Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
jwilliams Veteran Member • Posts: 4,781
Adjectives ...

Jeff wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

tomhongkong wrote:

Then there is the gentleman who is currently criticising everything which Olympus does. I do not deny you the right to do that, but if you really feel that way about it you should sell your $3K worth of gear (much less than I have, incidentally) and move on to something you like. Tip,.. life is too short to keep hating any product!

Guess you are talking about me so I might as well chime in.

First, I never give some sort of unwavering loyalty to any product, system or company. To do so would be silly.

Second, this is a gear forum and it seems to me to make sense to discuss new products. Now many seem to think that that only allows positive things to be said. Strange anyone would think in this manner. If we just blindly heap praise on a given manufacturer how are they to know if they are or are not making products that perform well and suit our needs?

Why would I sell my Oly gear? For the most part I love it. Yes you read that right.

If someone wants to hear me sing the praises of Oly start a thread about the 40-150 2.8. I'll chime in and heap praise on it. Great lens and performs in-line with its pricing. Their 17 1.8 is probably the most underrated m43 lens out there. 25 1.8 - fantastic lens and a great bargain. And so and so on - but only for products that deserve such praise.

The only Oly product I currently own that I am not real happy with is the 14-150 II. This lens could have solved that problem, but from what I know at this moment it is just an expanded FL range version of the former with a too big price tag.

I can love some gear from a manufacturer and point to how silly/bad/poor/overpriced other products of theirs are. This is really simple to do. Just evaluate each piece independently and in a very thorough and fact based manner.

For me, Oly has not made a product I am interested in for a couple of years. Some are nice products, but are simply overpriced for what they do (f1.2 primes come to mind). Others, like the EM1x, are just a huge waste of resources that have resulted in the rest of the camera product line going stale. If I just praise everything they produce, that is just an incentive to make more products that I will not buy. They do want me to buy their products - don't they?

You might reread your post. Do you see the words you use? For example, you 'love', 'sing praises', 'great' some things, but others are 'silly/bad/poor/overpriced' or an 'awful waste of resources?

There's a lot of space between those extremes. It's not a binary world.

Binary world? Of course not. In case you have not noticed, this forum tends to be a place of extremes. Inevitably, some of it rubs off on you after a while. Still, I stand behind everything I wrote. Feel free to adjust the adjectives as you see fit.

-- hide signature --

Jonathan

Jeff Veteran Member • Posts: 6,128
Re: Adjectives ...

jwilliams wrote:

Jeff wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

tomhongkong wrote:

Then there is the gentleman who is currently criticising everything which Olympus does. I do not deny you the right to do that, but if you really feel that way about it you should sell your $3K worth of gear (much less than I have, incidentally) and move on to something you like. Tip,.. life is too short to keep hating any product!

Guess you are talking about me so I might as well chime in.

First, I never give some sort of unwavering loyalty to any product, system or company. To do so would be silly.

Second, this is a gear forum and it seems to me to make sense to discuss new products. Now many seem to think that that only allows positive things to be said. Strange anyone would think in this manner. If we just blindly heap praise on a given manufacturer how are they to know if they are or are not making products that perform well and suit our needs?

Why would I sell my Oly gear? For the most part I love it. Yes you read that right.

If someone wants to hear me sing the praises of Oly start a thread about the 40-150 2.8. I'll chime in and heap praise on it. Great lens and performs in-line with its pricing. Their 17 1.8 is probably the most underrated m43 lens out there. 25 1.8 - fantastic lens and a great bargain. And so and so on - but only for products that deserve such praise.

The only Oly product I currently own that I am not real happy with is the 14-150 II. This lens could have solved that problem, but from what I know at this moment it is just an expanded FL range version of the former with a too big price tag.

I can love some gear from a manufacturer and point to how silly/bad/poor/overpriced other products of theirs are. This is really simple to do. Just evaluate each piece independently and in a very thorough and fact based manner.

For me, Oly has not made a product I am interested in for a couple of years. Some are nice products, but are simply overpriced for what they do (f1.2 primes come to mind). Others, like the EM1x, are just a huge waste of resources that have resulted in the rest of the camera product line going stale. If I just praise everything they produce, that is just an incentive to make more products that I will not buy. They do want me to buy their products - don't they?

