Robin Wong’s Olympus 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3 review

Robin recently posted a video review of the 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3. When this lens was first announced, I was pretty curious about it. After release, it wasn’t given glowing praise so I held off trying it out. But Olympus just had one of their 20% off refurb sales so I was able to  get one at just over $600(including tax) which is about where I wanted to be price wise for this lens. I tend to buy used or refurbished when I can.

I just got the lens a few days ago and haven’t had a lot of time to try it out, but so far, I would agree with Robin’s assessment of it. It is not a Pro grade lens but it is more than adequate for most of my needs, particularly travel and in good light. The range is outstanding and I love that it starts at 12mm which has always been an issue for me with my 14-150. I really like 12mm as my starting point on a general purpose zoom. The build quality is very similar to the 14-150 and feels solid but light. Much lighter than the 12-100. The 12-100 will definitely stay and is probably more versatile since I can take indoor shots easily with its SyncIS and constant F4 aperture.

I plan to use it on my next trip this week since I don’t plan on taking many indoor shots. Paired with my PL 8-18 and the Voigtlander 10.5, I should be well covered.

Here is the link to the review.

The concept of the 12-200mm is very appealing as a happy snapper allround walk around lens. more then the 14-150mm.

The lumix 14-140mm f3.5-5.6(mine) is in that matter great! good IQ for it's size and weight. i have the PL12-60 for more WA and some extra light (f2.8) and hopefully sharper nicer rendering on one side and the lumix 100-300mmii for the reach on the other side. (only addition to that would be a faster lens (prime) for inside (f1.7 or so) and/or a UWA as in 8-18mm)

If i want to replace the 14-140mm then that 12-200mm could be a a nice one. (macro like distance of focus, weathersealed, not much slower, and hopefully same IQ.)

The reason why i don't swap is a Oly on my G80 does kill DUAL IS2 and DFD. (besides the other way zoom ring)

So my only choise as "replacement", when using only Panasonic branded: could be a PL50-200mm f2.8-4 and buy a small second body for the 14-140mm creating a grab and go : GX8 or so with 14-140mm and my "i go out for "real" photo's" kit G80 and other three.

Also could go for a Oly EM something and the 12-200mm glued on that as second/backup but then different menu structure and such would confuse me when i change. (probably cheaper then the PL50-200mm )

(wishes are poison to the mind and deadly for the wallet, so i such up the GAS and hope i survive LOL)

for now have fun with your new lens and maybe we see some comparisons come along later on.

Well, lots of choices is a good and bad thing! I do feel your frustration with the way Panasonic and Olympus bodies and lenses play with each other. I really believe the two companies made a major mistake in not having a standard for MFT, ie, zoom controls, lens IS compatibility with either brand, aperture rings, etc. The PL 50-200 looks like a great lens, but I have Olympus bodies so the lens OIS is lost on me since it is one or the other, lens OIS or IBIS. Body/Lens Dual stabilization is incredible, it’s just to bad we can’t mix and match manufacturers. Oh well, they never asked me 

I do expect that the 12-200 will be at least as good as my Olympus 14-150 which has been a faithful traveling companion for many years. It has produced excellent images but I always wished it went to 12mm, 200mm on the long end is a bonus and it is not that much bigger than the 14-150.

BruceRH wrote:

Well, lots of choices is a good and bad thing! I do feel your frustration with the way Panasonic and Olympus bodies and lenses play with each other. I really believe the two companies made a major mistake in not having a standard for MFT, ie, zoom controls, lens IS compatibility with either brand, aperture rings, etc. The PL 50-200 looks like a great lens, but I have Olympus bodies so the lens OIS is lost on me since it is one or the other, lens OIS or IBIS. Body/Lens Dual stabilization is incredible, it’s just to bad we can’t mix and match manufacturers. Oh well, they never asked me

i think they need to, i looked at your gearlist and you have a lot of pany and oly lenses!

i completely agree, but i think they want some brand loyalty by difference. come to your lenses in the gearlist you have some(two) DUAL IS2/DFD supporting one's (100-300mm and 100-400mm) are you not want to use that by upgrading your GM5? and why do you own them both by the way? (just a question not a judgement.)

I do expect that the 12-200 will be at least as good as my Olympus 14-150 which has been a faithful traveling companion for many years. It has produced excellent images but I always wished it went to 12mm, 200mm on the long end is a bonus and it is not that much bigger than the 14-150.

I am actually planning on selling the GM5, I don’t use it enough. My wife uses the Panasonic 100-300 while I use the heavier 100-400. And yes, I have too much but like I said, nearly all was purchased at a deep discount. I enjoy trying different lenses and look at my purchases as more like a long term rental. If I am not happy with something, I can usually sell it for a minimal loss/cost. For what I paid for the 12-200, if I don’t like it, I know I can easily sell it for around what I paid. I have a feeling it will make the cut though, I’m pleased enough so far

I like to travel with the smallest/lightest I can get away with but when I am home or traveling by car, then the bigger gear goes with me, really depends on where and how I am going. And yes I am very fortunate to have the options 

> something like a Panny 12-60/3.5-5.6.

Do the extra dollars mean it has similar IQ at their common focal lengths, or is it still a matter of large zoom range = lower quality?

The second point is that if you're a person who is happy with an all-in-one zoom lens on a fixed lens camera, but you wish for a bit more quality due to larger sensor and better optics, maybe this is The Solution.

I will go and watch this video shortly.

Smaug01 wrote:

> something like a Panny 12-60/3.5-5.6.

Do the extra dollars mean it has similar IQ at their common focal lengths, or is it still a matter of large zoom range = lower quality?

The second point is that if you're a person who is happy with an all-in-one zoom lens on a fixed lens camera, but you wish for a bit more quality due to larger sensor and better optics, maybe this is The Solution.

I will go and watch this video shortly.

Quality wise, take a look at what this guy achieved with the 12-200 (scroll down through the report and you will see some 12-200 images in Costa Rica). There is also a thread here concerning his trip. And of course Robin has some nice images in his review but of course I think he would be able to get great images shooting through Coke bottles!

I am definitely not a fixed lens camera type of person but there are times when the all in one zoom lens is the ticket! If I am out with others who are not into photography then a lens like this can be the perfect choice or zooming with your feet isn’t always an option. A lens like this is perfect for me when I don’t have anything in particular in mind or if it is the first time in a city, you never know what you might find. The versatility of a lens with this big of a range in a small, light package is intriguing.

The best thing about MFT IMHO is that I can go small with tiny primes and the Pen-F or even the EM10 series or go big with the EM1 MKii and the Pro lenses. Then of course you can go somewhere in between with a lens like this. Lots of choices which is something I enjoy. I try different combinations depending on where I am going and what I am planning to shoot.

Henry Richardson wrote:

Thanks for the report about the 12-200mm. I see that it is quite a bit larger and heavier than your 14-150mm. Do you have I or II? I have both and I is slightly smaller than II.

Olympus 14-150mm f4-5.6 II

• 63.5 x 83.8mm
• 284g
• 58mm filter

Olympus 12-200mm f3.5-6.3

• 77.5 x 99.7mm
• 455g
• 72mm filter

Olympus 75-300mm f4.5-6.7 II

• 69 x 116.5 mm
• 423g
• 58mm filter

I hav the 14-150 ii. In hand, the 12-200 doesn’t feel that much heavier and it is very well balanced on the EM1.2. Here is a quick shot on my phone to give you an idea between the three.

I really haven’t had much of a chance to try the 12-200 out yet since I just got it. From the few shots I have taken, I’m happy with it. I plan to use it this week so I will have a better idea.

BruceRH wrote:

I really haven’t had much of a chance to try the 12-200 out yet since I just got it. From the few shots I have taken, I’m happy with it. I plan to use it this week so I will have a better idea.

Thanks for the report. Nice that it is a non-pro lens that actually includes a hood 😃

If you get a chance I am curious how this lens compares to your 75-300 at 200mm, wide open and a half stop or down.

Albert Valentino wrote:

BruceRH wrote:

I really haven’t had much of a chance to try the 12-200 out yet since I just got it. From the few shots I have taken, I’m happy with it. I plan to use it this week so I will have a better idea.

Thanks for the report. Nice that it is a non-pro lens that actually includes a hood 😃

If you get a chance I am curious how this lens compares to your 75-300 at 200mm, wide open and a half stop or down.

Yes, it is nice to have a hood! I’ll give it a shot, but it might be awhile 🙂

Albert Valentino wrote:

BruceRH wrote:

I really haven’t had much of a chance to try the 12-200 out yet since I just got it. From the few shots I have taken, I’m happy with it. I plan to use it this week so I will have a better idea.

