Newbie Olympus Lenses

Hi

I am looking to switching to Micro4/3, I currently have an entry level Dslr and instead of investing into higher end ones, I prefer the lighter weight of the micro4/3.

looking at the em1 markii with either the 12-100 f4 or the 12-40 f2.8

i mostly shoot landscapes and outdoors, rarely indoors.

I have read all the topics about people trading their 12-40 for a 12-100, but as a new buyer do u think it is better to invest into the 12-100 for my type of photography or is the 12-40 a lot better, again mostly landscape so the f2.8 will not make a big difference for me and I like the extra reach and not having to switch lenses.

if i get the 12-100 I will probably get the 300mm f4

if I get the 12-40, I will probably need the 40-150 f2.8 AND the 300 f4,

so dollar wise the 12-100 option is better providing the quality is close

please be gentle, I am new

thanks guys

Given your use case I would go for the 12-100. I have both and without pixel peeping can see nothing short of the superb sharpness that the 12-40 has. That extra reach can be really useful for landscapes and although the 40-150 pro is also super sharp you're committing to taking two lenses around with you and the 40-150 pro is not a light lens.

As for occasional indoor use the 1 stop disadvantage compared to the 12-40  is made up by the sync-IS stabilisation of the 12-100, enabling you to hand hold at lower shutter speeds so maintaining ISO (assuming the subject is static).

Sami k wrote:

Hi

Welcome to the gear-head pit

I am looking to switching to Micro4/3, I currently have an entry level Dslr and instead of investing into higher end ones, I prefer the lighter weight of the micro4/3.

looking at the em1 markii with either the 12-100 f4 or the 12-40 f2.8

First misunderstanding. Micro 4/3 does not automatically mean smaller and lighter. Evidence number one: http://j.mp/2jOAflT

The Olympus kit is actually the biggest and heaviest when compared to entry level DSLRs (and much, much more expensive). It is going to smoke those DSLRs in every possible way of course. But it's not going to be any smaller or lighter.

Just to put a bit of perspective into that picture, MFT kit can be really small: http://j.mp/2jOwAo8

i mostly shoot landscapes and outdoors, rarely indoors.

12-100 will be perfect I think. There's enough images online from it now to say without any doubts that image quality it offers is excellent and it's not really any compromise in this regard. And 6.5 stop of stabilization with Sync-IS means that f/4 will not be a problem for landscapes even when light is not perfect. You'll probably be shooting it at f/5.6 most of the time.

if i get the 12-100 I will probably get the 300mm f4

300mm? Not for landscapes I presume?

Sami k wrote:

Hi

I am looking to switching to Micro4/3, I currently have an entry level Dslr and instead of investing into higher end ones, I prefer the lighter weight of the micro4/3.

looking at the em1 markii with either the 12-100 f4 or the 12-40 f2.8

i mostly shoot landscapes and outdoors, rarely indoors.

I have read all the topics about people trading their 12-40 for a 12-100, but as a new buyer do u think it is better to invest into the 12-100 for my type of photography or is the 12-40 a lot better, again mostly landscape so the f2.8 will not make a big difference for me and I like the extra reach and not having to switch lenses.

if i get the 12-100 I will probably get the 300mm f4

if I get the 12-40, I will probably need the 40-150 f2.8 AND the 300 f4,

so dollar wise the 12-100 option is better providing the quality is close

please be gentle, I am new

thanks guys

Well, you are definitely going "high end" when it comes to quality, cost, size and weight - perhaps more than you need based on your requirements.

You shoot mostly outdoors, and most landscapes.  And you want to reduce weight and size from your entry level DSLR.  Body-wise, the EM1.2 is not that much smaller (if at all) compared to your DSLR.  If you want weather sealed, but really want to reduce size/weight, why not consider the EM5.2?  Yes, it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the EM1.2, but it's a lot smaller, lighter and far less expensive.  And still big enough to handle the good glass.

Lens-wise, I would think for ultra-wide landscape work you would want to pick up the 7-14.  The 12-40 or the 12-100 will be your "everyday" lens.  While the 12-100 is obviously more flexible, and really doesn't handicap you for outdoors work, it does carry a size/weight penalty.  I would suggest to put one on the intended body and see how it feels.  If you end up choosing the 12-100, I'm not sure why you would pick up a longer telephoto other than to say you have it.  If you think you really need it, then perhaps the new Panny 100-300 II is a better choice than the Oly Pro lenses, being much smaller and a nice versatile zoom range.  I would personally give some attention to a fast, small prime for your occasional use indoors/at night, such as the Oly 17/1.8 or the panny 15/1.7.

Apparently you've got the money to invest in the best - good for you.  Now you just need to match your needs and wants to what's out there.

Sami k wrote:

looking at the em1 markii with either the 12-100 f4 or the 12-40 f2.8

i mostly shoot landscapes and outdoors, rarely indoors.

if i get the 12-100 I will probably get the 300mm f4

Bright lenses means lower ISO or faster shutter speed. In both case, that's a plus.