You might reread your post. Do you see the words you use? For example, you 'love', 'sing praises', 'great' some things, but others are 'silly/bad/poor/overpriced' or an 'awful waste of resources?

There's a lot of space between those extremes. It's not a binary world.

Binary world? Of course not. In case you have not noticed, this forum tends to be a place of extremes. Inevitably, some of it rubs off on you after a while. Still, I stand behind everything I wrote. Feel free to adjust the adjectives as you see fit.

Yes, regrettably, this forum is a place of extremes. Personally, I do try to show moderation but can't say that I always live up to the ideal.

"the middle path is the way to wisdom."

 Jeff's gear list:Jeff's gear list
Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 150mm 1:2.0 +9 more
jwilliams Veteran Member • Posts: 4,781
Re: Adjectives ...

Jeff wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

Jeff wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

tomhongkong wrote:

Then there is the gentleman who is currently criticising everything which Olympus does. I do not deny you the right to do that, but if you really feel that way about it you should sell your $3K worth of gear (much less than I have, incidentally) and move on to something you like. Tip,.. life is too short to keep hating any product!

Guess you are talking about me so I might as well chime in.

First, I never give some sort of unwavering loyalty to any product, system or company. To do so would be silly.

Second, this is a gear forum and it seems to me to make sense to discuss new products. Now many seem to think that that only allows positive things to be said. Strange anyone would think in this manner. If we just blindly heap praise on a given manufacturer how are they to know if they are or are not making products that perform well and suit our needs?

Why would I sell my Oly gear? For the most part I love it. Yes you read that right.

If someone wants to hear me sing the praises of Oly start a thread about the 40-150 2.8. I'll chime in and heap praise on it. Great lens and performs in-line with its pricing. Their 17 1.8 is probably the most underrated m43 lens out there. 25 1.8 - fantastic lens and a great bargain. And so and so on - but only for products that deserve such praise.

The only Oly product I currently own that I am not real happy with is the 14-150 II. This lens could have solved that problem, but from what I know at this moment it is just an expanded FL range version of the former with a too big price tag.

I can love some gear from a manufacturer and point to how silly/bad/poor/overpriced other products of theirs are. This is really simple to do. Just evaluate each piece independently and in a very thorough and fact based manner.

For me, Oly has not made a product I am interested in for a couple of years. Some are nice products, but are simply overpriced for what they do (f1.2 primes come to mind). Others, like the EM1x, are just a huge waste of resources that have resulted in the rest of the camera product line going stale. If I just praise everything they produce, that is just an incentive to make more products that I will not buy. They do want me to buy their products - don't they?

You might reread your post. Do you see the words you use? For example, you 'love', 'sing praises', 'great' some things, but others are 'silly/bad/poor/overpriced' or an 'awful waste of resources?

There's a lot of space between those extremes. It's not a binary world.

Binary world? Of course not. In case you have not noticed, this forum tends to be a place of extremes. Inevitably, some of it rubs off on you after a while. Still, I stand behind everything I wrote. Feel free to adjust the adjectives as you see fit.

Yes, regrettably, this forum is a place of extremes. Personally, I do try to show moderation but can't say that I always live up to the ideal.

Yep. Same here.  I'm generally not prone to over exuberance, but as I said, after a while this place rubs off on you a bit.

"the middle path is the way to wisdom."

-- hide signature --

Jonathan

(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 4,046
Re: Why ...

Tamron makes similar C and N lenses but the market is much bigger and they can underprice the premium lenses those manufacturers offer.

If they wanted to compete with OLY PRO lenses they would have a chance at 75% of OLY MSRP but probably you are right that they were not successful with a 14-150 and may not try again.

Sigma had a similar experience with the 19, 30, 60 f/2.8 primes. Underrated from my experience, no longer needed after f/2.8 zooms were available that are very good.

The OEMs have most of the AF lens range covered. If I were the 3rd party product manager, I'd look at the premium price lens range to see if I could do something there. I would not expect to find opportunity in consumer price lenses. That won't help drive consumer lens prices down unless driving premium lens prices down pressures the price of consumer price lenses.

