Olympus PRO vs. regular lenses

solitone · Sep 16, 2022

Is there anything I cannot do without a PRO lens on a (for instance) E-M1 Mark III? Apart from a further theoretical 0.5EV stop in IS, and a much better IQ?

Specifically, I'm interested in 12-100 PRO vs. either 12-200 or 14-150.

Randall_p · Sep 16, 2022

One of the main reasons I got the EM 5ii + 14-150 was weather sealing. I live in a region that gets plenty of rain, I feel confident an shoot often in wet weather with my equipment.

I have also added EM 1iii and a couple of pro lenses both WR.

Coldpaw · Sep 16, 2022

Most Pro lenses come with a Fn-button on the lens, which might or might not be interesting for you. The 12-100 Pro in particular when combined with the E-M1.3 has a great reputation of delivering amazing Sync-IS capabilities, maybe even more than pure paper stats might suggest. Build quality is also better, as the lenses are mostly made of metal.

Focus Stacking is not available for both of the non-Pro lenses you have listed.

UrbaneHobbit · Sep 16, 2022

The 12-100 Pro is so much better than the 12-200, optically. There might be an argument for the latter if you really need the reach, but I find the 12-100 so sharp that I can crop in to 150mm equivalent and still have results that look noticeably better than the 12-200 at 200 and also at 150. I concluded this after a week of testing both side-by-side. The performance envelope is significantly more useful with the constant f/4. At longer focal lengths, the 12-200’s smaller apertures make it a bright daylight lens if you want to stay with lower ISOs.

If you shoot video, the 12-100 has the substantial advantage of synchronized IS, which allows me to leave the tripod at home for panning shots. For vlogging-while-walking, a gimbal is recommended.

12-200 is pretty great for what it is: a pretty incredible zoom range, weather sealing, compact size and relatively low weight for MFT glass. If you want just one lens, it is a versatile all-in-one. The 12-100 makes the Olympus/OMDS system. The 12-200 is an interesting choice.

Jack Tingle · Sep 16, 2022

Pro+:

Weather resistant
Brighter
More durable
Various OIS or other features like teleconverters

Pro-:

Heavier
Larger
More expensive

Basically, unless you have a strong, specific need for the Pro lenses, I recommend against them. These needs might include:

Professional photographer using them every day
Focal lengths greater than 300mm
A lot of use in low light or other reasons for low light performance
Use in adverse conditions

The main argument for MFT (or APS-C) is smaller, lighter, and cheaper hardware with acceptable performance. Pro lenses go against that argument.

softmarmotte · Sep 16, 2022

Jack Tingle said:
Pro+:

Weather resistant

Brighter

More durable

Various OIS or other features like teleconverters

Pro-:

Heavier

Larger

More expensive

Basically, unless you have a strong, specific need for the Pro lenses, I recommend against them. These needs might include:

Professional photographer using them every day

Focal lengths greater than 300mm

A lot of use in low light or other reasons for low light performance

Use in adverse conditions

The main argument for MFT (or APS-C) is smaller, lighter, and cheaper hardware with acceptable performance. Pro lenses go against that argument.

Specifically the 14-150 mk II is an incredible lens for the weight and cost. It's my go to walking/hiking lens. Never had an issue with rain , snow etc

Check my Flickr for a lot of pics with it

cba_melbourne · Sep 16, 2022

Jack Tingle said:
Pro+:

Weather resistant

60/2.8 has WS too, without being a pro lens

Jack Tingle said:
Brighter

More durable

Not sure about that one. The premium primes are IMO at least as durable.

Jack Tingle said:
Various OIS or other features like teleconverters

+ higher IQ

+ Most pro lenses also have the manual focus clutch, whereas only two non-pro have that (the premium 12/2 and 17/1.8)

+ Lens function button

+ Good looking / feeling outer metal decoration

+ Linear focus motors (voice coil type), albeit the non-pro 60mm has that too

+ Lens hood is included "for free"

Jack Tingle said:
Pro-:

Heavier

Larger

More expensive

Basically, unless you have a strong, specific need for the Pro lenses, I recommend against them. These needs might include:

Professional photographer using them every day

Focal lengths greater than 300mm

A lot of use in low light or other reasons for low light performance

Use in adverse conditions

The main argument for MFT (or APS-C) is smaller, lighter, and cheaper hardware with acceptable performance. Pro lenses go against that argument.

phil from seattle · Sep 16, 2022

...

cba_melbourne said:
+ Most pro lenses also have the manual focus clutch, whereas only two non-pro have that (the premium 12/2 and 17/1.8)

To me, this is one of the best features out there. I use it a lot. When used in conjunction with focus peaking, it allows me to get the focus spot on. Makes manual focus super easy. Kind of surprising no one else mentioned it.

