I have both. I had the 12-40mm first and its very good, but found that I always needed extra reach for better portraits and candid photos so was always swapping for the telephoto zoom. While bigger, the 12-100 replaces two lenses so is smaller in that way. Since I got the 12-100 I haven’t used the 12-40. I did a detailed comparison and IQ difference was negligible. The extra stop of light is useful, but if I’m in that situation I want a fast prime or flash anyway. Bokeh on the 12-100 is better bc the telephoto range allows you to create more separation. For many people the 12-100 can be the only lens they need and coupled with a fast prime or two, and you have the perfect lens kit for mft in my opinion. The 12-100 is great for video as well.
Maybe the one thing missing in this is to add that to get 12 to 100mm, the F4 is one lens. To get the same reach at f2.8 needs two lenses. Double the weight, double the cost plus lost time changing lenses. I find the 12-100 brilliant as a travel lens. All over Egypt last year, this was the only one used. The rest stayed in the hotels. On the Pen-F, the combination of lightness and versatility is second to none. Mind you, if the image quality was compromised, it might be different but it isn't. Images are pin sharp, full of data for Lightroom and, it seems to me, actually sharper than pro lenses on my Canon 5D. And no chiropractor bills.
The 12-100mm WAS the reason why I bought the Olympus system. To have one camera with one Pro zoom able to provide very good images from 24 up to 200mm is to me unique at the time being in the camera industry. It’s clear that it’s a little bigger and heavier than the 12-40mm, but all the extra reach and the benefit of the stabilisation is a game changer.
Same here. As-at now, I still couldn't find any equivalent in full frame. There is one wide range zoom from Canon R but it's not Pro lenses, thus not that sharp as this 12-100. I don't see any Pro lens from Sony, Canon, Nikon with this range yet.
Interesting comparison. I recently acquired a 12-40, 2nd hand ; and on the used market, the price difference is much more important (at least in my geographic zone). The 12-100 however nice is twice the price of the 12-40 used. So being a pure amateur, I supplemented the 12-40 withe the 40-150R for the reach. I wouldn't be taking tele picture under the rain while travelling anyway and the 40-150 is light enough to fit a pocket and be forgotten. The 12-40 encompasses probably 80% of my images, and like a gift that keeps on giving, I'm floored by the quality of the images this lens churns out - and I'm a long time primes aficionado. Just watching the vignettes in the folder preview on the computer is eye-popping. The 12-40 pictures stand out amongst primes, even the Olympus 25/1.8 and 45/1.8. So to sum up, if you want to make yourself a present while remaining within reason, the 12-40 is a no-brainer. I sold the Olympus 17/1.8 which is expensive and over rated (and soft !), and with the proceeds and those of the sale of the kit zoom, I funded the 12-40. I haven't regreted that move a single second. The quality of the 12-40 @17mm alone dwarfs the 17/1.8 prime, for a much more versatile lens in the end. The 12-100 is probably as good if not slightly better, but I really can't justify the price.
Phew I'm glad to read this, have been going backwards and forwards over prime vs zoom and just came of the fence and ordered the 12-40. Combined with my 45 1.8 I should be set for a while :)
I have both and love them equally. For travel especially on foot over hilly terrain with my EM1-X the 12-100 is easily the best lens available. Why, with the IS in both the camera and lens it gives you about 7 stops of stabilisation. This enables hand held ND shots etc with no tripod so I can travel light and fast. This is also going to be helpful when touring on coach tours that don't allow time to mess about with tripods. I have not used tripod since a bus nearly left me by a waterfall in Iceland! After that I sold my Nikon gear and switched to Olympus. It also means that I can protect my sensor as don't need to change lens in adverse conditions to get the extra reach, making it really versatile. When I need to fly the ease joy of only having one body and lens to take through airport security has to be experienced to be believed (Norwich Airport is notorious). My 12-40 is amazing for low light and action shots making it the perfect partner for my 40-150, both of which are light tough and versatile. I often use the 12-40 when just out and about for a few hours, as its small size and speed is so handy. I got my 12-40 secondhand in new condition as a real bargain from London Camera Exchange, one of my best ever decisions. Both have amazing IQ and fulfil different functions in different contexts, and Iwould not part with either.
Very informative comment. I work promoting nature reserves for biodiversity conservation. I need to take pictures of animals, landscape, lodges, people. Do you think the 12-100 is the best option for me? Thanks
I recently purchased the 12-100mm lens for my OM-D E-M1 to take with me on my upcoming trip to Portugal for a few reasons: 1) the range of the zoom will be good for booth pictures in town and on the beach playing volleyball 2) it is weather sealed as it's likely to rain a bit and will also keep out the sand while on the beach 3) the lens stabilization should help with some indoor low-light situations which compensates a bit for not being as bright of a lens. It is a bit large to keep strapped to my hip, but I am getting used to it. I was considering the 12-200 lens but choose the lens IS and manual focus clutch features over the extra 100mm zoom. Very happy with it so far!
I briefly had the 12-40/2.8 but quickly moved to the 12-100/4. Apart from versatility of telephoto reach, the real bonus is close focussing. The 12-100 can get really close and even outperformed the excellent Fuji XF16/1.4 which I owned. Even bokeh difference was not a deficit because the 12-100/4 could get closer to the subject. I also run the 40-150/2.8 but for sports or other special subjects. Both make superb images and the IBIS is legendary.
I would take the 12-100/4. The extra reach would get me a lot more shots than the extra stop. The sensors are so good now that I wouldn't hesitate to raise the ISO to compensate, and de-noise in post.
Really good video. I was expecting you to film a comparson video between the two, to show the difference in video stabilisation. I am thinking of getting the 12-100 for the lens Ibis.
I have the 12-40 for years now, and the 12-100 for about a year. The former is day-to-day because of size and utility. The latter is travel, so I don’t have to carry multiple lenses and can handle low light. Good review of the two lenses and realistic features to consider.
Hey Peter, Thanks for the comparison. I bought my 12-40 along with my EM1 when they came out and it is my goto lens. I had a look at 12-100, didn’t go for it as I have 40-150 Pro. 12-40 helps me in indoors and low light situations and I feel 12-100 may not that helpful as I would have to increase ISO considerably. That’s my 2Cs 😊.
Thanks for the video. I think the deciding factor for a lot of people is: whether they can get by with the 12-100 and NOT need to buy the 40-150. Or for those who rarely carry their 40-150 due to size/weight. Or those who don’t want to carry two bodies or swap lenses. I currently own 12-40 and 40-150 but find myself rarely carrying the 40-150 and occasionally regretting not carrying it when I need the added range. I’m considering the 12-100.
I have the 40-150mm f2.8. It has a bit more reach and a bit wider aperture. I can also use the 1.4X extender on it for those rare moments I need a longer focal lenght.
As a small person, I can see your point. Right now I carry one camera with the long lens over one shoulder and another with my cherished 12-42 over the other shoulder and I am ready for anything. I DO look a bit strange but dont all photographers?
I originally had the 12 to 40 & traded it for the 12 to 100. I have never regretted switching to the 12 to 100. I use it for photo shoots mostly with flash. I complement the lens with the 75 1.8 which I adore. I don't use the 75 all the time but when I do I am amazed. Thank you for your utube channel.
Thank you for this thoughtful demonstration. Aperture vs. In lens stabilizer. Pretty equivalent and if you already have the gorgeous 40-150mm pro lens, you dont need the 100mm length. Love your videos. Thank you!
Hi Peter, I had the 12-40 for 2 years, then decided to switch to the 12-100. I had two main reasons for that: versatility and stabilization. It wasn’t an easy decision, because I had to drop f2,8 for f4 and a relatively lightweight lens for a more heavy and bulky one. Once I had the 12-100 (14 months ago), and still now, I’m very happy with my choice. Not a single time I found myself missing the f2,8 aperture. Anyway, when I have to shoot in low light, I find f2,8 not efficient enough, therefore I shoot with my primes (20mm f1,7, 42,5 f1,7 and 75 f1,8), so eventually, f2,8 or f4 are not so different for me. And the 100mm range offers so much more versatility. The f4 aperture is not a problem at all: I can create the same blurry background thanks to the 100 mm focal length. The stabilization allows me to have a good keeper rate at 1s! Unbelievable. And the stab of my E-M10 mk 2 doesn’t work together with the lens’ stab, so this result is due only to the lens’ stab. As a conclusion, I would say that this lens is awesome in all aspects (it’s even a macro-like lens at 100mm), and I’m very happy with it. No regret for the 12-40. The only downside is the weight, not that much in line with the micro 4/3 spirit. But hey, a lens is always a compromise, and this one is an all categories winner for me 😊
When it comes to lenses, size matters. I like them small and light. I sold my terrific 12-40 f2.8 and bought a 12-45 f4. Love that lens. I can’t wait until the 8-25 f4 comes out (although I had hoped it was going to be 7-17 f4). Both lenses can be used alone, or together on a trip.
I was torn between both lenses last year, but chose the 12-40. Speed won out over long reach. F4 was problematic for me, especially indoors. f2.8 can be slow for indoors as well, but that one stop can still make quite a difference: better stabilization doesn't freeze living breathing subjects. With that said, I had nothing else against the 12-100. IQ and feel is quite similar to the 12-40, just a bit longer and heavier. If I need reach, I still have the classic 14-150. :)
Dear Peter, The way you compare lenses together is simple, straight forward and to the point. It makes it easy to make a selection or at least know the properties of each lens before buying or even using it, please keep it up. However, the built in image stabiliser in a lens is a really pro feature that should be available in all Olympus Pro lens Group, regardless of the size and aperture values.
