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

I did an Alaska cruise some years ago...when I was using 4:3, not M4:3. Haven't looked at those shots in a while so I just had a look and was a bit surprised myself. I took my 14x54, and my 50x200 and the camera was an E-510 which was Oly's latest offering at the time. I tend to have a "telephoto" eye and I was surprised when I started looking at the EXIF data. By far my most used focal length was 14mm! I didn't have a 12 mm lens at the time. I did use the 50~200 on a whale watching trip and some other places, but the 14x54 was my most used lens. Also, much to my surprise I didn't use the fastest settings most of the time. F/8 seemed to be used most of the time, although inside the ship I did use f/2.8 a bit.

People will see things differently, and you might not use the shorter focal lengths as much as I did. Also the subjects you see might be a good bit different from what I saw, so that could have an effect on your lens choices as well. Based on what I just looked at I think the 12x100 would have been great and that's what I would take today, along with either my 100x400 Panny or my 75x300. I'd also stick in my tiny little 45 f/1.8 or my little 25 f 1.7 Panny. No such thing as just one lens for me.

If I could only take one lens, it would have to be 12x100. I've had a couple of 14x150s also and it's an excellent lens. I reluctantly gave my MKII version to my Granddaughter for her EM-1 after I got the 12x100. I'd have NO problem taking that along as my primary lens and one of the little primes for indoors. In fact, I'm not sure I don't think it's a better travel lens than the 14x100. Much lighter and I like the extra 50mms. It's a damn good one lens solution for most things, and I'd certainly take at least one tiny, fast prime. Have fun...and I know you will.