I had the Tamron 18-400 for my old Canon. I loved the convenience. Wasn't crazy about the chromatic aberration in high contrast. I wasn't aware of the 12-200. I like the potential for those times I go out with one lens. Thanks for showing it off👍👍
This is my absolute favourite lens! It stays on my camera most of the time purely because of the very handy and wide range. Yes, it‘s a bit slow, especially in low light (adjust ISO), but I have caught birds, up-close, with it, if they sit still for a second! I‘ve recommended it to some friends and they love it too. Just watch the focusing, it can tend to hunt, so use the green focusing rectangle on Live View and it‘s fine.
Hi Brian, I bought the 12-200 mainly for holiday use and have been really pleased with it. The lense is well balanced on my em1 mkiii and a joy to use. Keep up the good work 👍
Wanted this lens since it came out! Was planning on eventually getting it as a kit while upgrading my EM5MII to the MIII, but now there's the OM5 (which makes more sense to get instead of MIII), but there's no kit option with the 12-200, sadly 😔 (at least the last time I checked). I don't understand how so many people are dismissive of this lens, all the evidence I've seen shows its a lot sharper than it should be for the zoom range, and the softness at the long end that people mention seems to be exaggerated. I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks this... The 12-40 has been amazing to take on holidays but always find the 40 end wayyy too restrictive. No point in the 12-45 or even Panasonic 12-60 as want something at least up to 80 if I'm going to buy a new lens, the 12-100 is tempting, but the size/weight/cost seems too much for a travel lens. The 12-200 is smaller, lighter and cheaper and even if was a little soft above 150 (TBF, even above 100) its still completely useable over the same 12-100 range, anything usable over that is just a bonus! For holidays in sunny countries where light isn't an issue it seems a total no brainer to me... I could sell the 12-40 to roughly cover the cost difference to the 12-100 (or at least I could last time I checked a year or two ago!) but keeping the 12-40 (for F2.8) and getting the 12-200 (for massive range with more portability) seems to have the best of both worlds, whereas the single 12-100 seems an overall compromise, amazing as that lens may be. If I had infinite funds, of course, I'd just have all three... 😉 So hope to have this lens one day when I can finally afford!!! And keep the 12-40 for museum or other indoor type things where the F2.8 is useful (also I love that lens and would hate to part with it). A lot of Olympus 14-150 owners seem to think that's a far better lens (apparently a lot sharper, I've not used either so can't comment myself!) but even though I want that extra reach, I take a large proportion of pictures on holiday at 12mm, to the point where I think that loss of only 2mm at the wide end would missed far more than the gains I would get at the long end, making the 14-150 counter intuitive for my needs... Be interesting to see if anyone else feels the same way!
I tried it once and returned it the other day. Quality wise it's producing less sharp and detailed photos on 200mm than my 35-100 f2.8 panasonic at 100m and a crop to the 200mm view. However it's a nice lightweight lens with a huge reach, makes it a nice combination with a light body for hiking. I do not mind another few grams and go with the 12-100 f4. (which unfortunately has quite some vignetting at 12mm - but easy to fix in post) Thumbs up and fingers crossed for the 7k subscribers.
My default lens is the Zuiko 12-100 f4, the 12-200 has a much wider range but I find the 12-100 makes far fewer optical compromises than other 'superzoom' lenses. And you get that wonderful Zuiko Pro build quality and silky smooth handling. It's not cheap, but it's worth it. I would honestly nominate it as the best lens in the world, not because it is the best at anything (it isn't) but because it can do just about anything extremely well.
Great review Brian and some very good points. I can see the appeal of a superzoom, for a while I used an 18-200 on APS-C. I can also see the benefit of m43, especially with slower or variable aperture lenses as you can cover a hell of a lot of focal length with minimal weight and pack size. To the point where you don't even need a camera bag. My problem with superzooms though is they never go wide enough. Almost every day I need something around the 9-10mm mark so a superzoom is never going to be my 'one lens to rule them all'. My m43 loadout is the olympus 9-18 (yep the ancient collapsible one) and panasonic 35-100 (yep the tele kit lens). Together they're probably a similar size and weight to one superzoom, have more than enough image quality in all but the worst light, they cover the bits of a superzoom that I'm interested in AND the wider bit that the super zoom lacks. Rarely need anything else.