(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 4,046
Re: Olympus pricing reflects sales volume reality.

You can find lower prices on Panasonics and they are good kits too.

Mark Ransom
Mark Ransom Veteran Member • Posts: 5,916
Re: Heaping praise on Oly ...

jwilliams wrote:

Guess you are talking about me so I might as well chime in.

First, I never give some sort of unwavering loyalty to any product, system or company. To do so would be silly.

Second, this is a gear forum and it seems to me to make sense to discuss new products. Now many seem to think that discussion only allows positive things to be said. Strange anyone would think in this manner. If we just blindly heap praise on a given manufacturer how are they to know if they are or are not making products that perform well and suit our needs?

Why would I sell my Oly gear? For the most part I love it. Yes you read that right.

If someone wants to hear me sing the praises of Oly start a thread about the 40-150 2.8. I'll chime in and heap praise on it. Great lens and performs in-line with its pricing. Their 17 1.8 is probably the most underrated m43 lens out there. 25 1.8 - fantastic lens and a great bargain. And so and so on - but only for products that deserve such praise.

The only Oly product I currently own that I am not real happy with is the 14-150 II. This lens could have solved that problem, but from what I know at this moment it is just an expanded FL range version of the former with a too big price tag.

I can love some gear from a manufacturer and point to how silly/bad/poor/overpriced other products of theirs are. This is really simple to do. Just evaluate each piece independently and in a very thorough and fact based manner.

For me, Oly has not made a product I am interested in for a couple of years. Some are nice products, but are simply overpriced for what they do (f1.2 primes come to mind). Others, like the EM1x, are just a huge waste of resources that have resulted in the rest of the camera product line going stale. If I just praise everything they produce, that is just an incentive to make more products that I will not buy. They do want me to buy their products - don't they?

"... with too big price tag."

That's the problem right there. They don't want you to buy their products because you don't spend enough, the 40-150 notwithstanding.

 Mark Ransom's gear list:Mark Ransom's gear list
Pentax K-7 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR +6 more
jwinberg11 Regular Member • Posts: 111
Re: Curious...
2

<<

Sheri Whine or Port Whine?

cheep whine>>

You guys are a RIOT!!!!! 

Jack Winberg

 jwinberg11's gear list:jwinberg11's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic GH5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Panasonic Leica 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 ASPH
Mark Ransom
Mark Ransom Veteran Member • Posts: 5,916
Re: Even taking into account that Robin is a master...
1

tomhongkong wrote:

I don't mean to reply specifically to you, although your comments do feature in what I say.

...

Then there are those people who think that you can get the same IQ from a 1 inch superzoom. Two problems, the IQ is not the same (check images in the DPreview studio link) and when you need to use another lens, say a wide aperture low light lens, you are stuffed.

So I guess I'm on the hit list too.

First, I'll suggest that if you're in the market for a superzoom then IQ is not your top priority. Yes we'd all love a unicorn, but you'll have to settle for a pony.

Second, once the lens price approaches that of a superzoom compact then it becomes feasible to have two cameras, one for IQ and one for convenience. Not to say that that's the automatic best choice, but it is a choice that could be considered.

 Mark Ransom's gear list:Mark Ransom's gear list
Pentax K-7 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR +6 more
HHlim18 New Member • Posts: 15
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out

Auf Reisen wrote:

HHlim18 wrote:

Auf Reisen wrote:

HHlim18 wrote:

MShot wrote:

I like a consumer 12-100, weather sealed, $600 for travel. A little bigger than the 14-150 but f/2.8 - 4. Don't often go past 100mm when I travel but use 12mm. 12-100 is too big/heavy for me to carry for a long time.

You're looking for a small light weight 12-100mm f2.8-4 consumer lens that cost $600? Olympus will never release one because it kill sales of their Pro 12-100mm f4. Panasonic too because leica 12-60mm f2.8-4. In your perfect world we can have best of all worlds but cons of none, however we aren't in it. Have a more realistic expectation or disappointment will be your BFF.