Regor250 · Sep 16, 2022

phil from seattle said:
...

phil from seattle said:

+ Most pro lenses also have the manual focus clutch, whereas only two non-pro have that (the premium 12/2 and 17/1.8)

Click to expand...

To me, this is one of the best features out there. I use it a lot. When used in conjunction with focus peaking, it allows me to get the focus spot on. Makes manual focus super easy. Kind of surprising no one else mentioned it.

What do you need a clutch for with AF+MF mode?

David5833 · Sep 16, 2022

I see the AF/MF clutch as a negative...too easy to deploy accidentally. It's not a deal killer but it adds unnecessary mechanical complexity and I would rather not have it on any lens.

cba_melbourne · Sep 16, 2022

David5833 said:
I see the AF/MF clutch as a negative...too easy to deploy accidentally.

You can turn the feature off in the menu to prevent accidental deployment.

It's a very polarizing thing. You either love it or hate it. There seems to be no middle ground. The split is about 50/50.

I love it. In m43 only Olympus has it. I am more likely to buy an Olympus lens that has it. And I am less likely to buy an Olympus lens that does not have it.

David5833 said:
It's not a deal killer but it adds unnecessary mechanical complexity and I would rather not have it on any lens.

On some lenses Panasonic has an aperture ring. Sadly it's not supported on Olympus cameras. For me, it would be ideal to have both an aperture ring and a focus clutch.

CR1975 · Sep 17, 2022

for my part, i am no professional, just an eager hobbyist.

Have an E-M5 MKIII and previously the E-M1 original. When i got the E-M5 MKIII it came as a kit with the 14-150 II. Thats a nice compact lens with some weather resistance. Light weight as well and takes decent pictures.

i also said that i wanted the 12-100 Pro and got it as well. To be honest, the Sync-IS is shockingly good and makes things very sharp. Low light is still a bit of a question mark due to the F4.0 but in many situations it does quite well. I can imagine that it would be great/awesome on a E-M1 MKIII or an OM1.

If i were to choose between the two, i would still go with the 12-100 due to its sharpness, the L-FN button and overall quality. its heavy and not a perfect balance on my camera body but i just like the pictures it takes. I also use the Oly 100-400 so you can tell that the weight is not a significant bother to me. I have a P100-300 that sits on the shelf...

HOWEVER, YMMV depending on the cost delta , which is large and the weight difference which is also large....

motormatic · Sep 17, 2022

One thing not mentioned yet about the Pro zooms is they are all fixed aperture. None of the non-Pro zooms are.

Interestingly, Panasonic went in the opposite direction with many of the Leica zooms being variable aperture...8-18, 12-60, 100-400.

Both the 40-150 Pro zooms use internal zooming designs, so they do get longer as you zoom out.

solitone · Sep 17, 2022

CR1975 said:
HOWEVER, YMMV depending on the cost delta , which is large and the weight difference which is also large....

I had initially excluded 12-100 PRO for weight and price. I was thinking of an E-M1 with a 12-200 (cheaper and 100 g lighter) or a 14-150 (significantly lighter). But now I have the opportunity to buy at an interesting price a kit with an E-M1 Mark III and a 12-100 PRO, both new.

The major drawback would be weight, at least comparing with 14-150, since I would use the system for my hiking and backpacking adventures.

cba_melbourne · Sep 17, 2022

motormatic said:
One thing not mentioned yet about the Pro zooms is they are all fixed aperture. None of the non-Pro zooms are.

The way they achieve constant aperture, is that they electronically reduce the aperture at the short end. I can see that very well by observing the aperture blades move against each other of my 12-40 whilst zooming (the power has to be on of course).

So it is optically more like a12-40/2.2-2.8 lens, that has been "throttled down" at the short end to f/2.8 for the convenience of being constant aperture. The downside of this, is of course that the lens is larger and heavier than it would be, if it was a 12-40/2.8-3.5.

Me personally, I would prefer they would not do that constant aperture thing, and let me decide myself if I want to use the larger aperture at the short FL end or not.

motormatic said:
Interestingly, Panasonic went in the opposite direction with many of the Leica zooms being variable aperture...8-18, 12-60, 100-400.

Variable aperture lenses are of course smaller and lighter -> and indeed Panasonic lenses are generally smaller and lighter than their Olympus constant aperture counterparts.

motormatic said:
Both the 40-150 Pro zooms use internal zooming designs, so they do get longer as you zoom out.

