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

ijm5012 wrote:

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)?

Sorry, guess I didn't see that.  On the other hand before getting rid of the 40-150-F2,8, it is worth considering that it is one of the two lenses that Olympus makes that takes the teleconverter.

OlafOleOlaf wrote:

So what did you end up buying and what are your observations?

I replaced the 2.8 zooms and use mainly the 12-100. I found/bought (for really-really low prices) some lenses too:

Olympus ZD 70-300: it's quite slow (in terms of AF and F-number also), hunting and not so sharp. I use only as "emergency solution". (~100€)

Olympus ZD 50 F2: if I need something brighter, this is also little bit slower for AF but very sharp. (~120) Love it.

Olympus ZD 35 F3.5: for fun with macro (~30€)

Panasonic MFT 25 F1.7: slow AF, not so sharp and not enough wide. (~130€)

I will probably buy a wider, fast prime to replace the Pana 25. Candidates: Oly 17 F1.8 or Sigma 16 F1.4.

For long tele, I will probably also replace the 70-300 with 50-200 (SWD?)+EC14 without any hurry. I will wait a good deal. I use mainly the 12-100. I think, I will not buy a more expensive tele lens. I don't need it so often.

Unfortunately, Olympus has no lens for tele (100-300 or 100-400 range) with faster aperture and proper AF and relatively low price. I don't need a superfast AF but it should be reliable as the 70-300.

At the and, I think the 12-100 is a really good choice. What is necessary beside that, a fast prime for low lights, depends on your needs for the preferred focal length. A tele (above 100mm) is only as complementary for lower price (if it's necessary). With current setup, I need only a "smaller" bag for the E-M1.1 with 12-100 or a faster prime (today the Pana 25), if the situation is "usual".

My daughter has a 12-100 Pro, whichi I have used quite a lot, and prefer my 12-40 Pro, which is lighter, smaller, and faster.  The good thing about the 12-100 is that it focusses even closer than the 12-40, making it a macro lens too, but in comparison remains a  pain to carry around.

Use your experience to decide what lens you will need for a particular place, and be happy with the excellent lenses you have.  Resist the temptation to have the latest kit - unlike most of the people who use this forum!

Good point about use with extenders.  If he has or gets the new Olympus 2x  extender and just leaves it on his 40-150Pro more or less permanently, it would be a  good complement as a super zoom with minor overlap to his future 12-100.

Personally, however, I would keep both the 12-40Pro, and 40-150Pro, too, even if adding (or perhaps foregoing) the 12-100 Pro.   The 1.4x and 2x add even more versatility.

Gregm61 wrote:

wsedf wrote:

OlafOleOlaf wrote:

So what did you end up buying and what are your observations?

Unfortunately, Olympus has no lens for tele (100-300 or 100-400 range) with faster aperture and proper AF and relatively low price.

You do understand fast, long and relatively inexpensive (pretty much mutually exclusive terms) is, for the most part, not going to happen....ever......right?

Just a little bit faster, may be not constant (as you mentioned the 40-150 Pro+MC20), AF also just "good", better accuracy but not superfast. Price between the 75-300 and the 40-150 Pro+MC20 combo. I think this kind of lens would be great and feasible. Eg: 150-400 F4.5-5.6 or 5.6-6.3 with IS

I don't need a superfast AF but it should be reliable as the 70-300.

12-40mm f2.8, 40-150mm f2.8 and add the MC20 to get to a 300mm f5.6 that will zoom all the way back down to 80mm if you needed to. That’s my decision, the MC20 should be in-hand by the end of the week. I also keep a 7-14mm f2.8 in the bag for extra wide subjects, all, with either an E-M1 Mark II or E-M1X, in a Think Tank Turnstyle 20 sling.

The 12-100mm f4 and 40-150mm f2.8 + MC20 would also be a good option.

I have only one issue, the price of that setup. I could but do not want to spend so much money.

I'm surprised the Pana 50-200 f2.8 - 4 hasn't been mentioned yet. Smaller and lighter than the 40-150.

Promethius wrote:

My daughter has a 12-100 Pro, whichi I have used quite a lot, and prefer my 12-40 Pro, which is lighter, smaller, and faster. The good thing about the 12-100 is that it focusses even closer than the 12-40, making it a macro lens too, but in comparison remains a pain to carry around.

Both lenses go to .3X maximum

Use your experience to decide what lens you will need for a particular place, and be happy with the excellent lenses you have. Resist the temptation to have the latest kit - unlike most of the people who use this forum!

I am debating as whether to add 12-100 owning already the pro combo (12-40 & 40-150). Although the convenience of carrying a single lens is tempting., The advantage of being lightweight where no longer FL is needed made me purchase a good second hand PL 12-60. It covers most of my needs when 40mm is too limiting.

Cheers

I had the Pany 12-35 and the Pany 100-400. I replaced my Pany 12-35 with the Oly 12-100 and haven't looked back.