It becomes a lens vs camera debate :S I Had a go with one a while back for a few weeks. The sensor on it is similar to an older top range phone camera sensor. The ISO is laughable and its clearly just an internal post brightness slider on it. anything over the base just turns into pixelated low contrast garbage, and image stabilization almost felt non existent, making handheld over 300mm near pointless, which is a fraction of the lenses max range, but it doesn't get enough light extended to boot. I found the low light performance and general image quality of the Panasonic Tz220 much better, and that whole camera is tiny in comparison (Though only goes to 370mm)... but... better sensor, and in my opinion a far far far superior all in one, though people trash talk it lol. My Olympus em5 MIII with the 12-200 doesn't have huge low light advantages over the tiny Panasonic all in one, but it's there.. better stability when zoomed for sure, faster click to shutter action, faster image saving, and a little bit better highlight recovery, but most importantly.. you can take a second lens lol.
A small M43 camera with this or the 14-140 on it will be quite a small and light setup. Far superior with cropping up to about a 600mm view point. I have the B700 and have been tempted by the 950 but it's heavy and only really good for wildlife or the moon
I am thinking, the Panasonic 14-140mm if it is long enough, beats the Olympus, being more compact and considerably lighter. The image quality, as per tests, indicates it is a tad better. Actually, on sale for $130 USD, the 40-150 kit lens by Olympus might be the deal for most people. I have the Panasonic 45-150.. and now the 12-60mm which are both good.
Thanks Brian - interesting. I’m veering towards getting the Oly 14-150 at some point which is also weather sealed and cheaper. Guessing this is very similar to the Lumix 14-140.
I have the 14-150, too. I find it better than the Lumix 14-140, but not as good as the OMDS 40-150. It is a bit soft at the long end, but good enough for family photos and all but the most demanding work. It lives on my PEN F, for "go anywhere" shooting. But I put the 40-150/2.8 on the OM-1 when I'm "serious" about photography! If the 12-200 is as good at 200 as the 14-150 is at 150, I think it would be pretty adequate, but with more range at both ends. But it appears to be significantly larger and heavier, too.
I was going to get this lens but opted for the Panasonic. It's much sharper than my 40-150 but obviously that's dirt cheap. It's incredibly sharp for the £320 used price I paid, so I'm happy. I think most people say cropping the F4 pro lens gives better results than this one. It's just £200 more than I could have paid last year atm so still waiting for prices to drop on that one.
I have used this lens off and on for the last two years. Though it is a good lens overall, the f6.3 over the range of 100-200mm is disappointing. Over this range I’d rather use the heavier Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for Olympus E-system with an adapter for OM D
I keep looking at this lens but I have the Lumix 14-140 so I keep telling myself a few steps back or forward covers the extra range. That has stopped me... for now! 😁
Not used this lens I have used the 12-100 F4 use it when traveling and only want to take a few lanes and love it. Yes it is a bit heavy I bought second hand
I have a 12-200 and i found a Little hard the movement of the zoom from 100 to 200, After that seems to release and It Is very soft to come back to 12. Is It onllu on mine or Is a common thing? Thanks
Hi Brian it's Ken here again. My question is about the Olympus 12-200mm lens. Have you tried it on your Panasonic G9 if so how did it perform on that camera ?. I have got a G9 & a G90 nowadays and was seriously thinking about swapping in my Panasonic 14-140mm and getting the Olympus 12-200mm. Cheers matey.
