The Olympus Do-Everything Lens

One of the surprises that emerged from the many (143) comments on the "Itch" post the other day was the multiple mentions given to the Olympus 12–100mm ƒ/4 lens. As Yoda might put it, compliments lots, that one got.

As longtime readers know I'm not the biggest fan of zooms, at least for the early years of anyone's photography, and I've got an older Photo-Dawg's prejudice against the "do-everything" wide-range zooms, only because the early ones were so atrocious. But that was then; now it's now. Having never used one, a few things I can say about the 24–200mm-equivalent M.Zuiko (formally the M.Zuiko ED 12–100mm ƒ/4 IS PRO): It's not very big or heavy for a lens of its range and capabilities (not even 20 oz., less than 5" long, stabilized, weatherproof*) although it might seem so on small Micro 4/3 bodies; and, it's got plenty nice bokeh for an all-purpose zoom. The kind of bokeh I like, anyway, smooth but not too smooth, not "fuzzy," just a little bit of bite left in. YMMV, but you can get a reasonable idea of bokeh from online samples.

By chance, B&H Photo has it on sale today along with the (deep breath) OM-D E-M1 Mark II body. The pair is still pretty breathtakingly expensive in the modest financial neighborhood where I reside, but hey, for some people anyway, it's only money. You get the body, lens, and battery grip, and save $350. Glad I don't have the wherewithal to be tempted, because otherwise that would be tempting, determined as I am to get a long lens for my new surroundings in the Finger Lakes. As I've mentioned, many pictures I "see" seem farther away up here. You can also get the camera and grip and 12–40mm ƒ/2.8, or just the body. Or, if you really want to spend almost nothing, you can get the body, battery grip, 12–40mm, and the awesome 40–150mm ƒ/2.8 (seriously, it's awesome, brilliant if you're from the UK). You save $650. Okay, you won't spend nothing, joshing just was I.

...But back to the 12–100mm. Got one? Like yours? Us tell.

Yod...er, Mike

*Although we'll let John Lehet be the final judge of that. The 12–40mm is supposed to be "weatherproof" too, but, as John demonstrated, it's not waterproof.

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Eli Burakian: "I've got the 12–100mm. Still not 100% convinced on the Micro 4/3rds quality but the lens is exceedingly good. Every aperture, every focal length and incredible stabilization. For backpacking, the OM-D EM-1 Mark II with this lens is perfect for every condition. (That being said, on the hikes where I have brought my A7rII and 24–70mm, I'm consistently blown away by the quality compared to the Micro 4/3rd format when I get back to the computer to process the images. I enjoy using the Micro 4/3 stuff more, but the dynamic range and detail of the full format keeps me wavering between the two. Using both systems right now.)"

David: "I’ve got one, and I love it. I have a range of Micro 4/3 lenses, but the 12–100mm has become my primary travel lens, despite its relative (in Micro 4/3 terms) bulk, because of its range, IQ and weather sealing. I think I’m one of those folk who ‘see pictures further away.’ Prior to this lens, the 40–150mm Pro lived on my camera. I still love that lens, but also appreciate wider view angles when I travel. This lens is the best of both worlds. As a travel lens it’s perfect for me, and on occasions when I needs a little more light/lite, I throw in the Panasonic 20mm for good measure."

Charlie Ewers: "My favorite lens for Olympus, period. I had and loved the 12–40mm, but I sold my copy of that one soon after I got the 12–100mm, which has been on my #1 Olympus body without removal ever since."

kirk tuck: "I bought the 12–100mm early on in my switch to Micro 4/3 and was almost shocked at how good this particular lens is. I use it for so many types of work that I'm questioning why I would ever need anything else. But then there are days when one likes more depth of field control and one finds oneself glancing at the other, faster Pro Olympus lenses. The 12–100mm ƒ/4 Pro is definitely a 'gateway' lens into the format. Even wide open it's near perfect."

Jim Richardson: "Yes, the Olympus 12–100 ƒ/4 is just pretty brilliant. I got one to be my travel lens. Usually you expect these extended range lens to be just good enough on the long end and you accept the compromise for the convenience, but that's not the case here. It's really good. Also you soon get used to the Micro 4/3 lenses being effortlessly sharp out to the edges, something you can't take for granted on full frame bodies. Then there is the crazy-good IBIS combo that links the lens stabilization with the in-body in tandem so that you can do really, really long exposures. (I've done up to five seconds but that was sitting down.) Hence I've tended to leave the tripod at home more on the trips where I take this combo. Also, less known is that at 12mm the lens will focus down to several millimeters from the front element! (If that appeals to you). And the camera/lens combo is so water resistant that I take it out in the rain with no covering, no qualms. But...it does not work with the Olympus focus stacking. Too bad."

Peter Wright: "12–100 Pro? Think I, this lens get, I won't. 12–40 Pro have I. And 40–150 enough is."

Comments

[psu]

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.

[Josh Hawkins]

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.

[Greg Heins]

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

[Speed]

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.

[Mike Marcus]

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.

[Eolake]

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.

[James Weekes]

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.

[Stephen Scharf]

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.

[Dave New]

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)...

[Eric Erickson]

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.

[John Lehet]

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.

[D. Hufford]

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...

[Alun J. Carr]

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

[subroto mukerji]

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

[Moose]

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.

[Noons]

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.

[Mike Mundy]

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.

[Phil Stiles]

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.

[Thomas Paris]

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!