Pro 12-40/40-150+TC replacement with 12-100+what?

I have currently the 12-40/40-150+TC pro lenses with E-M1.1. I'm thinking about the replacement with 12-100. Plus something for supertele range and a fast prime(s).

I see the next options for tele:

1: Oly 75-300 II - not too fast

2: Pana 100-300 II - which IS is better, the IS of lens or the IBIS of E-M1.1? Better F-value.

3: 4/3 Oly 70-300 + MMF-3

4: 4/3 Oly 50-200 SWD + MMF-3 (+ EC14/EC20)

What do you think, which has the best IQ together with sufficient AF-speed on E-M1.1?

The main purpose (only as hobby): landscapes, my twins - running kids and some wildlife occasionally.

I search something to replace the 100-210 range from 40-150 Pro+TC, if it's possible, not loose too much IQ, however a longer tele would be nice.

Why would you want to get rid of lens that are easily among the best for m43 cameras to buy inferior lens??? The 40-150 f2.8 is spectacular,  as is the 12-40 f2.8.

wsedf wrote:

I have currently the 12-40/40-150+TC pro lenses with E-M1.1. I'm thinking about the replacement with 12-100. Plus something for supertele range and a fast prime(s).

I see the next options for tele:

1: Oly 75-300 II - not too fast

2: Pana 100-300 II - which IS is better, the IS of lens or the IBIS of E-M1.1? Better F-value.

3: 4/3 Oly 70-300 + MMF-3

4: 4/3 Oly 50-200 SWD + MMF-3 (+ EC14/EC20)

What do you think, which has the best IQ together with sufficient AF-speed on E-M1.1?

The main purpose (only as hobby): landscapes, my twins - running kids and some wildlife occasionally.

I search something to replace the 100-210 range from 40-150 Pro+TC, if it's possible, not loose too much IQ, however a longer tele would be nice.

I have the 12-100 but I never tried 12-40 and 40-150. But I had the panasonic 12-35 and I should say that the 12-100 is as good as the panasonic premium lens. It is actually extremely good in all its focal range and as one lens solution is extremely convenient. Now, considering that you still want a double (or triple lens kit) I’d stick with your lenses, unless you need more reach. In this case adding the oly 50-200 + tc to the 12-40 would have the best iq for the price. If you can spent more, you cold wait for the new panaleica 50-200 + tc.

You need one more body. Lenses you have are optimal.

I think Panasonic 100-400mm is also a good choice to consider - focuses fast, it is long and F/6.3 at the end is OK.

50-200MM swd + EC-14 will focus very fine on E-M1, is good also for fast action.

50-200mm SWD + EC-20 will also focus fine on E-M1. For fast action (fast birds in flight) you might need to zoom out to get a faster speed.

50-200MM swd alone is fast enough for swallows in flight.

Of course, mft lenses are optimized for mft bodies and will focus faster than the old 4/3 lenses. So my vote will go for Panasonic 100-400mm.

I have the Oly 12-100 and the PanLeica 100-400. Great two lens combo, but kind of $pendy. I have an Oly 25 1.8 for low light museums, etc.

Geekapoo wrote:

Why would you want to get rid of lens that are easily among the best for m43 cameras to buy inferior lens??? The 40-150 f2.8 is spectacular, as is the 12-40 f2.8.

So you're saying that the 12-100 is inferior?

Do you happen to know how the OP uses his lenses, what type of photogray they're in to, etc? Or are you just making that statement baselessly?

Geekapoo wrote:

Why would you want to get rid of lens that are easily among the best for m43 cameras to buy inferior lens??? The 40-150 f2.8 is spectacular, as is the 12-40 f2.8.

I don’t find my 12-100 to be inferior to my 12-40, at all. In fact, I have found my 12-40 to be sharpest when stopped down to f/4, and my 12-100 to be sharp through the whole focal range at f/4.

If anything, the 12-100, with dual IS is superior to the 12-40 in all respects, except size and weight.

ijm5012 wrote:

Geekapoo wrote:

Why would you want to get rid of lens that are easily among the best for m43 cameras to buy inferior lens??? The 40-150 f2.8 is spectacular, as is the 12-40 f2.8.

So you're saying that the 12-100 is inferior?

Do you happen to know how the OP uses his lenses, what type of photogray they're in to, etc? Or are you just making that statement baselessly?

