Adding a telephoto lens - GAS

[Dinobe]

Recently I sold all my Canon gear. I disliked having 2 separate systems my 'big' system (Canon) and small system (Olympus) because it always seemed to put me in conflict.
When I took my small kit, I wished I had taken my big kit and vice versa.

Upgrading to an EM1 MkII gave me (more than) the speed and performance of my Canon 7D in a package about the size of my EM5 with grip.

By selling my Canon system, I no longer have a telephoto (Canon 70-200 F4L) in my setup which I'm thinking of adding again to my kit in the form of a Olympus replacement. I didn't use the 70-200 all that much, but I always liked using it and the results were always nice. I mostly used it as a portrait / candid style lens.
For wildlife/birds/aeroplanes it's miles too short. Not that I shoot these much.

The obvious answer would be the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 Pro, which would make a nice duo with my 12-40 f2.8 pro, but I'm considering shuffeling my entire system around and go for a Olympus 12-100 F4 and add a couple of fast primes for when it gets darker.

Having that one lens does it all idea is tempting, but the 12-100 is a fair bit bigger and heavier than the 12-40 which is my go-to standard zoom.
The main reason for switching to M43 so many years ago was to have a small ILC system for hiking and trekking. Adding the 12-100 seems to go against this idea.

On the other hand, I haven't been hiking in the past 5 years and I won't be trekking in the next couple of years (2 small kids). So most of my photography is a done in a stroll around the block and family related stuff.

Going for the 12-100 f4 would mean:
- making the kit bigger and heavier
- could make my 12-40 redundant
+ having convenience of having more reach and not having to switch at the 40mm mark
+ dual IS

I could attach my O25 f1.8 on my EM5 and go with a double camera setup

Going for the 40-150 f2.8 would mean
+ f2.8 instead of f4
+ duo with the 12-40
+ more reach
+ adding the teleconverter would make the lens even more flexible
- have to lug this lens around in a bag
- wouldn't swap lenses while hiking, so would probably mostly sit at home

I could add the 40-150 2.8 to my EM5 and go with a double camera setup...

I'm probably not the first one going through this process...

 

[Avondale87]

I've the 12-40 and the 40-150 2.8 plus the 1.4 extender.
Both are beautiful IMO
The 40-150 is a very sweet lens. Beautiful silky zoom and manual focus.
I can't speak more highly of it. I also have the Panasonic 100-400 (lives on an EM1 2) and the difference in construction and smoothness is marked. The Olympus is way in front of the Panasonic. Latter is a very good lens though.

There are some beautiful photos from the 12-100 here that are impressive.

If I didn't have the 12-40 and was buying I'd probably go for the 12-100.
However that constant 2.8 is very nice and it's nice on those duller days that often present good scenes to be photographed.

Your choice really but from any three of those I really can't see one being disappointed.

 

[Harvey Melvin Richards]

I have all 3 and my go to lens is almost always the 12-100. If I could have only 1 lens, it would be the 12-100.

 

[turbodieselvw]

I have all 3 and my go to lens is almost always the 12-100. If I could have only 1 lens, it would be the 12-100.

Same here. I have all three (and the 7-14 and 300 Pro) but could just live with the 12-100 if I had to settle for just one lens.

 

[mfturner]

I went more cheaply to save a few ounces for hiking with the 14-150, so I agree that for everything but wildlife and dim lighting, the wide ranging zooms are great walk around lenses.

For portraits I might look at the FL and aperture you used in old the 7D photos, if you were using 200 mm wide open a lot for subject isolation, you won't get that effect with the 12-100 at f4 and cropped a little more. If they were candid shots, like the family journalistic shots I take, or if you are skilled at considering the background, then the 12-100 will be great. Compared to the EF 300f4L and the EF 100 f2 i used to use, u43 has been schooling me on considering the background and not lazily blowing everything into mush.

 

[JensM]

I used to have the 40-150 Pro with 1.4TC, spent a couple of years pondering if I should get that or the Panasonic 35-100 F:2.8, and ended up with the Oly, on a Pana body and about a forthnight before the release of the Panasonic 50-200.

The Oly mostly resided on a shelf, and was never brought with for the possibility of use. It is optically stellar, but the sheer size of was for me, off-setting. I sold it off, along with my Panasonic 100-300 MkI and got a PL 50-200 and am much happier with that solution. If I want to go light, I am rather fond of the tiny Panasonic 35-100 f:4-5.6 which deliveres results outperforming its minutive size and reasonable price (which is partly why I ended up with the Oly in the first place).