Yes, I did try it on the G9 and it worked well. I try to assess lenses on both my main bodies where I can. It is a very nice lens. The extra 60mm (120mm FF equivalent) makes a noticeable difference in reach, the 2mm at the bottom, very little. You’ll lose the dual IS capabilities by going to the Olympus and I’m not convinced there’s enough optical difference (if any) to be important. It will however entail a reasonable amount of expense though. I had this same dilemma as I also own the 14-140. I just could not justify the expense. If it’s purely the extra reach I’d rather spend the money on a 100-300/2 (or save the extra pennies and get the excellent 100-400 mk1 used) and keep the 14-140. My main advice would be to pop to a dealer and try one. Yes, I still have a G9/1 and will be keeping it for some time along with my EM-1/2 Olympus. Hope this helps.
@@ThatMicro43Guy Thank you Brian for getting back to me and very quickly. I will have to think about this one a bit more due to the expense. There is a local independent camera shop near me so I think that I may pop in and ask for a trial . Thanks again for your invaluable help, and keep those videos coming .
I tried that lens and literally returned it the next day I found it seriously lacking. I found it super soft at the telephoto end. And at wide to mid I can’t explain it exactly but like it wasn’t rendering the image properly. I was expecting more from Olympus. My old lens from 2005 a 4/3 lens that was a 12-150 from pana/Leica looked better
Sono passato a olympus per questo obiettivo che è troppo comodo per le mie escursioni in montagna e viaggi. È l'unico che parte da 12mm per me fondamentale per cui gli altri non li considero neanche.
You should mention that the lens is weather-sealed which is a critical feature for travel and outdoor shooting.
Nice job.
Perfect lens for travel photography. Probably the next one I will get. Will suit my GX9 perfectly.
Good video. I've been considering buying this one as a travel lens and this definitely helps with the purchase decision.
Glad it was helpful!
I had the Tamron 18-400 for my old Canon. I loved the convenience. Wasn't crazy about the chromatic aberration in high contrast. I wasn't aware of the 12-200. I like the potential for those times I go out with one lens. Thanks for showing it off👍👍
This is my absolute favourite lens! It stays on my camera most of the time purely because of the very handy and wide range. Yes, it‘s a bit slow, especially in low light (adjust ISO), but I have caught birds, up-close, with it, if they sit still for a second! I‘ve recommended it to some friends and they love it too. Just watch the focusing, it can tend to hunt, so use the green focusing rectangle on Live View and it‘s fine.
Interesting! I did consider this but in the end opted for the 12-100 f4 which I have been very pleased with - it's on the mk3 all the time!
Hi Brian, I bought the 12-200 mainly for holiday use and have been really pleased with it. The lense is well balanced on my em1 mkiii and a joy to use. Keep up the good work 👍
Wanted this lens since it came out! Was planning on eventually getting it as a kit while upgrading my EM5MII to the MIII, but now there's the OM5 (which makes more sense to get instead of MIII), but there's no kit option with the 12-200, sadly 😔 (at least the last time I checked).
I don't understand how so many people are dismissive of this lens, all the evidence I've seen shows its a lot sharper than it should be for the zoom range, and the softness at the long end that people mention seems to be exaggerated.
I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks this... The 12-40 has been amazing to take on holidays but always find the 40 end wayyy too restrictive. No point in the 12-45 or even Panasonic 12-60 as want something at least up to 80 if I'm going to buy a new lens, the 12-100 is tempting, but the size/weight/cost seems too much for a travel lens. The 12-200 is smaller, lighter and cheaper and even if was a little soft above 150 (TBF, even above 100) its still completely useable over the same 12-100 range, anything usable over that is just a bonus! For holidays in sunny countries where light isn't an issue it seems a total no brainer to me... I could sell the 12-40 to roughly cover the cost difference to the 12-100 (or at least I could last time I checked a year or two ago!) but keeping the 12-40 (for F2.8) and getting the 12-200 (for massive range with more portability) seems to have the best of both worlds, whereas the single 12-100 seems an overall compromise, amazing as that lens may be. If I had infinite funds, of course, I'd just have all three... 😉
So hope to have this lens one day when I can finally afford!!! And keep the 12-40 for museum or other indoor type things where the F2.8 is useful (also I love that lens and would hate to part with it).
