Adding a telephoto lens - GAS

[DaveJP]

There's a lot of information in this thread already but, for what it's worth, I'll add my contribution. I considered the 12-100 for a long time, thinking that a single lens covering that focal length range would be ideal for general, walk-around photography. Eventually I bought one and took it on holiday to try it out properly. When I got back home I returned the lens for a full refund.

The problem was, I found it too big and too heavy to be comfortable. It felt like one of the full frame lenses I changed to M4/3rds to get away from; and because it covers such a range of focal lengths you don't tend to take an alternative lens with you to give some respite. It wasn't too bad when shooting, and the lens was supported in the hand, but when walking around it hung down and swung about like a pendulum! I would say, try the 12-100 if you can before purchasing.

It was quite a relief to go back to my usual duo, the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 and the Lumix 35-100 f2.8. The Lumix lens is a superb optic: fairly small and light, very sharp, Dual 2 stabilisation with Lumix cameras, and the barrel doesn't extend when zooming, so it stays very compact.

Since my experience with the 12-100 I've actually purchased the Olympus 40-150 f2.8. Yes, I know, it's even bigger and heavier than the 12-100, but I keep it for more specialised photography, such as wildlife in the garden or close ups etc. For those purposes it's an excellent lens, and I'm prepared to put up with it's size and weight.

 

[Hypilein]

I am really, really surprised that no one has suggested the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 yet. It is much smaller than then Olympus version and provides enough reach for your use case (different story if you were into wildlife). It is faster then the 12-100 so you get back some of the performance you had with the original 70-200 f4 lens on FF, but without the bulk. It also doesn't double up on your other lenses like the 14-140.

Only downside I can think of is different zoom direction to your other zoom lenses. I think it's also cheaper than the Olympus, but I'm not sure.

 

[Stanga]

The 35-100mm f2.8 has been mentioned.

 

[Kae1]

Don't know whether this is too late to help your thinking, but rather than have one or two Pro lenses I have too many "lower quality" telephoto lenses but can justify keeping all of them!

Like you I've bought mainly second hand / "bargains" and that's where my collection has come from. I don't know how much time you've got to photograph with a young family, but my photography is a compromise. I know that if I'm on holiday / day out or going for a walk with my wife, I'm not allowed to spend much time composing and so will choose a camera and lens for that day's excursion. If I'm on my own then it is a completely different matter and will take a couple of cameras with lenses attached as I don't like changing lenses outside.

If I want lightweight walkabout I've got it covered (Panasonic 14-140, Panasonic 35-100, Olympus 40-150R). If I need longer lightweight length I've got it covered (Olympus 75-300) and if I need longer length, better IQ and am happy with the weight then I've got that covered too (Panasonic 100-400, Canon 70-200f4L (and Viltrox EFM1 and EFM2). If push came to shove and I had to reduce what I have it would be the heavier better IQ lenses which would go first as I've been surprised at what the cheaper lenses can produce (on my monitor and my annual calendar). But at the moment I don't need to do that and I justify keeping so many as I "think" I have a purpose for them (motorsports, country walks, city etc.).

My only suggestion would be for you to try and identify what you are missing (focal length, IQ, speed of lens, speed of AF) and whether it is an actual or perceived shortage. From your original post it seems that you miss the Canon 70-200, but I see that you've already got the Olympus 14-150ii which would give you a similar focal length but without the quality. I don't know how much you use the 14-150 and the reasons why you don't and perhaps the IQ isn't as good the Canon's but perhaps you could try it on one of your strolls and it would give you an idea of what you're missing (AF speed, contrast?) and gaining (lightweight, less intrusive?).

Don't know whether this is of any help, but best of luck with your deliberations.

 

[Dinobe]

Like you I've bought mainly second hand / "bargains" and that's where my collection has come from.

Yes, I get an absolute thrill from using/buying/finding these bargains. My EM5 which I got at 250 euro and my O45mm 1.8 at 180 euro give me a lot of joy. Knowing what I payed vs what I get. Far more than my EM1 (which I also got at a nice discount).

I don't know how much time you've got to photograph with a young family, but my photography is a compromise. I know that if I'm on holiday / day out or going for a walk with my wife, I'm not allowed to spend much time composing and so will choose a camera and lens for that day's excursion.

Not much time, for now I been picking a lens (17mm 1.8 / 25mm 1.8 / 14-150) and just try to make it work with all the limitations. I think it's just a tempting idea to get the 12-100 which would gave me flexible range and image quality. But it wouldn't give me time nor freedom.

My only suggestion would be for you to try and identify what you are missing (focal length, IQ, speed of lens, speed of AF) and whether it is an actual or perceived shortage.

Yes, I came to this conclusion myself. Let's wait and see...

 

[Edmunds]

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

There is only one way to solve this problem. Buy both versions of this kit, and then agonize about which one you should take when going out.

Instead of helping out, I am going to make matters even worse. There is another lens that pairs really nicely with the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8, and that's the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8, so there is another version of this kit to agonize over.

For me personally, I went with the 12-100mm f/4 + fast primes. Yes, the 12-100mm is large and completely defies the purpose of having a m4/3 camera, and definitely not why I bought into m4/3 in the first place. But it is soooo useful. It is also smaller and lighter than the 40-150mm f/2.8, which I personally consider neither here nor there (not long enough for small wildlife I encounter here, too long for regular shooting). For wildlife, I bought a 300mm f/4. For shooting portraits / low light I have a Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 and Olympus 75mm f/1.8.

