Am I missing something?

[Shadowsurfer]

I was looking hard at the Nikon Z6 II before purchasing the E-M1.3. In the end, it was the 12-100 f/4 Pro and the features such as class leading IBIS, Pro Capture, built in ND filter, and hand held high res that kept me with Olympus. I've yet to see a full frame image that has made me regret my decision, and if I did move to a different system I would certainly miss the 12-100 because there are many shots that I would have missed if I had to change lenses to get a different focal length. the 200-800mm equivalent 100-400 has since been added and I would struggle to get that reach with full frame.

I had whittled down my travel setup choice to the Z7 + 24-200 or the Olympus EM1 + 12-100, when it was time for a system refresh. They weigh about the same.

I went for the Z7 for the weight reason and the higher resolution, better DR and tonal separation characteristics of the Z7 sensor.

I know I could get the Nikon 24-200 or Canon 24-240 for full frame, but those lenses are not in the same league as the Olympus 12-100 and this is a lens I don't want to live without now that I've used it.

In my experience the 24-200 is a very good lens, much better than I expected, from a non "S" range lens. If you go to the Z forum you can read many positive experiences that people have had with this lens.

I think you are being rather unfair to say that "these lenses are not in the same league", at least for the Z lens. Actual user experience does not bear this out.

We need to be careful when we judge lenses as being superior, because the maker has plonked a "Pro" label or a gold ring on a lens. I remember back in the past, Nikon's economic "E" lenses had some gems amongst them.

Keep in mind I did not say that the 24-200 was a bad lens. I don't think it is, but I do think there are some compromises. Do you think the 24-200 is in the same league as the S lenses?

The build quality is very good and it does what I bought it for extremely well. It is very close to the S lenses optically considering the zoom range.

I posted this on the Z forum, where i explain my thoughts on this lens.

The thing is, that the total package where I use it with a Z7 is in my opinion far superior thanks to the superior resolution, DR and smoother tonal translons.

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

I was looking hard at the Nikon Z6 II before purchasing the E-M1.3. In the end, it was the 12-100 f/4 Pro and the features such as class leading IBIS, Pro Capture, built in ND filter, and hand held high res that kept me with Olympus. I've yet to see a full frame image that has made me regret my decision, and if I did move to a different system I would certainly miss the 12-100 because there are many shots that I would have missed if I had to change lenses to get a different focal length. the 200-800mm equivalent 100-400 has since been added and I would struggle to get that reach with full frame.

I had whittled down my travel setup choice to the Z7 + 24-200 or the Olympus EM1 + 12-100, when it was time for a system refresh. They weigh about the same.

I went for the Z7 for the weight reason and the higher resolution, better DR and tonal separation characteristics of the Z7 sensor.

I know I could get the Nikon 24-200 or Canon 24-240 for full frame, but those lenses are not in the same league as the Olympus 12-100 and this is a lens I don't want to live without now that I've used it.

In my experience the 24-200 is a very good lens, much better than I expected, from a non "S" range lens. If you go to the Z forum you can read many positive experiences that people have had with this lens.

I think you are being rather unfair to say that "these lenses are not in the same league", at least for the Z lens. Actual user experience does not bear this out.

We need to be careful when we judge lenses as being superior, because the maker has plonked a "Pro" label or a gold ring on a lens. I remember back in the past, Nikon's economic "E" lenses had some gems amongst them.

Keep in mind I did not say that the 24-200 was a bad lens. I don't think it is, but I do think there are some compromises. Do you think the 24-200 is in the same league as the S lenses?

Well, I found these MTF chart...





At least in terms of MTF, I don't see the league of difference...

 

[jwilliams]

I think you mean that Nikon24-200 or Canon24-240 are "consumer lens" (with price to show for it) whereas Olympus 12-100 is "Pro" lens but not sure if the image shows the difference of league ;-)

Yes, a point often overlooked. I really can't comment on the exact lenses under discussion but I've shot m43 since the GH1 and at the same time both Canon APSC and FF DSLRs and now the R system so I can generalize.

First, just because a m43 says 'Pro' (or Leica) on the side of it does not make it necessarily better than any other lens. Often consumer FF lenses will out perform 'Pro' m43 gear. All lenses now are pretty good and a FF lens has a lot easier time equaling or exceeding a m43 lens because it has 2x as much distance on each axis to resolve the same detail. I've done tests myself and found consumer APSC and FF lenses that performed as well as or better than my Oly 'Pro' and Panny 'Leica' lenses.

Now this doesn't make these m43 lenses bad in any way, but one cannot assume 'Pro' m43 lenses out perform every day common man FF or even APSC lenses.

Yes it is (great to have choice) and it's even better if the choice are made with the realistic understanding of the equipment.

Yes, and that means throwing aside any preconceived notions and what the word 'Pro' means.

Points well made and well taken. The only thing I'd add is that "pro" refers to more than just image sharpness.

Yep.

For example, in the case of newer Olympus models it generally means weather sealing, good AF performance, and AF/MF focus clutch.

A dozen years ago the SHG lens from Olympus were in an entirely different league of build quality, with no mention of "pro".

SO I hear. Never shot 4/3.

So the wise person would take "pro" to be a marketing label, nothing more or less.

Yep.