The two Panasonic 12-60s co-exist side by side, so I don't really see a problem with it. It doesn't have to match the IQ, build quality, or close focusing abilities of the 12-100 pro. Just be slightly better than the 14-150 and weather-sealed.

Probably not for 600, though.

You seems to ignore kit version of 12-60mm isn't f2.8-4. Regardless how much you wanted it, 12-100mm f2.8-4 will never be a cheap consumer lens. This is because on spec sheet at least it beats existing premiums lens. Enjoy your time with your BFF.

Again, didn't see they wanted it super fast. 3.5-5.6 should be much more sensible.

Not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean.

I don't know who are the "they" you're referring to. The initial post I'm replying to demand for a consumer grade 12-100mm f2.8-4 at $600 and you came in to defend it as reasonable but not at $600. Since you're reading and comprehending selectively there's no point continue this conversation. The meaning of my last sentence is within the post you've respond to but of course you've selectively ignored it.

Auf Reisen Contributing Member • Posts: 652
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out

HHlim18 wrote:

Auf Reisen wrote:

HHlim18 wrote:

Auf Reisen wrote:

HHlim18 wrote:

MShot wrote:

I like a consumer 12-100, weather sealed, $600 for travel. A little bigger than the 14-150 but f/2.8 - 4. Don't often go past 100mm when I travel but use 12mm. 12-100 is too big/heavy for me to carry for a long time.

You're looking for a small light weight 12-100mm f2.8-4 consumer lens that cost $600? Olympus will never release one because it kill sales of their Pro 12-100mm f4. Panasonic too because leica 12-60mm f2.8-4. In your perfect world we can have best of all worlds but cons of none, however we aren't in it. Have a more realistic expectation or disappointment will be your BFF.

The two Panasonic 12-60s co-exist side by side, so I don't really see a problem with it. It doesn't have to match the IQ, build quality, or close focusing abilities of the 12-100 pro. Just be slightly better than the 14-150 and weather-sealed.

Probably not for 600, though.

You seems to ignore kit version of 12-60mm isn't f2.8-4. Regardless how much you wanted it, 12-100mm f2.8-4 will never be a cheap consumer lens. This is because on spec sheet at least it beats existing premiums lens. Enjoy your time with your BFF.

Again, didn't see they wanted it super fast. 3.5-5.6 should be much more sensible.

Not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean.

I don't know who are the "they" you're referring to.

The person you replied to initially.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

The initial post I'm replying to demand for a consumer grade 12-100mm f2.8-4 at $600 and you came in to defend it as reasonable but not at $600.

I misread one post, clarified my mistake twice, yet you feel the need to harp on. Not sure why you have to be so antagonistic.

Since you're reading and comprehending selectively there's no point continue this conversation. The meaning of my last sentence is within the post you've respond to but of course you've selectively ignored it.

Your failure to communicate clearly is not on me.

 Auf Reisen's gear list:Auf Reisen's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 Fisheye Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +2 more
Gregm61 Forum Pro • Posts: 15,739
Re: Curious...
2

Mark Ransom wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

This was discussed in a previous thread, but third party prices are not comparable to first party. It's true that the third party list prices of consumer lenses in this zoom range tend to be around $600-650, but that's third party.

You can see an example in MFT superzoom of the Tamron 14-150 at $400, while the Olympus is $600. First party being 1.5x the price.

Multiply the $600*1.5 = $900, exactly the same difference.

Again, I'm not talking about whether it's a fair price. I'm asking what's your definition of "consumer" and what price cutoff you'd use.

Most " consumers" aren't even going to bother with a camera or lens and just use their phones. This whole discussion is nonsense. It's more an enthusiast lens of convenience, and for for those individuals, the price/performance looks perfectly in-line with an OEM product.

You and any and everyone else in this forum know, Tamron/Tokina/Sigma all probably sell more lenses in each of the mounts offered than Olympus does over any time frame you'd look at, and they all sell their lenses, especially the slower mass-market units, cheaper than any of the similar lenses being made by Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. This whole Tamron pricing vs. any OEM lens line is just silly and out of line with reality.

