Olympus 12-200 experiences

Anybody have the 12-200mm that came out a year or 2 back? It seems to be consumer-grade. I'm wondering how the wide end compares to the 14-42 kit lens, and how the tele end compares to the Oly 75-300 or Pany 45-200 and similar.

Seems like a great deal, but I'm used to the sharpness/clarity of the 12-40 pro. I know the 12-100 pro probably blows it away, but that lens seems a bit too large for me and my E-P5 (though I see an EM-5iii in my future).

There's a You Tube video review of it by Peter Forsguard, I think I've spelt that right. He's an Oympus  Visionary or Ambassador ,something like that but the review seems quite honest .

Strong rival to the classic 14-150 with many similar pros/cons.

It is a bigger lens, with bigger filter thread and a bigger price tag.

While it does zoom farther than the 14-150, it doesn't make as much of a difference as how wide it can also go (difference between 12 and 14mm is pretty big).

Another thing, the 12-200 has serious pseudo macro abilities. This is something the 14-150 is really not good for.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

IMHO it has more IQ tradeoffs than I'd be comfortable with, given the price. The Imaging Resource resolution test does not show adequate sharpness at 200mm even after stopping down (and what the heck is occurring at 94mm?).

Megazooms are typically a rollercoaster of edge performance - whereas they always get softer at the long end , they also can get focal lengths where the edges are blurry such as 94mm in that 12-200 ......... APS-C ones are far worse for this and some are at that bad that they`re only capable of decent edges at each end of the zoom and a few spots inbetween  (certain sigmas) ......

M43 ones are a lot better and the panasonic 14-140 F3.5-5.6 (the King of ILC 10X + superzooms optically ) pretty much has decent edges throughout .,

The 12-200 is a heck of a price for the optics are offered, from the samples I`ve seen, it`s like a typical APS-C megazoom at the longer end - Shame , I`d hoped that some of that 12-100 Magic may have crept in there but sadly not it would seem ..... ah well, Hopefully someday Panasonic will do a 12-200 - they`ll do the job Properly

it doesn't hit the utility-for-price level I would need to consider one. They do get a bonus point for weather-sealing it.

the laugh is that imagine anyone taking it out when its wet !! , at F6.3 and soft you`d not want to run the kind of ISOs you`d need to shoot it at 200mm in dingy wet weather LOL

TBH I'd prefer pairing the new 12-45 with the plastic fantastic 40-150 for about the same investment

good move .... the 40-150 is amazing value, well under £100 used and that IS sharp at 150 or the one I had was anyway .

Sad thing is that the 12-200 looks a bit like the 12-100 at a glance , it`s a hell of a price too for such compromised optics .

I started a thread a while back, I pasted the link below. The 12-200 is a decent lens but it gets slow fast as you zoom out and 200mm is more than I need most of the time. I much prefer the 12-100 f4

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4427298

Read the reviews and I'll pass on the 12-200.  The 12-100 f4 is super sharp, the 12-200 apparently isn't - especially at 200.

To get to 200mm or so I have the 40-150 Pro and a 1.4X TC or the 100-300 II which my copy is surprisingly sharp out to 250mm or so, finally, I have the 50-200 SWD in 4/3 and a MMM 3 adapter.  If I did not have the 50-200 SWD, I'd be REAL  interested i the Panasonic 50-200 lens.  Maybe if my SWD wears out. but the 12-200 - no.

The 200mm f2.8, the 300mm f4, and the 100-400 = big, heavy, and to expensive for me for the use I'd give them (or f stop) when I might need the reach

Peace.

John

kcdogger wrote:

Read the reviews and I'll pass on the 12-200. The 12-100 f4 is super sharp, the 12-200 apparently isn't - especially at 200.

To get to 200mm or so I have the 40-150 Pro and a 1.4X TC or the 100-300 II which my copy is surprisingly sharp out to 250mm or so, finally, I have the 50-200 SWD in 4/3 and a MMM 3 adapter. If I did not have the 50-200 SWD, I'd be REAL interested i the Panasonic 50-200 lens. Maybe if my SWD wears out. but the 12-200 - no.

The 200mm f2.8, the 300mm f4, and the 100-400 = big, heavy, and to expensive for me for the use I'd give them (or f stop) when I might need the reach

Peace.

John

OK - Before someone dings me on it - Yes, the 50-200 SWD is big and heavy (probably close to the 100-400) - BUT I already own it, and I also have the 1.4X and 2 X adapters for it. Only slightly behind in the heaviness department is the 40-150 Pro with 1.4X adapter - BUT, again, I already own it. Both are excellent!  Both of these lenses and also the 100-300 II to about 250mm are better than the 12-200 at 200mm, so no to that one.

Peace.

John

BG28 wrote:

It seems to be consumer-grade. I'm wondering how the wide end compares to the 14-42 kit lens, and how the tele end compares to the Oly 75-300 or Pany 45-200 and similar.

If I would be on a market for a travel zoom, for the price of 12-200 alone, I would probably go for Lumix DC-FZ1000 II
(or Sony RX10 III with longer zoom, but more expensive)

BG28 wrote:

Anybody have the 12-200mm that came out a year or 2 back? It seems to be consumer-grade. I'm wondering how the wide end compares to the 14-42 kit lens, and how the tele end compares to the Oly 75-300 or Pany 45-200 and similar.