A friend had the 45-150 Pro and he agrees my 100-400 is as good quality wise but with a lot more reach (at the cost of f stops).

When I got rid of the 12-35, I got a 15mm f1.7 for low light usage, but I haven't actually used it!

I have an Oly EM1 MK2 btw.

Here are my photos from my Alaska trip using that combo.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/pSKrLYiE7RgfHmpd6

I really wanted the 12-100...  that focal range would be near ideal capturing my sons basketball games...  but not at F4.  In most of the gyms he plays in that would lead to a complete waste of time.  And that's why the 12-40 and 40-150 Pros are SO fantastic...  basketball.. football.. fast enough to get fairly sharp images even in poor lighting conditions...  and they work for landscapes as well....

this was at iso 5000 F2.8 1/500....  absolute downpour

I have the 12-40 f/2.8, the 12-100 f/4, the 40/150 f/2,8 and the PanLeica 100-400. The best combo of the lot, for my shooting, is the 12-100 paired with the 100-400, IMO, here is why.

The 12-40 is sharpest at f/4 (Lenstip comparison, and my own experience) and the Sync IS of the 12-100 when paired with either my E-M1 II or Pen F, makes the 12-100 overall a better pick than the 12-40.

While the 40-150 is arguably sharper than the PL100-400, this is not the case once the 1.4 or the 2.0 converter is added....I have done multiple comparative field tests and the PL 100-400 always comes out on top. The 40-150 + 2.0 TC is f/5.6 at 300mm and the PL100 is f/5.7 and the PL 100-400 is sharper.

I keep the 12-40 to use on my E-M10 II and Pen F, and keep the 40-150 for certain indoor sporting events where the f/2.8 and the 40-150mm range makes it a better match than either the 12-100 or the PL 100-400.

I just sold my 12-40 Pro on ebay a few minutes ago. It broke my heart to part with it as I did love everything about it, including looking at it. It was the best wide-normal zoom I ever owned, and that included the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 Pro. But since I purchased the 12-100, roughly six months ago, it has not seen the light of day. A lens is born to see the light so I hope it found a happy home. Although I will miss it, the fact that I have not used it at all means it was a wise decision. The 12-100 is bigger than I like but that is the price for versatility and high IQ. Plus I almost never used the 12-40 at f/2.8, mostly between f/4 and f/5.6.

I also have the 40-150 Pro and 1.4x TC but rarely use them, and its use is mostly as a flower and butterfly lens where I just keep it zoomed out to 150 and shoot mostly at f/3.2 - f/4 to get that subject isolation from a narrow FOV and shallow DOF. The 12-100 is good, but not as good. The 12-100 and PL 8-18 is such a wonderful do everything, two lens kit that I can go anywhere with, mostly hiking and shooting nature. I am not ready to part with that wonderful lens so I will give it another six to 12 months. My rule for gear is, ‘if I do not use it for a year or two then sell it to someone who will.

Albert Valentino wrote:

I just sold my 12-40 Pro on ebay a few minutes ago. It broke my heart to part with it as I did love everything about it, including looking at it. It was the best wide-normal zoom I ever owned, and that included the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 Pro. But since I purchased the 12-100, roughly six months ago, it has not seen the light of day. A lens is born to see the light so I hope it found a happy home. Although I will miss it, the fact that I have not used it at all means it was a wise decision. The 12-100 is bigger than I like but that is the price for versatility and high IQ. Plus I almost never used the 12-40 at f/2.8, mostly between f/4 and f/5.6.

I also have the 40-150 Pro and 1.4x TC but rarely use them, and its use is mostly as a flower and butterfly lens where I just keep it zoomed out to 150 and shoot mostly at f/3.2 - f/4 to get that subject isolation from a narrow FOV and shallow DOF. The 12-100 is good, but not as good. The 12-100 and PL 8-18 is such a wonderful do everything, two lens kit that I can go anywhere with, mostly hiking and shooting nature. I am not ready to part with that wonderful lens so I will give it another six to 12 months. My rule for gear is, ‘if I do not use it for a year or two then sell it to someone who will.

I agree, if some gear is not being used, it might as well be in the hands of someone that will use it.....and, put some cash in my hand (that I will use).

I usually couple my 12-100 with my 8mm f/1.8 FE, that can also be used as rectilinear with my E-M1 II. Those two give everything I need from ultra-wide, to mid telephoto, and make a great travel duo.

I too, use the 40-150 for flowers, bugs, butterflies, and dragonflies. But I find that the 12-100 does pretty well and has the resolution to put up with some medium cropping.

40-150..

12-100......

gary0319 wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

I just sold my 12-40 Pro on ebay a few minutes ago. It broke my heart to part with it as I did love everything about it, including looking at it. It was the best wide-normal zoom I ever owned, and that included the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 Pro. But since I purchased the 12-100, roughly six months ago, it has not seen the light of day. A lens is born to see the light so I hope it found a happy home. Although I will miss it, the fact that I have not used it at all means it was a wise decision. The 12-100 is bigger than I like but that is the price for versatility and high IQ. Plus I almost never used the 12-40 at f/2.8, mostly between f/4 and f/5.6.

