12-100 F4 or 75 F1.8?

The 40-150 f/4-5.6 I see is heavily discounted and is a very good lens. I've seen it for around $125 USD. Personally, I don't use the longer lenses very much, so it fits the gap well.

Guys, thank you all for your input and recommendations. After 2 weeks of consideration, I finally made up my mind and decided that 12-100 will be a much convenient choice and I will use my 17mm f1.8 for low light stuff. I just bought the 12-100 today, tested it a bit in my neighborhood and already not regretting my decision. Handheld Sync IS is a beast.......even it is just a test shot

Po Sen Tsui wrote:

Guys, thank you all for your input and recommendations. After 2 weeks of consideration, I finally made up my mind and decided that 12-100 will be a much convenient choice and I will use my 17mm f1.8 for low light stuff. I just bought the 12-100 today, tested it a bit in my neighborhood and already not regretting my decision. Handheld Sync IS is a beast.......even it is just a test shot

I made the same decision to sell my excellent 12-40 and buy the 12-100.  It is a Marvelous lens!  Sharper then the 12-40 and much more versatile.  It is the only lens I used on a trip to Cuba and my shots just couldn't be better.  Also works as a macro lens, at least for flowers and insects.

glassoholic wrote:

jonnieb wrote:

These are two very different lenses. I have both, and the 12-100 practically lives on my camera. The 75 1.8 is a stunning lens, but I only bring it out for special occasions, primarily outdoor or indoor shoots where I have some distance to use it.

I think you would be much better served with the 12-100 for general use.

Sell 12-40, get the 12-100 and a 45 1.8.

Or a 17/25 1.8 ... All good choices, depending on one's personal preferences. Roger Cicala had very good things to say about the 25 1.8, which I read after I had bought mine. I just happen to like the 25 (50 effective FL) focal length. Never really warmed to my 40mm.

I chose the f/1.8 25. Goes with all my various mix-n-match kits. Rarely take it when I have my 12-100 on the camera - but I can foresee situations where I might.

Earlier in December, I was looking at the same: swap my 12-40mm for the 12-100mm or get the 75mm to supplement my existing lens.

After trying both, I got the 75mm. It simply renders amazing. I am not a "bokeh addict", but the 75mm screams to be used even wide open. It is simply sharp with excellent contrast.

The 12-100mm was no sloth either, but didn't have that "special" feel to it. Also, that extra stop felt like a potential dropback.

Now, I have two lightweight travel configurations, both which fit into my Peak Design 5L Sling:

1. 12-40mm f/2.8 + 75mm f/1.8
2. 15mm f/1.7 + 45mm f/1.8 + 75mm f/1.8 (+ Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 if I knwo that I will be shooting a lot)

I don't think that you can really go wrong wtih either of them, but certainly the 75mm is a keeper.

SkiHound wrote:

I'm late to the party here. I don't have the 12-100 but I don't think I've ever seen anything but very positive reviews.

well serious reviews says it is a good to very good lens for an all purpose lens . But because of this multi purpose it is not outstanding like some other lenses in the m4/3 system

I'd say it would be a much more versatile all around. The 75 is just terrific optically. At least mine is.

Mine too but I hardly ever use it and it is DEFINITELY not a lens to take when traveling because of its limited use

And I mean really excellent optically. But, IMO, it's kind of a more specialized lens. It's forte is portraiture when you have some room to work.

make that lots of room . Now that I have my own BIG studio I sometimes use it. I don t think it ever work when shooting on location indoors OR outdoors

It would work really well for indoor events when you're not too far from the action. Or walking around when there are lots of people (something like a Renaissance festival, re-enactments, etc). No doubt this will vary from person to person, but it's not a focal length I find very versatile for general use.

Me neither . this is why I plan to sell mine now that I have MUCH better options on either side of this focal length

This proves once more that nobody should choose a lens based on the image quality alone

Harold

Tacitvs wrote:

As another alternative, have you considered the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 which is a quality lens and fairly compact in size? You'd then have no gap in focal length, and f2.8 zooms rather than an f4 superzoom.

I find the 35-100/2.8 a little bit soft at 100mm/f2.8 on the E-M1 Mk II.

brianric wrote:

Tacitvs wrote:

As another alternative, have you considered the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 which is a quality lens and fairly compact in size? You'd then have no gap in focal length, and f2.8 zooms rather than an f4 superzoom.

I find the 35-100/2.8 a little bit soft at 100mm/f2.8 on the E-M1 Mk II.

Interesting to note.  I don't have one and was just mentioning it as an option.  I have long considered getting one, or the Oly 40-150 f2.8, but have held off as I think I need something wider than 12mm first.

Will bear this in mind when I eventually get round to it!

Harold66 wrote:

SkiHound wrote:

I'm late to the party here. I don't have the 12-100 but I don't think I've ever seen anything but very positive reviews.

well serious reviews says it is a good to very good lens for an all purpose lens . But because of this multi purpose it is not outstanding like some other lenses in the m4/3 system

Actually, by wide consensus the 12-100 is an outstanding lens.  The only nits to pick with it are its size, weight, and f/4.  On the latter point, it's faster at most focal lengths than the 14-140 or 14-150 (and much better as well), and it's nearly as fast at most focal lengths as the PL 12-60.

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.

I agree with you about the slow zooms. Are you sure about aperture? I thought F4 is only equal to f8 regarding DOF. FF sensors are 4x the area of MFT sensors and need 4x more light for an equivalent exposure, and that is why their lens barrels are so wide.

brentbrent wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

SkiHound wrote:

I'm late to the party here. I don't have the 12-100 but I don't think I've ever seen anything but very positive reviews.

well serious reviews says it is a good to very good lens for an all purpose lens . But because of this multi purpose it is not outstanding like some other lenses in the m4/3 system

Actually, by wide consensus the 12-100 is an outstanding lens.

You probably means users on this forum .. but most people cannot be objective on any stuff that they own... i prefer to rely on more fact based opinions of people who test lenses and compare them with similar lenses

i have read three or four reviews and they all seem to agree on what I wrote

A good to very good lens may be well enough for a multi-purpose lens

Harold

Harold66 wrote:

brentbrent wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

SkiHound wrote:

I'm late to the party here. I don't have the 12-100 but I don't think I've ever seen anything but very positive reviews.

well serious reviews says it is a good to very good lens for an all purpose lens . But because of this multi purpose it is not outstanding like some other lenses in the m4/3 system

Actually, by wide consensus the 12-100 is an outstanding lens.

You probably means users on this forum .. but most people cannot be objective on any stuff that they own... i prefer to rely on more fact based opinions of people who test lenses and compare them with similar lenses

i have read three or four reviews and they all seem to agree on what I wrote

A good to very good lens may be well enough for a multi-purpose lens

Harold

Care to elucidate and provide URLs, Harold?

I thought I had read most reviews of the lens, and all have been somewhat more positive than you are implying.

I like mine greatly.