I have the 12/100 and a set of basic primes..17,25,45 f1.8's....I personally find that this is a clearer distinction than muddying the water with a 12/40. If I were to be making my income from photography then I would add the 12/40 as another tool. The 12/100 gets used most of the time, the lens stabilisation and the camera stabilisation in combination are sublime. Cheers.
18-135/3.5-5.6 is my most used lens on my Pentax. Now I'm adding 12-100/4 for my MFT to get similar universal coverage. While shooting various events, the ability to quickly adapt with longer zoom is crucial. 12-40/2.8 might be nice, but it is still not enough for really shallow DOF. Olympus should prepare some 12-40/1.8 :)
I am guessing a 12-40 f1.8 would probably be about 30% heavier and bulkier at about double the price. My dream lens would be a 20-75mm f2.8 PRO which would have the angle of view of a full frame 40 to 150mm. As for size, weight and price I would think it will be about in the middle of the 12-40mm f2.8 and the 24-100 f4. I think that that focal length would be the cat's meow for doing portraitures. I realize that is a pipe dream because OM System is marketing towards wildlife/outdoor photography.
I have them both and love the 12-40, I find the only time I use the 12-100 is when I only take 1 lens. Whenever I take my camera bag it probably has the 7-14 12-40 and 40-150 the 12-100 gets left behind I'm thinking of selling it and putting the money towards the 300f4
Hello and thanks for your review! I think that both lens are indeed tied and that they have different intended uses. I have the 12-40 mm lens. It gave a new life to my EM5 and is my favorite lens by a wide margin since it is so flexible. Its a great walk around lens and is small for what it is. I have the 40-150 Pro to reach further but that lens is much larger. The 12-100 seem like an ideal travel lens if you need to take only one, and the optical stabilizer will greatly help in low light situations.
Last March me and my wife spent three weeks in Tasiilaq/Eastgreenland. It was an outstanding vacation.We spend a lot time outside. I carried my Canon 5D Mark III and three good lenses. It was the horror. It was the last time. To change the lens in snowstorm of Piteraq is a pain. I regret that I didn't take my old Oly OM-E 5 Mark I with me. We will spend again three weeks in march 2020 there in Eastgreenland. One week far outside in an small Inuit village with hunters. .And I'm sure. I will travel with an Olympus Camera and one 12-100 Lens. (And maybe my 1.8/17 and 1.8/45) for the pocket. Now I am waiting for the new E-5 Mark III. Or I have to buy a M 1 Mark II. We will see. Thank you for your work and inspiration!
I also have all 3 (12-40, 12-100, and 40-150) and I have nothing bad to say about any of them. But I find that the 12-100 is the one I use least. When I'm just shooting casually, family events, etc, I find that 40mm is plenty far enough, and I like the extra bokeh I get at 2.8 versus 4.0, and if I really have to I can enlarge/crop after the fact. If I need telephoto much greater than 40, I usually don't also need something wider, so I use the 40-150 (which I think is hands down the most amazing digital lens I've ever used). The place where the 12-100 has been most useful is shooting plays/musicals where the 12-100 range is perfect - I can get the full stage, and I can also zoom in on one performer, and I can still get nice background/foreground separation at 4.0. (To see examples, search for "David Simson" in "people" on Flickr - the "2017-0307 BHS Letters to Sala" album was shot with the 12-100 lens, "2016-1018 BHS Hello Dolly" was shot with the 40-150 and I had franticlaly scramble to the back of the theatre to get the stage-wide shots. (Yeah, yeah I know, use two bodies... ).
Because I live in the UK with often low light levels I’ve gone for the 12-40 pro because of its f2.8 Max. aperture.....I’m not disappointed!...Great video as always...keep up the good work!...👍🌈😎🇬🇧
I have the 12-40 (it came bundled with my EM5-Mk2) and I love it. But I have to say that the 12-100 serves a different purpose: It has a longer reach, so you could say that the extra stop or so of in-lens stabilisation is worth it, just to bring the shake back down to manageable levels (for hand-holding). On the other hand, the 12-40 has a wider aperture, thereby giving you a stop or so over the 12-100. Both these lenses give pretty much the same IQ, so I think it comes down to whether you need the extra reach. Sorry if I waffled on a bit....
To me, the 12-100mm has the edge over the 12-40mm because of its sync IS which makes it possible to take sharp images at shutter speeds longer than 1sec. And the extra reach is a bonus!
Hi Peter... enjoy your very informative videos.. To your question, I have both lenses and have experienced exactly what you explained in this video. I use the 12 - 100 the most for its versatility.
In Australia the 12-40m Pro is about $700 and the 12-100mm Pro is $1500-$1600. It's over double the price. I went with the 12-40mm and bought a 40-150mm as well. It would be nice if you could compare that lens with the 14-150mm. It was also a choice I was looking at.
Yeah, we're pretty lucky that the 12-40mm is about half the price of the 12-100mm here. That was my first m4/3 lens and I with the Panny Leica 15mm f/1.7, I don't see any immediate need for more lenses for my uses.
Dear Peter, For general purpose photography from wide angle, to standard to portrait I would go for the 12 to 40 mm F2.8. This is due to sharper images, better depth of Field, faster low light possibility, having less weight and being compact. The only drawback is that it does not have a built in image stabilisation, but I believe this could be compensated by the OMD Camera built in Stabilisation System.
Thanks for the review. I have decided to sell my 7-14 and 12-40 and get the 12-100 for the range and IS. I have the 17, 25 & 45 f1.8 for low light conditions.
Hi, I changed my 12-100 against a 12-40mm, The main reason for me was the weight. I added then the 40-150 Pro and the 7-14 Pro and have now a ideal range of focal length with fast lenses.
Great video, I have the 12-40 pro, 40-150 pro and the 7-14 pro and they are all great lenses. The 12-100 pro lens would be great for travel and the image stabilization would be great to have. But since I recently purchased an em1x it will be a while before I can afford one.
Actually I sold all of my Canon stuff because of the 12-100mm and switched to m43 (plus other reasons of course). So far I know there is no real competitor from other brands on the market which for me makes three lenses obsolet: macro lense, tele lense and a walk around lense and is suitable for 95% of my shootings. So, the video makes one point clear: The 12-100 is almost as good as a normal standard zoom lense (which is available in different types) and sometimes even better.
I have the 12-40 pro and never thought about switching to the 12-100 as it is a slower lens. If i need a longer focal length I iuse the 75/ 1.8 or the 40-150 pro. Nevertheless for landscapes I believe that the 12-100 f 4 is a good option to the 12-40 pro.
I have the 7-14 PRO, 12-40 PRO and 40-150 PRO + TC all in a travel backpack. The vast majority of the time I only use the 12-40, but after many years of use I think it's the weak point of my kit. I find it soft compared to the 40-150. I also often find myself wanting more reach than the 12-40 offers, but I don't want to change lenses just for 1 shot in a busy or dirty environment. Or I want to snap a quick portrait, but the results are disappointing because 40mm f2.8 is the weak point of the 12-40. The slower nature of the f4 12-100 is a concern for low light situations, but with dual IS perhaps this is mitigated, as are all the situations mentioned above with the 12-40. I'm strongly considering ditching the 12-40 in favor of the 12-100.
Very nice video! Thanks! I final decide to buy 12-100 f4, but I will also buy 12-40 in the future($$). Their image are different. Both of them are very nice lenses.
Hi Peter, I have both started with the 12-40 then added the 12-100. I agree with your pros and cons for these lenses and use each depending on the circumstances at the time, if I was only allowed to have one it would be the 12-100 as I have larger apertures covered with primes
Now that's interesting, as I have the 12-40, and would stick with the 12-40, because I prefer the option of a wider aperture and can cover the longer lenses with primes! Horses for courses.... :-)
We all have different needs and thoughts. That's why it is very hard to recommend exactly what lens should one get. Only pros and cons, in my opinion, can guide someone in the right direction.
great review Peter as always. If i can add my few points. 12-40mm lens is boring to me. I malways lookng for a better reach so wont be limited. most of the time i dont plan my shoots just grab a camera and go..better reach gives me more options. True its bigger and heavier but its not a problem. 12-100mm one works for every type of photography and its a great walk around glass.
Hi Peter! Thanks for this “kick boxing” type evaluation of a these two excellent lenses. I have the the wonder duo - 12-40 f/2.8 and 40-150 f/2.8, covering a focal length of 12 to 150 mm at a constant maximum (and fast) aperture of f/2.8. The drawback is of course a little more weight and the (sometimes) inconvenience of lens swap. Before the acquisition of the E-M1X the 40-150 mm stayed in my bag for long periods, but now it found its place of the E-M1X, dislodging the 12-40 mm quite often, as it offers quite a lot of photography opportunities due to its larger focal length, including close-up photos, and the superb ergonomics and IBIS of the E-M1X. So now I’m trying hard to find a justifiable argument to buy the 300 mm stabilized lens 😁
@@ForsgardPeter The E-M1X is a bit intimidating on first sight, especially compared to the PEN-F and the original E-M1, but rapidly becomes an extension of the hand due to its fabulous ergonomics. A real game changer is the multidirectional joysticks well as the dedicated ISO button. I like also the much improved IBIS allowing macro photography handheld including focus stacking (also much improved) and focus bracketing. Live ND filters, a better and larger ProCapture buffer, the possibility to define AF target pads (horizontally and vertically) and handheld HiRes photography are the set of features the make the E-M1X a brilliant piece of gear, in my opinion.
