Alaska trip with EM1 MkII > Is 14-150II to 12-200 a worthwhile upgrade?

Going on an Alaska cruise and land tour with an EM1 MkII and would prefer a one lens solution for scenery, landscapes etc. Also bringing a more discrete Canon GX7 MkII for onboard, indoor, shows, dinners etc.

I have a 14-150II which went with me on a Southwest USA tour and took great pictures but since I don't know what I don't know is a 12-200 an upgrade? I also have a 75-300II which I may bring if I don't "upgrade" to the 12-200.

Advice?

Thanks

The consumer grade lenses are about 15-20% less in resolution than the better lenses.

Haven't cruised, but you would want maximum telephoto for wildlife; same on land. I would carry the 75-300 for that use.

On land, if you tour open arctic areas, I would want 12mm and perhaps also at sea. Why not the 12-40 or 12-100 for the wide end? Carrying two lenses on a ship would not be a big deal. I change lenses comfortably when hiking when the occasion arises.

swsantos wrote:

I have a 14-150II which went with me on a Southwest USA tour and took great pictures but since I don't know what I don't know is a 12-200 an upgrade? I also have a 75-300II which I may bring if I don't "upgrade" to the 12-200.

I would take the 75-300mm, for sure. I used the 100-300mm a lot -- especially at the long end -- when I took an Alaska cruise a few years ago.

Most of the time I had the 14-150mm on one body and the 100-300mm on another. I was happy with that setup.

Also, take a fast prime, if you can. I took the 17mm f/1.8. For most of the trip, I didn't use it and wondered why I had brought it. Toward the end of the cruise, the captain came on the intercom unexpectedly in the middle of the night. Northern lights were visible. We weren't expecting to see them. It was the wrong time of year, and we were too far south. Anyhow, I stumbled out of bed, put the 17mm on my camera, and stepped out onto the balcony. I was *so* glad I had packed that lens.

Yeah, I know.  It's noisy; it's shaky.  It's not perfect by a long shot.  But I was was still glad to get the shot. I might not ever see northern lights again.

Jazzychu wrote:

Great shot! Now I know I can use my EM5.2 and 17mm for Northern Lights, in Iceland coming September.

Thanks! You will be fine with the EM5.2 and 17mm.  I was on a moving ship, and I didn't plan to shoot Northern Lights.  If you are on stable ground, you will be in much better shape.

However, judging the OP as a new member, like me, he probably is not looking for more than one M43 body or two additional lenses. I could be wrong though

I am not suggesting two bodies.  I had them, and so I took them on the trip.  I would, though, recommend taking one's longest lens to Alaska.

I read this thread with interest because I will have a safari trip and I will probably just get a 12-200 instead of changing lenses with dust around me.

If I were buying today, I would probably get the the 12-200 instead of the 14-150. The 12-200mm would be great for travel.

swsantos wrote:

I have the 12-40 but want a longer lens for this type of scenery.

What type of scenery? If you go up a fjord the 12-40 will do just fine. With big mountains as in Mt. Fairweather, I'd think you would shoot under 40mm; I would. Out on the ocean you will probably shoot wide. For icebergs you switch to the 75-300, lots of time.

Before I got the EM1 Mk2 I bought the 12-100 for my EM10 MkII and bricked it with a firmware update 1.0 to 1.3 on day two so I returned it. Was nice while I had it for a dozen pictures taken in the backyard. Bricking a lens is very scary! It was also a bit heavy for the EM10...

Then the EM1 came down $200 so I bought it instead with the money from the returned 12-100.

So now I am debating staying pat with the 14-150II + 75-300 combo, getting the 12-200, or maybe possibly reacquiring the 12-100 but not sure 100 is long enough for Alaskan landscape, yes I have the 75-300 but might end up switching lenses more than I want if the other lens maxes at 100. Also afraid of the residual bad karma I might have with the 12-100 given I have already bricked one

It's pretty easy. Wildlife is quick so you keep the 75-300 mounted. Scenery isn't going anywhere fast; there is plenty of time to change. When hiking in the Canadian Rockies or GNP personally I'd keep my 35-100 F2.8 mounted for Grizzlies, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goats. You may shoot Grizzlies or Wolves on shore or Humpback Whales and Orcas.

I also have the 17mm 1.8 prime but figure I have that covered with the G7X MkII

I have the 12-100 and I love it, but I think you might want a bit more reach, so I would go for the 12-200.

As for the two lens solution...you need to be honest with yourself and ask will I want to bother with changing lenses and more importantly will my travelling companions have the patience to wait while I fumble around changing lenses...

Finally in regard to lens sharpness, the 12-100 is super sharp and has nice bokeh...and is probably sharper then the 12-200 but if you invest in post processing software and just spend a little extra time on a few of your keepers I bet you can make your shots taken with the 12-200 almost as sharp. I have the 14-42ez and it’s not as sharp as my pro 12-100 but I can make it sharp with a little post processing.

I did an Alaska cruise some years ago...when I was using 4:3, not M4:3. Haven't looked at those shots in a while so I just had a look and was a bit surprised myself. I took my 14x54, and my 50x200 and the camera was an E-510 which was Oly's latest offering at the time. I tend to have a "telephoto" eye and I was surprised when I started looking at the EXIF data. By far my most used focal length was 14mm! I didn't have a 12 mm lens at the time. I did use the 50~200 on a whale watching trip and some other places, but the 14x54 was my most used lens. Also, much to my surprise I didn't use the fastest settings most of the time. F/8 seemed to be used most of the time, although inside the ship I did use f/2.8 a bit.

People will see things differently, and you might not use the shorter focal lengths as much as I did. Also the subjects you see might be a good bit different from what I saw, so that could have an effect on your lens choices as well. Based on what I just looked at I think the 12x100 would have been great and that's what I would take today, along with either my 100x400 Panny or my 75x300. I'd also stick in my tiny little 45 f/1.8 or my little 25 f 1.7 Panny. No such thing as just one lens for me.

If I could only take one lens, it would have to be 12x100. I've had a couple of 14x150s also and it's an excellent lens. I reluctantly gave my MKII version to my Granddaughter for her EM-1 after I got the 12x100. I'd have NO problem taking that along as my primary lens and one of the little primes for indoors. In fact, I'm not sure I don't think it's a better travel lens than the 14x100. Much lighter and I like the extra 50mms. It's a damn good one lens solution for most things, and I'd certainly take at least one tiny, fast prime. Have fun...and I know you will.

I would save money and go with your 14-150 and 75-300.   The 12-200 should be about equal in regard to IQ to your 14-150.  It will give you the important 12mm and the extra reach up to 200mm. Still the 200 might just be too short for stuff like eagles and bears.

Since you already own the 12-40/2.8 I would add the 40-150/2.8 and the MC20.. The MC20 will make the 40-150/2.8 into a 80-300/5.6.

I wanted longer than I had, which at the time was the 40-150 4/3 version.  I also had a 14-54.  This was back in 2006 with an E-1.  I also had a Sigma 600mm f8 mirror/reflex lens.  For my style of shooting on the cruise, I found I was at the long end of the 40-150 quite a lot.  And I used the 600mm lens as well.  My recommendation is that you have something that reaches 300mm at a minimum.