Thanks for the report. Nice that it is a non-pro lens that actually includes a hood 😃

If you get a chance I am curious how this lens compares to your 75-300 at 200mm, wide open and a half stop or down.

Ok, so I did a quick couple of shots before leaving for work. These are all f8 ISO 200. First the 12-200(100 and 200mm), then the 75-300(100 and 200mm), the 14-150 ii(100 and 150mm) and the 12-100 (100mm). Just a tree across the way. They are all SOOC JPEG’s transferred to my iPad. Nothing scientific, just quick and dirty 🙂 Honestly, just taking a quick look at each, there is not much of difference for me. I’m not a pixel peeperand in good light, they all are pretty good IMHO. I hope this helps.

12-200

12-200

75-300

75-300

14-150 ii

14-150 ii

12-100

BruceRH wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

BruceRH wrote:

I really haven’t had much of a chance to try the 12-200 out yet since I just got it. From the few shots I have taken, I’m happy with it. I plan to use it this week so I will have a better idea.

Thanks for the report. Nice that it is a non-pro lens that actually includes a hood 😃

If you get a chance I am curious how this lens compares to your 75-300 at 200mm, wide open and a half stop or down.

Ok, so I did a quick couple of shots before leaving for work. These are all f8 ISO 200. First the 12-200(100 and 200mm), then the 75-300(100 and 200mm), the 14-150 ii(100 and 150mm) and the 12-100 (100mm). Just a tree across the way. They are all SOOC JPEG’s transferred to my iPad. Nothing scientific, just quick and dirty 🙂 Honestly, just taking a quick look at each, there is not much of difference for me. I’m not a pixel peeperand in good light, they all are pretty good IMHO. I hope this helps.

thanks for taking the time to shoot and post these. I will lose my mind if I try to scrutinize these but at a quick glance it is too tricky to tell. Wind could also play a small part in shots like these.

I did own the 75-300 or a while and found it to be rather sharp up to about 200-220, then, like many long zooms, started to soften. At 200mm the 12-200 is at the longest end, while the 75-300 is still near the sweet spot. 12-100 is also at the softest, but not soft, end at 100mm.

When I had the 75-300 it was on the EM1.1 which had four stops IBIS while my current camera is the mark II with 5.5 stops, and cross sensors. So it might do better at the long end in less than optimal light.

The thing is, when I had to 75-300 I often had it in my bag since it is small and light. My 40-150 Pro rarely goes out to play. But strictly speaking, I rarely need over a 100mm - so I should stop thinking about new toys 😐

12-200

12-200

75-300

75-300

14-150 ii

14-150 ii

12-100

Yes, wind had an effect I am sure. I am going to be pretty busy the next couple of weeks but I will try to find something more stable. My 40-150 Pro doesn’t travel much either and the 75-300 would go when I was pretty sure I could use a tele but I am thinking the 12-200 might satisfy the majority of my wants/needs. I am rethinking the 40-150 in light of the MC-20 TC. Not sure I want to carry it all of the time but sometimes, yes.

Henry Richardson wrote:

They just posted their review:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/12-200mm-f3.5-6.3-m.zuiko-digital-ed/review/

Thanks for the link! Those reviews mirror my thoughts. I took the 12-200 this week for a walk in Amsterdam and Gouda Netherlands mounted on my EM1 MKii. While the lens is good, it is not great IMO. I got some very nice images but not “wow” images. For walking around a city, 12mm is a focal length that I use a lot and really is something that I almost require to have on a zoom. The 200mm length can be nice to have but I found this week is almost overkill for a city. In comparison to the 12-100 Pro, that focal length combination is more appropriate for me plus it has the advantage of being sharper, faster, and Sync IS. I almost had to force myself to use the maximum of 200mm because most of the time 12mm to 150mm was all I required. The cropping ability of the 12-100 takes care of slightly longer needs.

So, my thoughts are that I will probably keep the 12-200 for awhile, particularly since I bought it refurbished at a great price. I can see it as an excellent lens for walking around a zoo with the grandkids since you could get shots of the kids or the animals. It will have other uses as well but the EM1 MKii/12-100 Pro combination is really hard to beat for walking around a city, inside and outside. The indoor images I get with the 12-100 f4 are great, no real need to switch to something faster, which is really handy when walking around European cities, going inside churches and then back out into the narrow streets. I just didn’t see a big need to have 200mm available to me and the compromise in image clarity and stabilization are hard to give up. Bottom line, if I had to choose, the 12-100 is easily the best choice which is what I figured would happen, but my curiosity concerning the 12-200 made me want to see for myself. The reviews say much the same, the 12-200 is versatile and a good telephoto lens but is not great at any one thing.