My limit experience (reading reviews) is that the 12-100 is inferior vs the 12-40. More important,  if already owning the 12-40 and 40-150, why jettison those lenses for the 12-100? With the TE, the OP has 12-210mm m43 coverage with two of the best m43 lenses!

Geekapoo wrote:

ijm5012 wrote:

Geekapoo wrote:

Why would you want to get rid of lens that are easily among the best for m43 cameras to buy inferior lens??? The 40-150 f2.8 is spectacular, as is the 12-40 f2.8.

So you're saying that the 12-100 is inferior?

Do you happen to know how the OP uses his lenses, what type of photogray they're in to, etc? Or are you just making that statement baselessly?

My limit experience (reading reviews) is that the 12-100 is inferior vs the 12-40. More important, if already owning the 12-40 and 40-150, why jettison those lenses for the 12-100? With the TE, the OP has 12-210mm m43 coverage with two of the best m43 lenses!

Ah, ok. So no hands-on experience with the lens then?

I can say that as an owner of the 12-100 (and prior owner of the 12-40 & 40-150), the 12-100 gives up nothing optically to the f/2.8 PRO zooms.

As for why someone would want to sell the 12-40 & 40-150 for the 12-100? I did it because the 12-100 is a better all-in-one landscape lens. I can carry one lens instead of two, saving weight and space in my bag, without giving up anything optically. It was extremely rare that I shot anything landscape-wise wider than f/4, with the majority of my shots being between f/4-f/8.

I'm not certain what lens reviews you read, but if you look at LensTip (12-100 , 12-40 , 40-150 ), but the 12-100 is better than the 12-40 at 12mm, and about the same at 25mm (and that is with both lenses at f/4, so the 12-40 should be better since it's stopped down a full stop). The 40-150 is a bit better at 100mm than the 12-100 when shot at f/4, but by f/5.6 they're on equal footing.

Unless you've had personal, hands-on experience with both lenses, I would refrain from saying which lens is better. I've owned all three, and am happy with the 12-100 as a landscape lens compared to the f/2.8 duo. It takes up less space in my bag, and weighs less, which is always an advantage when you're walking/hiking multiple miles a day.

ijm5012 wrote:

Geekapoo wrote:

ijm5012 wrote:

Geekapoo wrote:

Why would you want to get rid of lens that are easily among the best for m43 cameras to buy inferior lens??? The 40-150 f2.8 is spectacular, as is the 12-40 f2.8.

So you're saying that the 12-100 is inferior?

Do you happen to know how the OP uses his lenses, what type of photogray they're in to, etc? Or are you just making that statement baselessly?

My limit experience (reading reviews) is that the 12-100 is inferior vs the 12-40. More important, if already owning the 12-40 and 40-150, why jettison those lenses for the 12-100? With the TE, the OP has 12-210mm m43 coverage with two of the best m43 lenses!

Ah, ok. So no hands-on experience with the lens then?

I can say that as an owner of the 12-100 (and prior owner of the 12-40 & 40-150), the 12-100 gives up nothing optically to the f/2.8 PRO zooms.

As for why someone would want to sell the 12-40 & 40-150 for the 12-100? I did it because the 12-100 is a better all-in-one landscape lens. I can carry one lens instead of two, saving weight and space in my bag, without giving up anything optically. It was extremely rare that I shot anything landscape-wise wider than f/4, with the majority of my shots being between f/4-f/8.

I'm not certain what lens reviews you read, but if you look at LensTip (12-100 , 12-40 , 40-150 ), but the 12-100 is better than the 12-40 at 12mm, and about the same at 25mm (and that is with both lenses at f/4, so the 12-40 should be better since it's stopped down a full stop). The 40-150 is a bit better at 100mm than the 12-100 when shot at f/4, but by f/5.6 they're on equal footing.

Unless you've had personal, hands-on experience with both lenses, I would refrain from saying which lens is better. I've owned all three, and am happy with the 12-100 as a landscape lens compared to the f/2.8 duo. It takes up less space in my bag, and weighs less, which is always an advantage when you're walking/hiking multiple miles a day.

I know, if I use the 12-100 and not the holy pair (12-40/40-150), I will loose some IQ. This "some" as far as I read here and on others sites also, it not so terrible loss. The 12-100 is also a PRO lens. It gives you the possible best. The 2.8 vs. 4.0 at the end is equal to 1EV. So, it can be managed in case of shutter speed vs. ISO (without night scenes).

The DoF will be not so narrow, but for that and night shots, I will buy used 1,8 prime(s).

