Albert Valentino wrote: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 endAbsolutely love my 18-135. It doesn't match the Fuji primes but it's an overall very capable travel zoom with - a least to me - its own unique character in rendering. It's the one I have 75% of the time on my X-T2 or X-H1 when on a trip. For my normal walk-around lens I choose the 35/1.4, 23/2 or 18/2.But to add a MFT reference since we're in this forum, I take my G9 instead, when a) I know I'll be doing lots of video too and b) when I'm needing a longer zoom using my 14-140ii which is probably my favorite lens ever, not for sheer IQ but for its compact size, versatility and  very good IQ.I love my G9 and will get the PL100-400 in the near future since we're going to Africa in the fall most likely. Best safari setup in combination with the 14-140ii.But when it comes to that extra notch of image quality and when I don't require much filming, my Fujis (for me) are just a step up in IQ. At least for jpeg, and yes, for me it's visible even without pixel peeping.

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 buy the Fuji.  Cameras are tools.  You buy the right tool.  It's silly to limit yourself to a specific brand or format.Luckily, most Panasonic and Olympus lenses are interchangeable (within the issues of UV filtration and the Purple Blob).  But I shoot Panasonic for video, Olympus for stills, and Nikon when I need it (less these days, haven't used my Nikon gear for nearly a year).I do wish the 12-100 f4 were lighter.  Not sure it could be as good if it were smaller.Personally, I always feel restricted with a lens that has minimum focal length of 14mm, because I shoot at 12mm quite a bit.I would use the 12-60 more, but I always felt the need to have a telephoto lens with that range, whereas I can go out with just the 12-100 and not have that need.And, since I don't like changing lenses in the field, I wind up using the 12-100 more often.But there are a lot of choices; and I recommend getting what you want...life is too short.

Thanks for the bandolier idea. I need to get my camera rig off my torso this summer in Japan, to avoid the sweats.

The 12-100 is a bit like chocolate: there is a very small number of people on earth, who don't like it.

I have never owned the 12-100mm but I have had the 12-40mm which was ok but quite bulky and heavy, which to me defeats the point of MFT, which should be compact and lightweight in my opinion and that is why I am more than happy with my 12-50mm and 40-150mm budget lenses

WiltshireMoonraker59 wrote:I have never owned the 12-100mm but I have had the 12-40mm which was ok but quite bulky and heavy, which to me defeats the point of MFT, which should be compact and lightweight in my opinion and that is why I am more than happy with my 12-50mm and 40-150mm budget lensesOn the other hand for wildlife photographers it's about equivalent focal length lenses being smaller. Would you consider using them despite their bulk?

Trolleyman wrote:WiltshireMoonraker59 wrote:I have never owned the 12-100mm but I have had the 12-40mm which was ok but quite bulky and heavy, which to me defeats the point of MFT, which should be compact and lightweight in my opinion and that is why I am more than happy with my 12-50mm and 40-150mm budget lensesOn the other hand for wildlife photographers it's about equivalent focal length lenses being smaller. Would you consider using them despite their bulk?Apples and Oranges.The 12-100mm is general purpose, walkabout sort of lens. I guess if you’re used big, bulky FF lenses, like a 24-80mm f2.8 or 70-200mm 2.8 you have a different point of reference and the 12-100mm is a reasonable size. A long zoom or telephoto is definitely NOT used the same way. I certainly wouldn’t be wandering the streets of Roma or Firenze shooting with a 50-200mm or 300mm f4 or a 150-400mm. Would you?

jeffharris wrote:Trolleyman wrote:WiltshireMoonraker59 wrote:I have never owned the 12-100mm but I have had the 12-40mm which was ok but quite bulky and heavy, which to me defeats the point of MFT, which should be compact and lightweight in my opinion and that is why I am more than happy with my 12-50mm and 40-150mm budget lensesOn the other hand for wildlife photographers it's about equivalent focal length lenses being smaller. Would you consider using them despite their bulk?Apples and Oranges.The 12-100mm is general purpose, walkabout sort of lens. I guess if you’re used big, bulky FF lenses, like a 24-80mm f2.8 or 70-200mm 2.8 you have a different point of reference and the 12-100mm is a reasonable size. A long zoom or telephoto is definitely NOT used the same way. I certainly wouldn’t be wandering the streets of Roma or Firenze shooting with a 50-200mm or 300mm f4 or a 150-400mm. Would you?I used a FF 24-105, so the 12-100 isn't too much of a problem.My comments relate to those that say mft is all about being small, It is, but in a comparable way.