 

[Petrochemist]

Recently I sold all my Canon gear. I disliked having 2 separate systems my 'big' system (Canon) and small system (Olympus) because it always seemed to put me in conflict.
When I took my small kit, I wished I had taken my big kit and vice versa.

Upgrading to an EM1 MkII gave me (more than) the speed and performance of my Canon 7D in a package about the size of my EM5 with grip.

By selling my Canon system, I no longer have a telephoto (Canon 70-200 F4L) in my setup which I'm thinking of adding again to my kit in the form of a Olympus replacement. I didn't use the 70-200 all that much, but I always liked using it and the results were always nice. I mostly used it as a portrait / candid style lens.
For wildlife/birds/aeroplanes it's miles too short. Not that I shoot these much.

The obvious answer would be the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 Pro, which would make a nice duo with my 12-40 f2.8 pro, but I'm considering shuffeling my entire system around and go for a Olympus 12-100 F4 and add a couple of fast primes for when it gets darker.

Having that one lens does it all idea is tempting, but the 12-100 is a fair bit bigger and heavier than the 12-40 which is my go-to standard zoom.
The main reason for switching to M43 so many years ago was to have a small ILC system for hiking and trekking. Adding the 12-100 seems to go against this idea.

On the other hand, I haven't been hiking in the past 5 years and I won't be trekking in the next couple of years (2 small kids). So most of my photography is a done in a stroll around the block and family related stuff.

Going for the 12-100 f4 would mean:
- making the kit bigger and heavier
- could make my 12-40 redundant
+ having convenience of having more reach and not having to switch at the 40mm mark
+ dual IS

I could attach my O25 f1.8 on my EM5 and go with a double camera setup

Going for the 40-150 f2.8 would mean
+ f2.8 instead of f4
+ duo with the 12-40
+ more reach
+ adding the teleconverter would make the lens even more flexible
- have to lug this lens around in a bag
- wouldn't swap lenses while hiking, so would probably mostly sit at home

I could add the 40-150 2.8 to my EM5 and go with a double camera setup...

I'm probably not the first one going through this process...

I'm not a fan of superzooms, so wouldn't consider the 12-100 - too many compromises IMO.

If you only shoot telephoto rarely do you really need the cost & weight of the 40-150 f2.8?
I found a 45-200 (much lighter) to work well for my MFT walk around bag. Not nearly such a nice lens I admit but I had it with me when I wanted reach.
FWIW I often carry a couple of tiny Pentax 110 lenses for when it gets dark. The 18mm/2.8 & 24mm/2.8 together are under 40g & the adapter isn't heavy either. If you prefer to keep with AF the Oly 17mm/2.8 is also fairly lightweight

 

[PakkyT]

I'm considering shuffeling my entire system around and go for a Olympus 12-100 F4 and add a couple of fast primes for when it gets darker.

This is the route I took and do not regret it. Used the Panny 12-35/2.8 for years (as an Oly user I would have went for the 12-40 PRO but got a good deal on the Panny here from another user). I decided to sell the Panny and got my 12-100 PRO refurb’d from Oly with one of those 20% sales. Having used the old big & heavy 12-60 SWD for many years on Oly dSLRs, while the 12-100 is heavier than other m43 options, in comparison to what I used to carry (and still do if I use the old 50-200mm) it isn’t bad and I am still young enough that it isn’t an issue for me.

But even when I had the Panny, I love and use my 17/25/45 f1.8 trio quite often. When I travel it will be either the 12-100mm plus one of the primes for low light as you were thinking or I only travel with the prime trio and leave the zooms at home (typically for shorter overnight or weekend trips). Certainly, near home I may go out of the house with just the 17 or the 25 and the 45 in my pocket as my “telephoto”. For your hiking, if you get back to the more serious strenuous stuff, you might opt for just a couple primes over the 12-100. But when the kids are old enough and you are going on light walks/hikes, I think you will find the 12-100 not so bad to carry but very useful to have that kind of focal range zoom. With the primes, I have not found the f4 aperture of the 12-100 to be a hinderance (specially since coupled with my E-M1.1 I get Sync IS) and on the long end is actually faster than some of my other lenses. The focus clutch is a nice touch as well.

I'm not a fan of superzooms, so wouldn't consider the 12-100 - too many compromises IMO.