I just ordered the 12-100 because of the longer focal length. I don't shoot enough indoors or in darker settings to warrant the 2.8, however that could change.
I upgraded this year from the 2011 "E-5", that old real FT-body (not the OMD M-E5!) to the E-M1X, and after a lot of thinking I decided to buy the 12-100 and did not regret it. But I also bought the MFT-3-Adaptor to continue usage of the older 4/3-lenses and still use the 12-60/2.8 SWD from before. And, to be honest, with the 12-100 I miss the F2.8. I also checked the 12-40 before I bought the 12-100 and missed the little focus to 60mm ... (Is there anybody from Olympus reading? Bring back the 12-60 2.8back to mFT. In my opinion, it's the best combination..) FOr available lenses, I think 12-100 is the better choice for most tasks.
I second this. I've both the 12-40 and 40-150 and this combo is sometimes a little bit heavy. And not so nice if you have to change the lens in bad weather. So I considered the 12-100 or 12-200. As the not so exciting reviews came out, especially on the far end, I took th 12-200 out of my mind. But do I really need the 12-100? And then a flash stroked me: the 14-150. Light, inexpensive, weather sealed and an ideal addition to my Leica 8-18. And not dangerous in any means to the 12-40/40-150 combo, which I still use indoor and if weight is not the highest prio. Yes, you loose another stop, but if the stops are important, I'll take the 40-150 Pro. And for landscape, 5.6 is perfect.
I have the 12-40 and the Panasonic 35-100. One of the considerations which is important to me is does the image stabilizer work with the IBIS of the GH5. Shooting video with two GH5s I use the 14-40 Oly for the wide shot and the 12-35 or the 35-100 Panasonics for the CU. Sometimes it is awkward. Recently I put the 35-100 on in a small theatre. It wasn't wide enough and I couldn't swap in the middle of the job.
Reach vs f stop. Adjusting for a stop of light can be done easily with SS. But adjusting for reach is not always possible. Plus IS makes the 12-100 a no brainer.
When I switched from Canon to Olympus, the 12-100mm was the only lens for me. I’ve not regretted it in the least as it’s *the* ideal lens, from my perspective, for Travel photography. I’ve since supplemented it with the Olympus 7-14mm and the Panasonic 100-400mm
Firstly, thank you, Peter, for your always inspiring and informative videos. I have both lenses. The 12-40 mm came with my first Olympus OMD EM1 and has served me exceptionally well. I now use it on my Pen F mostly, as it fits the idea of being inconspicuous. Both lenses are incredibly precise and I use both extensively. The 12-100 goes on the bigger camera bodies and is my go to lens for travel. Please keep up the great work!
I'm happy with my 12-40 pro lens , it has become my "every around lens" although i have athe 17 mm for some street photos and also I have the 45 mm, wich is fantastic!, I hope some day you came to Chile ..you will be fascinate with the diferents landscapes, from Atacama desert till Patagonia. Best regards Peter.
Thank you Peter for your reviews of two the olympus lenses. I'm planning to get the new em5 Mk lll camera body and it comes with a kit 14 - 150 mm lens for just $300 more with the camera body. Do you think I should forget about getting the kit lens and buy the 12 - 100 mm pro lens instead? Alternatively get the 14 - 150 kit lens and also buy the 12 - 40 mm lens? What do you think is the better solution? What is your opinion of the 14 - 150 mm kit lens? Thanks.
I am thinking of going with 14-150 and 12-40, this combination cheaper than 12-100 alone, I get longer reach and brighter lens depending on my shooting.
The 12-40 for me was a perfect size for travel around europe (I generally hand carried the camera all day and it was very comfortable size/weight with E-M1 MkII) and most images that I want to capture are in that range, it gives me a good response for portraits if you don't have a prime, and it works for astro photography - I think the main time I would want the bigger length would be shooting sports or wildlife, and for that I would rather have the 40-150 -- yes more money but refurbished that lens is only $700
Hello Peter, thank you for posting another interesting and informative video comparing the 2 great Pro Olympus zoom lenses. I have both lenses but I have been using the 12-100mm much more for my travel photography hobby due to its zoom range and image quality. If I really really need low light performance, I will bring my 17mm or 25mm F1.2 lens. However, if I can only have 1 lens, then I will chose the 12-40mm as it is much more cost effective and is an awesome lens. You can't go wrong with either lens...Once again thank you!
I have both those lens and love them both. Prefer the 12-40 for night shooting at close range. Prefer the 12-100 for better sources of natural light & love the image stabilizer.
Great video. I need to buy one of them, as I am switching from Nikon. Perhaps the 112 -100 would be good, as I photograph birdies. Resolution across the zoom range is my main consideration.
I used to own a Nikon D700 with 20 mm f1.8 prime and 28-300 mm f3.5-5.6 (f5.6 basically). I hauled that kit around the world as hand luggage. But when traveling by car I enjoyed using my 80-200 mm f2.8 most. That kit is sold. For me the 12-40 f2.8 and 40-150 f2.8 PRO lenses weigh less and are smaller than the single Nikkor 28-300. Add that I gain much more light and pro build quality with that Olympus/OM PRO kit I don’t mind swapping the lens when I need the extra reach.
I've never liked the 12-40, prefer using smaller premium primes. But I think the 12-100mm f/4 is a good option for hiking / landscape photography, since you rarely use f/2.8 for landscapes
Thanks for your video. I've both the 12-40/2.8 and the 12-100/4.0. As event photographer I use the 12-40 on an e-m1mk2 camera and the 12-100 on the e-m1x. I own all the pro-lenses, zooms and primes, use them all ... but the 12-100 is always in my bag.
@@timbradbury9734 Excellent, I can't say otherwise. Successively coming from Nikon D700 -> D4 -> D5. So can reasonably compare. It's said on social media that Olympus failed when launching the OMD E-M1X. Too big, too heavy, too expensive , etc. etc. but I find it a masterpiece.
I've had the 12-40 for a few years and find it amazing. But the reach annoys me so I'm considering buying the 12-100 later on. I use the lens almost exclusively for travel photography (I use a few primes and telephoto zooms for most other things), and even when I've taken other lenses with me I've found I could probably get by with just this one lens and it's easier than swapping. But the reach is extremely frustrating at times. But I also love the lens so much I can't imagine selling it despite the limited use I get from it. And most of the places I go on holiday to are quite sunny, so it's not like I need the f2.8. After reading your comment and some thought I'm wondering if I'm best just getting something like the 14-150 to give me even further reach as an all rounder for holidays, but also keeping the 12-40 also for travel for when I might need the f2.8?
@@stuartnelson3202 I am in the process of deciding between these two lens and the 12-100 seems to be a much sharper lens from what I have read and with a little cropping can get most of the same shots. The 12-200 is not cheap either and is even bigger, which is the complaint that most folks have made about the 12-100.
@@philipbarnes8646 I can't afford either at the moment in any case, so I'm stuck with the 12-40, which has, TBF, served me well for holidays so far despite the lack of reach. For me the benefits of the 12-200 are it'll replace not just my Oly 12-40, but also my Pan 45-175 and maybe even my Oly 75-300 to some extent (as I would imagine that even if it's IQ is not as good as the 12-100 it should be better than the 75-300, at least would hope so at that price). Currently of course I could take the 45-175 on holiday as a spare lens, but I've done that before, and it's bad enough switching between the large 12-40 and a prime, let alone two large lenses, when you're in a packed tourist spot. I'll still likely keep the 12-40 (along with all the others it "replaces"), so the 12-200 seems the more logical choice, but I'll have to have a look closer to the time. I've got a while to think about it until my next holiday 😁
17mn f1.8 is great. Do consider a third-party grip for EM5.3 if you plan to get 12-100. Also, look for 45 f1.8. I love that lens. Check my Instagram @leoolympus .... Most of the photos taken with 17 f1.8
I have the 12-40 2.8 and it is on my Olympus EM5 MKII about 60% of the time. I also have the 75-300 4.8-6.7. I have really great image quality with both. I have a farther reach with the 75-300 (150-600 full frame comparable) and it works extremely well. I did try the 12-100 but I found that compared to the 75-300, it was pretty close as far as image quality goes. Yes, the lens based stabilization is great and if I was doing video a whole lot, it would have been my choice. I found a great deal on the 75-300 and went with it....no regrets at all.
I want both. I have the 12-40 for general use and I love the speed size and the overall quality. However when I travel, I want/need the extra 60mm's of reach. After your review, I am ordering one today.
The 12-40 is the lens I use on my Pen-F and it is a fantastic combo. I also use the 17mm 1.8 & the 45mm 1.8. If I had the EM-1Mk2 instead for example, I would buy the 12-100. The Pen-f is too small for this lens and as a combo too bulky. This is my first criterion. Thanks for another great, informative video Peter, to see a rough comparsion.
Thank you, Peter, for another good video. I recently bought the 40-150 with 1.4x teleconverter, and am blown away by the clarity in the shots. With the teleconverter, the 40-150 drops down to f4.0, so I think it would interesting to compare that and the 12-100 from the equivalent 56mm-100mm range. Which is sharper?