Seems like a great deal, but I'm used to the sharpness/clarity of the 12-40 pro. I know the 12-100 pro probably blows it away, but that lens seems a bit too large for me and my E-P5 (though I see an EM-5iii in my future).

I don't have much experience with it, as I picked mine up just before the lock down hit. I tend to view it as being complementary to the Olympus 12-40mm (and Panasonic 35-100mm). If you want the best sharpness in the zooms, go for the f/2.8 zooms. If you are shooting in low light with no flash and need a zoom, again go for the f/2.8 zooms.

But where it becomes useful is in good light where you don't want to change lenses. Particularly if you have a splash proof body, the lens being splash proof means you don't have to change lenses in wet conditions.

I've had the Olympus 14-150mm mark I since it came out as a vacation lens. I sold the mark I to get the Olympus 14-150mm mark II when it came out to get a splash proof version. I have shot with my splash proof cameras (E-m5 mark I, E-m1 mark I, G85) in various wet conditions, and it has survived well. Next to the 12-40mm, the two 14-150mm lenses are #2 and #3 in terms of the micro 4/3rds lenses I've used over time.

But every so often, I find that I want a little wider and a little longer than the 14-150mm without having to change lenses. So I bought the 12-200mm. In particular, we had had a trip planned this week to Disney World, and on the safari ride, having a megazoom is really handy, since you generally just have seconds to frame and take the shot. Well the trip has been postponed and I'm mostly stuck inside. I have used the lens a few times for quick grab and go shots (a lot of times through the windshield of my car). It seems to be a good lens.

Note, it is bigger and heavier than the 14-150mm or 12-40mm lenses, but not as big or as heavy as the 12-100mm. Here is a size comparison between the 12-40mm f/2.8, 14-150mm f/4-5.6, 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3, and 12-100mm f/4:

• https://camerasize.com/compact/#835.412,835.97,835.818,835.613,ha,t

I find with the E-m5 mark III, it balances nicely, but for my older E-m10 mark II, it is a little top heavy.

For me, the convenience of not switching out lenses or carrying multiple cameras wins out many times. It really depends on what you shoot, how much gear you want to carry, and whether you can change lenses without missing the shot.

If you were going to have to eat the cheap supermarket ramen noodles and cut back other expenses to buy the lens, it probably isn't worth it.  In that case I would suggest looking at the 14-150mm mark II for a megazoom, or just go with separate lenses.  Now that I have the 12-200mm, I suspect the 14-150mm mark II lens will now not get used any more.

Sorry for such a non-review. I like the lens, but I haven't been able to use it all that much.

Jazzychu wrote:

I am in similar situation. Was going to a safari and not wanting to change lens, so I bought an EM1.2 in addition to my EM5.2 last December. I got a packaged deal with 12-200, with merely $300 extra, so why not.

OP might get similar deal, when he is ready to buy EM5.3

My only issue with my copy is the barrel stiffness, not as smooth as the 14-150 II. How is your copy?

Mine got better with use, pretty decent now.

Jazzychu wrote:

I am in similar situation. Was going to a safari and not wanting to change lens, so I bought an EM1.2 in addition to my EM5.2 last December. I got a packaged deal with 12-200, with merely $300 extra, so why not.

In the USA at least, the package deal seems to be with the E-m5 mark III and 14-150mm mark II.  I asked the Olympus salesman I see every so often, and he said normally package deals are created by the local Olympus organization, but in this case, it was corporate that put together the deal.  And frankly the deal currently doesn't save you any real money compared to buying the two separately.

I did notice that B&H is now offering a bundle with the 12-45mm f/4 that will be shipping in June.  In this case, it does save you $50.

OP might get similar deal, when he is ready to buy EM5.3

My only issue with my copy is the barrel stiffness, not as smooth as the 14-150 II. How is your copy?

Granted I've had the 14-150mm mark II for 5 years now and I don't remember if it was stiff when I got it, but the 12-200mm was a little stiff.  But it wasn't that noticible.

SonyX wrote:

BG28 wrote:

It seems to be consumer-grade. I'm wondering how the wide end compares to the 14-42 kit lens, and how the tele end compares to the Oly 75-300 or Pany 45-200 and similar.

If I would be on a market for a travel zoom, for the price of 12-200 alone, I would probably go for Lumix DC-FZ1000 II
(or Sony RX10 III with longer zoom, but more expensive)

Except the FZ1000-II is not splash proof. Granted the FZ300 is splash proof, but it has the 1/2.3" sensor.

However, from a personal point of view, I find it much easier to get good pictures with my Olympus cameras compared to the Panasonic cameras.  I did pick up a used FZ300 specifically for a vacation camera, but after getting it, I tend more often to go out with the E-m1 mark I and 14-150mm mark II lens.

Besides the price, I still have issues with buying and using Sony due to experiences in dealing with them in a previous job. So in general, I just don't buy Sony gear.

Right now, the only niche that Panasonic cameras fill for me that Olympus doesn't is that they can do video longer than 30 minutes, and it is easier to power them externally. A few times a year, I record video of either performers at a small renaissance faire or a troupe doing an entire 1.5 hour show. If the E-m5 mark III had offered longer video record times, I likely would have sold my G85.

While I was pretty sure the 200mm FL was not great, I had wondered whether it would beat any of the x-150mm zooms out there. A 12-150 zoom is MUCH preferable over a 14-150, imo.