I'm trying to figure out if it is worth to purchase OM-3 with 12-45 kit lens for extra $200 ? I already have 12-100 F4 Pro and have used it many times for travel, so trying to figure if it is worth spending extra $200 as kit lens is not bringing anything new to my range and performance. Can someone please help me decide how well body balances with bigger lens on it ? I dont mind adding smaller hand grip on OM-3 to help with ergonomics, but trying to see if I really need kit lens here.
Even though I rarely use it, I did buy the 12-45mm kit lens. I have had the 12-40mm f/2.8 for 10 years now, and the 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3 for 5 years, and these are my main lenses.
I do not have the 12-100mm lens. I used it for a weekend before getting my 12-200mm lens, and it just did not appeal to me. I found it too heavy on my E-m5 mark III body that I was using at the time.
I do find with lenses heavier than my 12-40mm, that I prefer having a grip or leather case that builds up the hand grip. I have three:
And even with the above, I find myself at times switching back to the older 14-150mm f/4-5.6 lens to have a lighter package. But part of the big purchase I had made that included the OM-3 was to reduce my camera gear bag after a fall I had in March that got lighter weight lenses in addition to the OM-3 (note, the OM-3 purchase really wasn't about weight, but the other lenses I got were to reduce the load).
In buying the 12-45mm f/4 kit lens, I figured it was nice to have smaller lens, since the OM-3 has a slimmer profile than the OM-1 that I also have. But I've used the 12-40mm so long, I typically don't mind the extra 128g (0.3 lbs) that the heavier lens brings. So of the lenses I bought, the 12-45mm f/4 is under-used.
But your 12-100mm is a heavier lens.
One thing to think about is if the extra $200 won't make you eat ramen for a month, that if you find you never use it, you should be able to sell it for a similar amount down the road. That way you have the option to see if a lighter lens might go out more often.