Great video.... Please give an example or two about what "further reach" means....I assume it will get a better picture further away, but how does it compare? 12-40 gets to the 40yd line on the football field and the 12-100 gets me to the 100 yd line with still equal quality picture?
I served as a reference very much. I choose 12-100 to be accompanied by a district and an unexplored region, the movement in the mountain by my photography. I can cover the focus distance for approximately two lenses, and this is because it contributes to lightweighting of the baggage. In addition, the difference of the image by the brightness of the lens does not overturn these merits. Rather I do not think and look F4.0 to you well, and the SS makes money by camera shake revision, too.
I own both lenses. The 12-100 mm for its a perfect every purpose travelling lense when you can - or want - only carry one lense with you. Especially when you, like I do, take it with you on Motorcycle trips which include all kinds of photos from quick bike action to wide angle group photos. The 12-40 mm looks to me a bit more high end in processing quality, it has this sturdy haptics that you want to have on a pro lens. It is a reliable work horse for everyday shooting, a „bread and butter“ lense for nearly every shooting. I don’t regret having bought both, they exist side by side in a way that makes sense, they dont rival and one doesn’t makes redundant the other.
I'm been looking at both these lens can't make up my mind ,I do a lot of portraits so was thinking 12-40 think bigger lens would be to far away in studio work, what do you think please
For portraiture I would choose the 12-40mm F2.8 Pro. It is slightly faster with F2.8. The focal length is also quite nice for portraits. It is also lighter and easier to hold during long sessions.
I have both the 12-40 and the 40-150 lenses, bought before the 12-100 came out. Buying now, I'd likely buy the 12-100 instead. I always loved and still have the old 12-60SWD, and really miss the wider range on the 12-40,, even for still shooting, and must say that for video there is absolutely no contest. (You can't change lenses in the middle of a video clip, and cropping in PP is a pain!) If it had power zoom, I'd buy it in an instant! A power zoom version of the 12-100 would be the perfect lens for Olympus to win some much-needed credibility in its rather neglected area of video (which it actually pioneered and made possible with the E330)
Thanks for the comparison Peter. Have lamented over this subject myself. I own the 12-40 and love it but sure think the 12-100 would be nice. but then I also lust for the 7-14 and 40-150 :)
Thanks for the comparison.. I have both the 12 - 40 and 12 - 100. . I use the 12 - 100 because it covers a longer focal length. For low light I would use either 75mm f 1.8 , 25mm f1.2 pro or 17mm f1.2 pro. Even my 40 to 150 f 2.8 is rarely used because the 12-100 is more versatile
12-100 because of stabilization and reach. Nearly no problems with the F4 because of the stabilization. And with mostly landscape photography, this is the one for me. Thanks for the video, like it!
So there remain a couple of unanswered questions, for instance: what is the aperture of maximum in focus depth of field for each lens? Where is the sweet spot? How useful is each lens in different role: portrait, landscape, & etc? On the one hand being able to isolate a subject with 'pretty-blurry-background' is a nice attribute for a lens. But on the other hand being able to show the texture of the gravel under your feet and the chimney pots on a house on the island opposite you - simultaneously - is another fine attribute of a lens.
Although I have the 12-40mm I am interested by the 12-100, I noticed I rarely used a focal length above 100mm in the past. It could be interesting for the occasional detail. The 12-100 is image stabilised so you gain around 1 stop with the dual stabilisation feature but you loose 1 stop in aperture... For moving subjects it could be more beneficial to use the f/2.8 12-40mm or the larger 40-150mm if you need a longer reach. I am using the OM-D M1ii with the 12-40mm and when light goes low I use the 25mm f/1.2 pro lens to my entire satisfaction.
I already have the 40 - 150 f/2.8 pro lens, so the 12 - 40 f/2.8 makes more sense. I am considering that lens currently. I don't shoot video, at least not yet. So the lack of image stabilization isn't a big deal. Those are my thoughts.
If you shoot indoors a lot, you don’t need the long reach of the 12-100, and you do need the wide aperture of the f2.8. So, concerts, weddings, events are definitely more for the 12-40. The f4 really does not work well for that in my opinion. The f1.8 primes are even better for that though. I like the 12-40 for street photography just because it is smaller. Unless you are shooting at night, there is usually plenty of light available for the 12-100 for street. Portraits are a toss up. The 12-40 gets better bokeh in limited space, but if you can back up and zoom in, I actually prefer the 12-100 since it brings the background in and blurs it nicely for less distraction from your subject. For video, the image stabilization on the 12-100 is SUPER AMAZING! It’s even nice for stills when hand holding longer exposures. I think the 12-100 is a better buy if you can only have one, but the 12-40 is easier to carry and the range is perfect for most “snap-shot” type of situations. If you like lower ISO’s and shallower depth of field in tight spaces, you will need the 12-40. It’s a tough call between the two, but if you have the prime lenses you like, then the 12-100 is my recommendation.
I just ordered the 12-40 f 2.8. I also have the 75mm 1.8 that I use for headshots etc. From 75mm to 100 mm is just about useless for me so I went with the faster aperture.
Nice video, thanks for sharing! But, at the end, my question is not solved: 12-40 or 12-100?!? I have 12-40 and I'm thinking at 12-100 for video and more zoom, but I also like to take (or try to take...) night photos (startrails, milky way) and so, if I'll bought 12-100 I'll need another lens for this kind of photos considering I should sell 12-40 to save money. 7-14 is expensive, 7.5 laowa or 7 artisan are fish eyes and I don't like this kind of lenses. So, what should be your suggestion?
12-100mm f4 is good for video. It has a stabilizer and it can give a stop more compare to the 12-40mm f2.8. The 12-100mm is a bit dark for astrophotography. Laowa has a 7.5mm that is not a fisheye.
I could copy Doug King. The 12-40mm Pro have been my goto lens since I bought my M5 II and later M1 II. I found the reach a bit limiting. I have the 40-150 Pro but always carrying two bodies or changing lens. Well I didn’t always do that so I skipped some images I could have taken or I did crop the image when I got back home. A couple of months ago I bought the 12-100 pro. The 12-40 have not been used at all since. The 12-100 pro is now my goto lens. Yes it is bigger, more expensive and weighs more. But not by much in any of the categories and you get extra 60mm reach at the cost of one stop. Am I going to sell the 12-40mm pro? No my daughter is using it on my M5 II :-)
What about comparing resolution at widest aperture? I think that a comparison wide open using the overlapping focal lengths could be a deciding factor for some people.
I have neither and am interested in both. This is a tough decision. I would probably buy the 12-100 because of IS and reach. This would definitely be a great travel lens. Do you think it would work well for inside shots (like cathedrals, etc.) with the IS? I would probably also throw in a 17mm f1.8 for low light shooting, but I definitely would prefer the 12-40 f2.8 if the 12-100 isn't practical going from outside to inside, etc. If I had the 12-40 f2.8, I don't think I would bring the 17mm f1.8. As you can see, I am more confused now...ha ha ha.
Either one is very good for travel. Of course, the 12-100 f4 is a bit bigger and not so convenient. A 17mm f1.8 as a second lens for those low light moments is a good choice.
I have both. I had the 12-40mm first and its very good, but found that I always needed extra reach for better portraits and candid photos so was always swapping for the telephoto zoom. While bigger, the 12-100 replaces two lenses so is smaller in that way. Since I got the 12-100 I haven’t used the 12-40. I did a detailed comparison and IQ difference was negligible. The extra stop of light is useful, but if I’m in that situation I want a fast prime or flash anyway. Bokeh on the 12-100 is better bc the telephoto range allows you to create more separation. For many people the 12-100 can be the only lens they need and coupled with a fast prime or two, and you have the perfect lens kit for mft in my opinion. The 12-100 is great for video as well.
Maybe the one thing missing in this is to add that to get 12 to 100mm, the F4 is one lens. To get the same reach at f2.8 needs two lenses. Double the weight, double the cost plus lost time changing lenses. I find the 12-100 brilliant as a travel lens. All over Egypt last year, this was the only one used. The rest stayed in the hotels. On the Pen-F, the combination of lightness and versatility is second to none. Mind you, if the image quality was compromised, it might be different but it isn't. Images are pin sharp, full of data for Lightroom and, it seems to me, actually sharper than pro lenses on my Canon 5D. And no chiropractor bills.
That is a good point about the need for two lenses. That could have given the 12-100mm an extra point!
I am just buying the same lens to take to Egypt.
The 12-100mm WAS the reason why I bought the Olympus system.
To have one camera with one Pro zoom able to provide very good images from 24 up to 200mm is to me unique at the time being in the camera industry.
It’s clear that it’s a little bigger and heavier than the 12-40mm, but all the extra reach and the benefit of the stabilisation is a game changer.
Same here. As-at now, I still couldn't find any equivalent in full frame. There is one wide range zoom from Canon R but it's not Pro lenses, thus not that sharp as this 12-100. I don't see any Pro lens from Sony, Canon, Nikon with this range yet.
Interesting comparison. I recently acquired a 12-40, 2nd hand ; and on the used market, the price difference is much more important (at least in my geographic zone). The 12-100 however nice is twice the price of the 12-40 used. So being a pure amateur, I supplemented the 12-40 withe the 40-150R for the reach. I wouldn't be taking tele picture under the rain while travelling anyway and the 40-150 is light enough to fit a pocket and be forgotten. The 12-40 encompasses probably 80% of my images, and like a gift that keeps on giving, I'm floored by the quality of the images this lens churns out - and I'm a long time primes aficionado. Just watching the vignettes in the folder preview on the computer is eye-popping. The 12-40 pictures stand out amongst primes, even the Olympus 25/1.8 and 45/1.8.