-- hide signature --

"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights

 Gregm61's gear list:Gregm61's gear list
Leica M9 Olympus E-M1 Leica M (Typ 262) Olympus E-M1 II Olympus OM-D E-M1X +30 more
4thnebula Senior Member • Posts: 2,324
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out
2

Very helpful would be comparison to competition like the Panasonic 14-140 (which I have and have used a lot) and Sony RX10 iv.

Example:  Would it be worth upgrading from 14-140 to 12-200 just for the long end and better sharpness.

 4thnebula's gear list:4thnebula's gear list
Canon EF 35mm F2 IS USM Olympus PEN E-PL5 Sony a7 III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +5 more
sanjaykool Senior Member • Posts: 1,058
Re: Plenty ...
1

jwilliams wrote:

Jeff wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

Adrian Tung wrote:

https://blog.mingthein.com/2019/02/27/review-the-2019-olympus-zd-12-200-f3-5-6-3/

Looks like a decent super-zoom for its price, but not my cup of tea.

Typical superzoom. Aperture closes down real fast. IQ at long end is just so so.

At $899 they'd have to have a 50% off sale to even get me to think about it. Waay overpriced for its capabilities.

Oly continues to create new cameras and lenses I have absolutely no interest in. Batting 100% there.

Do you have any Oly gear? Just curious.

Several thousand dollars worth. Is that enough? Will my opinion hold more weight now?

Just curious to know if it is so raw deal in buying mft ?. What was your thinking investing in several hundreds of dollars worth mft gear. -  Sanjay

Maikeru C Junior Member • Posts: 48
Re: Plenty ...

I happen to own the Tamron 14-150mm f/3.5-5.8 Di III Lens and it cost under $400.   I have used it on a few trips where I just wanted to travel with one lens.

Can't see paying 2.25 x that price for the 12-200, but each to their own.

 Maikeru C's gear list:Maikeru C's gear list
Fujifilm X70 Canon EOS 70D Olympus E-M5 II Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Canon 6D Mark II +17 more
Skeeterbytes Forum Pro • Posts: 16,560
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out
1

4thnebula wrote:

Very helpful would be comparison to competition like the Panasonic 14-140 (which I have and have used a lot) and Sony RX10 iv.

Example: Would it be worth upgrading from 14-140 to 12-200 just for the long end and better sharpness.

IMHO the 12mm wide end is of greater value than the 200mm long end compared to 14-140, but that may be more a measure of what I want in a "do-all" lens. I avoid 14mm standard zooms.

Cheers,

Rick

-- hide signature --

Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.

JakeJY Senior Member • Posts: 3,623
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out

Skeeterbytes wrote:

4thnebula wrote:

Very helpful would be comparison to competition like the Panasonic 14-140 (which I have and have used a lot) and Sony RX10 iv.

Example: Would it be worth upgrading from 14-140 to 12-200 just for the long end and better sharpness.

IMHO the 12mm wide end is of greater value than the 200mm long end compared to 14-140, but that may be more a measure of what I want in a "do-all" lens. I avoid 14mm standard zooms.

Cheers,

Rick

Yeah, I would love to have the 12mm on my 14-140 II also. That's why my 12-32mm is still essential. The wide means a lot. The reach isn't as important as worse come to worse, I can crop.

 JakeJY's gear list:JakeJY's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S9300 Nikon D5000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR +5 more
James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 5,493
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out

Skeeterbytes wrote:

4thnebula wrote:

Very helpful would be comparison to competition like the Panasonic 14-140 (which I have and have used a lot) and Sony RX10 iv.

Example: Would it be worth upgrading from 14-140 to 12-200 just for the long end and better sharpness.

IMHO the 12mm wide end is of greater value than the 200mm long end compared to 14-140, but that may be more a measure of what I want in a "do-all" lens. I avoid 14mm standard zooms.

