« Yellow Over Dark Blue | Main | Thank You »

Wednesday, 24 January 2018

Comments

I love this lens.

I took it to Japan along with some of my other stuff but it pretty much stayed glued to the camera for the whole trip.

It covers basically my entire range and at a decent aperture. And the image stabilizer is great.

Examples of recent shots with this lens are all over my flickr.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/79904144@N00/33822092871/in/album-72157682428201365/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/79904144@N00/36577122362/in/album-72157687810547996/

etc.

It's great.

I'm used to working with fast primes, those are my go-to lenses. I had a job for a few years though where they had us using Canon 28-200s or the 18-200s when we upgraded. They aren't my cup of tea for day in and day out professional use, but if you need reasonable size and good performance, and f4 works, they're really nice to have. 10 years ago I wouldn't have thought I'd say this, but I'd totally use one for my photography for non-income images. The quality is there, and I'd actually take it with me.

Perhaps the best deal is to get the body along with the battery/portrait grip base for $1 LESS than the body only.

Since I bought those snow tires you sold me on a while back I can't even look at anything photographic. Try again in July or August.

Nope, don't got one and don't think I want one. Here's my 'cause. Currently, I have a GX8, OM1.1 (recently bought used and cheap on FM's Buy/Sell page so I could compare 16 and 21 MP sensors), and a 6D. The M4/3 gear (GX8) goes on air travel whereas the Canon gear (and sometimes the M4/3s too) goes on car travel. So, the importance to me is light M4/3 gear (cheap is good too). The Oly 12-100 weighs 1.23 lbs and retails for about $1300. In considering that lens, I also considered the Pany 14-140 w/ Power OIS (i.e., the new one), which gets very good reviews too and is 11.3 oz. So, I bought the Pany used (again from the FM site) for more than $500 less than a used 12-100. Part of the consideration is that the update 14-140 allows dual IS to happen on the GX8; the 12-100 does not. I also have the Oly 12-40 pro. In a shootout between that and the 14-140, for real world photos on the GX8, I saw no need for the 12-40. At 100% in LR, I saw what I think is slightly more resolution with the 12-40, but it was close. I have not yet done the same comparison with the OM1.1. So, for me, if one is shooting a newer Pany (GX8 and later), and you want a light travel lens, get the 14-140. I am glad I did.

I have it, and an E-M1 I, and it’s great. The range etc is perfect.

I’d say for a pro it’s perfect. Me, I’m a walk-around photographer, and it’s a bit on the heavy side for that. Or maybe I’m lazy these days, that’s certainly true.

I have had one for two months. If you like the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 and/or the 35-100 f/2.8, this is like them both in one lens. Reall lovely look to the files, good bokeh and as sharp as I would ever want it to be. It produces lovely color on either Lumix or Olympus bodies. A true winner.

I've heard nothing but great things about the Oly Zuiko 12-100 f/4 zoom. I'm not surprised, as I started out in photography using an OM-1 from 1980 to 2002, and all the "original" Zuikos I used back then were excellent. Olympus knows its glass.

Olympus isn't the only ones who can make great zooms, though. The Fujinon XF 10-24 f/4 and XF 50-140 f 2.8, the APS-C equivalent of the venerable 70-200/2.8 pro zoom, are outstanding, and a lens I did not think I would be impressed with based on it's original Canon counterpart, the Fujinon XF 100-400 f/4-5.6 is truly excellent, too. I came away pretty much blown away with it's autofocus speed, it's sharpness from end-to-end and lightness the first time I shot with it at an Indy Car race in 2016 at Sonoma Raceway. And, I could carry and shoot it all weekend long without a monopod!

https://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/indycarsonomaraceway2016/Hunter-Reay%20Qualifying.jpg

Big thumbs up from me.

Actually the body, grip, and lens saves you $600. The $350 deal is without the grip.

Of course, if money is no object, you can switch to the two PRO lenses 12-40 and 40-150 both constant f2.8 and save $900.

Can't save money if you don't spend it (I think)...

Mike, I don’t have the 12-100 f2.8 but I did have the 12-40 f2.8 and the 40-150 f2.8 along with the Olympus OMD mark 1. The lenses were surperb but the dynamic range was not there. A number of my shots in buildings were there was a range of light from dark to very light ended up being blown out.

So I looked for a solution between sensor size and quality lenses that were small and portable and followed the advice of a well known blogger and purchased a Fuji XT 1. I now have the xt2, xt20 and x100f all based on a recommendation by you.

I would think long and hard about the Olympus. I feel the sensor is just too small. The Fuji isn’t perfect and I honestly don’t think the IQ is as good as my FF Nikon, but it is good enough and great for travel. My thoughts.

Hi Eli! I was just looking over your book on waterfalls of New England in the Long River Gallery yesterday. It looks like a good book!