So to sum up, if you want to make yourself a present while remaining within reason, the 12-40 is a no-brainer. I sold the Olympus 17/1.8 which is expensive and over rated (and soft !), and with the proceeds and those of the sale of the kit zoom, I funded the 12-40. I haven't regreted that move a single second. The quality of the 12-40 @17mm alone dwarfs the 17/1.8 prime, for a much more versatile lens in the end. The 12-100 is probably as good if not slightly better, but I really can't justify the price.
Phew I'm glad to read this, have been going backwards and forwards over prime vs zoom and just came of the fence and ordered the 12-40. Combined with my 45 1.8 I should be set for a while :)
Pete Gleeson I am sure you are enjoying your lens. I love it. Definitely a keeper.
AMATEUR? What amateur? You are a PRO, and what you say makes a lot of sense.
I have both and love them equally. For travel especially on foot over hilly terrain with my EM1-X the 12-100 is easily the best lens available. Why, with the IS in both the camera and lens it gives you about 7 stops of stabilisation. This enables hand held ND shots etc with no tripod so I can travel light and fast. This is also going to be helpful when touring on coach tours that don't allow time to mess about with tripods. I have not used tripod since a bus nearly left me by a waterfall in Iceland! After that I sold my Nikon gear and switched to Olympus. It also means that I can protect my sensor as don't need to change lens in adverse conditions to get the extra reach, making it really versatile. When I need to fly the ease joy of only having one body and lens to take through airport security has to be experienced to be believed (Norwich Airport is notorious). My 12-40 is amazing for low light and action shots making it the perfect partner for my 40-150, both of which are light tough and versatile. I often use the 12-40 when just out and about for a few hours, as its small size and speed is so handy. I got my 12-40 secondhand in new condition as a real bargain from London Camera Exchange, one of my best ever decisions. Both have amazing IQ and fulfil different functions in different contexts, and Iwould not part with either.
Very informative comment. I work promoting nature reserves for biodiversity conservation. I need to take pictures of animals, landscape, lodges, people. Do you think the 12-100 is the best option for me? Thanks
I recently purchased the 12-100mm lens for my OM-D E-M1 to take with me on my upcoming trip to Portugal for a few reasons: 1) the range of the zoom will be good for booth pictures in town and on the beach playing volleyball 2) it is weather sealed as it's likely to rain a bit and will also keep out the sand while on the beach 3) the lens stabilization should help with some indoor low-light situations which compensates a bit for not being as bright of a lens. It is a bit large to keep strapped to my hip, but I am getting used to it. I was considering the 12-200 lens but choose the lens IS and manual focus clutch features over the extra 100mm zoom. Very happy with it so far!
I briefly had the 12-40/2.8 but quickly moved to the 12-100/4. Apart from versatility of telephoto reach, the real bonus is close focussing. The 12-100 can get really close and even outperformed the excellent Fuji XF16/1.4 which I owned. Even bokeh difference was not a deficit because the 12-100/4 could get closer to the subject. I also run the 40-150/2.8 but for sports or other special subjects. Both make superb images and the IBIS is legendary.
I would take the 12-100/4. The extra reach would get me a lot more shots than the extra stop.
The sensors are so good now that I wouldn't hesitate to raise the ISO to compensate, and de-noise in post.
Dear Peter, i own all pro lenses. But my favorite on is the 12-100 because it is stabilized!
Stabilizer is great!
Really good video. I was expecting you to film a comparson video between the two, to show the difference in video stabilisation. I am thinking of getting the 12-100 for the lens Ibis.
I have the 12-40 for years now, and the 12-100 for about a year. The former is day-to-day because of size and utility. The latter is travel, so I don’t have to carry multiple lenses and can handle low light. Good review of the two lenses and realistic features to consider.
Hey Peter, Thanks for the comparison. I bought my 12-40 along with my EM1 when they came out and it is my goto lens. I had a look at 12-100, didn’t go for it as I have 40-150 Pro. 12-40 helps me in indoors and low light situations and I feel 12-100 may not that helpful as I would have to increase ISO considerably. That’s my 2Cs 😊.
Thanks for the video. I think the deciding factor for a lot of people is: whether they can get by with the 12-100 and NOT need to buy the 40-150. Or for those who rarely carry their 40-150 due to size/weight. Or those who don’t want to carry two bodies or swap lenses. I currently own 12-40 and 40-150 but find myself rarely carrying the 40-150 and occasionally regretting not carrying it when I need the added range. I’m considering the 12-100.
I have the 40-150mm f2.8. It has a bit more reach and a bit wider aperture. I can also use the 1.4X extender on it for those rare moments I need a longer focal lenght.
As a small person, I can see your point. Right now I carry one camera with the long lens over one shoulder and another with my cherished 12-42 over the other shoulder and I am ready for anything. I DO look a bit strange but dont all photographers?
I originally had the 12 to 40 & traded it for the 12 to 100. I have never regretted switching to the 12 to 100. I use it for photo shoots mostly with flash. I complement the lens with the 75 1.8 which I adore. I don't use the 75 all the time but when I do I am amazed. Thank you for your utube channel.
I would like you to compare the quality of the glasses like CA, Vignetting, Corner Sharpness, Image Distortion, etc.
Thank you for this thoughtful demonstration. Aperture vs. In lens stabilizer. Pretty equivalent and if you already have the gorgeous 40-150mm pro lens, you dont need the 100mm length. Love your videos. Thank you!
12-40 for street and 12-100 for landscapes
Hi Peter, I had the 12-40 for 2 years, then decided to switch to the 12-100. I had two main reasons for that: versatility and stabilization. It wasn’t an easy decision, because I had to drop f2,8 for f4 and a relatively lightweight lens for a more heavy and bulky one. Once I had the 12-100 (14 months ago), and still now, I’m very happy with my choice. Not a single time I found myself missing the f2,8 aperture. Anyway, when I have to shoot in low light, I find f2,8 not efficient enough, therefore I shoot with my primes (20mm f1,7, 42,5 f1,7 and 75 f1,8), so eventually, f2,8 or f4 are not so different for me. And the 100mm range offers so much more versatility. The f4 aperture is not a problem at all: I can create the same blurry background thanks to the 100 mm focal length. The stabilization allows me to have a good keeper rate at 1s! Unbelievable. And the stab of my E-M10 mk 2 doesn’t work together with the lens’ stab, so this result is due only to the lens’ stab. As a conclusion, I would say that this lens is awesome in all aspects (it’s even a macro-like lens at 100mm), and I’m very happy with it. No regret for the 12-40. The only downside is the weight, not that much in line with the micro 4/3 spirit. But hey, a lens is always a compromise, and this one is an all categories winner for me 😊
Well, this is a big push for me from 12 to 100, because I don't have a single lens or even a camera yet :) I want the E-M1 Mark II!
When it comes to lenses, size matters. I like them small and light. I sold my terrific 12-40 f2.8 and bought a 12-45 f4. Love that lens. I can’t wait until the 8-25 f4 comes out (although I had hoped it was going to be 7-17 f4). Both lenses can be used alone, or together on a trip.
I was torn between both lenses last year, but chose the 12-40. Speed won out over long reach. F4 was problematic for me, especially indoors. f2.8 can be slow for indoors as well, but that one stop can still make quite a difference: better stabilization doesn't freeze living breathing subjects.
With that said, I had nothing else against the 12-100. IQ and feel is quite similar to the 12-40, just a bit longer and heavier.
If I need reach, I still have the classic 14-150. :)
Dear Peter,
The way you compare lenses together is simple, straight forward and to the point. It makes it easy to make a selection or at least know the properties of each lens before buying or even using it, please keep it up. However, the built in image stabiliser in a lens is a really pro feature that should be available in all Olympus Pro lens Group, regardless of the size and aperture values.
I have the 12/100 and a set of basic primes..17,25,45 f1.8's....I personally find that this is a clearer distinction than muddying the water with a 12/40.
If I were to be making my income from photography then I would add the 12/40 as another tool. The 12/100 gets used most of the time, the lens stabilisation and the camera stabilisation in combination are sublime.
Cheers.
I would get the 12-40, use the money i saved, to buy the 40-150 in the future.
I've got the opposite problem, I've already got the 40-150, and am trying to figure out what to do next.
18-135/3.5-5.6 is my most used lens on my Pentax. Now I'm adding 12-100/4 for my MFT to get similar universal coverage. While shooting various events, the ability to quickly adapt with longer zoom is crucial.
12-40/2.8 might be nice, but it is still not enough for really shallow DOF. Olympus should prepare some 12-40/1.8 :)
I am guessing a 12-40 f1.8 would probably be about 30% heavier and bulkier at about double the price. My dream lens would be a 20-75mm f2.8 PRO which would have the angle of view of a full frame 40 to 150mm. As for size, weight and price I would think it will be about in the middle of the 12-40mm f2.8 and the 24-100 f4. I think that that focal length would be the cat's meow for doing portraitures. I realize that is a pipe dream because OM System is marketing towards wildlife/outdoor photography.
Hello Peter, the 12-40 is often discounted ...., so it maybe more attractive to some people...
Hi Peter. I have both lenses and they both have an equal importance in my arsenal . For all the reasons that you mentioned in your post I love both ..
