Olympus OM-D E-M5, E-M1, E-M10 - Mk1, Mk2 & Mk3 Owners Thread

[stevewestern]

Anyone got or tried the 12-200 lens?
As a one lens solution it seems pretty good although I've read that it's typical of so many super zooms, and not so sharp, but it would be interesting to hear from anyone who has tried it.

 

[Bebop]

Anyone got or tried the 12-200 lens?
As a one lens solution it seems pretty good although I've read that it's typical of so many super zooms, and not so sharp, but it would be interesting to hear from anyone who has tried it.

edit - oops sorry, I've just deleted my post. I read it as 12-100.... that's what I have.

 

[stevewestern]

edit - oops sorry, I've just deleted my post. I read it as 12-100.... that's what I have.

Ha, the 12-100 seems to be well known as an excellent lens, but I've not read anything bar reviews about the 12-200 but thanks anyway!

 

[tijuana taxi]

Anyone got or tried the 12-200 lens?
As a one lens solution it seems pretty good although I've read that it's typical of so many super zooms, and not so sharp, but it would be interesting to hear from anyone who has tried it.

I have read reports from users and the majority say its ok, but nothing great.
Doesn't sell well and is often available at a heavily discounted price
Unless you really need the 12mm a lot of people rate the Panasonic 14-140 mk ii for a general purpose lens

 

[stevewestern]

I have read reports from users and the majority say its ok, but nothing great.
Doesn't sell well and is often available at a heavily discounted price
Unless you really need the 12mm a lot of people rate the Panasonic 14-140 mk ii for a general purpose lens

Thanks for that, very helpful. I'm not actually sure what I want - planning a big trip away, want too keep weight down so unsure if I should take my fuji xh1 with the 18-135mm or get an Olympus em-something with a big-range zoom or a Sony rx10iv.
The Fuji is the cheapest option, has the biggest sensor but has the most limited zoom range, then the Olympus as the 12-200 seems perfect bar the quality and finally the Sony with the smallest sensor but the biggest zoom. I can sell on whatever I buy after so the cost shouldn't be too much of a worry ()
Not going for a couple of months so no big rush, just trying to find out what is available!

 

[tijuana taxi]

Thanks for that, very helpful. I'm not actually sure what I want - planning a big trip away, want too keep weight down so unsure if I should take my fuji xh1 with the 18-135mm or get an Olympus em-something with a big-range zoom or a Sony rx10iv.
The Fuji is the cheapest option, has the biggest sensor but has the most limited zoom range, then the Olympus as the 12-200 seems perfect bar the quality and finally the Sony with the smallest sensor but the biggest zoom. I can sell on whatever I buy after so the cost shouldn't be too much of a worry ()
Not going for a couple of months so no big rush, just trying to find out what is available!

There is always the Panasonic 12-60 f/2.8-4.0 with something like an E-M5 iii or E-M10 iv
Good stabilisation and in FF terms 24-120 coverage, not too slow even at the long end.
Obviously the 12-100, but that is a fair old lump of a lens and can get a bit weighty by the end of a days wandering.

 

[Bebop]

Ha, the 12-100 seems to be well known as an excellent lens, but I've not read anything bar reviews about the 12-200 but thanks anyway!

My friend has the 12-200 and she is really pleased with it. She loves the fact that she can travel with the one lens. However I have not seen her pictures and cannot vouch for how sharp it is. She doesn't have any of the pro range lenses.

 

[stevewestern]

There is always the Panasonic 12-60 f/2.8-4.0 with something like an E-M5 iii or E-M10 iv
Good stabilisation and in FF terms 24-120 coverage, not too slow even at the long end.
Obviously the 12-100, but that is a fair old lump of a lens and can get a bit weighty by the end of a days wandering.

It's the extra length that I think I'd want, and obviously don't want too much weight, but a one lens solution would be so good IF the quality is good enough. I've no idea what the 12-100 and a body of whatever make will feel like compared to my fuji..

My friend has the 12-200 and she is really pleased with it. She loves the fact that she can travel with the one lens. However I have not seen her pictures and cannot vouch for how sharp it is. She doesn't have any of the pro range lenses.

