Mid-range zooms – sooo many choices!

Gnine wrote:

Jamajuel wrote:

Gnine wrote:

Well, just buy whatever then. Doesn't matter what, because in a couple of months time, you'll have changed gear and moved on anyway.

Why so judgmental?

Judgemental? No, just fact. I think you're just obsessing over gear. How much of it do you really need? Just work with a single system, and buy the lenses that work for you. You've already mentioned a few small primes for your 36*24 camera, a superzooms lens addition should be just what you need. As I mentioned, you're just going around in circles, having already been down this road before, what makes you think it will be different this time? It's not the gear that's the problem.

Not sure why you’re so offended. I appreciated your earlier recommendation.

What I buy or not buy also frankly non of your business. I asked for subjective experience with certain lenses. This is a gear forum on a gear page after all.

If you would buy a super zoom for full frame, that’s your choice. It’s not mine and it also does not exist for L-Mount, so it’s a double moot point. I’m also quite happy with both systems, both have their unique advantages. You’re active on this forum, so you should know this is quite common here

Anyways, thank you for your recommendations, I appreciate them.

If you want something lightweight and telephoto range

the 35-100 f4-5.6

or the 40-150 R f4-5.6 are great options for daytime shooting.

my old model 14-140 is good image quality but heavy if you just want 1 lens.

Good luck

Jamajuel wrote:

Loving the OM-1 and the PL100-400 is glued to it. I also still had my trusty PL12-60, which I also love, but there is of course a little gap there from 60-100. This is a focal range I do use a lot (I use a 70-200 a LOT on FF).

M43 is really spoiled for choice. Incredibly hard to choose. So I am mostly curious who here might have several of the choices below and why you'd use one more over the other.

Effectively this would be more for travel and walk-around. If I want max IQ, I would use the S1 with a prime anyway. Means also I rather want light and small.

Choices I am considering:

• New OM 40-150 f4: nice size and light, great weather sealing. Bit pricey though.
• Oly 40-150 f4-f5.6 plastic-fantastic: i had it as my very first M43 zoom years ago on a GX7 and did get a lot of great images. Cheap and light. But how much "worse" it vs others?
• Pana 35-100 f2.8: nice size and weight, fast aperture. But a bit pricey.
• Pana 14-140: been reading a lot of positive things about it. Would save me swapping to the PL12-60 almost entirely, but how does it compare to that one? Very light and small. Weather sealed too apparently.
• Olympus 14-150: I find not much about that one. How would that compare to the Pana 14-140 quality wise?
• Olympus 12-200: i find very little good info on that one. How much compromise is IQ on that zoom range?

Things I am discarding for subjective reasons:

• Oly 40-150: too big and heavy for what I want right now.
• Oly 12-100 f4: too big and heavy, tried it once, wasn't a big fan. It's heavier and bigger than the 40-150f4

What are you preferences? This is not a "help me choose / choose for me" question, I eam genuinely looking for subjective experiences and preferences from actual use.

Here a comparison of the plastic O 40-150 with the PL 12-60 and O 12-100.
I compared at 12, 40, 60 and 100mm and also included the O 60 macro. At shorter FLs the PL 12-60 and O 12-100 were on par, at longer FLs you can judge yourself from the pictures below.
Though I resent size and weight of the 12-100, whenever I take the camera out of the bag, I still am very happy with it, because the results are excellently sharp, bokeh is nice and OIS convincing - I only use it on Panasonic bodies for better AF (my only comparison being the EM5.2) and hence IBIS doesn't work.

Excuse my sloppy comparison; I took the O 40-150 pictures at 45mm instead of 40mm.
Also, resolution might be different at smaller distances. And, of course, I only used one sample of each lens.

left: O 12-100 at 40mm, right O 40-150 f/4-5.6 at 45mm ; both at f/4

left PL 12-60mm at 40mm, right O 40-150 f/4-5.6 at 45mm ; both at f/4

left: O 12-100, right O 40-150 f/4-5.6 both at 100mm  f/4

Gnine wrote:

Here's a thought. You said that the 70-200 range was your favourite, why not a 70-200 f4 for your ST, and call it a day. A stop faster than the m4/3 2.8 zooms, no need for extra batteries, chargers, different raw converters, wondering which camera to bring, makes it all too easy. Sell your OMD and you'll even be in front financially. Done.

Here’s a thought: you read and ask, don’t assume and judge. It makes for nicer conversations.

I have a wonderful 70-200 f4. It weights more than the PL100-400. The reason I have two kits is because of that and vice versa low light, shallow DOF. Not the least that my wife only uses the former.
I don’t need to bring both every time. I have a gap in the focal range for M43 and I am wondering how to bridge that. That’s all.

Thanks for your thoughts

Skeeterbytes wrote:

This distraction interlude brought to you by avoidant personality disorder, ask for it by name whenever a threadjack presents itself.

Anyhoo, the many choices don't have many "wrong" answers but digging into possible field scenarios might be helpful.

correct, that’s why I asked this.

I carry different kits in summer and winter, not just because of the weather differences but also the short and often dim days.

i live in the south of Europe so luckily winter doesn’t make that much difference in terms of available light during the day!