As I've said, I'm also carrying an A7rii as well as the Olympus (but not this lens). Use the Olympus for depth of field, better IBIS, or a good zoom, or in bad weather. Use the Sony for everything else (in my case with primes). The Olympus is easy enough to carry. If you're like me the Olympus will be used less than 10% of the time.

I would want to get this lens for a trip to Iceland if I go again, or actually any bad-weather spot where I might be traveling with my wife. I've gotten so slow with my prime lenses and manual focus and trying several apertures, I need to (on those trips) move back toward autofocus-zoom-one shot at f7.1. Working on my own, I probably would not use this.

I don't know. Carrying a lens with that much range feels like cheating. Too much extra thinking too. Let's see, is 32.3mm better than 33.1mm for this shot? That's what I'd end up doing...

Mike,

Now that Sony have released the RX10iv, you can pick up an RX10iii at a very steep discount (the iv only really adds, as far as I can see, on-chip phase-detect focus), so you can buy a very high quality do-it-all camera at a reasonable price. Buy one and you end your GAS and agonising over what might be the best lens to buy (unless you need something wider than 24 mm-e or longer than 600 mm-e). One point to note: I read somewhere that re: the original RX10, Sony claimed that they could align the the lens elements with respect to the sensor by an order of magnitude better than with ILCs.

If you want to experiment, and don't need to go longer than 200 mm-e, you can pick up an original RX10 (mk I, if you like) secondhand for a few hundred dollars.

Alun

Forsooth, knave, up with this sort of itch mongering I will not put.
(With apologies to Winston Churchill)

What surprised me is not that several people liked the 12-100; it's a first rate lens. I'd say it has excellent IQ at pretty much any settings, if IQ existed.

What surprised me is that no one but me commented on the Panny Leica 12-60/2.6-4.0. As far as I have seen, over thousands of practical shots, they are optical equals in quality.

I've just spent some time browsing files from both, looking at bokeh. I can't see it as anything but a toss-up, with one or the other being slightly different with different apertures and subject-background or subject-foreground distances.

Both seem to my eye to meet your criterion of "The kind of bokeh I like, anyway, smooth but not too smooth, not "fuzzy," just a little bit of bite left in." They generally fall short of my preference for minimal bite, but so do almost all lenses. \;~)>

The Oly has Sync IS on their recent bodies and the Pleica has it on their recent bodies. There's also the problem of purple halos around small, bright things in dark areas using Panny lenses on Oly bodies. So I'd sort of expect Panny body folks to like the PLeica 12-60/2.6-4.0

I'm totally fence bound. If only one of these lenses existed, I'd undoubtedly be happy with it.

I wrote at considerable length about the similarities and differences between the two in my second comment to the Itch post.

It was my Xmas present to myself. With my EM5mII the IS is absolutely amazing! Far superior to anything else. And the bokeh and sharpness haven't yet stopped surprising me! Truly a do-everything combo, with a handle grip to make the lot easy on the hand.

Speaking of 12-60 lenses . . . there are those who claim that the Panasonic Lumix 12-60 is (almost) the equal of the Pan/Leica version. And way less expensive.

I've been using the 12-100 with an OM-D EM-1 Mark II since they both came out last year. Just a great setup for any event I want to cover that doesn't require really long lenses (like, in my case, field sports). For those situations, the Panny 100-400 is fantastic. Here's a Puerto Rican music festival from last summer, done entirely with the 12-100.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Rod2bCaXmGygEZBh1
However, I agree that this setup is too heavy for casual cruising. My companion camera is a Pen F with the 17mm.

I own quite a few lenses, but this is the one I use the most. On almost every photowalk I go to and I do that a lot here, in Paris. Definitely not the best lens out there in quite a few ways but it has no right, as an "ultra" zoom, to be THIS good. Think of it as an impressive balance between convenience and image quality. I'm not familiar with anything comparable in any other system. Not the only reason why I like m43 so much, but definitely a big one. And I haven't even mentioned long exposures yet. Are you familiar with any other kit that will let you shoot several seconds long exposures hand held and get a sharp(-ish) image? I'm not. I was shooting 2 and 3 seconds long exposures yesterday morning, handheld when every one else in the group was using a tripod and that let me move around much more easily. Makes so much of my photography so much fun, I just LOVE it.
And when I need high quality files that will lead to high quality large prints, I grab my D800 ;) Note the emphasis on large, though. I've printed a handheld shot made with one of the first m43 cameras and a much cheaper lens, on a sheet of A3-sized paper and have a hard time seeing it wasn't shot with "better" gear...
Remember when people were badmouthing 135 because it was too small? Back when medium format was as small as you might want to go if you cared about IQ? Well, I think of m43 as the new Leica in that regard (crappy menus make it not easy enough, but let's talk about that another time).
Long live m43!

The comments to this entry are closed.