UrbanHobbit wrote:Thanks for the bandolier idea. I need to get my camera rig off my torso this summer in Japan, to avoid the sweats.So, what I have for carrying the 50-200mm when hiking is this:A LowePro 9 x 16cm lens case. I got a climber's hardware gear sling online. So I just hang the lens case on it, plus another lens case for my 12-40mm and sling it.https://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/en_US/product/padded-gear-sling/When I'm using the 50-200mm, I stick it in the lens case, hanging at my side, hands free,  zero strain on the lens mount. The camera strap stays on. Both are carried sling style, cross-body. I carry a small Deuter cycling hydration backpack for 3 liters of water, energy bars and various camera stuff. Binox, too.The 12-40mm is in the smaller lens case, leaving the big lens case free for the 50-200mm. It's a pretty good system, overall.Here are a couple of pix. It's a little tricky taking waist level selfies with my iPhone.Camera and lens intside the lens case.Camera and lens outside the lens case.

My 14-140 was not nearly as sharp and consistent across the frame at all FL. I sold it when I bought the 12-100. greg

addlightness wrote: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.Totally agree, I am the same. I contemplated the 12-100mm before the 12-45mm came out, and felt it was a big chunk of glass to carry all day and so inconspicuous, then the 12-45mm came out, no hesitation, no regrets. I even bought my ND filter to fit, just in case I'd buy it but never did. To be honest I don't have a lot of use over 60mm, so I got the Sigma 56mm/1.4 for short-tele reach and bokeh, which complements the 12-45mm very nicely. Many like the convenience of the 12-100mm range, but for me, the inconvenience of size  negates it.

IMO it delivers across the zoom range and the question is whether it's worth carrying versus two zooms covering the range, or doing without the long end of the typical standard zoom. If there's a flaw it's size and weight, not IQ.Cheers,Rick

Thanks for all the details! Today I tried carrying my OM-1 plus 75-300 I in an old dump pouch attached to my belt with MOLLE straps. Sort of like a chalk bag, it has an inner bag with elastic loop at the top. It is not as form-fitting as your lens pouch, but I was able to "holster" the camera in it with the grip hanging over the lip on one side. On my right hip, it was convenient and mostly out of the way. I think for the next outing with this, I will add a neck strap for extra security. (I am out with the dog for this setup, and am wary of letting the camera drop when I kneel down to attach and remove the dog leash.)To bring it back to being marginally on-topic: I think this solution would work with the 12-100 mounted.

UrbanHobbit wrote:Thanks for all the details! Today I tried carrying my OM-1 plus 75-300 I in an old dump pouch attached to my belt with MOLLE straps. Sort of like a chalk bag, it has an inner bag with elastic loop at the top. It is not as form-fitting as your lens pouch, but I was able to "holster" the camera in it with the grip hanging over the lip on one side. On my right hip, it was convenient and mostly out of the way. I think for the next outing with this, I will add a neck strap for extra security. (I am out with the dog for this setup, and am wary of letting the camera drop when I kneel down to attach and remove the dog leash.)I had a camera holster a while back, but didn’t like it, because the camera is completely covered. The concept of quick access and a camera case sounds good, but in use, not so much.I like my solution better than a typical camera holster type bag, simply because it’s much easier to get the camera in and out of the lens case because the camera is fully exposed. For hiking it works really well. I was also a rock and ice climber, so the idea of a hardware sling was right there. When I’m done hiking just swap lenses and stick the lens back in it’s case. Simple.I’ve been doing a similar thing for museum shooting, with a lens case attached to the strap of my sling pack. Quick swapping between two lenses. Works great.To bring it back to being marginally on-topic: I think this solution would work with the 12-100 mounted.Yes, OM topic, indeed! 😛