 

[PakkyT]

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.

Excluding your sports shooting when you need the camera on and ready, for vacation shooting (actually regardless of the lens used) as there is often a lot of dead time walking around between shots, simply turning the camera off in the meantime works well.

Also in the case of the 12-100, during daylight when shutter speeds are often high anyway, you can always flip the switch on the lens and turn off IS when stabilization is just a "nice to have" and not a "must have" for the time of day and conditions

Yes, the 12-100mm is large and completely defies the purpose of having a m4/3 camera, and definitely not why I bought into m4/3 in the first place.

If that was your purpose for getting into m43. Yes, for people who are strictly most concerned with size and weight, the 12-100 is not meant for them. To me the 12-100 still gives me a smaller system compared to what I would have to get in a FF system where it is hard (impossible?) to match the size, weight, quality, and features unless you compromise with something that is "less than" the Oly (only 28 on the wide end instead of 24, variable aperture getting a stop+ slower on the long end, no weather sealing, no extra IS, etc.). Basically you will give up several of those (size, weight, performance, features) or you have to go much bigger, heavier, and very expensive.

Or put another way, the 12-100 PRO is one of the larger m43 lenses, but it is small compared to anything in larger sensor systems that can come close to matching the Oly PRO.

 

[Edmunds]

If that was your purpose for getting into m43. Yes, for people who are strictly most concerned with size and weight, the 12-100 is not meant for them. To me the 12-100 still gives me a smaller system compared to what I would have to get in a FF system where it is hard (impossible) to match the size, weight, quality, and features unless you compromise with something that is "less than" the Oly (only 28 on the wide end instead of 24, variable aperture getting a stop+ slower on the long end, no weather sealing, no extra IS, etc.). Basically you will give up several of those (size, weight, performance, features) or you have to go much bigger, heavier, and very expensive.

Or put another way, the 12-100 PRO is one of the larger m43 lenses, but it is small compared to anything in larger sensor systems that can come close to matching the Oly PRO.

Well, I have been pondering switching to Nikon.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#692.613,861.864,ha,t

The 24-200mm looks tempting, plus Nikon released a 20mm f/1.8 prime, which is something I have been hoping Olympus would do for like a decade now. Plus the added bonus would be shallower depth of field for portraits with their f/1.8 primes line.

The only reasons I haven't switched is because due to covid I'm not taking a whole lot of pictures and because I'm so used to Olympus cameras I'd probably have a hard time getting used to a different brand.

 

[ac12]

Excluding your sports shooting when you need the camera on and ready, for vacation shooting (actually regardless of the lens used) as there is often a lot of dead time walking around between shots, simply turning the camera off in the meantime works well.

Also in the case of the 12-100, during daylight when shutter speeds are often high anyway, you can always flip the switch on the lens and turn off IS when stabilization is just a "nice to have" and not a "must have" for the time of day and conditions

Agree about the run time. My sports shooting is NOT normal. If you are shoot your kid at a game, you are usually concentrating on your kid, not all the others players. So there is a lot of idle time to turn the camera off, or let it got to sleep.
However, the continuous ON time reflects somewhat on shooting time with more idle time between shots. It will be less than with another lens, that does not suck as much power.

One of my dSLR habits that I still do with my Olympus, is leave the camera ON, a lot. The problem is, with the camera on, the Olympus is burning battery power, whereas the dSLR isn't. So that is a behavior habit that I am working on trying to change. It does not help that I still shoot a dSLR.

While I could turn off the IS, for me, the IS also stabilizes the image when I am looking through the viewfinder (at longer focal lengths). That makes it easier to keep the AF point on the subject. As I get older, I am not as stable as you youngsters. So I leave it on, and bring an extra battery.

 

[ac12]

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.

Oh it is true, based on my first-hand experience, not what someone else said/claimed.
On vacation with my EM1-mk1 and the PLumix 12-60, at the end of the day, I regularly drained three batteries, and was very close to switching to the 4th battery. Unfortunately, I did not have a 4th battery. I bought a 4th battery as soon as we got back from vacation. Granted vacation shooting is a LOT more than normal casual shooting at home.
My run times with the 12-100 was based on my actual shooting time while shooting various high school sports.

I do carry spare batteries, more than one.
Based on my experience, to do a full day of shooting:

• With the EM1-mk1, I carry four batteries, 1 in camera + 3 spares.
• With the EM1-mk2, I carry three batteries, 1 in camera + 2 spares.

If I bring the 12-100, and plan to use it a lot, I add another spare battery to each of the above.

 

[PakkyT]

One of my dSLR habits that I still do with my Olympus, is leave the camera ON, a lot. The problem is, with the camera on, the Olympus is burning battery power, whereas the dSLR isn't. So that is a behavior habit that I am working on trying to change.

Ya with my old Oly dSLR 4/3rds bodies I did the same. Mostly because you could come out of sleep much faster than you could power up. But with my E-M1.1 (not sure about newer models) I found the power up time and the wake from sleep time to be mostly identical so with that advantage gone and as you alluded, until the camera does go to sleep, it is displaying a live image the whole time where a dSLR just sits there doing nothing.