What to do? What to do?

Chizuka wrote:

Chris R-UK wrote:

Like you I have a 12-40 f/2.8, 40-150mm f/2.8 and 100-400mm. I also have a couple of small primes and a 9-18mm wide angle.

I do wildlife photography, travel photography and have recently started doing some sports photography.

That’s good. It does sound like the kind of photography I do.

I do most of my photography on trips/vacations, but also do a certain amount of general purpose shooting. For major wildlife trips I take a backpack with most of my lenses and a backup body. For shorter trips I take a small shoulder bag with the 12-40mm plus a couple of small lenses or a flash. That left me with a problem if I needed something longer than 40mm for a short trip.

I considered the 12-100 long and hard when it came out and, although it would be perfect for some shoots, I couldn't justify the cost and I didn't want to carry the extra weight (over the 12-40} on trips. The 40-150mm f/2.8 is too important a lens for my low light wildlife and sports and the 12-100 wouldn't be an adequate replacement. So, for me, the 12-100mm wouldn't replace any of my existing lenses.

So I guess what you are saying is that the difference between the f/4 and f/2.8 is an important consideration?

Yes.  I need f/2.8.

For the last few years I have been shooting foxes and badgers in the late evening sunlight in my garden and having f/2.8 allows me to shoot at a higher shutter speed/lower ISO and gives more shooting time before the light fades.  Last summer we were at a private camp outside Kruger National Park and on the evening game drives a lot of the  shots were only possible at f/2.8.  Exactly the same on a safari in India where, since the drives were in forest, the light was very bad for morning drives as well.

I now shoot soccer games for a local team and at this time of the year the second half is under floodlights.  I have to shoot at 1/500, f/2.8 and ISO 3200.

Shooting M4/3, I couldn't do without the 40-150 f/2.8.  It is my most crucial lens

I therefore bought a used Panasonic 45-150mm as a travel lens for non-wildlife trips. It was extremely cheap, is very light and gives me coverage for the occasional shot where the 12-40mm isn't long enough.

I have a similar lens (Oly 40-150 kit lens) but it still means I have to change lens and accept a lower IQ and a slower lens.

I put up with that.  My travel shots on non-wildlife short trips are only really for memories anyway and 95% are with the 12-40.  The 45-150mm f/2.8 is just too heavy for short, casual trips and unbalances my bag.

I bought the 45-150mm for a short trip to New York last October.  I only used it for shots from the Circle Line boat that goes all round Manhattan and for a few shots from the Empire State building.  We have a short small boat cruise coming up in the Adriatic in three months and I want the 45-150mm for shots from the boat.  I will use the 12-40mm for all the shore trips.

I have considered getting the Panasonic 12-32mm for these kind of trips and using my 20mm f/1.7 or 45mm f/1.8 for higher quality/lower light.  If I went down that road I really ought to get a smaller body than my E-M1.2 as well, so I have been vaguely scanning my local camera stores for a used GM5 with the 12-32mm. 

If I was starting now from scratch my decision might be a different one and I might start with the 12-100mm as my primary, general purpose lens and build my lens collection round it.

Thanks for your comments. It is very helpful, especially because you seem to do similar type of photography than I do.