A lot of Olympus 14-150 owners seem to think that's a far better lens (apparently a lot sharper, I've not used either so can't comment myself!) but even though I want that extra reach, I take a large proportion of pictures on holiday at 12mm, to the point where I think that loss of only 2mm at the wide end would missed far more than the gains I would get at the long end, making the 14-150 counter intuitive for my needs... Be interesting to see if anyone else feels the same way!
I own this wonderful lens i use it mostly for holidays this amd a fast prime is all you need to travel. Great review 👍
Loved the photos. Looks like a good lens too!
Very much tempted ...
I tried it once and returned it the other day. Quality wise it's producing less sharp and detailed photos on 200mm than my 35-100 f2.8 panasonic at 100m and a crop to the 200mm view.
However it's a nice lightweight lens with a huge reach, makes it a nice combination with a light body for hiking. I do not mind another few grams and go with the 12-100 f4. (which unfortunately has quite some vignetting at 12mm - but easy to fix in post)
Thumbs up and fingers crossed for the 7k subscribers.
I think I might get this. I love the 14-140 so much, this might be better. I wonder if it would work well with Panasonic G9
My default lens is the Zuiko 12-100 f4, the 12-200 has a much wider range but I find the 12-100 makes far fewer optical compromises than other 'superzoom' lenses. And you get that wonderful Zuiko Pro build quality and silky smooth handling. It's not cheap, but it's worth it. I would honestly nominate it as the best lens in the world, not because it is the best at anything (it isn't) but because it can do just about anything extremely well.
Yes, it is a great lens. I’m doing a review on it soon.
Great review Brian and some very good points. I can see the appeal of a superzoom, for a while I used an 18-200 on APS-C. I can also see the benefit of m43, especially with slower or variable aperture lenses as you can cover a hell of a lot of focal length with minimal weight and pack size. To the point where you don't even need a camera bag.
My problem with superzooms though is they never go wide enough. Almost every day I need something around the 9-10mm mark so a superzoom is never going to be my 'one lens to rule them all'. My m43 loadout is the olympus 9-18 (yep the ancient collapsible one) and panasonic 35-100 (yep the tele kit lens). Together they're probably a similar size and weight to one superzoom, have more than enough image quality in all but the worst light, they cover the bits of a superzoom that I'm interested in AND the wider bit that the super zoom lacks. Rarely need anything else.
An alternative for a small sensor camera is the Nikon P950 type superzooms
It becomes a lens vs camera debate :S I Had a go with one a while back for a few weeks. The sensor on it is similar to an older top range phone camera sensor. The ISO is laughable and its clearly just an internal post brightness slider on it. anything over the base just turns into pixelated low contrast garbage, and image stabilization almost felt non existent, making handheld over 300mm near pointless, which is a fraction of the lenses max range, but it doesn't get enough light extended to boot. I found the low light performance and general image quality of the Panasonic Tz220 much better, and that whole camera is tiny in comparison (Though only goes to 370mm)... but... better sensor, and in my opinion a far far far superior all in one, though people trash talk it lol. My Olympus em5 MIII with the 12-200 doesn't have huge low light advantages over the tiny Panasonic all in one, but it's there.. better stability when zoomed for sure, faster click to shutter action, faster image saving, and a little bit better highlight recovery, but most importantly.. you can take a second lens lol.
A small M43 camera with this or the 14-140 on it will be quite a small and light setup.
Far superior with cropping up to about a 600mm view point.
I have the B700 and have been tempted by the 950 but it's heavy and only really good for wildlife or the moon
I am thinking, the Panasonic 14-140mm if it is long enough, beats the Olympus, being more compact and considerably lighter. The image quality, as per tests, indicates it is a tad better. Actually, on sale for $130 USD, the 40-150 kit lens by Olympus might be the deal for most people. I have the Panasonic 45-150.. and now the 12-60mm which are both good.
Thanks Brian - interesting. I’m veering towards getting the Oly 14-150 at some point which is also weather sealed and cheaper. Guessing this is very similar to the Lumix 14-140.
I have the 14-150, too. I find it better than the Lumix 14-140, but not as good as the OMDS 40-150. It is a bit soft at the long end, but good enough for family photos and all but the most demanding work. It lives on my PEN F, for "go anywhere" shooting. But I put the 40-150/2.8 on the OM-1 when I'm "serious" about photography!
If the 12-200 is as good at 200 as the 14-150 is at 150, I think it would be pretty adequate, but with more range at both ends. But it appears to be significantly larger and heavier, too.
I was going to get this lens but opted for the Panasonic.
It's much sharper than my 40-150 but obviously that's dirt cheap.
It's incredibly sharp for the £320 used price I paid, so I'm happy.
I think most people say cropping the F4 pro lens gives better results than this one.
It's just £200 more than I could have paid last year atm so still waiting for prices to drop on that one.
For the specimen of images I would have appreciated the indication of focal length, apperture and exposure time....
I have used this lens off and on for the last two years. Though it is a good lens overall, the f6.3 over the range of 100-200mm is disappointing. Over this range I’d rather use the heavier Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for Olympus E-system with an adapter for OM D
Specs sound good, but in reality they mean nothing. I just want to know if the lens takes good shots - end of story.
I keep looking at this lens but I have the Lumix 14-140 so I keep telling myself a few steps back or forward covers the extra range. That has stopped me... for now! 😁
Not used this lens I have used the 12-100 F4 use it when traveling and only want to take a few lanes and love it. Yes it is a bit heavy I bought second hand
So on a micro four third this would give you 24-400 in 35mm equivalent due to the crop size!
From a field of view point of view, yes, absolutely.
Was hoping you'd mention something about the stabilization on Lumix bodies. How different is it from the 14-140?
I have a 12-200 and i found a Little hard the movement of the zoom from 100 to 200, After that seems to release and It Is very soft to come back to 12. Is It onllu on mine or Is a common thing? Thanks
Hi Brian it's Ken here again. My question is about the Olympus 12-200mm lens. Have you tried it on your Panasonic G9 if so how did it perform on that camera ?. I have got a G9 & a G90 nowadays and was seriously thinking about swapping in my Panasonic 14-140mm and getting the Olympus 12-200mm. Cheers matey.
Yes, I did try it on the G9 and it worked well. I try to assess lenses on both my main bodies where I can. It is a very nice lens. The extra 60mm (120mm FF equivalent) makes a noticeable difference in reach, the 2mm at the bottom, very little. You’ll lose the dual IS capabilities by going to the Olympus and I’m not convinced there’s enough optical difference (if any) to be important. It will however entail a reasonable amount of expense though.
I had this same dilemma as I also own the 14-140. I just could not justify the expense. If it’s purely the extra reach I’d rather spend the money on a 100-300/2 (or save the extra pennies and get the excellent 100-400 mk1 used) and keep the 14-140. My main advice would be to pop to a dealer and try one.
Yes, I still have a G9/1 and will be keeping it for some time along with my EM-1/2 Olympus.
Hope this helps.
@@ThatMicro43Guy Thank you Brian for getting back to me and very quickly. I will have to think about this one a bit more due to the expense. There is a local independent camera shop near me so I think that I may pop in and ask for a trial . Thanks again for your invaluable help, and keep those videos coming .
@@kenrobinson9989 you’re welcome.
I tried that lens and literally returned it the next day I found it seriously lacking. I found it super soft at the telephoto end. And at wide to mid I can’t explain it exactly but like it wasn’t rendering the image properly. I was expecting more from Olympus. My old lens from 2005 a 4/3 lens that was a 12-150 from pana/Leica looked better
Loved your video!
L&S
Thank you
I hope you like beers?
Sono passato a olympus per questo obiettivo che è troppo comodo per le mie escursioni in montagna e viaggi. È l'unico che parte da 12mm per me fondamentale per cui gli altri non li considero neanche.