For hand-held photography, a faster shutter speed is often more important than absolute sharpness. The M.Zuiko 12-40mm will offer you amazing sharpness (I'd be surprised that the M.Zuiko 12-100mm would be better) and better dynamic range (though lower ISO).

It's a must.

Astrotripper wrote:

Sami k wrote:

Hi

Welcome to the gear-head pit

I am looking to switching to Micro4/3, I currently have an entry level Dslr and instead of investing into higher end ones, I prefer the lighter weight of the micro4/3.

looking at the em1 markii with either the 12-100 f4 or the 12-40 f2.8

First misunderstanding. Micro 4/3 does not automatically mean smaller and lighter. Evidence number one: http://j.mp/2jOAflT

Not a really true comparison as the Nikon while it's speed is approximately that of the Olympus, it's zoom range is shorter. And the Canon has approximately the same zoom range but it is slower lens (3.5-5.6 vs 4.0)

Steven Wandy wrote:

Astrotripper wrote:

Sami k wrote:

I am looking to switching to Micro4/3, I currently have an entry level Dslr and instead of investing into higher end ones, I prefer the lighter weight of the micro4/3.

looking at the em1 markii with either the 12-100 f4 or the 12-40 f2.8

First misunderstanding. Micro 4/3 does not automatically mean smaller and lighter. Evidence number one: http://j.mp/2jOAflT

Not a really true comparison as the Nikon while it's speed is approximately that of the Olympus, it's zoom range is shorter. And the Canon has approximately the same zoom range but it is slower lens (3.5-5.6 vs 4.0)

Note the parts in bold. I just compared to something that OP is likely to be familiar with.

If by outdoor and landscape, do you mean you hike? How important is portability to you?

Your choices will also depend on what in particular you like to shoot. For my self, I find the 12-40 is wide enough for most landscape and hiking/backcountry skiing uses and long enough in landscape in many cases depending on the topography. I carry the 12-40 on most hikes (if photogenic), and also carry the 35-100 F2.8 Panny (instead of the 40-150) about 40% of the time. The FL is long enough at 100mm for mammals in nature - unless you want head shots like you can get at the zoo. The far less expensive 35-100 would be a reasonable option as it is supposed to be very good. While the 12-100 is likely to be as good as the 12-40 (except for astro/landscape) the question would be, "Would you always want to carry a lens with that FL on the upper end. My own experience tells me no. You might be different.

I also shoot ultra wide perhaps 10% of the time. For me, because when I shoot UWA, I am likely to go as wide as I can, the 8mm F1.8FE is my choice. It is light, is very wide - 180 degrees - and is great for astro/landscape. By centering the horizon, you will not be able to tell the lens is a FE in landscape - excepting if you shoot around trees. Even then, the FE gives the opportunity for imaginative compositions with a bit of an arty look.

My current camera is the original EM-1 which works well enough for all I shoot (I have 2 of them). The new EM-1 II would excel comparatively for birds/sports. The EM-5II is another good choice.

The only time I need the ultra wide aperture of the FE or the F2.8 of the 12-40 is in astro/landscape. Otherwise, in nature, I never need an aperture wider than F4.5-F5.6. Shooting people hiking at dusk would be different.

hedleyw wrote:

Given your use case I would go for the 12-100. I have both and without pixel peeping can see nothing short of the superb sharpness that the 12-40 has. That extra reach can be really useful for landscapes and although the 40-150 pro is also super sharp you're committing to taking two lenses around with you and the 40-150 pro is not a light lens.

As for occasional indoor use the 1 stop disadvantage compared to the 12-40 is made up by the sync-IS stabilisation of the 12-100, enabling you to hand hold at lower shutter speeds so maintaining ISO (assuming the subject is static).

that is what I was thinking getting one lens instead of two with minimal compromise

thanks for your feedback

greg 123 wrote:

If I had to pick just two lenses for outdoor landscape work it would be the 12-100 and 7-14. I find myself using the 7-14 more than the 40-150 for outdoor landscapes. The 300 f4 is specifically for my intent to go shoot wildlife, perhaps with a second camera for landscape along the way.

The 12-40 and 40-150 is are superb lenses that I wouldn't part with regardless of others in my collection. I also share these with my wife, so some duplication in my collection of lenses is useful.

same for me the 300 f4 would be for the occasional wildlife shoot, not buying it right away

thanks for your feedback

Astrotripper wrote:

Welcome to the gear-head pit

First misunderstanding. Micro 4/3 does not automatically mean smaller and lighter. Evidence number one: http://j.mp/2jOAflT

The Olympus kit is actually the biggest and heaviest when compared to entry level DSLRs (and much, much more expensive). It is going to smoke those DSLRs in every possible way of course. But it's not going to be any smaller or lighter.

Just to put a bit of perspective into that picture, MFT kit can be really small: http://j.mp/2jOwAo8

12-100 will be perfect I think. There's enough images online from it now to say without any doubts that image quality it offers is excellent and it's not really any compromise in this regard. And 6.5 stop of stabilization with Sync-IS means that f/4 will not be a problem for landscapes even when light is not perfect. You'll probably be shooting it at f/5.6 most of the time.

