GAS - 12-200 or 12-100 Pro - help!!

[peteh13]

Hi all,
Currently have a bad case of 'new lens'-itis.
I've recently got myself an E-M1 Mk2 having upgraded from a Mk1. Very pleased with the camera, but now pondering a new lens.

My photography is generally ad-hoc trips out to local places, usually with a time limit. My current lens of choice is the Oly Zuiko 14-150 II. Nice little lens and I've had some nice photos with it.

Now considering either the 12-200 or the 12-100 Pro.
Bigger zoom vs better quality
Smaller & lighter vs a bit of a a chunk
Within my price range vs a bit of a stretch

Help! Has anyone used both of these lenses?
Comments welcome.

Pete.

[ronidog]

I like the 12-200. Its a nice size for carrying around all day. The photos are good. The only issue I have is that the differences in focal length at the top end are a bit small as zoom..

No experience of the 12-100 pro., I decided against it due to the weight, size and price

[OM USer]

Another like for the 12-200mm. It is very portable. To elaborate Ronidogs musings, at the long end you reach a point in the zoom range where the zoom ring stiffens up and you quickly leap to 200mm - presumably a lot of lens shifting is going on. This is not an issue as far more important to me is that it reaches 200mm over the max reach of the 12-100mm.

The 12-100mm did not offer me anything that my 12-40 & 40-150 did not give me and on top of that was F/4.0 throughout. Although I don't mind shooting at F/4 the extra light gathering of F/2.8 enables faster focus aquisition and a higher shutter speed if you need it. My E-M5i also dos not offer me sync IS which is on later cameras and would have given me all the benefits of the 12-100mm.If a replacement for the 12-100mm came along that would take the teleconverters then I might change my mind about preferring the 12-200mm.

[ronidog]

I also wish the teleconverters worked on other lenses it would give a much more flexible system

[RobEW]

The 12-100 does offer some things the 1-40 and 40-150 /2.8 pair don't: the ability to zoom from 12 to 100 without changing lenses (or carrying two bodies). Extra stabilisation. Maybe more.

Whether these are useful to an individual depends of course.

[MikeOxon]

I don't have either of these lenses but if I were looking for a replacement for the 14-150 then I would choose the 12-200. The extra 2mm at the short end makes a surprising difference, while 200mm at the long end (with equivalent FoV to a 400mm lens on full frame) really pulls in distant subjects. It's designed as a 'travel' lens to cover most subjects you are likely to encounter on 'ad hoc outings'

The 12-100 is a different type of lens designed for maximum quality for those who need something a little longer than the 12-40 and don't mind the extra size and weight.

[moggi1964]

Hi all,
Currently have a bad case of 'new lens'-itis.
I've recently got myself an E-M1 Mk2 having upgraded from a Mk1. Very pleased with the camera, but now pondering a new lens.

My photography is generally ad-hoc trips out to local places, usually with a time limit. My current lens of choice is the Oly Zuiko 14-150 II. Nice little lens and I've had some nice photos with it.

Now considering either the 12-200 or the 12-100 Pro.
Bigger zoom vs better quality
Smaller & lighter vs a bit of a a chunk
Within my price range vs a bit of a stretch

Help! Has anyone used both of these lenses?
Comments welcome.

Pete.

I guess my question would be: what are you looking to gain? Comparing to the 14-150mm:

More reach/width?

Better quality?

If you only want the extra 2mm you could just buy the prime. Very light and a fine addition.

What is the current lens not giving you?

[pdk42]

From reviews I've seen the 12-200 looks like tt softens and loses contrast towards the end of the range. I don't think it's in the same league in image quality as the 12-100 which is absolutely superb. It's probably my favourite lens for landscape.

[Phill D]

I agree, mine too.

[blu-by-u]

Uncle Phill D,

You are making me regret my decision.

[Phill D]

It's done wonders for my arm muscles too Henry

[blu-by-u]

If you don't mind the extra weight and the huge size, then go for the 12-100. Yes you loose that 50mm but it's the superb IQ. If you are looking at portability, the that 12-200 but as mentioned, it's soft at the long end.

I also have that 14-150. But it's not a lens that I will pickup on a travel trip. I am currently on a 12-40, 35-100, 100-300 and 8mm fe as my travel kit. I don't need to carry any bright prime and it's all in a small bag.

[Phill D]

I just took the 12-100, 17 F1.8 and the Samyang 7.5mm. When I used to travel that was

[pdk42]

I'd go as far as saying that the 12-100 is probably the best landscape lens ever made. The image quality is amazing, the range is superb, and the Sync IS means that you can do unreal long exposure shots handheld. And it's not really that big when you think of the lenses it's replacing.

[RobEW]

Even more so than the PL 8-18? :-)

[pdk42]

Ha - well, if the 12-100 were an 8-100, then it would be!

[Keith-369]

I have the 12-100 and it's just superb. I use it with my 75-300ii and they are a great combination.

My wife, however, has the 12-200, chosen because for medical reasons it would cause her problems to carry a second lens and keep changing for wildlife-scenery. She is very happy with the lens as it gives her (nearly) the best of everything.

We both have M1ii's

[Mazdaman]

I own the 12-100 cannot comment on the 12-200 apart from my knowledge that the 200 end is soft. a couple of videos with a good balance of the pros and cons of the 12-100 lens I have the m1ii and found it great as a all rounder but everyone's requirement's will be different I tend to use it for my weekend away lens (remember weekends away!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K89H-F58Kec

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tfno8xhLEc

[OM USer]

You can assess the softness of the 12-200mm for yourself in my post here (beware pictures of brick walls).

[jeremyc]

I was a very early buyer of the 12-200. I wanted to simplify my kit, and was looking for a lens to cope well enough with anything I might want to shoot and that was not too heavy or bulky. It's now my default lens. I swapped two pro lenses for it and have absolutley no regrets. I am not a pixel-peeper and the 12-200 takes photos that I am happy to share.

[peteh13]

Hi all, thanks for all the comments - some good feedback on both lenses, and some exquisite image of brickwork 🤣

Mr/Mrs 'moggi1964' got me thinking with their question.
I'm not sure what exactly I'm looking to change, other than to get something 'different' - might be wider angle, might be better IQ, might just be that a new lens would encourage me to get out more with the camera!!

I guess my question would be: what are you looking to gain? Comparing to the 14-150mm:

More reach/width?

Better quality?

If you only want the extra 2mm you could just buy the prime. Very light and a fine addition.

What is the current lens not giving you?

[moggi1964]

I suggest that in order to scratch that itch you pick up a used 12-200 and live with it for a while. If you don't like it you won't lose much on resale and then you can try the 12-100.

[pdk42]

I think it's fun to mix things up occasionally. Although I love the 12-100 it's recently been out on loan to a friend whose own camera died. So I've been using the 12-40 a lot more and actually, it's been a good experience. With the 40-150 f2.8 (sans tripod foot or hood), they both fit into my little Billingham bag with room for the 8-18 or 8mm fisheye as well. The 12-40 is a lovely lens and although it's a rather subtle difference, I think it's ever so slightly better in the corners than the 12-100. The Pro lenses really are all excellent though.