12-100 F4 or 75 F1.8?

1

Post 5

reply

WH Test 1 wrote:

c'mon badge

Did you earn it?

Haha!

Jozef M wrote:

Stay away from those long slow zooms, m4/3 needs as much light you can get. F4 is F8 in gathering light compared to FF sensors.

35 - 100 f/2,8 is better.

Jozef.

F4 is F4 when gathering light but DOF is 2 times.

The 35-100 2.8 is very nice, sharp, light, sealed and internal focusing.

Harvo

harvo wrote:

Jozef M wrote:

Stay away from those long slow zooms, m4/3 needs as much light you can get. F4 is F8 in gathering light compared to FF sensors.

35 - 100 f/2,8 is better.

Jozef.

F4 is F4 when gathering light but DOF is 2 times.

The 35-100 2.8 is very nice, sharp, light, sealed and internal focusing.

Harvo

Yes, that is so, correct. F4 is F4, sensor size does not matter.
The amount of light that falls on a twice as large sensor is much more than on a smaller sensor, although they both pass through F4. So also less noise and more real photons. But this is all to the side and has little to do with the query.

Jozef.

Depends on your camera model if you are using an olympus camera that supports dual image stabilization, sell the 12-40 and get the 12-100 without hesitation. Yes it is f4 but you can shoot hand held sharp pictures at very slow shutter speed. I had both and never used the 12-40 after purchasing the 12-100. I also have the 75 f 1.8 which is a fantastic lens that I now seldom use.

If it were me, I'd probably get the 75 mm 1.8 lens and then with the money you saved from not buying that 12-100mm zoom, I'd buy an inexpensive 40-150mm zoom. True, those zooms aren't very fast, but if you're shooting outdoors it might not matter so much. The Panasonic one that I have seems to be pretty sharp, light and was really cheap. That lens would give you sone additional range, be light and small to pack and the 75mm would give you a great portriat lens that's one of the highest rated lenses in the m43 system....

The new Sigma 56mm is even a bit faster than the 75mm is cheaper and though a fair bit shorter focal length might still fill the same need.... Good for portraiture. I'd actually like to get that lens for shooting live music and I think that the focal length for the kind of venues that I'd be using it in would be more ideal than the 75mm.

Personally, I have the 35-100 f/4-5.6 in that focal length range. It's amazingly tiny and works very nicely if you can live with the smaller aperture.

Though I do have a hankering to get the 75/1.8.

James Pilcher wrote:

Jozef M wrote:

...F4 is F4, sensor size does not matter. The amount of light that falls on a twice as large sensor is much more than on a smaller sensor, although they both pass through F4. So also less noise and more real photons. But this is all to the side and has little to do with the query.

Then why do you bring it up? Honestly, no good reason whatsoever.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Living above life in the Rocky Mountains

It was an answer, dear Jim Pilcher.
So why so agressive, Jim, no good reason whatsoever!

Jozef.

Po Sen Tsui wrote:

So, I am currently using a 12-40 F2.8 and 100-300 II on my EM1 Mk II, as you may have notice, I have a gap of focal length between 40-100, which is kind of the short-medium telephoto range. To fill this gap, I am considering 1. sell my 12-40 to buy the 12-100 so that I can have the 12-300 focal length fully cover, and rely on my 17 f1.8 for low light, or doing the cheap way 2. buy the 75 f1.8 to cover the missing range, which is about 60% of the price of the 12-100, way faster and extremely sharp as well.

What would be your recommendation on this issue? Thank you very much.

I do not know what you typically shoot but I would stay away from the 1.8/75mm . it is an odd focal length . if you are looking for a portrait lens , better choose between the Panasonic 1.7/42.5mm , 1.8/45mm or the Sigma 1.4/56mm

since you have the 17mm  you could get your 12-100 and 100-30mm plus the two primes

Harold

James Pilcher wrote:

Po Sen Tsui wrote:

So, I am currently using a 12-40 F2.8 and 100-300 II on my EM1 Mk II, as you may have notice, I have a gap of focal length between 40-100, which is kind of the short-medium telephoto range. To fill this gap, I am considering 1. sell my 12-40 to buy the 12-100 so that I can have the 12-300 focal length fully cover, and rely on my 17 f1.8 for low light, or doing the cheap way 2. buy the 75 f1.8 to cover the missing range, which is about 60% of the price of the 12-100, way faster and extremely sharp as well.

What would be your recommendation on this issue? Thank you very much.

If you don’t mind swapping lenses occasionally, having an f/2.8 + f/1.8 pair is really very nice.

The M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro and the M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 are a wonderful travel combo. I have traveled with this pair. Yes, the 12-40mm stays on my camera most of the time, but having an f/1.8 telephoto in the bag can be very handy.

Sure, the 12-100mm f/4 brings that down to one lens, but at the cost of as much as 2-1/3 stops of light. That’s a serious consideration. One lens or two, both are correct choices depending upon the photographer or the situation.

The lens IS of the 12-100mm f/4 Pro is, although useful, overblown IMO. Your camera IBIS is 80% to 90% of the image stabilization anyway. Sure, the 12-100mm makes it better, but you still have IS with the two lenses I mention above.

I agree, if you are photographing things that move.  You are going to be shooting at shutter speeds well above IBIS stabilization minimum.  The f1.8 can also give you shallow depth of field when desired.

However, for stationary targets or for situations where you want a larger DOF, the 12-100 should be fine.  It is easy to handhold down to 1/2 second at any focal length, which should cover most situations.