300mm? Not for landscapes I presume?

I meant smaller and lighter compared to the higher end dslr, with the miciro43 I will have a quality close to the higher end dslr with the same size and weight of my current entry level setup

the 300 is for wildlife, not buying it right away, jst trying to think ahead

thanks for your feedback

They may not have the fstop, but capable outdoors

12-50 3.5-6.3

40-150 4-5.6R

all olympus above

the compact duo and lightweight is from panasonic below

12-32 3.5-5.6

and

35-100 4-5.6

is the duo to go with if you are not shooting birds and want a duo.

you may want to buy one of these 4 as they are cheap and light.

Rich K wrote:

Well, you are definitely going "high end" when it comes to quality, cost, size and weight - perhaps more than you need based on your requirements.

You shoot mostly outdoors, and most landscapes. And you want to reduce weight and size from your entry level DSLR. Body-wise, the EM1.2 is not that much smaller (if at all) compared to your DSLR. If you want weather sealed, but really want to reduce size/weight, why not consider the EM5.2? Yes, it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the EM1.2, but it's a lot smaller, lighter and far less expensive. And still big enough to handle the good glass.

Lens-wise, I would think for ultra-wide landscape work you would want to pick up the 7-14. The 12-40 or the 12-100 will be your "everyday" lens. While the 12-100 is obviously more flexible, and really doesn't handicap you for outdoors work, it does carry a size/weight penalty. I would suggest to put one on the intended body and see how it feels. If you end up choosing the 12-100, I'm not sure why you would pick up a longer telephoto other than to say you have it. If you think you really need it, then perhaps the new Panny 100-300 II is a better choice than the Oly Pro lenses, being much smaller and a nice versatile zoom range. I would personally give some attention to a fast, small prime for your occasional use indoors/at night, such as the Oly 17/1.8 or the panny 15/1.7.

Apparently you've got the money to invest in the best - good for you. Now you just need to match your needs and wants to what's out there.

good point about the em5.2 I will have a look at it, I am not "money is no object" but I am willing to invest a bit more and keep it for longer as my skills improve, the biggest difference for me is the resolution 16 vs 20 mp

I started with the nikon d5100 and an 18-200 nikon lens in 2011, I like the versatility of the 18-200 but I understand that I need better glass.

the weight of the em1.2 with the 12-100 is very close to the weight of my current setup so it will be fine, I would rather have that one versatile lens only. I find that I like the ability to b able to zoom in a bit more, maybe it's a bad habit from having the 18-200, I am just not sure if I can live with 12-40 only

the 7-14 is not in my plans for now, It's between the 12-40 and the 12-100

thanks for your feedback

Tim Reidy Productions wrote:

They may not have the fstop, but capable outdoors

12-50 3.5-6.3

40-150 4-5.6R

all olympus above

the compact duo and lightweight is from panasonic below

12-32 3.5-5.6

and

35-100 4-5.6

is the duo to go with if you are not shooting birds and want a duo.

you may want to buy one of these 4 as they are cheap and light.

I think these are not pro lenses, I am looking to upgrade to better glass fom my 18-200 3.5-5.6

thanks for your feedback

so my current setup nikon d5100 (560 grams) + nikon 18-200 (same 560 grams)

planned olympus em1.2 9 (574 grams) + olympus 12-100 (561 grams)

similar weight that I am used to log around

the 12-40 is 382grams so under 200grams lighter

I think I prefer the reach over the lighter weight

my main concern is image quality, is the 12-40 THAT much better??!!

Sami k wrote:

hedleyw wrote:

Given your use case I would go for the 12-100. I have both and without pixel peeping can see nothing short of the superb sharpness that the 12-40 has. That extra reach can be really useful for landscapes and although the 40-150 pro is also super sharp you're committing to taking two lenses around with you and the 40-150 pro is not a light lens.

As for occasional indoor use the 1 stop disadvantage compared to the 12-40 is made up by the sync-IS stabilisation of the 12-100, enabling you to hand hold at lower shutter speeds so maintaining ISO (assuming the subject is static).

that is what I was thinking getting one lens instead of two with minimal compromise

thanks for your feedback

It sounds like the 12-100 would be perfect for you, the extra stabilization is remarkable, especially for night handheld. Personally, my perfect kit is the 12-100, Oly 7-14 and the PL 100-400. Three lenses that cover a lot. I also keep the Oly 12mm and PL 15mm on hand for indoor use or night time. I have way too many other lenses but these are my most favorite lenses.

I really love the new 12-100, I am amazed with the quality and the ability to handhold at such low shutter speeds. I doubt you would be disappointed with the 12-100 in combination with either the new EM1 MK II or the EM5 MK II which is what I have along with a Pen-F.

If size/weight is going to be an important consideration, you may be giving up some advantage of µ4/3 by choosing the 12-100.

12-40 and 12-100 on E-M1 mkII

Apparently OP's emphasis on size/weight is not so important based on his/her several responses above.