I have them both and love the 12-40, I find the only time I use the 12-100 is when I only take 1 lens. Whenever I take my camera bag it probably has the 7-14 12-40 and 40-150 the 12-100 gets left behind I'm thinking of selling it and putting the money towards the 300f4
Paul Kearney I agree If you have 7-14, 12-40, 40-150 you don’t need 12-100
Hello and thanks for your review! I think that both lens are indeed tied and that they have different intended uses. I have the 12-40 mm lens. It gave a new life to my EM5 and is my favorite lens by a wide margin since it is so flexible. Its a great walk around lens and is small for what it is. I have the 40-150 Pro to reach further but that lens is much larger.
The 12-100 seem like an ideal travel lens if you need to take only one, and the optical stabilizer will greatly help in low light situations.
Last March me and my wife spent three weeks in Tasiilaq/Eastgreenland. It was an outstanding vacation.We spend a lot time outside. I carried my Canon 5D Mark III and three good lenses. It was the horror. It was the last time. To change the lens in snowstorm of Piteraq is a pain. I regret that I didn't take my old Oly OM-E 5 Mark I with me. We will spend again three weeks in march 2020 there in Eastgreenland. One week far outside in an small Inuit village with hunters. .And I'm sure. I will travel with an Olympus Camera and one 12-100 Lens. (And maybe my 1.8/17 and 1.8/45) for the pocket. Now I am waiting for the new E-5 Mark III. Or I have to buy a M 1 Mark II. We will see. Thank you for your work and inspiration!
Thank you.
I also have all 3 (12-40, 12-100, and 40-150) and I have nothing bad to say about any of them. But I find that the 12-100 is the one I use least. When I'm just shooting casually, family events, etc, I find that 40mm is plenty far enough, and I like the extra bokeh I get at 2.8 versus 4.0, and if I really have to I can enlarge/crop after the fact. If I need telephoto much greater than 40, I usually don't also need something wider, so I use the 40-150 (which I think is hands down the most amazing digital lens I've ever used). The place where the 12-100 has been most useful is shooting plays/musicals where the 12-100 range is perfect - I can get the full stage, and I can also zoom in on one performer, and I can still get nice background/foreground separation at 4.0. (To see examples, search for "David Simson" in "people" on Flickr - the "2017-0307 BHS Letters to Sala" album was shot with the 12-100 lens, "2016-1018 BHS Hello Dolly" was shot with the 40-150 and I had franticlaly scramble to the back of the theatre to get the stage-wide shots. (Yeah, yeah I know, use two bodies... ).
Because I live in the UK with often low light levels I’ve gone for the 12-40 pro because of its f2.8 Max. aperture.....I’m not disappointed!...Great video as always...keep up the good work!...👍🌈😎🇬🇧
Thank you.
I have the 12-40 (it came bundled with my EM5-Mk2) and I love it. But I have to say that the 12-100 serves a different purpose: It has a longer reach, so you could say that the extra stop or so of in-lens stabilisation is worth it, just to bring the shake back down to manageable levels (for hand-holding). On the other hand, the 12-40 has a wider aperture, thereby giving you a stop or so over the 12-100. Both these lenses give pretty much the same IQ, so I think it comes down to whether you need the extra reach. Sorry if I waffled on a bit....
Yes, you are right. In most cases it is the reach that matters.
Agree I prefer the 12-100
Great video Peter. You covered all the points very succinctly. And crikey, I just bought a 40-150mm pro lens!!!
The 40-150mm f2.8 is a great lens.
You wont regret it!
@@meredithpottery Arriving tomorrow, so I can't sleep!!!
@@badgerag good luck with your new lens!
To me, the 12-100mm has the edge over the 12-40mm because of its sync IS which makes it possible to take sharp images at shutter speeds longer than 1sec. And the extra reach is a bonus!
Hi Peter... enjoy your very informative videos.. To your question, I have both lenses and have experienced exactly what you explained in this video. I use the 12 - 100 the most for its versatility.
Thanks.
In Australia the 12-40m Pro is about $700 and the 12-100mm Pro is $1500-$1600. It's over double the price. I went with the 12-40mm and bought a 40-150mm as well. It would be nice if you could compare that lens with the 14-150mm. It was also a choice I was looking at.
Yeah, we're pretty lucky that the 12-40mm is about half the price of the 12-100mm here. That was my first m4/3 lens and I with the Panny Leica 15mm f/1.7, I don't see any immediate need for more lenses for my uses.
Dear Peter,
For general purpose photography from wide angle, to standard to portrait I would go for the 12 to 40 mm F2.8.
This is due to sharper images, better depth of Field, faster low light possibility, having less weight and being compact. The only drawback is that it does not have a built in image stabilisation, but I believe this could be compensated by the OMD Camera built in Stabilisation System.
Thanks for the review. I have decided to sell my 7-14 and 12-40 and get the 12-100 for the range and IS. I have the 17, 25 & 45 f1.8 for low light conditions.
My Pen-f decided for me; 12-40mm, but I still lust for bigger longer etc! Nice images & clip! Good info!
Hi, I changed my 12-100 against a 12-40mm, The main reason for me was the weight. I added then the 40-150 Pro and the 7-14 Pro and have now a ideal range of focal length with fast lenses.
that is my best setup. i love this setup too.
Great video, I have the 12-40 pro, 40-150 pro and the 7-14 pro and they are all great lenses. The 12-100 pro lens would be great for travel and the image stabilization would be great to have. But since I recently purchased an em1x it will be a while before I can afford one.
Nice, the X! How do like the E-M1X?
@@ForsgardPeter HUGE UPGRADE!!! From the em1(mk1) which is now my backup camera. Night and Day difference. Love it !!
Actually I sold all of my Canon stuff because of the 12-100mm and switched to m43 (plus other reasons of course). So far I know there is no real competitor from other brands on the market which for me makes three lenses obsolet: macro lense, tele lense and a walk around lense and is suitable for 95% of my shootings. So, the video makes one point clear: The 12-100 is almost as good as a normal standard zoom lense (which is available in different types) and sometimes even better.
Excellent review and great points made about both lenses. I have the 12-40 but would love to have the 12-100 also!
Thank you.
I have the 12-40 pro and never thought about switching to the 12-100 as it is a slower lens. If i need a longer focal length I iuse the 75/ 1.8 or the 40-150 pro. Nevertheless for landscapes I believe that the 12-100 f 4 is a good option to the 12-40 pro.
Tough question always... 12-40 is for me go to lens for event, documentary work etc., but for travel and landscape I will go with 12-100!
I have the 7-14 PRO, 12-40 PRO and 40-150 PRO + TC all in a travel backpack. The vast majority of the time I only use the 12-40, but after many years of use I think it's the weak point of my kit. I find it soft compared to the 40-150. I also often find myself wanting more reach than the 12-40 offers, but I don't want to change lenses just for 1 shot in a busy or dirty environment. Or I want to snap a quick portrait, but the results are disappointing because 40mm f2.8 is the weak point of the 12-40.
The slower nature of the f4 12-100 is a concern for low light situations, but with dual IS perhaps this is mitigated, as are all the situations mentioned above with the 12-40. I'm strongly considering ditching the 12-40 in favor of the 12-100.
Very nice video! Thanks! I final decide to buy 12-100 f4, but I will also buy 12-40 in the future($$). Their image are different. Both of them are very nice lenses.
Hi Peter, I have both started with the 12-40 then added the 12-100. I agree with your pros and cons for these lenses and use each depending on the circumstances at the time, if I was only allowed to have one it would be the 12-100 as I have larger apertures covered with primes
Now that's interesting, as I have the 12-40, and would stick with the 12-40, because I prefer the option of a wider aperture and can cover the longer lenses with primes! Horses for courses.... :-)
We all have different needs and thoughts. That's why it is very hard to recommend exactly what lens should one get. Only pros and cons, in my opinion, can guide someone in the right direction.
great review Peter as always. If i can add my few points. 12-40mm lens is boring to me. I malways lookng for a better reach so wont be limited. most of the time i dont plan my shoots just grab a camera and go..better reach gives me more options. True its bigger and heavier but its not a problem. 12-100mm one works for every type of photography and its a great walk around glass.
Hi Peter! Thanks for this “kick boxing” type evaluation of a these two excellent lenses. I have the the wonder duo - 12-40 f/2.8 and 40-150 f/2.8, covering a focal length of 12 to 150 mm at a constant maximum (and fast) aperture of f/2.8. The drawback is of course a little more weight and the (sometimes) inconvenience of lens swap. Before the acquisition of the E-M1X the 40-150 mm stayed in my bag for long periods, but now it found its place of the E-M1X, dislodging the 12-40 mm quite often, as it offers quite a lot of photography opportunities due to its larger focal length, including close-up photos, and the superb ergonomics and IBIS of the E-M1X. So now I’m trying hard to find a justifiable argument to buy the 300 mm stabilized lens 😁
How do you like the E-M1X?
@@ForsgardPeter The E-M1X is a bit intimidating on first sight, especially compared to the PEN-F and the original E-M1, but rapidly becomes an extension of the hand due to its fabulous ergonomics. A real game changer is the multidirectional joysticks well as the dedicated ISO button. I like also the much improved IBIS allowing macro photography handheld including focus stacking (also much improved) and focus bracketing.
Live ND filters, a better and larger ProCapture buffer, the possibility to define AF target pads (horizontally and vertically) and handheld HiRes photography are the set of features the make the E-M1X a brilliant piece of gear, in my opinion.
