Oly 12-100 f4, why so heavy?

richmadeknives wrote:

I do agree that it’s a heavy and large lens (relative for the MFT family). However since I use it on my full sized E-M1X body it balances quite nicely. The weight and size are worth it because of the excellent one-lens range (24-200mm), dual IS, and excellent image quality. In my opinion it’s probably the best single lens in the entire MFT line-up across all manufacturers. It is definitely the lens I’d pick if I had to choose to be on a desert island with only one MFT lens. If OM would update the 40-150 f/2.8 to a newer version with built-in IS then I think that vII edition might steal the crown. But for now I’d rate the current 40-150 f/2.8 as the 2nd best lens, followed by the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8.

I briefly considered the 40-150 earlier this month, but the edge sharpness at the wide end and the general sharpness reduction at the long end turned me off...
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-40-150mm-f-2-8-pro-lens-review-26893
https://www.lenstip.com/479.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_40-150_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Image_resolution.html
70mm did seem a good compromise.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Diagrams are great!

Am also a sucker for "stuff cut in half" exercises. As long as it's not me.

Cheers,

Rick

It is very labor intensive. You can't just slide the lens through a butchers bandsaw. Each part is cut individually, carefully deburred, and reassembled to a high display quality standard. I once inquired for the cost from a company specialized in cut display models for teaching/universities, and was more than shocked.

Me personally, I am more inclined to buy a camera or lens if I can see how it is made inside (provided I like what I see). Most consumers would not bother though.

cba_melbourne wrote:

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

I suppose cutting it in half is one way to reduce weight.

victorav wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

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:

Yes that's a good point. I guess it's hard to say since of they went all metal, it likely require a different design.

Also plastic is far more temperature stable. Whereas metal will change its length with temperature and move the optical elements.

Atho wrote:

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?

It is heavy but without compare. It is a 12-35 & a 35-100mm in a single body offering improved close focus and macro capability as well as 1.5-2 stops IBIS at 100mm.

Except of course the Panasonic's are f2.8 and have a much smaller filter diameter, which is also a bonus.

I carry mine mostly with the lens resting on my forearm.

Olympus has no history of making light, high quality, short telephoto lenses apart from the 1245 f4 and which perversely doesn’t appear popular!

For a walk-around lens, I highly recommend the Canon 800mm f5.6. It's particular useful for shooting the interior of churches, especially if you get an adapter and mount it on a Pentax Q.

Adrian Harris wrote:

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

Yep, it's a beast!

Yannis1976 wrote:

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

and I haven’t seen such ugly emojis for some time.

I wish DPR could block emoji use in post headers

Peter

Adrian Harris wrote:

Also plastic is far more temperature stable. Whereas metal will change its length with temperature and move the optical elements.

I do not know what plastic is used in Oly lenses.

I do know that the plastic Oly cameras use PCGF10, and on one single occasion a PCGF20 stamping was noted on a part. That is Polycarbonate with an admix of 10 or 20% glass fibers in form of glass powder. I think it is very likely the same stuff is used for lenses.

Now, the thermal expansion coefficient of Polycarbonate (PC) is 65-70.

Glass fiber reinforced Polycatbonate with 10% (PCGF10) is around 45

Glass fiber reinforced Polycatbonate with 20% (PCGF20) is around 25

Glass is around 4 to 10

Aluminium is 21-24

Brass is 18-19

figures in 10-6 m/m DegreeC

the lower the figure, the less does the material expand or contract with temperature

So, it does not look there is much difference between common plastics and metals. Of course, one can always find better materials for more money... Titanium has a  thermal expansion coefficient of only 8.5 but is very expensive to machine.

***

Another problem is mould shrinkage. For PCGF10 that is about 0.4%. Whereas Aluminium parts can be machined to very tight tolerances, without having to allow for an average shrinkage of the finished part.

I think the only lens in the family that can compare with it for solid performance across the whole zoom range is the old 4/3rds Pana-Leica 14-150 f/3.5-5.6, a "bag full of primes". It weighs about the same as the Oly 12-100, and has a 72mm filter ring. I think one has to put up with that much weight for that kind of quality; it's the laws of physics and the technology we have available nowadays.

If I'm doing a lot of hiking and climbing I leave the 4/3rds 14-150 at home and take the Panny MFT 14-140 - I can easily see the reduction in quality, especially the slight smearing in the corners at 14mm, but most of my audience can't tell the difference so I may as well save my neck. My main body is a GX85, so the 14-140 balances much better on it than the monster 4/3rds 14-150.

If I get the new OM-1 I may replace the 14-150 with the 12-100; the extra width would come in handy at times, and I don't really need the extra reach all that often for walkabout shooting. But I still shoot with some old 4/3 DSLR bodies once in a while for fun, so I'm not quite ready to make the switch yet.

Regards,
Sterling
--
Lens Grit

The Oly 12-100mm f4 is the only lens I use in walking around on trips :

- since 2017 on multiple trips: China, Greece, Israel, Italy, France, Germany, Switzerland...

- Tens of Thousands of Photos

Why:

- Generous wide angle of 12mm (24mm FF)

- Meaningful tele 100mm (200mm FF)

- Corner to corner sharpness

- All with no shake, though I have Parkinson

- Complete photo equipment with its hood, polarizing filter, an E-M1 III, 4 batteries, charger and cable, in one Lowepro Camera Box (20 x 9.5 x 16.5 cm)

Reading specs is useful, but using the lens tells you all.