to my GX8 stuck in a lens case carried like a bandolier at my side. I just pull it out of the case to use it. Stick it back when I’m done. My hands are free. Besides, it’s a phenomenal lens!100-300mm - 12-100mm - 50-200mm14-140mm - 12-100mmsame here ..not the weight ( I don't care ) nor the price but the size

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.This is all so subjective..I tried a Sony RX100 II and for me the IQ was unacceptable compared to m4/3 , about 70%  . The reason I eventually bought  a 14-140 instead of a RX100 VI

I'm so frustrated that m4/3 doesn't have a good reasonably sized 14-100 , instead relying on 10x zooms with sample variations , that I seriously consider buying a used XT2 with 18-135 as my "travel lens"

108 wrote:I'm so frustrated that m4/3 doesn't have a good reasonably sized 14-100 , instead relying on 10x zooms with sample variations , that I seriously consider buying a used XT2 with18-135 as my "travel lens"i used to shoot Fuji (4 years). When the 18-135 came out is sounded like the lens I always wanted (except I wish it was a pinch wider) However, the IQ for that lens was never reported as great across the range. As far as wide-normal superzooms go, the 12-100 seems to be the best one out there, and offers a wider FOV at the wide end

108 wrote:I'm so frustrated that m4/3 doesn't have a good reasonably sized 14-100 , instead relying on 10x zooms with sample variations , that I seriously consider buying a used XT2 with 18-135 as my "travel lens"You should really try the 14-140mm! It’s so much better than the specs (and logic) would suggest! It’s a great lens! Small, light, fun to use, great range! It’s a favorite around here.I’ve had three copies of the f3.5-5.6 version. Sold version 1 to upgrade to the weather-sealed version 2. Dropped and broke it. (Sheer stupidity on my part!) Bought another copy of version 2. Version 1 was a bit hesitant to focus in moderately low light. Version 2 is better behaved. Otherwise, no problems with any of them and very good image quality.

108 wrote:I'm so frustrated that m4/3 doesn't have a good reasonably sized 14-100 , instead relying on 10x zooms with sample variations , that I seriously consider buying a used XT2 with 18-135 as my "travel lens"I fairly recently dipped my toes into Fuji and found the zooms to be lackluster. the red badge zooms are good lenses, but I didn't find them to be better than Olympus Pro zooms. I do like the older 1.4/1.2 primes and kept those, but was disappointed with the zooms and sold all but the 18-55 kit zoom. I kept that for it's small size and poor resale.

I just added this lens to my collection for wildlife. Oly 12-1200 and Leica 100-400 on a GX8 and G9. Seems to be the perfect two lens travel set for safari.

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?Well, send it to me.  I have a home for orphaned lenses.  PM me so I know it's coming.John