Travel probably presents similar variations.

precisely. That’s what appeals about the 14-140, since it means I could travel with less. I think I’m just irrationally worried it would obsolete my beloved PL12-60.

Cheers,

Rick

Thank you, Rick!

jalywol wrote:

AND, a zoom that you might want to consider if tiny is what you are looking for; the 35-100mm f4-5.6.

I’m keeping an eye out for a good used copy of either this or the Oly plastic fantastic!

If you have some extra $ hanging around, the PL 50-200mm is a great lens, too. Not huge, either. But, that's a lot of overlap with the PL 100-400mm, so a 35-100mm (either the tiny one or the f2.8 version) makes a lot more sense if you are going to also have the 100-400mm with you on your travels.

yes exactly. I sold the 50-200 yo get the LUMIX 70-200 f4 but even if I still had it, it’s a lot of overlap as you said

Have you considered a prime or two to fill in the gap, instead? Maybe the 75mm?

yes, I hadn’t considered the 75mm before this thread. Might consider it if I find a good used copy

thanks for the tips!

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Jamajuel wrote:

Have you considered a prime or two to fill in the gap, instead? Maybe the 75mm?

yes, I hadn’t considered the 75mm before this thread. Might consider it if I find a good used copy

The 75 is a unique and pretty special lens. Has been out a good while and probably easily found used.

My one criticism is the minimum focus distance could be closer. Also note it's not weathersealed.

Cheers,

Rick

The 75 is a very expensive lens to begin with, sought after for it's sharpness, and therefore hard to find used at a reasonable discount. It is also a fairly specialized lens that may or may not not get that much use.

In that FL range, I would rather suggest the 60/2.8 macro lens. Small, light, weather sealed, more reasonably priced than the 75. It will open the world of macro photography, yet is still pretty good at portraits also. A more versatile choice than the specialized 75, worth considering (but of course only if the OP hand any interest in macro at all, now or in the near future).

Tim Reidy Productions wrote:

If you want something lightweight and telephoto range

the 35-100 f4-5.6

or the 40-150 R f4-5.6 are great options for daytime shooting.

After using the old 14-140mm f4-5.8 artillery shell lens, I found the break at 35mm to 50mm between a short zoom and a moderate really quite annoying. I tend to shoot either wide or zoomed into details.

my old model 14-140 is good image quality but heavy if you just want 1 lens.

Yep, I used one for a number of years and it was quite good, but as you say, big, bulky and heavy. The newer 14-140mm f3.5-5.6 II improves on pretty much every aspect of it, at about half the size and weight.

I even sold the first, non-weather-sealed version for the updated version II. It's my go to all day travel lens. I carry a couple of primes for low light and interiors and a 7-14mm f4, also for architecture and interiors, too.

There's the Pana 35-100/4-5.6. That's amazingly small, and give a great picture. I'm surprised how expensive it is.

There's also the Pana Plastic Fantastic, 45-150/4-5.6. That's a little bigger, but gives you the extra range, and is amazingly sharp. That's the one I've been using recently. It does suffer from flare from off axis lights, so you need to use the lens hood. I got it because my local football stadium allows lenses up to 3" long, and it's 2.97". It's half the price of the 35-100.

Great image. Sharp, colorful and well exposed (no blown highlights). Wish the same was true about my multiple attempts this season!

I have been using a Lumix 35-100mm f/5.6 I bought a few weeks ago,  on a Lumix G7.   So far, the lens gets  better results than I expected, given the $160 or so I paid for it.

I wasn’t sure if the 70-200mm (35mm equivalent) range would work for me but I actually have used it quite a bit.  There is a learning curve on both the body and lens combo, but I have been making progress. Of course, having more mm is always tempting but I do like this focal length range and I really like the light weight and the collapsible design of this lens.

KPL

12-100 hands down. Jewel of m43. Big and bulky? Not for what it is.

I use a Lumix G9 with PL 15mm/1.7, Oly 12-45/4 & OM 40-150/4. Fantastic image quality from all of them. I replace my 40-150 plastic fantastic because while it would focus to a very sharp image at infinity with manual focus, it's auto-focus ability at infinity was terrible. Nothing at infinity was sharp. That is my final answer!

A_Mist wrote:

12-100 hands down. Jewel of m43. Big and bulky? Not for what it is.

Also very pricy. It’s currently selling at practically the same price as the 40-150 f2.8 (at least where I live)

Went with 35-100 f2.8 . Weight, sizes and f2.8 seeming the best combo for me. Weather sealed too.

More range would have been nice but that’s what the 100-400 is for after all.

Only thing I disliked was the price. But still 350 bucks cheaper than 12-100 f4 where I live, so it’s all relative

Thanks for all great tips and comments!

Jamajuel wrote:

Went with 35-100 f2.8 . Weight, sizes and f2.8 seeming the best combo for me. Weather sealed too.

More range would have been nice but that’s what the 100-400 is for after all.

Only thing I disliked was the price. But still 350 bucks cheaper than 12-100 f4 where I live, so it’s all relative

Thanks for all great tips and comments!

I think that’s the best fit.  Enjoy your new lens as much as I’m happy with the 40-150/2.8.

Andrew