On 6/19/2019 9:18 AM, Mike Lazzari wrote:
Anyone try this lens yet? Wasn't shipping soon enough before our trip to try or
I would have taken it.
Well, it's an interesting lens. For specs, size, weight, zoom range and weather sealing are all appealing, while speed
is the obvious trade-off. Speed is actually a bit worse that one might imagine. A couple of the reviews point out how
quickly aperture diminishes with FL.
You can see that visually here.
A much faster reach for the sky of small aperture that the Panny 14-140, for example. I don't have the Oly 14-150
anymore, so can't read the data to show it.
I've just read five reviews of the lens. They all like it in many ways. No one likes it optically above, variously
75-100 mm, and esp. at 200mm. They all love the 12-100, and compare this lens to it.
It might be useful, considering what the lens is aimed at, to compare it to travel zooms with much smaller sensors. My
Panny ZS50 is pretty good up to ISO 400, then crashes and burns, but not up to a µ4/3 camera at any ISO. I wouldn't be
surprised if a crop @ 400 mm eq. is better than the little sensor @ 720 mm eq., certainly so from ISO 400 up.
I switched from Oly 14-150 to Panny 14-140 some time ago, simply for the OIS on the tiny, IS-less GM5. It's a quite
wonderful combo for a small kit. It might be fun to try out this 12-200 to see how it feels and how images compare. With
it's size and lack of OIS, though, it would be better matched to a larger body with IBIS.
One thing these folks don't test is how long end images respond to deconvolution. It may be that, post processed,
differences in detail resolution are greater or lesser.
On 6/19/2019 11:48 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
Anyone try this lens yet? Wasn't shipping soon enough before our trip to
try or I would have taken it.
But the 12-100/4 is my dream lens. THAT is what could bring be back
into the fold.
Make me an offer. :-) Seriously. It could come with an E-M5 II.
You are a master of subjective relationship to photo gear, so you may understand - I just don't like this lens. Yeah,
OK, it's optically pretty wonderful, with one exception; max mag. at the short end. (A failing the 12-200 doesn't share,
BTW.) I shoot a lot of close-ups, and the 12-100 drove me crazy. Sure, I pop C-U lenses on and off my zooms all the
time, but that doesn't mean I LIKE it. There's a size range for flowers and small critters where the PLeica 12-60 just
gets the shot, and this one doesn't, without an aux. lens.
It's also a stop slower than the PLeica at the short end. Annnd, getting into subjective ergonomics, the PLeica 100-400
is one of the lights of my (photographic) life. For whatever reasons, Panny and Oly zoom rings zoom in opposite
directions. When I drop one body and lift the other to my eye, it's really nice not to have to think about that, or
discover, in frustration, that I'm twisting one the wrong way.
Yup, 12-60 isn't a long as 12-100. And occasionally, but not too often, I miss that coverage. OTOH, it's optically as
good, so don't give anything away there.
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/