I just ordered the 12-100 because of the longer focal length. I don't shoot enough indoors or in darker settings to warrant the 2.8, however that could change.
I upgraded this year from the 2011 "E-5", that old real FT-body (not the OMD M-E5!) to the E-M1X, and after a lot of thinking I decided to buy the 12-100 and did not regret it.
But I also bought the MFT-3-Adaptor to continue usage of the older 4/3-lenses and still use the 12-60/2.8 SWD from before. And, to be honest, with the 12-100 I miss the F2.8. I also checked the 12-40 before I bought the 12-100 and missed the little focus to 60mm ... (Is there anybody from Olympus reading? Bring back the 12-60 2.8back to mFT. In my opinion, it's the best combination..)
FOr available lenses, I think 12-100 is the better choice for most tasks.
I have the 12-40 2.8 and the 14-150 4-5.6. Good compromise also weather sealed and less expensive
14-150 4-5.6 is a lens that I have never tested. I should try to loan that lens for a test from Olympus Finland.
I second this. I've both the 12-40 and 40-150 and this combo is sometimes a little bit heavy. And not so nice if you have to change the lens in bad weather. So I considered the 12-100 or 12-200. As the not so exciting reviews came out, especially on the far end, I took th 12-200 out of my mind. But do I really need the 12-100? And then a flash stroked me: the 14-150. Light, inexpensive, weather sealed and an ideal addition to my Leica 8-18. And not dangerous in any means to the 12-40/40-150 combo, which I still use indoor and if weight is not the highest prio. Yes, you loose another stop, but if the stops are important, I'll take the 40-150 Pro. And for landscape, 5.6 is perfect.
I have the 12-40 and the Panasonic 35-100. One of the considerations which is important to me is does the image stabilizer work with the IBIS of the GH5. Shooting video with two GH5s I use the 14-40 Oly for the wide shot and the 12-35 or the 35-100 Panasonics for the CU. Sometimes it is awkward. Recently I put the 35-100 on in a small theatre. It wasn't wide enough and I couldn't swap in the middle of the job.
Reach vs f stop. Adjusting for a stop of light can be done easily with SS. But adjusting for reach is not always possible. Plus IS makes the 12-100 a no brainer.
When I switched from Canon to Olympus, the 12-100mm was the only lens for me. I’ve not regretted it in the least as it’s *the* ideal lens, from my perspective, for Travel photography. I’ve since supplemented it with the Olympus 7-14mm and the Panasonic 100-400mm
You are pretty much covered what comes to focal lenghts.
@@ForsgardPeter I am indeed :) Though I couldn't help myself and just bought myself the 60mm Macro lens too.
Firstly, thank you, Peter, for your always inspiring and informative videos. I have both lenses. The 12-40 mm came with my first Olympus OMD EM1 and has served me exceptionally well. I now use it on my Pen F mostly, as it fits the idea of being inconspicuous. Both lenses are incredibly precise and I use both extensively. The 12-100 goes on the bigger camera bodies and is my go to lens for travel. Please keep up the great work!
Thanks.
12-100 formidable reach for f/4, the best IS EVER, close focus, great construction, formidable image quality… truly an unique lens!
It is a great lens.
I'm happy with my 12-40 pro lens , it has become my "every around lens" although i have athe 17 mm for some street photos and also I have the 45 mm, wich is fantastic!, I hope some day you came to Chile ..you will be fascinate with the diferents landscapes, from Atacama desert till Patagonia.
Best regards Peter.
Thank you Peter for your reviews of two the olympus lenses. I'm planning to get the new em5 Mk lll camera body and it comes with a kit 14 - 150 mm lens for just $300 more with the camera body. Do you think I should forget about getting the kit lens and buy the 12 - 100 mm pro lens instead? Alternatively get the 14 - 150 kit lens and also buy the 12 - 40 mm lens? What do you think is the better solution? What is your opinion of the 14 - 150 mm kit lens? Thanks.
I have not tested the 14-150mm lens. I cannot say for sure anything. Sorry
I am thinking of going with 14-150 and 12-40, this combination cheaper than 12-100 alone, I get longer reach and brighter lens depending on my shooting.
The 12-40 for me was a perfect size for travel around europe (I generally hand carried the camera all day and it was very comfortable size/weight with E-M1 MkII) and most images that I want to capture are in that range, it gives me a good response for portraits if you don't have a prime, and it works for astro photography - I think the main time I would want the bigger length would be shooting sports or wildlife, and for that I would rather have the 40-150 -- yes more money but refurbished that lens is only $700
Great comparison. If you shoot indoor landscape and night photos, you'll need both. For landscape only I'd get the 12-100 f4.
Hello Peter, thank you for posting another interesting and informative video comparing the 2 great Pro Olympus zoom lenses. I have both lenses but I have been using the 12-100mm much more for my travel photography hobby due to its zoom range and image quality. If I really really need low light performance, I will bring my 17mm or 25mm F1.2 lens. However, if I can only have 1 lens, then I will chose the 12-40mm as it is much more cost effective and is an awesome lens. You can't go wrong with either lens...Once again thank you!
I have both those lens and love them both. Prefer the 12-40 for night shooting at close range.
Prefer the 12-100 for better sources of natural light & love the image stabilizer.
The stabiliser on the 12-100mm f4 is wonderful.
Great video. I need to buy one of them, as I am switching from Nikon. Perhaps the 112 -100 would be good, as I photograph birdies. Resolution across the zoom range is my main
consideration.
I used to own a Nikon D700 with 20 mm f1.8 prime and 28-300 mm f3.5-5.6 (f5.6 basically). I hauled that kit around the world as hand luggage. But when traveling by car I enjoyed using my 80-200 mm f2.8 most.
That kit is sold. For me the 12-40 f2.8 and 40-150 f2.8 PRO lenses weigh less and are smaller than the single Nikkor 28-300. Add that I gain much more light and pro build quality with that Olympus/OM PRO kit I don’t mind swapping the lens when I need the extra reach.
I've never liked the 12-40, prefer using smaller premium primes. But I think the 12-100mm f/4 is a good option for hiking / landscape photography, since you rarely use f/2.8 for landscapes
Wondering, which prime lenses do you use? And for what purposes? Thanks, Mark
Hi Peter, choose between both lenses is difficult, I have purchased the 12 - 40 as kit lenses w/ my em5 mini, Well satisfied
Smaller size and wider aperture matters, so I chose 12-40
Thanks for your video. I've both the 12-40/2.8 and the 12-100/4.0. As event photographer I use the 12-40 on an e-m1mk2 camera and the 12-100 on the e-m1x. I own all the pro-lenses, zooms and primes, use them all ... but the 12-100 is always in my bag.
How do you like the EM1X?
@@timbradbury9734 Excellent, I can't say otherwise. Successively coming from Nikon D700 -> D4 -> D5. So can reasonably compare. It's said on social media that Olympus failed when launching the OMD E-M1X. Too big, too heavy, too expensive , etc. etc. but I find it a masterpiece.
@@lejainfo Glad to hear that Leo. I'm coming from Pentax K1 and Olympus em-1 so my eyes are wide open too. Personal feedback always the best.
I have both lenses - I just leave the 12 100 on all the time.
I have both and the 12-40 is absolutely stunning in image quality, slightly better than the 12-100 in my opinion !
I've had the 12-40 for a few years and find it amazing. But the reach annoys me so I'm considering buying the 12-100 later on.
I use the lens almost exclusively for travel photography (I use a few primes and telephoto zooms for most other things), and even when I've taken other lenses with me I've found I could probably get by with just this one lens and it's easier than swapping. But the reach is extremely frustrating at times.
But I also love the lens so much I can't imagine selling it despite the limited use I get from it. And most of the places I go on holiday to are quite sunny, so it's not like I need the f2.8. After reading your comment and some thought I'm wondering if I'm best just getting something like the 14-150 to give me even further reach as an all rounder for holidays, but also keeping the 12-40 also for travel for when I might need the f2.8?
After posting this comment I noticed a video link for the 12-200.
ua-cam.com/video/HEGHditkoY0/v-deo.html
I think that's my next lens sorted :-D
@@stuartnelson3202 I am in the process of deciding between these two lens and the 12-100 seems to be a much sharper lens from what I have read and with a little cropping can get most of the same shots. The 12-200 is not cheap either and is even bigger, which is the complaint that most folks have made about the 12-100.
@@philipbarnes8646 I can't afford either at the moment in any case, so I'm stuck with the 12-40, which has, TBF, served me well for holidays so far despite the lack of reach.
For me the benefits of the 12-200 are it'll replace not just my Oly 12-40, but also my Pan 45-175 and maybe even my Oly 75-300 to some extent (as I would imagine that even if it's IQ is not as good as the 12-100 it should be better than the 75-300, at least would hope so at that price).
Currently of course I could take the 45-175 on holiday as a spare lens, but I've done that before, and it's bad enough switching between the large 12-40 and a prime, let alone two large lenses, when you're in a packed tourist spot.
I'll still likely keep the 12-40 (along with all the others it "replaces"), so the 12-200 seems the more logical choice, but I'll have to have a look closer to the time.