Cheers,

Rick

I am not interested in this lens but I agree that 12mm is of more value to me than a poor 200mm. If I was going down the long zoom range I would go for the 12-100mm F/4 it actually is a super zoom for m43 users as in super performer The only real compromise with that lens is the F/4 which would not be as good for low light action shooting as the F/2.8 zooms

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon Z7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +10 more
tomhongkong Veteran Member • Posts: 3,872
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out
2

Well, each to his own, of course, but for me the 200mm end is more important than 12mm.  There are already zooms starting at 12mm, including the 12-100, but nothing which gives the range, and is WR, to get out to 200.  Cropping the 12-100 will just not give a satisfactory result for me. (and the 40-150 or 50-200 mean either lens changes in atrocious conditions, or two bodies which is not practical)

Unfortunately most of the test data is quite disappointing for this lens at 200.  There are very few quantitative tests yet.  Ephotozine is about the best we have so far, but that says that its test at 200 (dismal) is not really representative of the lens in practical use (without giving us an example of what they mean).  It is even hard to find decent sample shots at 200, they are either short range shots or very dark subjects or out of focus.  The chimneys in the Ephotozine sample actually look quite good if given some PP.  Other test sites suggest stopping down to f8 to get anything approaching acceptable quality.

Maybe I am being pushed to an RX10iv!  I will wait a couple of weeks by when there should be better results available.

tom

magnesus3 Contributing Member • Posts: 525
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out

tomhongkong wrote:

Well, each to his own, of course, but for me the 200mm end is more important than 12mm. There are already zooms starting at 12mm, including the 12-100, but nothing which gives the range, and is WR, to get out to 200. Cropping the 12-100 will just not give a satisfactory result for me. (and the 40-150 or 50-200 mean either lens changes in atrocious conditions, or two bodies which is not practical)

Unfortunately most of the test data is quite disappointing for this lens at 200. There are very few quantitative tests yet. Ephotozine is about the best we have so far, but that says that its test at 200 (dismal) is not really representative of the lens in practical use (without giving us an example of what they mean). It is even hard to find decent sample shots at 200, they are either short range shots or very dark subjects or out of focus. The chimneys in the Ephotozine sample actually look quite good if given some PP. Other test sites suggest stopping down to f8 to get anything approaching acceptable quality.

Maybe I am being pushed to an RX10iv! I will wait a couple of weeks by when there should be better results available.

tom

One thing to consider with RX10IV is that the zoom is electronic I think - you can't just rotate the barel and go from wide to tele in half a second like on the 12-200.

Are you sure cropping 12-100 won't be enough for you? Have you tried on some sample photos?

tomhongkong Veteran Member • Posts: 3,872
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out
1

magnesus3 wrote:

tomhongkong wrote:

Well, each to his own, of course, but for me the 200mm end is more important than 12mm. There are already zooms starting at 12mm, including the 12-100, but nothing which gives the range, and is WR, to get out to 200. Cropping the 12-100 will just not give a satisfactory result for me. (and the 40-150 or 50-200 mean either lens changes in atrocious conditions, or two bodies which is not practical)

Unfortunately most of the test data is quite disappointing for this lens at 200. There are very few quantitative tests yet. Ephotozine is about the best we have so far, but that says that its test at 200 (dismal) is not really representative of the lens in practical use (without giving us an example of what they mean). It is even hard to find decent sample shots at 200, they are either short range shots or very dark subjects or out of focus. The chimneys in the Ephotozine sample actually look quite good if given some PP. Other test sites suggest stopping down to f8 to get anything approaching acceptable quality.

Maybe I am being pushed to an RX10iv! I will wait a couple of weeks by when there should be better results available.

tom

One thing to consider with RX10IV is that the zoom is electronic I think - you can't just rotate the barel and go from wide to tele in half a second like on the 12-200.

Are you sure cropping 12-100 won't be enough for you? Have you tried on some sample photos?

I don't really want to buy the RX.  The disadvantage which you mention is one reason.  There are others so I probably won't.

I am very disappointed by the reported quality of 12-200 but will wait to see once more people have access to it (Olympus in HK say it will not be here until next week). I'll go into the showroom and try it myself and compare with 14-150.

My experience with cropping is not very positive.  I was all set to get 12-100, but held off because I tried cropping my 35-100/2.8 to 200mm equivalent, and didn't get particularly good results, certainly not enough to justify the cost and size of a 12-100.  35-100 is at least as good as 12-100 so results should be similar.

I'll report on findings if there is anything interesting.

tom

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads