Oly 12-100 f4, why so heavy?

In my opinion additional weight is also a built-in stabilizer.

Anyway, the lens is brilliant.

Is it supposed to be lighter? I don't know about designing lenses, so I can't say, but similar lenses without the same level of weather sealing and construction:

Olympus 12-100 f/4 - 561g

Nikon 24-200 f/4-6.3 - 570g

Canon 24-240 f/4-6.3 - 747g

Now equivalence wise, they will put more light on their sensors, but I'm assuming the construction and sealing is also adding weight. I'm not sure this is heavy at all for what it is.

The 12-45 f/4 is 254g, so adding a 45-100 f/4 along with it is adding 307g, is that bad? I have no clue, the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 is 357g, so it could be.

Adrian Harris wrote:

I shoot with both Panasonic and Olympus, love both and happily Intermix lenses and bodies.

For general walk around my single go-to lens is the Panasonic 14-140 MK2. It is a very good lens in that it is really light, covers a superb range and it quite sharp.

However it slightly falls short of my ideal requirements. Ideally I would prefer starting at 12mm, a slightly faster long end of the zoom, a constant aperture, and slightly better optics - as although the Panasonic 14-140 MK2 is good, it doesn't quite have the same micro contrast as the pro lenses.

I already have the Panasonic 12-35 & 35-100 f2.8 pro lenses, but do not want a 2 lens system for walk around.

Hence I thought the Olympus 12-100 f4 pro would be ideal

However on checking the weight and size of it against all my other lenses I was horrified

Using the ubiquitous digital kitchen scales and a ruler I was shocked to find that even the Olympus 75-300 was something like 20% lighter and smaller and the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 was tiny and feather weight in comparison - and it's faster !!!

Why was it necessary for the Olympus 12-100 f4 to be so big and heavy?

I will say up front that it's size and weight has stopped me from even considering it as a walk around lens. Such a shame

... And is that why so many are available seconhand?

I found the 12-35 and 35-100 f/2.8 combination annoying with subjects that wanted focal lengths varying between 25-50mm, as you're stuck with the wrong lens attached a lot of the time. My solution was to get the 12-60 Leica and then carry the 35-100 too if I might need to go longer. I considered the 12-100 but the weight and the f/4-always meant I gave up the long end for f/2.8 at the wide end, which you're more likely to want indoors.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

OSPhoto wrote:

Is it supposed to be lighter? I don't know about designing lenses, so I can't say, but similar lenses without the same level of weather sealing and construction:

Olympus 12-100 f/4 - 561g

Nikon 24-200 f/4-6.3 - 570g

Canon 24-240 f/4-6.3 - 747g

Now equivalence wise, they will put more light on their sensors, but I'm assuming the construction and sealing is also adding weight. I'm not sure this is heavy at all for what it is.

Plus, the Nikon and Canon would need to be constant aperture to give the same value.

Cheers,

Rick

That too, so yea, for what it is, seems like the weight is in line with where it should be.

Heavy, big and slow - my first impressions after seeing the first reviews. And expensive for all that, so not a lens for me.

Then I looked for a standard zoom lens to replace my 14-45 with a bit more reach and which is faster at the long end.

I used the 2.8/12-40 which is sharp and faster, but I didn't like the results. Can't explain, why.
I tried the PL 12-60, also faster at the long end and more reach. I was impressed with its low weight, but my sample was very soft off centre at around 45mm.
I thought about trying another sample, but got the 12-100 instead. It felt heavy, big, slow, but at least it was 1 stop faster at the long end, the much longer end. And it hardly ever left my GX8 after mounting it the first time.
It is slow with f/4, but OIS is great, so even on the Panasonic body I get very sharp photos at 1/8s, sometimes even at 1/4s, which is enough for me.
It is a little soft near MFD, but otherwise excellent, even the bokeh is boringly smooth.

And yes, there is no getting away from the fact it is heavy, probably because of the large front lenses that make it reasonably sharp into the corners at all FLs and beause of a rather solid built. BQ of the 2.8/12-40 and 2.8/40-150 is probably better, but it is still very good in the 12-100.

I carry the GX8 with the 12-100 dangling from 3 fingers hooked lighty in the grip of the GX8, all secured by a wrist strap. And it is stowed away in a small bag, sometimes together with the 1.7/20mm.

However it is big, too big not to draw attention of everyone, This is my major draw back.

So if you can get one second hand at a good price, get it. It might be sold by people moving to the Nikon Z5 with 24-200 - something I have been considering for some time, too. This combination is FF but in size, weight and price(!) very comparable to a MFT body with 12-100. And the 24-200 is not bad either and faster, considering the 12-100 is a constant f/8 in terms of FF.

Peter

Haven’t seen such a clever response for quite some time

Adrian Harris wrote:

I shoot with both Panasonic and Olympus, love both and happily Intermix lenses and bodies.

For general walk around my single go-to lens is the Panasonic 14-140 MK2. It is a very good lens in that it is really light, covers a superb range and it quite sharp.