That was always my opinion and never considered the various 14-140/150 lenses. However the 12-100 PRO is not the same. There really are no compromises other than the f4 aperture. Image quality is excellent with PRO level optics, construction, weather sealing, Fn button, etc. And on a Sync IS compatible camera body the loss of a stop of aperture is made up with a stop+ in added IS (assuming a static subject of course). When I moved from the Panny 12-35 I didn’t miss losing the f2.8 as much as I thought I would. Optics easily were as good. But the gained versatility of the focal range without any image quality compromise sealed the deal.

 

[Stanga]

On the other hand, I haven't been hiking in the past 5 years and I won't be trekking in the next couple of years (2 small kids). So most of my photography is a done in a stroll around the block and family related stuff.

This pandemic situation has caused me to appreciate a few lenses that I did buy. The PL 12-60mm f2.8/4 is one of them. For round the block work I hardly ever need a focal length longer than 60mm. When I do, the PL35-100mm f2.8 is light enough to carry along as well. I also hate swapping lenses over in a hurry to capture something. Mind you, I would like to get the PL50-200mm f2.8/4 one day to go with the 12-60mm.

 

[PhotoCal]

What was the question?

 

[John King]

I'm not a fan of superzooms, so wouldn't consider the 12-100 - too many compromises IMO.

I'm yet to notice a single compromise with the 12-100, but I've only had it for a couple of years (since release) so maybe I've missed something ...

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

If you can manage the relative bigness of the 40-150 pro, it is simply an amazing lens. Solid construction, smooth to operate, easy to drop to manual focus. The hood is a bit of an oddity, and the only place where I’d be concerned of long-term reliability. It’s a great butterfly lens, if that’s your thing.

 

[Harvey Melvin Richards]

I'm yet to notice a single compromise with the 12-100, but I've only had it for a couple of years (since release) so maybe I've missed something ...

It's much easier to find faults with it if you don't have one.

 

[ac12]

All of the above
I have several lenses in my "tool box." I will select the best lens for a shoot, based on the requirements of the shoot.

Think of a total system that makes sense for YOU.

My kit likely may not make sense to you, as I do a bunch of high school sports photography.​

I would build a kit of several pro and non-pro lenses, each meeting different needs.

• Example1, you can have both the 40-150/2.8 and the 40-150R. Both have the same focal range, but they are very different lenses. The 40-150/2.8 is faster, weather resistant and sharper. The 40-150R is smaller, lighter, and cheaper. Each lens has its strengths.
  I used the 40-150R until I could afford a refurbished 40-150/2.8.
• Example2, there is a good case for having the 12-40/2.8 + 40-150/28 + 12-100/4. While the 12-100 overlaps both other lenses, all three lenses meet different needs.
• Example3, old saying "in LOW light, FAST glass wins." I have the 17/1.8, for when I am indoors with low light conditions. The 17/1.8 is over a stop faster than the 12-40/2.8, and about 2 stops faster than the PLumix 12-60.
• Example4, You can also duplicate the old 2-lens prime kit, with the 17/1.8 and 45/1.8.
• Example5, Look into a wider range light GP lens, like the Olympus 14-150 or Panasonic Lumix 12-60. With the 14-150 you can get out to 150mm. With the 12-60 I need to also get the 40-150R, to get out to 150mm.

Lens selection is a compromise. The more you ask a single lens to do, the more you run into the limitations of the lens.

Example, the 12-100 is a great lens, but for me, it is too big and heavy to use as a GP lens or replacement for the 12-40/2.8. I use the 12-100/4 where I want the zoom range, and the slower speed, size and weight are not a major issue.​

If you do not need the max speed and IQ of the pro lenses, IMHO there is nothing wrong with the non-pro lenses.

My personal experience is that I only need the speed of a f/2.8 zoom when I am shooting at school, night sports or in the gym. Other than that, the slower lenses are just fine for everything else.​

My favorite non-pro lens is the Panasonic Lumix 12-60. A very good general purpose zoom range, in a relatively small light package. It is also my favorite travel lens, because it is small and light. If you want more reach or want to stay with Olympus, the 14-150 is another popular lens.​

The 40-150/2.8 + MC20 will give you similar coverage to the 75-300, but it is heavier and more expensive.
The more lenses you have, the less you have to compromise when you select a lens.

The order of acquiring the lenses will involve compromise and priority.