I like this quote from the first review, “Like many zoom lenses, the 12-200mm is a jack-of-all-trades and master of none, but versatility certainly has an inherent value which may trump other considerations.” The majority of the time, for me at least, the 12-100 makes more sense. If you are paying full price and have to choose, I would definitely recommend getting the 12-100mm f4 Pro over the 12-200 for the current $325 price difference. If you can find the 12-200 for around $600 it may be worth it to you. If you already have the Olympus 14-150mm ii, buy a wide angle instead and keep the 14-150. Just my opinion and worth the price paid 

These two images will give you an idea of what you can get at 12mm and 200mm

BruceRH wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

They just posted their review:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/12-200mm-f3.5-6.3-m.zuiko-digital-ed/review/

Thanks for the link! Those reviews mirror my thoughts. I took the 12-200 this week for a walk in Amsterdam and Gouda Netherlands mounted on my EM1 MKii. While the lens is good, it is not great IMO. I got some very nice images but not “wow” images. For walking around a city, 12mm is a focal length that I use a lot and really is something that I almost require to have on a zoom. The 200mm length can be nice to have but I found this week is almost overkill for a city. In comparison to the 12-100 Pro, that focal length combination is more appropriate for me plus it has the advantage of being sharper, faster, and Sync IS. I almost had to force myself to use the maximum of 200mm because most of the time 12mm to 150mm was all I required. The cropping ability of the 12-100 takes care of slightly longer needs.

So, my thoughts are that I will probably keep the 12-200 for awhile, particularly since I bought it refurbished at a great price. I can see it as an excellent lens for walking around a zoo with the grandkids since you could get shots of the kids or the animals. It will have other uses as well but the EM1 MKii/12-100 Pro combination is really hard to beat for walking around a city, inside and outside. The indoor images I get with the 12-100 f4 are great, no real need to switch to something faster, which is really handy when walking around European cities, going inside churches and then back out into the narrow streets. I just didn’t see a big need to have 200mm available to me and the compromise in image clarity and stabilization are hard to give up. Bottom line, if I had to choose, the 12-100 is easily the best choice which is what I figured would happen, but my curiosity concerning the 12-200 made me want to see for myself. The reviews say much the same, the 12-200 is versatile and a good telephoto lens but is not great at any one thing.

I like this quote from the first review, “Like many zoom lenses, the 12-200mm is a jack-of-all-trades and master of none, but versatility certainly has an inherent value which may trump other considerations.” The majority of the time, for me at least, the 12-100 makes more sense. If you are paying full price and have to choose, I would definitely recommend getting the 12-100mm f4 Pro over the 12-200 for the current $325 price difference. If you can find the 12-200 for around $600 it may be worth it to you. If you already have the Olympus 14-150mm ii, buy a wide angle instead and keep the 14-150. Just my opinion and worth the price paid

thanks for the report. It is sort of what I expected - although the IQ is actually what I expected from the 12-100 as well, and it took me two years to come around and believe the hype.

I remember my first real superzoom from Nikon, the 18-200 VRI from around 2006. It was so light and versatile that I started using it over my pro lenses. Then one morning while shooting a landscape with the lens, I spotted a great heron. I took multiple, tripod mounted, shots to get the shot before I flew away. But it stayed. So I had time to switch lenses to my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRi lens, and shot away. When I returned home a few days later and compared shots of the bird at 200mm I was blown away by the difference. At that moment I stopped using the superzoom. Then a few years later Nikon came out with a 16-85mm aps zoom. I was tired of lugging my Pro lenses on long hikes with a tripod to shoot backcountry waterfalls. So I bought one and gave it a shot, pun intended. It was at least equal to my Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 at f/8 or f/11. I stopped using the 17-55 f/2.8 and eventually sold it. This us similar to me now using the 12-100 and recently selling my 12-40 Pro. They are great superzooms that optimize size, weight, versatility wit great IQ.

These two images will give you an idea of what you can get at 12mm and 200mm