Mid-range zooms – sooo many choices!

InkedMarie wrote:

I’d grab a “plastic fantastic” just because and also get whatever other one you ultimately decide to get.

Marie

It's too cheap not to have one. - and good.

John

Jamajuel wrote:

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)

I could not call it a "mid-range zoom". With an 8.3 zoom factor it is a super zoom. And it's price tag is anything but "mid-range" either.

cba_melbourne wrote:

Jamajuel wrote:

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)

I could not call it a "mid-range zoom". With an 8.3 zoom factor it is a super zoom. And it's price tag is anything but "mid-range" either.

Fair point. No doubt the 12-100 is great, just not for me.

cba_melbourne wrote:

Jamajuel wrote:

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)

I could not call it a "mid-range zoom". With an 8.3 zoom factor it is a super zoom. And it's price tag is anything but "mid-range" either.

NONE of the f2.8 or constant f4 zooms are "mid-range". Constant f2.8, f2.8-4 or constant f4 are ALL high-end. Some higher than others.

Come to think of it, there are very few 'mid-range-" zooms.

The Panasonic 45-175mm is about it.

The Oly 40-150mm f4-5.6 and Panny 45-150mm f4-5.6 are both low-end kit lenses. I had the Panny and sold it.

Or am I completely off and does mid-range mean actual zoom range?

Gnine wrote:

Pay the money, buy the Lumix 35-100 f2.8. Do it once, do it right, and forget about it

Have this lens and love it - ultra sharp and lightweight.

A true treasure.

Isabel

Shot through my front door sidelight.

Isabel

jeffharris wrote:

NONE of the f2.8 or constant f4 zooms are "mid-range". Constant f2.8, f2.8-4 or constant f4 are ALL high-end. Some higher than others.

Come to think of it, there are very few 'mid-range-" zooms.

The Panasonic 45-175mm is about it.

The Oly 40-150mm f4-5.6 and Panny 45-150mm f4-5.6 are both low-end kit lenses. I had the Panny and sold it.

Or am I completely off and does mid-range mean actual zoom range?

I think in general parlance a mid-range zoom is a lens with an FL range located between wide-angle and telephoto. In m43 that would mean between 10 and 60mm.

A zoom starting below 10mm would be a wide angle zoom. Starting above 40mm would be a tele zoom. And any zoom with a range of more than 5x I would consider to be a super zoom.

But to some, mid-range may (additionally to FL) also mean mid-price-range, or mid-size/weight-range. For example, I would feel at pains to describe the collapsible 70 gram 12-32 as a mid-range zoom - it is better described as a pancake zoom.

cba_melbourne wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

NONE of the f2.8 or constant f4 zooms are "mid-range". Constant f2.8, f2.8-4 or constant f4 are ALL high-end. Some higher than others.

Come to think of it, there are very few 'mid-range-" zooms.

The Panasonic 45-175mm is about it.

The Oly 40-150mm f4-5.6 and Panny 45-150mm f4-5.6 are both low-end kit lenses. I had the Panny and sold it.

Or am I completely off and does mid-range mean actual zoom range?

I think in general parlance a mid-range zoom is a lens with an FL range located between wide-angle and telephoto. In m43 that would mean between 10 and 60mm.

A zoom starting below 10mm would be a wide angle zoom. Starting above 40mm would be a tele zoom. And any zoom with a range of more than 5x I would consider to be a super zoom.

But to some, mid-range may (additionally to FL) also mean mid-price-range, or mid-size/weight-range. For example, I would feel at pains to describe the collapsible 70 gram 12-32 as a mid-range zoom - it is better described as a pancake zoom.

In other words, it's a pretty nebulous moniker. 😃

Jamajuel wrote:

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)

Pricy? Sure. But only relatively pricy. It has equiv. FL of 24-200mm, constant f4 aperture, full WR, IS, second-to-none IQ, MF clutch and L-fn button in relatively small package.

It is not comparable with 40-150/2.8 by any means, they are so different.

jeffharris wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Jamajuel wrote:

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)

I could not call it a "mid-range zoom". With an 8.3 zoom factor it is a super zoom. And it's price tag is anything but "mid-range" either.

NONE of the f2.8 or constant f4 zooms are "mid-range". Constant f2.8, f2.8-4 or constant f4 are ALL high-end. Some higher than others.

Come to think of it, there are very few 'mid-range-" zooms.

The Panasonic 45-175mm is about it.

The Oly 40-150mm f4-5.6 and Panny 45-150mm f4-5.6 are both low-end kit lenses. I had the Panny and sold it.

Or am I completely off and does mid-range mean actual zoom range?

Yes my wording was poor, sorry. I meant mid focal range. Not a super Tele, not a Standard 24-70 or wide angle zoom

jeffharris wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

NONE of the f2.8 or constant f4 zooms are "mid-range". Constant f2.8, f2.8-4 or constant f4 are ALL high-end. Some higher than others.

Come to think of it, there are very few 'mid-range-" zooms.

The Panasonic 45-175mm is about it.