Big benefit will be for me the "one lens" set for general daylight scenes.

My OP was interested for longer tele range. Longer as 100 and keeping as much as possible in IQ (comparing with 40-150+TC) with a reasonable AF.  For that, the 50-200 SWD seems to me the winner and later EC14/20 is I find a low price piece.

Answers for current posts:

I know, the current lenses are the best. In the past, these were the best choice to cover from 24mm to 300. What I see, changes the lenses (especially, if my wife would take photos) not so convenient and capture the moments with my twins. The 40mm border is somehow a disturbing effect.

A second body is also a good option, but care two bodies means bigger package.

What I see from the reviews, the 12-100 in IQ is almost get the level of the two pro zooms. Not so good, but for a general usage is more than enough.

I used sometime the 40-150(and TC) at the longest range but not so often and in these cases, it was not enough long. Therefore I search an additional lens after 100 (but keep much IQ as possible).

Pana 100-400: too high price to use rarely.

As I see, the 50-200SWD (even with EC-xx) is today a friendly price.

So, I would not a three lens kit, but 2+1 different kit.

1: 12-100 + 1 prime (it"s fit to my smallest, one-day bag and allowed to take care the small kids also)

2: only prime(s) for night

+1: all together for big trips

gary0319 wrote:

I have the Oly 12-100 and the PanLeica 100-400. Great two lens combo, but kind of $pendy. I have an Oly 25 1.8 for low light museums, etc.

Yes, the 100-400 is really nice and $. May be in the future, however the new fast primes are really attractive. The used 1.8 primes have a friendly price so. My wallet prefer these lens not the 1.2 primes and I think, a F1.8 would be more used as the 100-400@400. So, I search some cheaper solution for tele but not the cheapest.

wsedf wrote:

My OP was interested for longer tele range. Longer as 100 and keeping as much as possible in IQ (comparing with 40-150+TC) with a reasonable AF. For that, the 50-200 SWD seems to me the winner and later EC14/20 is I find a low price piece.

I have 12-100 as well as 12-40; they serve different purposes imo. The 12-100 is my travel lens. Of the tele zooms in your list, I can endorse the 50-200 SWD with no reservation. I had the Oly 75-300 ii but found it lacking in sharpness. It is not a bad lens but clearly inferior to the 50-200 SWD. Paired with E-M1, AF is fast and secure. The downside is size and weight.

I can't speak to the m4/3 options you have or are considering. However, I do own and use the 4/3 50-200swd lens a fair amount on my Em1.2. It focuses quickly and accurately. I also pair it with both TCs (1.4 & 2.0). I have used it for landscapes and also for sports, both with & without the TC. So if price is a major consideration and you don't mind the size & weight, it could be a very viable option for you.  I also own 4/3 75-300mm.  It's only real benefit over the 50-200 with TC1.4 is size & weight.  Optically, it's nowhere near as good.

I believe Henry meant the Oly 4/3 70-300.

wsedf wrote:

I have currently the 12-40/40-150+TC pro lenses with E-M1.1. I'm thinking about the replacement with 12-100. Plus something for supertele range and a fast prime(s).

I see the next options for tele:

1: Oly 75-300 II - not too fast

2: Pana 100-300 II - which IS is better, the IS of lens or the IBIS of E-M1.1? Better F-value.

3: 4/3 Oly 70-300 + MMF-3

4: 4/3 Oly 50-200 SWD + MMF-3 (+ EC14/EC20)

What do you think, which has the best IQ together with sufficient AF-speed on E-M1.1?

The main purpose (only as hobby): landscapes, my twins - running kids and some wildlife occasionally.

I search something to replace the 100-210 range from 40-150 Pro+TC, if it's possible, not loose too much IQ, however a longer tele would be nice.

Just buy an Olympus 1.4 converter and keep the 40-150 since it will use the converter.  Makes it a 116-420.  I use this combo all the time.  I sold my 12-40 and replaced it with the 12-100.  All is good!

Colin Smith1 wrote:

wsedf wrote:

I have currently the 12-40/40-150+TC pro lenses with E-M1.

Just buy an Olympus 1.4 converter and keep the 40-150 since it will use the converter. Makes it a 116-420. I use this combo all the time. I sold my 12-40 and replaced it with the 12-100. All is good!

Colin,

Why would you recommend the OP buy the TC, when he already stated he has the TC (it's even in the information you've quoted)?