I've got a while to think about it until my next holiday 😁
I am just thinking of having em5 iii with 12-100 and 17mm f1.8 beside my dslr full frame camera
17mn f1.8 is great. Do consider a third-party grip for EM5.3 if you plan to get 12-100. Also, look for 45 f1.8. I love that lens. Check my Instagram @leoolympus .... Most of the photos taken with 17 f1.8
I have the 12-40 2.8 and it is on my Olympus EM5 MKII about 60% of the time. I also have the 75-300 4.8-6.7. I have really great image quality with both. I have a farther reach with the 75-300 (150-600 full frame comparable) and it works extremely well. I did try the 12-100 but I found that compared to the 75-300, it was pretty close as far as image quality goes. Yes, the lens based stabilization is great and if I was doing video a whole lot, it would have been my choice. I found a great deal on the 75-300 and went with it....no regrets at all.
You are covered what it comes to focal lengths.
I adore my 75-300....AND I can carry it!
Already own the 7 - 14, 12 -40 & 40 -150 I will buy the 12 - 100 for travel usefulness and the SynchIS to avoid taking a tripod.
I want both. I have the 12-40 for general use and I love the speed size and the overall quality. However when I travel, I want/need the extra 60mm's of reach. After your review, I am ordering one today.
Great!
The 12-40 is the lens I use on my Pen-F and it is a fantastic combo. I also use the 17mm 1.8 & the 45mm 1.8. If I had the EM-1Mk2 instead for example, I would buy the 12-100. The Pen-f is too small for this lens and as a combo too bulky. This is my first criterion. Thanks for another great, informative video Peter, to see a rough comparsion.
Thank you, Peter, for another good video. I recently bought the 40-150 with 1.4x teleconverter, and am blown away by the clarity in the shots. With the teleconverter, the 40-150 drops down to f4.0, so I think it would interesting to compare that and the 12-100 from the equivalent 56mm-100mm range. Which is sharper?
That would be interesting! Let's see, that would make an interesting video.
@@ForsgardPeter I would also love to see that comparison.
Great video.... Please give an example or two about what "further reach" means....I assume it will get a better picture further away, but how does it compare? 12-40 gets to the 40yd line on the football field and the 12-100 gets me to the 100 yd line with still equal quality picture?
Yes, just about that.
I served as a reference very much. I choose 12-100 to be accompanied by a district and an unexplored region, the movement in the mountain by my photography. I can cover the focus distance for approximately two lenses, and this is because it contributes to lightweighting of the baggage. In addition, the difference of the image by the brightness of the lens does not overturn these merits. Rather I do not think and look F4.0 to you well, and the SS makes money by camera shake revision, too.
I own both lenses. The 12-100 mm for its a perfect every purpose travelling lense when you can - or want - only carry one lense with you. Especially when you, like I do, take it with you on Motorcycle trips which include all kinds of photos from quick bike action to wide angle group photos. The 12-40 mm looks to me a bit more high end in processing quality, it has this sturdy haptics that you want to have on a pro lens. It is a reliable work horse for everyday shooting, a „bread and butter“ lense for nearly every shooting. I don’t regret having bought both, they exist side by side in a way that makes sense, they dont rival and one doesn’t makes redundant the other.
I'm been looking at both these lens can't make up my mind ,I do a lot of portraits so was thinking 12-40 think bigger lens would be to far away in studio work, what do you think please
For portraiture I would choose the 12-40mm F2.8 Pro. It is slightly faster with F2.8. The focal length is also quite nice for portraits. It is also lighter and easier to hold during long sessions.
I have both the 12-40 and the 40-150 lenses, bought before the 12-100 came out. Buying now, I'd likely buy the 12-100 instead. I always loved and still have the old 12-60SWD, and really miss the wider range on the 12-40,, even for still shooting, and must say that for video there is absolutely no contest. (You can't change lenses in the middle of a video clip, and cropping in PP is a pain!) If it had power zoom, I'd buy it in an instant! A power zoom version of the 12-100 would be the perfect lens for Olympus to win some much-needed credibility in its rather neglected area of video (which it actually pioneered and made possible with the E330)
I use both lenses and I love both!
What would you recommend for a semi-shy street photographer who sometimes shoots in the dark hehe? Wish the 12-100 was f/2.8
If the motion blur is not a problem. It could your style! The f4 is not that bad with SyncIS.
Thanks for the comparison Peter. Have lamented over this subject myself. I own the 12-40 and love it but sure think the 12-100 would be nice. but then I also lust for the 7-14 and 40-150 :)
Thanks for the comparison.. I have both the 12 - 40 and 12 - 100. . I use the 12 - 100 because it covers a longer focal length.
For low light I would use either 75mm f 1.8 , 25mm f1.2 pro or 17mm f1.2 pro. Even my 40 to 150 f 2.8 is rarely used because the 12-100 is
more versatile
It is always a hard decision.
12-100 because of stabilization and reach. Nearly no problems with the F4 because of the stabilization. And with mostly landscape photography, this is the one for me. Thanks for the video, like it!
So there remain a couple of unanswered questions, for instance: what is the aperture of maximum in focus depth of field for each lens? Where is the sweet spot? How useful is each lens in different role: portrait, landscape, & etc? On the one hand being able to isolate a subject with 'pretty-blurry-background' is a nice attribute for a lens. But on the other hand being able to show the texture of the gravel under your feet and the chimney pots on a house on the island opposite you - simultaneously - is another fine attribute of a lens.
I have the 12-40 lens. Very happy with that lense use it alot.
12-40 is my every day lens. I'll get the 40-150 for sport. Thats pretty much the FL i had with my dslr and worked well for me.
Although I have the 12-40mm I am interested by the 12-100, I noticed I rarely used a focal length above 100mm in the past. It could be interesting for the occasional detail. The 12-100 is image stabilised so you gain around 1 stop with the dual stabilisation feature but you loose 1 stop in aperture... For moving subjects it could be more beneficial to use the f/2.8 12-40mm or the larger 40-150mm if you need a longer reach. I am using the OM-D M1ii with the 12-40mm and when light goes low I use the 25mm f/1.2 pro lens to my entire satisfaction.
I already have the 40 - 150 f/2.8 pro lens, so the 12 - 40 f/2.8 makes more sense. I am considering that lens currently. I don't shoot video, at least not yet. So the lack of image stabilization isn't a big deal. Those are my thoughts.
If you shoot indoors a lot, you don’t need the long reach of the 12-100, and you do need the wide aperture of the f2.8. So, concerts, weddings, events are definitely more for the 12-40. The f4 really does not work well for that in my opinion. The f1.8 primes are even better for that though. I like the 12-40 for street photography just because it is smaller. Unless you are shooting at night, there is usually plenty of light available for the 12-100 for street. Portraits are a toss up. The 12-40 gets better bokeh in limited space, but if you can back up and zoom in, I actually prefer the 12-100 since it brings the background in and blurs it nicely for less distraction from your subject. For video, the image stabilization on the 12-100 is SUPER AMAZING! It’s even nice for stills when hand holding longer exposures. I think the 12-100 is a better buy if you can only have one, but the 12-40 is easier to carry and the range is perfect for most “snap-shot” type of situations. If you like lower ISO’s and shallower depth of field in tight spaces, you will need the 12-40. It’s a tough call between the two, but if you have the prime lenses you like, then the 12-100 is my recommendation.
I just ordered the 12-40 f 2.8. I also have the 75mm 1.8 that I use for headshots etc. From 75mm to 100 mm is just about useless for me so I went with the faster aperture.
Nice video, thanks for sharing! But, at the end, my question is not solved: 12-40 or 12-100?!?
I have 12-40 and I'm thinking at 12-100 for video and more zoom, but I also like to take (or try to take...) night photos (startrails, milky way) and so, if I'll bought 12-100 I'll need another lens for this kind of photos considering I should sell 12-40 to save money.
7-14 is expensive, 7.5 laowa or 7 artisan are fish eyes and I don't like this kind of lenses.
So, what should be your suggestion?
12-100mm f4 is good for video. It has a stabilizer and it can give a stop more compare to the 12-40mm f2.8. The 12-100mm is a bit dark for astrophotography. Laowa has a 7.5mm that is not a fisheye.
I could copy Doug King. The 12-40mm Pro have been my goto lens since I bought my M5 II and later M1 II. I found the reach a bit limiting. I have the 40-150 Pro but always carrying two bodies or changing lens. Well I didn’t always do that so I skipped some images I could have taken or I did crop the image when I got back home. A couple of months ago I bought the 12-100 pro. The 12-40 have not been used at all since. The 12-100 pro is now my goto lens. Yes it is bigger, more expensive and weighs more. But not by much in any of the categories and you get extra 60mm reach at the cost of one stop. Am I going to sell the 12-40mm pro? No my daughter is using it on my M5 II :-)
What about comparing resolution at widest aperture? I think that a comparison wide open using the overlapping focal lengths could be a deciding factor for some people.
I have neither and am interested in both. This is a tough decision. I would probably buy the 12-100 because of IS and reach. This would definitely be a great travel lens. Do you think it would work well for inside shots (like cathedrals, etc.) with the IS? I would probably also throw in a 17mm f1.8 for low light shooting, but I definitely would prefer the 12-40 f2.8 if the 12-100 isn't practical going from outside to inside, etc. If I had the 12-40 f2.8, I don't think I would bring the 17mm f1.8. As you can see, I am more confused now...ha ha ha.
Either one is very good for travel. Of course, the 12-100 f4 is a bit bigger and not so convenient. A 17mm f1.8 as a second lens for those low light moments is a good choice.
the 12 100 IS is a nobrainer when shooting in "high-res" mode at slower shutter speeds
because it is the only general purpose Olympus lens with IS.