The Oly 40-150mm f4-5.6 and Panny 45-150mm f4-5.6 are both low-end kit lenses. I had the Panny and sold it.

Or am I completely off and does mid-range mean actual zoom range?

I think in general parlance a mid-range zoom is a lens with an FL range located between wide-angle and telephoto. In m43 that would mean between 10 and 60mm.

A zoom starting below 10mm would be a wide angle zoom. Starting above 40mm would be a tele zoom. And any zoom with a range of more than 5x I would consider to be a super zoom.

But to some, mid-range may (additionally to FL) also mean mid-price-range, or mid-size/weight-range. For example, I would feel at pains to describe the collapsible 70 gram 12-32 as a mid-range zoom - it is better described as a pancake zoom.

In other words, it's a pretty nebulous moniker. 😃

Yes. But in all fairness, I think my post was very clear a lot what I meant

A_Mist wrote:

Jamajuel wrote:

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)

Pricy? Sure. But only relatively pricy. It has equiv. FL of 24-200mm, constant f4 aperture, full WR, IS, second-to-none IQ, MF clutch and L-fn button in relatively small package.

It is not comparable with 40-150/2.8 by any means, they are so different.

I think it is quite pricy for a f4, yes. The new 8-25 or 40-150 f4s are significantly cheaper.

The f2.8 is obviously a different thing, I just mentioned it because I find the price more justified for a constant f2.8. 
Not saying it’s not worth it, just not for me in this scenario

Jamajuel wrote:

A_Mist wrote:

Jamajuel wrote:

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)

Pricy? Sure. But only relatively pricy. It has equiv. FL of 24-200mm, constant f4 aperture, full WR, IS, second-to-none IQ, MF clutch and L-fn button in relatively small package.

It is not comparable with 40-150/2.8 by any means, they are so different.

I think it is quite pricy for a f4, yes. The new 8-25 or 40-150 f4s are significantly cheaper.

The f2.8 is obviously a different thing, I just mentioned it because I find the price more justified for a constant f2.8.
Not saying it’s not worth it, just not for me in this scenario

I think the price is reasonable for a high performance super zoom.  It's a bit heavy for me, given the maximum aperture.  Somehow the 35-100/2.8 and 40-150/2.8 seemed better options, given that I already have the 12-40/2.8.

The 12-100/4 and 8-25/4 are a great pair of options for long walks, choosing the one that fits the subjects.

I'm less worried about weight if it's in a bag or on a shoulder strap screwed into a foot.

With the OM1 finally arriving on Thursday and recent Olympus lens offers, my travel handheld kit is now fully in place.

8mm Pro, Laowa 10/2, OM1 with 12-40 Pro, 40-150/2.8 Pro and EC14.  Panny 25/1.4 as a substitute option for the Laowa if shooting people.

A surge of work for my retirement small consultancy and the fear of stagflation got me to this.

Andrew

Regarding "mid-range zoom", a FF 24-70 is what comes to my mind, but I guess there is no "official" definition.

Anyway, you said you use the range from 70 to 200 a lot in FF. In M4/3, you already have coverage from 24 to 120 equivalent and in the other from 200 to 800 equivalent. Do you really use the range between FF 120 and 200 a lot, or do you use your zooms like most people do, at the wide and the long ends? If you review the focal length metadata for your 70-200, you will see how much you actually shoot in the range between 120mm and 200mm. You might also try to get an idea of what you use that range for. That might help guide your choices. If it's mostly portraits, for example, maybe a 75mm f/1.8 M4/3 lens would be a good alternative.

David5833 wrote:

. If it's mostly portraits, for example, maybe a 75mm f/1.8 M4/3 lens would be a good alternative.

A few years ago I bought the 75mm lens because it was so highly praised for its optical quality.

I didn't buy it especially for portraits, but I quickly returned it for its limited used, at least for my needs.  It was often too long.

Isabel

Isabel Cutler wrote:

David5833 wrote:

. If it's mostly portraits, for example, maybe a 75mm f/1.8 M4/3 lens would be a good alternative.

A few years ago I bought the 75mm lens because it was so highly praised for its optical quality.

I didn't buy it especially for portraits, but I quickly returned it for its limited used, at least for my needs. It was often too long.

Isabel

it would put you about 10 feet away for head and shoulders, so it's not a bad distance for portraits/headshots.  It's not in the range of most of what I shoot either, but if the OP shoots a lot between 120 and 200mm FF then it might be worth having for cost, speed, and size to fill a small gap.

Trying to cover every possible focal length in the past got me a collection of some big and expensive lenses that I almost never used, so I'm all in favor of weeding out as you did.

David5833 wrote:

Regarding "mid-range zoom", a FF 24-70 is what comes to my mind, but I guess there is no "official" definition.