I used the PLumix 12-60 until I could afford the 12-100/4.​

My longest lens when I started was the very affordable 40-150R. I had to wait to save and watch for a sale, to get the 75-300.​

I still do not have an ultra-wide (shorter than 12mm) lens.​

I do not have an Olympus macro lens. I use an old manual focus macro lens on an adapter.​

I am NOT wealthy. I built my "tool box" of lenses over several years, with a LOT of scrimping and saving, and buying used and refurbished.
The Olympus 20% sale on their refurbished lenses, saved a bunch of money.
A latte every morning will add up to the cost of a lens in a few months. A year will buy you a 40-150/2.8 or 12-100/4. Just use a drip coffee maker, and put $5 into your lens savings box each day. Brown bag your lunch, rather than go out to eat, and you save even more. At least $10 a day.
It is about sacrificing something so you can save and buy something you want even more.

 

[ac12]

BTW, the 12-100/4 is a power HOG.
On my EM1-mk1, it will run about 2-1/2 hours continuous. On my EM1-mk2, with the higher capacity battery, it will run about 3-3/4 hours continuous.

When I shoot sports, the camera is ON most of the time, hence the continuous run time.​

My EM1-mk1 with a Panasonic Lumix 12-60 will run about 4 hours continuous.

The 4 hour run time was determined on vacation, with a consistent battery change at about 11am and 4pm.​

I have to carry more spare batteries when I use the 12-100 lens, in order to shoot all day.

Your EM5 has a similar capacity battery as my EM1-mk1, so I would expect a similar run time.

 

[John King]

BTW, the 12-100/4 is a power HOG.
On my EM1-mk1, it will run about 2-1/2 hours continuous. On my EM1-mk2, with the higher capacity battery, it will run about 3-3/4 hours continuous.

When I shoot sports, the camera is ON most of the time, hence the continuous run time.​

My EM1-mk1 with a Panasonic Lumix 12-60 will run about 4 hours continuous.

The 4 hour run time was determined on vacation, with a consistent battery change at about 11am and 4pm.​

I have to carry more spare batteries when I use the 12-100 lens, in order to shoot all day.

Your EM5 has a similar capacity battery as my EM1-mk1, so I would expect a similar run time.

I, for one, could not care less about this, even if true. Carry another battery if it is a problem for you.

I take one battery for a normal day's shooting. Two if photography intensive. I've never exhausted one, let alone both.

 

[Stanga]

I am always taken back by complaints about battery life, and buying decisions made based on that. I could understand it if it was about going into bad weather conditions where swapping batteries would be a risk to your equipment, or where a macro setup can't be easily taken apart just to get to the battery compartment. But for the average use it does sound like a tedious complaint.

 

[Dinobe]

Thanks everybody who gave his or her opinion.
At the moment it's mostly GAS. I've sold my Canon gear and I feel the urge to replace what I had with a 1-to-1 Olympus replacement.
I haven't used the Canon 70-200 all that much the last years (when I still had it), just the idea not having a replacement causes a lot of GAS.

Looking for a replacement made me rethink my entire setup and why I'm considering the 12-100 F4.
My use has changed, from a small secondary system for hiking/travelling to my only system. From small and affordable to bigger and more and expensive and 'needs to do all' (not that I shoot that specific subjects). My consideration is to go with the 12-100 as my does it all solution (1 lens, no changes, no lugging around, no dilemma on what the bring, no I wish I had brought this or that, simplification).

The contradiction is: I haven't been hiking or travelling a lot the past years and with covid 19 around I've just been mostly around the house.
Getting new gear to replace gear because you haven't done much photography is a silly idea...
Even worse: I do have the O14-150 MkII so the 12-100 would be another double-up

Most of my gear, since the beginning over 20 years ago, has been bought using savings, piece by piece and almost all of it was second hand, ex-demo or sale.

 

[Stanga]

Reluctant to admit it, but since getting the Panasonic FZ1000 MKII I have found that I use it a lot more for walk abouts.

 

[retiredfromlife]

I have all three like some others, but the 12-40 & 40-150 hardly ever get used now. My two main Oly lenses are the 12-100 and 60mmm macro.

Hate to say it though my main lens used is my 14-140 on my G85, just so versatile and I know I loose some quality.

When I tried the 1.4 TC that came with my 40-150 I did not like the results, got better with the Panasonic 100-300. there seems to be some copy to copy variation with the 1.4 TC.
Either that or people like me cant get the best from it which may be true as I contribute some of my results with the Panasonic 100-300 due to the dual IS.
One reason I am not sure if I will get the Oly100-400 now, because of the lack of dual IS.


I use my Oly gear when I go to photograph something in particular and my Panasonic for general walk around ease of use.