Oh, and having a focal length gap is often no big deal. Most people if they were to analyze their zoom photos will find a surprisingly large number of their used focal lengths at one end of the zoom range or the other. They unconsciously leave a gap anyway. Never once have I swapped out my 12-40mm f/2.8 for the 75mm f/1.8 and wished I had a 55mm lens.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Living above life in the Rocky Mountains

James Pilcher wrote:

If you don’t mind swapping lenses occasionally, having an f/2.8 + f/1.8 pair is really very nice.

The M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro and the M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 are a wonderful travel combo. I have traveled with this pair. Yes, the 12-40mm stays on my camera most of the time, but having an f/1.8 telephoto in the bag can be very handy.

Sure, the 12-100mm f/4 brings that down to one lens, but at the cost of as much as 2-1/3 stops of light. That’s a serious consideration. One lens or two, both are correct choices depending upon the photographer or the situation.

The lens IS of the 12-100mm f/4 Pro is, although useful, overblown IMO. Your camera IBIS is 80% to 90% of the image stabilization anyway. Sure, the 12-100mm makes it better, but you still have IS with the two lenses I mention above.

Oh, and having a focal length gap is often no big deal. Most people if they were to analyze their zoom photos will find a surprisingly large number of their used focal lengths at one end of the zoom range or the other. They unconsciously leave a gap anyway. Never once have I swapped out my 12-40mm f/2.8 for the 75mm f/1.8 and wished I had a 55mm lens.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Living above life in the Rocky Mountains

What James said...

Comes down to the aperture. I have both of the scenarios covered, and depending on what the adventure is, or a specific purpose, I have the same thoughts as the OP. No one can help me, and no one can help the OP, we can both just get advice.

In the end, for space saving and maximizing the low gathering and subject isolation, I take the 12-40 and the 75... but the 12-100 is a great travel lens with great possibilities.

But you are talking about a kit from 12 to 300, and 2 lenses is better than 3... but you don't have a low light gathering lens (most have zoom lenses and a 1.2 or 1.8 prime on the side) so you either don't need lower than 2.8 (or 4) so the 12-100 would be sufficient.

Welcome to m43 where what lens or kit can be a difficult given all the great options...

Jozef M wrote:

Stay away from those long slow zooms, m4/3 needs as much light you can get. F4 is F8 in gathering light compared to FF sensors.

Jozef M wrote:

James Pilcher wrote:

Jozef M wrote:

...F4 is F4, sensor size does not matter. The amount of light that falls on a twice as large sensor is much more than on a smaller sensor, although they both pass through F4. So also less noise and more real photons. But this is all to the side and has little to do with the query.

Then why do you bring it up? Honestly, no good reason whatsoever.

It was an answer, dear Jim Pilcher.
So why so agressive, Jim, no good reason whatsoever!

Jozef.

Actually, it wasn't an answer, Jozef. The OP asked for help choosing between two MFT lenses. There was nothing in his post or this thread about comparing MFT to FF. And yet you jumped in to say that "F4 is F8 in gathering light compared to FF sensors," then later backed off. In terms of exposure of an image, F4 is F4 is F4. We all know that there are differences between MFT and FF sensors, and between FF sensors and APC sensors, or medium format sensors. So what?

Nor do I think that Jim's response was "aggressive." He simply asked you why you brought this equivalence issue into a thread where it clearly isn't at play. Many of us are sick of the "E" subject in general, but at least I can see it coming up when someone says that the MFT 12-35 f/2.8 is the same as a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8.

There was no call to bring it up here, as you yourself acknowledged.

Others have basically said as much, but I think the answer depends on what you're shooting, where, and what nobody else has mentioned yet: if you're a flash user or not.

If your subjects are mostly static and/or you're a bright-light shooter and/or use a flash, the 12-100mm can't be beaten.  Yes, the depth of field with the 75mm will be more shallow, but the 12-100mm has a shallow depth of field that is suitable for portraits and subject isolation from about 35mm and onwards; I generally stop down around 75mm and longer because the depth of field becomes too shallow for my tastes otherwise.

At 100mm and f/4.  The background isn't blown away completely but pleasantly fades out, and there is no doubt what the subject of focus us.

The lens is also ridiculously sharp, doubly so when you consider that it's a "superzoom."  That further helps with subject isolation and pleasing details.

I favor the f/1.2 lenses for indoors, natural-light shooting, but I've also put on my 12-100mm with my flash and can get by without difficulty indoors, as well.  (I'm just not as skilled with using a flash, and favor natural lighting partly for that reason.)

The image stabilizer is pretty impressive, especially so for video.  Olympus claims about one added stop of stabilization when paired with a body that support dual-IS (so basically, an Olympus OM-D body), and from what I've seen from websites that tested the claim, it's not an exaggeration.

If I could only own one lens for µ4/3, this would be the one.  It's just so versatile, and it's sharper than some of my primes (the 25mm f/1.2 comes to mind, which was shocking to me).

47mm and f/4. Still strong subject isolation, although granted, a bit closer to the subject here.

The 75mm f/1.8 is a very specialized lens, by comparison.  It's a bit of an odd focal length to be locked to (although I know some swear by it).  The only reason I'd consider it would be if you absolutely need a faster lens (a little over two stops faster) for the light-gathering capabilities and maybe if you absolutely need an even shallower depth of field... and perhaps if you want a lens in silver coloration.  In addition to losing the massive zoom range of the 12-100mm, you give up weather sealing.