Currently my fun family outing kit is the OM-5 with the 12-100/4.0 and the 20/1.4.  Yes the 12-100/4.0 is on the big size and is a little unbalanced but I like the one lens solution better than the two lens solution using the 12-45//4.0 and 40-150/4.0.  I also like the Sync-IS with the 12-100/4.0.  Image quality is great.  Image quality is basically equal to the 12-40/2.8 lens.  Still I use the 20/1.4 a lot with the 12-100/4.0 in the bag.It is great to have so many really good choices.  Find the choice that works best for you.

the 12-100 f/4 pro is my travel lens (with EM1.m3) and I wasn't planning on photographing an ice hockey game.  It was simply the lens that I had on me for this travel.  My ice hockey lens is the 40-150mm F2.8 Pro.In comparison between them, the 12-100mm performed well.  It is truly a jack-of-all-trades lens, but master-of-none.

ikolbyi wrote:the 12-100 f/4 pro is my travel lens (with EM1.m3) and I wasn't planning on photographing an ice hockey game. It was simply the lens that I had on me for this travel. My ice hockey lens is the 40-150mm F2.8 Pro.In comparison between them, the 12-100mm performed well. It is truly a jack-of-all-trades lens, but master-of-none.I play ice hockey and once, when I was injured, I decided to photograph my team playing. The color of the sodium vapor (?) lights sucked and it took eons to coerce acceptable colors. What magic did you employ to achieve such good results? (Not that I have any immediate plans to get injured again.)I too, have an E-M1 III.

Bassam Guy wrote:ikolbyi wrote:the 12-100 f/4 pro is my travel lens (with EM1.m3) and I wasn't planning on photographing an ice hockey game. It was simply the lens that I had on me for this travel. My ice hockey lens is the 40-150mm F2.8 Pro.In comparison between them, the 12-100mm performed well. It is truly a jack-of-all-trades lens, but master-of-none.I play ice hockey and once, when I was injured, I decided to photograph my team playing. The color of the sodium vapor (?) lights sucked and it took eons to coerce acceptable colors. What magic did you employ to achieve such good results? (Not that I have any immediate plans to get injured again.)I too, have an E-M1 III.Step 1: shoot RAW. I have card 1: RAW; card 2: JPEG (as backup)Step 2: Process the RAW file through DXO (https://www.dxo.com/dxo-pureraw/) This will cut down on the ISO noise and create the JPEG file.Step 3: Process the DXO JPEG files for framing and coloring in Adobe Photoshop Elements (https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements/buy-elements.html?utm_campaign=cv-nwmp-ae2023&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_content=AE2023-RSA02-LP1&utm_term=adobe%20photoshop%20elements%202023&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxO62ue_Y_QIVB1NyCh0EEAhREAAYASAAEgJzi_D_BwE)

ikolbyi wrote:Bassam Guy wrote:ikolbyi wrote:the 12-100 f/4 pro is my travel lens (with EM1.m3) and I wasn't planning on photographing an ice hockey game. It was simply the lens that I had on me for this travel. My ice hockey lens is the 40-150mm F2.8 Pro.In comparison between them, the 12-100mm performed well. It is truly a jack-of-all-trades lens, but master-of-none.I play ice hockey and once, when I was injured, I decided to photograph my team playing. The color of the sodium vapor (?) lights sucked and it took eons to coerce acceptable colors. What magic did you employ to achieve such good results? (Not that I have any immediate plans to get injured again.)I too, have an E-M1 III.Step 1: shoot RAW. I have card 1: RAW; card 2: JPEG (as backup)Per usualStep 2: Process the RAW file through DXO (https://www.dxo.com/dxo-pureraw/) This will cut down on the ISO noise and create the JPEG file.Only got the DxO about a year ago. I'll give it a shot with the old raws.Step 3: Process the DXO JPEG files for framing and coloring in Adobe Photoshop Elements (https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements/buy-elements.html?utm_campaign=cv-nwmp-ae2023&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_content=AE2023-RSA02-LP1&utm_term=adobe%20photoshop%20elements%202023&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxO62ue_Y_QIVB1NyCh0EEAhREAAYASAAEgJzi_D_BwE)Steps & Link are now pasted in my notes.Thanks again!

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?It is a travel zoom, but you are comparing it to regular zoom lenses. Now compare your regular zooms to primes, and you’ll find a similar rhetoric. I think the lens is good for what it does, and it certainly doesn’t need to hide from the travel zooms on other systems.