I also have the 40-150 Pro and 1.4x TC but rarely use them, and its use is mostly as a flower and butterfly lens where I just keep it zoomed out to 150 and shoot mostly at f/3.2 - f/4 to get that subject isolation from a narrow FOV and shallow DOF. The 12-100 is good, but not as good. The 12-100 and PL 8-18 is such a wonderful do everything, two lens kit that I can go anywhere with, mostly hiking and shooting nature. I am not ready to part with that wonderful lens so I will give it another six to 12 months. My rule for gear is, ‘if I do not use it for a year or two then sell it to someone who will.

I agree, if some gear is not being used, it might as well be in the hands of someone that will use it.....and, put some cash in my hand (that I will use).

I usually couple my 12-100 with my 8mm f/1.8 FE, that can also be used as rectilinear with my E-M1 II. Those two give everything I need from ultra-wide, to mid telephoto, and make a great travel duo.

I too, use the 40-150 for flowers, bugs, butterflies, and dragonflies. But I find that the 12-100 does pretty well and has the resolution to put up with some medium cropping.

40-150..

Nice captures. The butterfly looks fine with regard to subject isolation at f/5.6 and 100mm.

I also own a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 72B adaptall Macro lens but it is all manual focus and I got spoiled with autofocus. So my 90mm macro, a good focal length for flowers, was essentially replaced by the Oly 60mm macro for AF. The 60mm macro was then replaced by the 40-150 Pro for the much longer reach (always use it at the long end) so I do not have to bend down, or over, or into, as much. It also gave similar results to my old favorite flower lens from my Nikon APS days, which was the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro, often used with the Sigma 1.4x TC.

My other rule, not for selling but for buying, has been that I must be able to specifically articulate how and why a new piece of gear will improve what or how I shoot. This has kept me from owning too  many cameras and lenses over the years 😃

12-100......

Albert Valentino wrote:

I just sold my 12-40 Pro on ebay a few minutes ago. It broke my heart to part with it as I did love everything about it, including looking at it. It was the best wide-normal zoom I ever owned, and that included the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 Pro. But since I purchased the 12-100, roughly six months ago, it has not seen the light of day. A lens is born to see the light so I hope it found a happy home. Although I will miss it, the fact that I have not used it at all means it was a wise decision. The 12-100 is bigger than I like but that is the price for versatility and high IQ. Plus I almost never used the 12-40 at f/2.8, mostly between f/4 and f/5.6.

I don't have the 12-100 and hike a whole lot, usually in pretty rugged mountains, at least in summer. Given the average angle of elevation to the top of peaks and the width of valleys, I find I shoot mostly in the range of 15-23 mm with occasional forays to 12mm and to 40mm; hence the 12-40 is ideal in range for my landscapes in these types of settings. And, so, on many hikes the 12-40 is all I bring with me. On some hikes where I want to shoot compressed detail I will shoot to 60 or even 100mm, but I know which hikes I am going to find those landscape opportunities. I also shoot bumble bees and butterflies, perhaps Pika or Marmots. If I foresee doing that on a hike I might bring the 35-100 F2.8 and/or 60mm macro. I can get very close to Bumble bees with the 60mm macro (like 8-12"). On the wide end I also have the 8mm FE which I shoot in such a way as to minimize the fish-eye effect. The latter lens, though, I'll only carry on a few hikes where I might be high on ridges. Depending on which hike, of two, I do tomorrow I may carry the 8mm; but not the 35-100.

In the end, most of the time the 12-40 lens is just right for hiking, and is compact, and when on my chest for much of the day, not heavy or restricting of my movement. The 12-100, although a good choice FL-wise on some hikes would be too cumbersome when hiking for me to want to carry all the time. So, although there might be some hikes that the 12-100 would be the best choice in terms of FL's, it would still be large. It is easier for me to carry a second lens in the top of my pack as switching doesn't take long. On an average hike I might shoot 10-20 different compositions, unless shooting bees, flowers, butterflies, etc. Hence, changing lenses is no big deal; my comfort while hiking is. When shooting flower close-ups I will generally use the 60mm macro and focus stack using a tripod. (Otherwise, no tripod, of course, unless backpacking.)

I also have the 40-150 Pro and 1.4x TC but rarely use them, and its use is mostly as a flower and butterfly lens where I just keep it zoomed out to 150 and shoot mostly at f/3.2 - f/4 to get that subject isolation from a narrow FOV and shallow DOF. The 12-100 is good, but not as good. The 12-100 and PL 8-18 is such a wonderful do everything, two lens kit that I can go anywhere with, mostly hiking and shooting nature. I am not ready to part with that wonderful lens so I will give it another six to 12 months. My rule for gear is, ‘if I do not use it for a year or two then sell it to someone who will.