You mean to say they do not get longer.....

cba_melbourne · Sep 17, 2022

solitone said:
CR1975 said:

HOWEVER, YMMV depending on the cost delta , which is large and the weight difference which is also large....

Click to expand...

I had initially excluded 12-100 PRO for weight and price. I was thinking of an E-M1 with a 12-200 (cheaper and 100 g lighter) or a 14-150 (significantly lighter). But now I have the opportunity to buy at an interesting price a kit with an E-M1 Mark III and a 12-100 PRO, both new.

The major drawback would be weight, at least comparing with 14-150, since I would use the system for my hiking and backpacking adventures.

Chances are, you would not take it along for hiking/backpacking because it is a brick. The 12-100 is a beautiful and powerful lens, but only for those use cases where size/weight do not matter.

glassoholic · Sep 17, 2022

solitone said:
CR1975 said:

HOWEVER, YMMV depending on the cost delta , which is large and the weight difference which is also large....

Click to expand...

I had initially excluded 12-100 PRO for weight and price. I was thinking of an E-M1 with a 12-200 (cheaper and 100 g lighter) or a 14-150 (significantly lighter). But now I have the opportunity to buy at an interesting price a kit with an E-M1 Mark III and a 12-100 PRO, both new.

The major drawback would be weight, at least comparing with 14-150, since I would use the system for my hiking and backpacking adventures.

An EM5.3 would save some weight over the EM1.3 and that would help offset the extra weight of the 12-100 over the 14-150.

I had the 14-150 and currently have the 12-100. If weight was very important, I would be happy to use the 14-150. The 12-100 is a better instrument in every way, unless it becomes unpleasant to carry... if you get what I'm saying.

I have the Panasonic 14-140 mkii, and its smaller, lighter and optically better than the Oly 14-150.

Then you could consider a Sony RX100 model (I prefer the earlier ones that have the faster zooms). If you can keep it dry, then your portability issue suddenly looks much better... and pictures are almost as good as m43.

ahaslett · Sep 17, 2022

cba_melbourne said:
solitone said:

CR1975 said:

HOWEVER, YMMV depending on the cost delta , which is large and the weight difference which is also large....

Click to expand...

I had initially excluded 12-100 PRO for weight and price. I was thinking of an E-M1 with a 12-200 (cheaper and 100 g lighter) or a 14-150 (significantly lighter). But now I have the opportunity to buy at an interesting price a kit with an E-M1 Mark III and a 12-100 PRO, both new.

The major drawback would be weight, at least comparing with 14-150, since I would use the system for my hiking and backpacking adventures.

Click to expand...

Chances are, you would not take it along for hiking/backpacking because it is a brick. The 12-100 is a beautiful and powerful lens, but only for those use cases where size/weight do not matter.

It is a brick but it’s made for a certain approach to hiking. I’d rather carry the 12-45/4 and Panasonic 35-100/2.8. A good price on the EM1.3 plus 12-100/4 might persuade some people.

Andrew

Skeeterbytes · Sep 17, 2022

solitone said:
I had initially excluded 12-100 PRO for weight and price. I was thinking of an E-M1 with a 12-200 (cheaper and 100 g lighter) or a 14-150 (significantly lighter). But now I have the opportunity to buy at an interesting price a kit with an E-M1 Mark III and a 12-100 PRO, both new.

The major drawback would be weight, at least comparing with 14-150, since I would use the system for my hiking and backpacking adventures.

Maybe get this kit as the first step in a longer strategy for getting a high-performance set that can adapt to varied environments.

Camera and lens are largish--can't call them large, compared to some of my other combos--and importantly for your outdoors shooting, HHHR and Live ND are powerful landscape tools. Combined they were about US $3k, something to measure this deal against.

Add another light lens or two down the road and you have a very versatile and powerful kit. The wee 12-45/4, for example, is a terrific lightweight standard zoom, and the 40-150/4 would make a great combo with it.

Cheers,

Rick

Bobapingu · Sep 17, 2022

solitone said:
Is there anything I cannot do without a PRO lens on a (for instance) E-M1 Mark III? Apart from a further theoretical 0.5EV stop in IS, and a much better IQ?

Specifically, I'm interested in 12-100 PRO vs. either 12-200 or 14-150.

In view of the exclusions you list, one could say, the PRO is a better weapon

. The 12-100 PRO weighs almost twice as much as the 14-150.

Olympus PRO vs. regular lenses

Well-known member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts