Alaska trip with EM1 MkII > Is 14-150II to 12-200 a worthwhile upgrade?

swsantos wrote:

I have the 12-40 but want a longer lens for this type of scenery.

What type of scenery? If you go up a fjord the 12-40 will do just fine. With big mountains as in Mt. Fairweather, I'd think you would shoot under 40mm; I would. Out on the ocean you will probably shoot wide. For icebergs you switch to the 75-300, lots of time.

Before I got the EM1 Mk2 I bought the 12-100 for my EM10 MkII and bricked it with a firmware update 1.0 to 1.3 on day two so I returned it. Was nice while I had it for a dozen pictures taken in the backyard. Bricking a lens is very scary! It was also a bit heavy for the EM10...

Then the EM1 came down $200 so I bought it instead with the money from the returned 12-100.

So now I am debating staying pat with the 14-150II + 75-300 combo, getting the 12-200, or maybe possibly reacquiring the 12-100 but not sure 100 is long enough for Alaskan landscape, yes I have the 75-300 but might end up switching lenses more than I want if the other lens maxes at 100. Also afraid of the residual bad karma I might have with the 12-100 given I have already bricked one

It's pretty easy. Wildlife is quick so you keep the 75-300 mounted. Scenery isn't going anywhere fast; there is plenty of time to change. When hiking in the Canadian Rockies or GNP personally I'd keep my 35-100 F2.8 mounted for Grizzlies, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goats. You may shoot Grizzlies or Wolves on shore or Humpback Whales and Orcas.

I also have the 17mm 1.8 prime but figure I have that covered with the G7X MkII