Should you see her in the near future and felt like asking I'd love to know what you think of it, but that's a big ask. Obviously I'm going to have to take a trip to Bristol or London and spend some time annoying dealers but thank you both for taking the time and your help!

 

[tijuana taxi]

It's the extra length that I think I'd want, and obviously don't want too much weight, but a one lens solution would be so good IF the quality is good enough. I've no idea what the 12-100 and a body of whatever make will feel like compared to my fuji..

I have used Fuji in the past and I reckon something like a G9 and 12-100 would be similar to your X-H1 and 18-135
Did have the 18-135, but wasn't that impressed, 12-100 is definitely better in every way.
Saying that if you are happy with the 18-135 you will probably be fine with the 12-200 from what i've read.

 

[Stephen L]

I have used Fuji in the past and I reckon something like a G9 and 12-100 would be similar to your X-H1 and 18-135
Did have the 18-135, but wasn't that impressed, 12-100 is definitely better in every way.
Saying that if you are happy with the 18-135 you will probably be fine with the 12-200 from what i've read.

I reckon @tijuana taxi is about right with handling, based on my experiences also of Fuji XH1 and Panny G9. The IQ of the Oly 12-100 is excellent, although these days it's about at the limit of what I would want to carry on my E-M1iii on my shoulders, unless it's in a backpack.

 

[stevewestern]

I have used Fuji in the past and I reckon something like a G9 and 12-100 would be similar to your X-H1 and 18-135
Did have the 18-135, but wasn't that impressed, 12-100 is definitely better in every way.
Saying that if you are happy with the 18-135 you will probably be fine with the 12-200 from what i've read.

Again, that's very helpful, thank you.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Again, that's very helpful, thank you.

My pleasure
One thing I would say that being fair to the 18-135 and the 12-200 is they are both a good bit cheaper than the 12-100.

 

[TVRTim]

Anyone got or tried the 12-200 lens?
As a one lens solution it seems pretty good although I've read that it's typical of so many super zooms, and not so sharp, but it would be interesting to hear from anyone who has tried it.

Have a look at this link for Flickr, its a group dedicated to this lens.

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12‑200mm F3.5‑6.3

In this group you can show your photos taken with the M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-200 F3.5-6.3 lens. Main Specifications Mount : Micro Four Thirds mount Focal distance : 12 – 200 mm (equivalent to 24 to 400 mm on a 35 mm camera) Max. aperture : f3.5 to f6.3 Image angle : 84° – 6.2° Lens configuration...

www.flickr.com

 

[Olly B]

I have the 12-200 which I pair with my em 1 iii, its a good lens, not as super sharp as the 12-100, and can be a bit noisy if you pixel peep, but as a walkabout lens it is a good option. Just to throw something else into the mix, were I going somewhere that I am not likely to go to often, ie Norway later in the year, my lenses of choice will be the Oly 12-40 (a super sharp lens) and the new Oly 40 - 150 which is a very good lens imo, and not as heavy as its pro equivalent.

 

[the black fox]

buzzard
sunbathing by jeff cohen, on Flickr

 

[the black fox]

one from saturday morning just checking out my C mode settings , taken from the honda hide
on the trot by jeff cohen, on Flickr

 

[Bebop]

I stumbled upon some old photos today from when I used to shoot Jpeg and raw on my EMii. (I’ve only shot raw for some time now). I noticed that the jpegs were larger in terms of pixel dimensions than the raw files. It surprised me. I haven't checked to see what happens now, but presumably the same?

 

[RedRobin]

I don’t know to be honest. My issue is I’m currently using an Olympus om 10 mk3 and the focus isn’t brilliant for me.
I shoot a lot of trains and wildlife with a fair bit of cars at Santa pod etc and I guess I was hoping for an improvement in the focus with the live tracking ability.
I’d love to move over to Fuji but currently have a fair few Panasonic lenses so would like to stick with Olympus if your able to mention a camera with better focus?

.... Trains and wildlife (and surfers) is what I photograph and rarely anything else and I shoot hundreds of images every week.

My first Olympus was the M1X but I now shoot on the OM-1 and the speed of focussing and Tracking (depending on which OM lens!) is the fastest yet, especially with the latest Firmware - I have noticed a difference. I don't know but doubt if any Panasonic lens combos will match what the OM PRO lenses can offer on the OM-1.

Subject Detection is not essential but can be a real help.

 

[RedRobin]

I generally only shoot with the EVF as well, but I also check settings on the rear screen and use it for low level viewpoints etc. so I like to have it visible while shooting.

.... Unless you are somewhat careless with how you handle and look after your camera gear, I don't think you need a screen protector on the modern OM bodies. Screen surfaces have benefitted from advances in technology.

 

[RedRobin]

Thanks. Yes, I think I was putting him off his dinner We watched for ages and left him/her to it in the end.

.... Owls aren't just watching, the feathered large discs around their eyes are sound receptors. Sight and sound are what they rely on when hunting.

 

[myotis]

.... Unless you are somewhat careless with how you handle and look after your camera gear, I don't think you need a screen protector on the modern OM bodies. Screen surfaces have benefitted from advances in technology.

It has been a long time since Nikon cameras came with a clear plastic protective covers, and I was making the assumption that they were no longer that important.

But had my question here brought about multiple tales of screen disasters, I might have changed my mind.

 

[RedRobin]

Ha, the 12-100 seems to be well known as an excellent lens, but I've not read anything bar reviews about the 12-200 but thanks anyway!

.... On any brand of zoom lens which is as extreme in range as 12-200mm you are likely to see heavy vignetting at the wider focal lengths - You'll see it on the image itself not in the viewfinder. You can obviously crop it out but then you are not really getting what you may want.

 

[RedRobin]

For most railway photography I find myself using the OM 12-40mm F/2.8 PRO the most, occasionally the 40-150mm F/2.8 PRO.

EUROSTAR e300 AND e320 by Robin Procter, on Flickr

 

[Llewellyn]

I want to increase my reach capabilitiy. At present the best I can do is my 40-150 + MC-14 giving a 420mm equivalent. FYI they are on an EM1 mark II if that is relevant.

I am debating whether I should buy an MC-20 for my 40-150 giving 600mm equivalent or buy an Olympus 75-300 which gives the same.

FYI they are on an EM1 mark II if that is relevant.

Anyone got hands on experience with these and who would like to share their thoughts?

 

[ajophotog]

.... Unless you are somewhat careless with how you handle and look after your camera gear, I don't think you need a screen protector on the modern OM bodies. Screen surfaces have benefitted from advances in technology.

I very rarely flip the screen open as I mainly use the EVF, I only use the lcd for setting up in the menus mostly. No screen protector really needed here.

 

[the black fox]

I very rarely flip the screen open as I mainly use the EVF, I only use the lcd for setting up in the menus mostly. No screen protector really needed here.

same here

 

[the black fox]

a backlit godwit yesterday
you put your left leg out by jeff cohen, on Flickr

 

[RedRobin]

I want to increase my reach capabilitiy. At present the best I can do is my 40-150 + MC-14 giving a 420mm equivalent. FYI they are on an EM1 mark II if that is relevant.

I am debating whether I should buy an MC-20 for my 40-150 giving 600mm equivalent or buy an Olympus 75-300 which gives the same.

FYI they are on an EM1 mark II if that is relevant.

Anyone got hands on experience with these and who would like to share their thoughts?

.... I have lots of hands-on experience with the Olympus 40-150mm F/2.8 PRO with either MC-14 or MC-20 but have never even handled a 75-300mm.

The 40-150mm F/2.8 PRO is brilliant and a very useful flexible lens with the MC- options.

A lot of my Grasshopper photos have been shot with the MC-20 combo : (more on Flickr)

RUFOUS GRASSHOPPER FEMALE NYMPH by Robin Procter, on Flickr

 

[myotis]

Ha, the 12-100 seems to be well known as an excellent lens, but I've not read anything bar reviews about the 12-200 but thanks anyway!

This may well be one of the reviews you read, but have you seen Robin Wongs review. I have no experience of the lens.

Review: the 2019 Olympus ZD 12-200 f3.5-6.3

Olympus has just released the M.Zuiko 12-200mm F3.5-6.3 which joins their current two superzoom lenses, the 12-100mm F4 IS PRO and the 14-150mm F4-5.6. The new 12-200mm lens has weather-sealing but…

blog.mingthein.com

 

[the black fox]

another option I use is a four thirds 50-200 f2.8 super lens used with a MMF-2 adaptor .. looking to get a EC-14 adaptor for it in time for bug season.
shots from one I owned previously and shows why I wanted another one
the thinker by jeff cohen, on Flickr

fly day by jeff cohen, on Flickr

 

[stevewestern]

.... On any brand of zoom lens which is as extreme in range as 12-200mm you are likely to see heavy vignetting at the wider focal lengths - You'll see it on the image itself not in the viewfinder. You can obviously crop it out but then you are not really getting what you may want.

Yeah, I know I'm dreaming a bit here, and deep down I imagine I'll end up with a 2 lens solution to my 'problem'..

This may well be one of the reviews you read, but have you seen Robin Wongs review. I have no experience of the lens.

Review: the 2019 Olympus ZD 12-200 f3.5-6.3

Olympus has just released the M.Zuiko 12-200mm F3.5-6.3 which joins their current two superzoom lenses, the 12-100mm F4 IS PRO and the 14-150mm F4-5.6. The new 12-200mm lens has weather-sealing but…

blog.mingthein.com

No, I'd not seen it but am about to!
Thank you both for your replies.

 

[stevewestern]

..and I've now read the review and it's a fair bit more positive than I was fearing.
Hmmm.

 

[Stephen L]

I seem to hear a lot about the 40-150 f2.8 but little about the f4 pro version. Is it any good?

 

[tijuana taxi]

I seem to hear a lot about the 40-150 f2.8 but little about the f4 pro version. Is it any good?

Supposed to be very good, but no manual focus clutch or stabilisation.
Shame its another of the extending design type, really dislike that wind it out before using it style.

 

[ajophotog]

Supposed to be very good, but no manual focus clutch or stabilisation.
Shame its another of the extending design type, really dislike that wind it out before using it style.

doesn't accept extenders either.

 

[RedRobin]

I seem to hear a lot about the 40-150 f2.8 but little about the f4 pro version. Is it any good?

Supposed to be very good, but no manual focus clutch or stabilisation.
Shame its another of the extending design type, really dislike that wind it out before using it style.

.... I really dislike physically extending zoom barrels too. The stabilisation limitations may be even more critical if the F/4 version accepts mounting the MC-14 or MC-20 and if it doesn't accept those extenders then that can be a deal breaker. Stabilisation components can add a lot of cost (and weight?) to a lens. However, I think it's probably fair to describe it as a very good value budget lens with good optics. As always it depends what you want to shoot with this lens - Horses-for-Courses.

Ah, this was posted while I was writing, confirming what I feared ....

doesn't accept extenders either.

 

[Stephen L]

.... I really dislike physically extending zoom barrels too. The stabilisation limitations may be even more critical if the F/4 version accepts mounting the MC-14 or MC-20 and if it doesn't accept those extenders then that can be a deal breaker. Stabilisation components can add a lot of cost (and weight?) to a lens. However, I think it's probably fair to describe it as a very good value budget lens with good optics. As always it depends what you want to shoot with this lens - Horses-for-Courses.

Ah, this was posted while I was writing, confirming what I feared ....

I too dislike having to extend a lens. Teleconverters don’t interest me - a 40-150 lens is only be used rarely as I don’t usually want to go longer than around 75mm, so I may find myself re-buying that lens. I’ll stick to my little Panasonic 45-150 for now then. The f2.8 would be complete overkill.

 

[Brazo]

I have the 40-150 F4 pro and it’s a very small, light sharp lens that’s why I bought it. It’s tiny compared to it’s 2.8 brethren and far more likely to be taken out by me. I paid about £100 less for the 4 than the 2.8 so it wasn’t a price decision and I haven’t regretted it. It’s horses for courses lots of advantages/disadvantages to the 2.8 and vice versa as with anything in photography you have to pick what works for you.

 

[leaky5]

Has anyone had cash back from the recent Olympus promotion yet, just wondering how long it is taking roughly ?

 

[Bebop]

Has anyone had cash back from the recent Olympus promotion yet, just wondering how long it is taking roughly ?

I think it was this promotion - has it been running since November or was that a different one? I bought my lens on 7th November and received cash back in my bank on 25th November