Anyway, you said you use the range from 70 to 200 a lot in FF. In M4/3, you already have coverage from 24 to 120 equivalent and in the other from 200 to 800 equivalent. Do you really use the range between FF 120 and 200 a lot, or do you use your zooms like most people do, at the wide and the long ends? If you review the focal length metadata for your 70-200, you will see how much you actually shoot in the range between 120mm and 200mm. You might also try to get an idea of what you use that range for. That might help guide your choices. If it's mostly portraits, for example, maybe a 75mm f/1.8 M4/3 lens would be a good alternative.

I remember in the film days a 75/1.8 was indeed my "ideal" portrait lens. But that was on 135 film format. It would only be 37.5mm equivalent in m43.

In m43 75mm definitely is a tele lens. And I suspect for most people way too long an FL for the kind of portraits that they do. For most people 45mm is likely to be the "ideal" portrait FL. For the few instances a longer FL is desirable, the 60/2.8 macro lens can fill the gap in a more effective way than the 75mm, which would be a very rarely used lens in my bag.

cba_melbourne wrote:

I remember in the film days a 75/1.8 was indeed my "ideal" portrait lens. But that was on 135 film format. It would only be 37.5mm equivalent in m43.

In m43 75mm definitely is a tele lens. And I suspect for most people way too long an FL for the kind of portraits that they do. For most people 45mm is likely to be the "ideal" portrait FL. For the few instances a longer FL is desirable, the 60/2.8 macro lens can fill the gap in a more effective way than the 75mm, which would be a very rarely used lens in my bag.

I agree with you that the 45mm is a better portrait lens.  The 60 macro is a great lens too and certainly could be used for portraits.

It didn't take me long to realize that for my photography the 75mm was of limited use.

That is not to say it would be great for other people.

Isabel

cba_melbourne wrote:

In m43 75mm definitely is a tele lens. And I suspect for most people way too long an FL for the kind of portraits that they do. For most people 45mm is likely to be the "ideal" portrait FL. For the few instances a longer FL is desirable, the 60/2.8 macro lens can fill the gap in a more effective way than the 75mm, which would be a very rarely used lens in my bag.

My suggestion of a 75mm f/1.8 lens was based on a hypothetical premise if perhaps the OP found that they were using the range between FF 120 and 200 mm for portraits. That's why I wrote "for example". I wasn't expecting to get into a discussion of the best lens for portraits, rather I was thinking about what might fill the gap between the lenses the OP already has, and why.

In any case, you would get approximately the same framing for a head and shoulders portrait at 5 feet away from the subject with a 45mm lens as at 8 feet away with a 75mm lens. With the 60mm macro you would get essentially the same framing at about 6.5 feet from the subject. I really don't think that is a very significant difference in terms of usability if you are doing head and shoulders portraits.

For a waist-up portrait, the same framing would be at approximately 7 feet with a 45mm, 9 feet with a 60mm, and 11 feet with a 75mm. Again, probably not an unworkable difference of just 4 feet from nearest to farthest, but YMMV.

The 60mm macro is probably my favorite and most used lens because I do a lot of close-ups and macro, and I'm sure it's fine for portraits as long as you aren't picky about the background blur you get at f/2.8 vs a wider aperture.  The OP already has 60mm covered with a zoom anyway.

Anyway, this is all a distraction from the OP's original question about mid-range zooms, so I'll just leave it at that.

ahaslett wrote:

Jamajuel wrote:

A_Mist wrote:

Jamajuel wrote:

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)

Pricy? Sure. But only relatively pricy. It has equiv. FL of 24-200mm, constant f4 aperture, full WR, IS, second-to-none IQ, MF clutch and L-fn button in relatively small package.

It is not comparable with 40-150/2.8 by any means, they are so different.

I think it is quite pricy for a f4, yes. The new 8-25 or 40-150 f4s are significantly cheaper.

The f2.8 is obviously a different thing, I just mentioned it because I find the price more justified for a constant f2.8.
Not saying it’s not worth it, just not for me in this scenario

I think the price is reasonable for a high performance super zoom. It's a bit heavy for me, given the maximum aperture. Somehow the 35-100/2.8 and 40-150/2.8 seemed better options, given that I already have the 12-40/2.8.

I tried the 12-100mm and it really was a chunk. There’s no way I’d want that on my camera all day. It’s really conspicuous, too. The 14-140mm works better for me and the sort of subjects I prefer, too.

That said, I just bought a 35-100mm f2.8 ($200 off from B&H, too!) to compliment my 12-40mm. I’ve been traveling again… thank all the Gods!… and doing a lot of museum going. A lot!

I’ve always liked shooting details of paintings, sculptures and small artifacts. I have an adapted Voigtländer 75mm f1.5, but found that I sometimes want either more reach or simply because of available space or whatever zooms could be advantageous. I’ve always preferred manual primes, so it took some convincing. 😀

The last couple of trips I decided to try the 12-40mm instead of my trusty Voigtländer 17.5mm and 42.5mm (still used them at night). It worked really well and I was pleased with the results. Anyway, I figured the 35-100mm would be a good compliment to the 12-40mm and 7-14mm f4.

Detail fromHieronymus Bosch’s “Temptation of Saint Anthony” Tryptich. GX8 and 12-40mm