However it slightly falls short of my ideal requirements. Ideally I would prefer starting at 12mm, a slightly faster long end of the zoom, a constant aperture, and slightly better optics - as although the Panasonic 14-140 MK2 is good, it doesn't quite have the same micro contrast as the pro lenses.

I already have the Panasonic 12-35 & 35-100 f2.8 pro lenses, but do not want a 2 lens system for walk around.

Hence I thought the Olympus 12-100 f4 pro would be ideal

However on checking the weight and size of it against all my other lenses I was horrified

Using the ubiquitous digital kitchen scales and a ruler I was shocked to find that even the Olympus 75-300 was something like 20% lighter and smaller and the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 was tiny and feather weight in comparison - and it's faster !!!

Why was it necessary for the Olympus 12-100 f4 to be so big and heavy?

I will say up front that it's size and weight has stopped me from even considering it as a walk around lens. Such a shame

... And is that why so many are available seconhand?

I have recently got a used copy of the 12-100 and yes it’s heavy and more cumbersome on my EM5.3 vs the 12-200. IQ is very good but not something that blew me away. However what impressed was the ibis with that lens which allowed me to get night shots at low iso!!

Also for walking around there is also another solution, much lighter and smaller with same focal range but even better CAF. RX100 VI…

The 12-100 is a bit heavier than I would like but the IQ is everything I want - across the entire range, plus dual stabilization, close focus…. the 12-100 replaced my 40-150 Pro and 12 - 40 Pro, there is just no compromise in IQ. I have said that the 12-100 alone is a good reason to shoot Olympus 😃

we all know, or will come to learn, that all gear is some sort of a compromise, be it size, weight, IQ, cost or…. 
I’m in my 60’s and take it, and my 8-18, with me camping and on major mountain hikes… those really are the only two lenses I really need.

12-100 around my neck for a 10 mile, 10 hour mountain hike

Albert Valentino wrote:

The 12-100 is a bit heavier than I would like but the IQ is everything I want - across the entire range, plus dual stabilization, close focus…. the 12-100 replaced my 40-150 Pro and 12 - 40 Pro, there is just no compromise in IQ. I have said that the 12-100 alone is a good reason to shoot Olympus 😃

we all know, or will come to learn, that all gear is some sort of a compromise, be it size, weight, IQ, cost or….
I’m in my 60’s and take it, and my 8-18, with me camping and on major mountain hikes… those really are the only two lenses I really need.

12-100 around my neck for a 10 mile, 10 hour mountain hike

Couldn't agree more, I have tne 8-18 too and those two lenses cover everything I need.

One caveat to that is the 12-45 I use for my city travels when I want to be less conspicuous

Brilliant! Made my day :). I hope you're the first post that has more than 100 likes.

victorav wrote:

tammons wrote:

Oly 12-100 F4? Because of the range and it's build quality which is mostly all metal.

Olympus uses plastic internally, with a metal shell. Although it's unclear how much metal is used.

The Pany Leica 12-60mm F2.8-4 is nearly half the weight with less range with a lot of plastic.

To me, after owning a using a lot of MFT lenses over the years, Oly pro lenses especially are built like tanks with quality of construction the main concern and weight as a secondary concern, while Panasonic seems to be more interested in saving weight, although both provide excellent IQ.

This is the 12-100/4-IS cut in half. We can clearly see that it is constructed just like any other Olympus Pro lens. There is not more metal used, the interior is almost entierly plastic.

The weight is most likely due to the front elements made with very heavy Extra low Dispersion ED glass. There is a lot of thick plastic though, which could partly be to blame for weight too.

12-100 cut

Yellow = focus lens, blue = IS lens

The moving lens groups

The DSA lens = Dual Super Aspheric

The IS mechanism does not look overly heavy, but certainly contributes to weight too

This is a very impressive lens. If it was not so big and heavy, I would definitely want one.

Original pictures and interesting comments by Mr Daichi Murakami from the former optical system development department can be found here. The article is dated April 2017:

English translation: https://dc-watch-impress-co-jp.translate.goog/docs/news/interview/1053285.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

Original Japanese: https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/1053285.html

I hope OMDS will continue going to the considerable expense of cutting lenses in half for demonstration purposes like this

victorav wrote:

Woah this is very cool. Thanks for sharing. I suspect the combination of all glass elements and all the thick plastic parts contribute to the weight the most. I can see why they chose to use plastic internally. Then lens likey would have been much more bulky and heavy with an all metal build.

No, not necessarily. Other lens makers use thin walled metal inside, and plastic on the outside. Its less of a weight question than a cost question. Plastic is likely cheaper for mass production, intricately machined metal for smaller batches.

The reason the plastic sliding barrels on the 12-100 are so thick, is probably to support the weight of the front ED elements without flexing/sagging when fully extended to maintain alignment. This lens has considerable barrel extension, it is 158.5mm at its longest: