Since I bought the 12-100 f/4 and took it to Switzerland, I haven't even mounted my 12-40mm f/2.8. It's THE lens to get when traveling light is important, without sacrificing optical range.

Thanks for the video. Nice comparison. I have the 12-45mm f/4. Terrific for photo walks, weekend hikes, etc. Used with the OM-5, it works well in early morning, early evening / sunsets. For lower light, I use the 20mm f/1.4. Both lenses are great. They're small and I don't need to worry about the rain, snow, etc.

Very good comparison review which I just found. I've had the 12-40mm f2.8 PRO for a number of years, and also got the 40-150mm f4.0 PRO at the same time as my OM-1 thinking those two lenses would make a great set for travel, which they do. The 40-150 is amazingly sharp and collapses down to about the size of the 12-45. But, since buying a used 12-100 at an excellent price earlier this year I hardly use either of the other two lenses. I went to a week long motorcycle rally this past summer and took several lenses and two bodies, but ended up using my OM-1 with the 12-100 carried in a compact holster bag. I think that combo is a great example of the "compactness" of the MFT format - not because either the body or lens are individually super small, but because of how small they are together when compared to what you would have to carry to duplicate that system's capabilities in an ASP or FF format.

Excellent video, honestly partisan without being biased or knocking the other options. I wish more people in photography viewed things more as "Which trade-off is best for what you want to do?" rather than "Which of these is better?" battles. (Not that everybody who does "battles" isn't actually giving the pros and cons fairly, but I'm not sure it's a sensible mindset.) I actually bought a 12-40mm f/2.8 this week in part because their (excellent condition) used price is down to £430 which is crazy for a lens of this quality. I had a 14-150mm as my kit lens, and I won't lie that the 12-100mm f/4 wasn't tempting to get that versatility in a better lens. And I own a 17mm f/1.8 which gives me a great low-light and background separation option. But I think the 12-100 is a bit big for my E-M5 iii ,and my priority is getting a bit more flexibility in getting background separated and low-light shots in that zoom range.

While the 12-100 mm does look very tempting, I do believe that for majority of non-professional kind of travellers, trekkers and hikers the 12-45 f4 pro makes a lot more sense. The 12-45, 40-150 pro or R and maybe the 75-300mm will cover you very well. The 12-100mm may become bit of a burden or annoying after a while and also I suspect that 12-45 may have better optics on account of being a bit more simple. And then you have the 12-200mm lurking around the corner as well, so it's nice to have so many choices for micro four thirds. BUT if you do get the 12-100mm then with just an additional 75-300mm you are really well covered for a nice trip. Well ....😏 I think I still like the 12-45 better .... Just my opinion though .... Edit: Some more thoughts on this since I had been trying to make my mind and decide on an ideal lens for myself and my camera for a while now ... This is not really about the lens since each of these lenses seem to be very capable. It is really about you as a photographer that is a more important differentiator here which may help in deciding which lens to choose and which lens would help you best. My thumb rule in helping you know yourself as a photographer is look at your own camera bodies preferences. If you are invested in small camera bodies then you like portability and you like to keep your gear small and light and so a 12-45 f4 pro should automatically be your first and probably your only choice. And if you have larger camera bodies then you like a type of photography for which the 12-100mm is a very practical choice as it gives a good useful reach. Small bodies such as olympus pen are still very capable cameras with the smaller prime lenses without sacrificing much. I think I will go with 12-45 f4 pro as it fits my style of photography. The 12-100mm is a bit larger than a 17mm f1.2 pro which has a fair size and weight. I hope that was useful ... :)

The one thing a lot of youtubers don't mention about the 12-40 f2.8 is that it is the only zoom that works with the macro flash system by Olympus. The 12-40 is not a true macro lens, but it is a useful differentiation for those that are interested in microscapes. Personally, I got the 12-100 f4 in combo with my em1 mark iii as my first camera/lens. It was actually the combination of videos by you and Derek Forss that helped me finalize on the Olympus ecosystem over all... Thank you for that.

I am with you Chris. My 12-100 is my go to lens especially for my landscaping and bearly leqaves my E-M1ii :) Stay safe

I have the 45-150 on my m3iii and love it. A comparison of the 12-100 and 45-150 would be interesting. Also being able to use the 1.4x or 2x tele with the 45-150 is a huge plus!

I can only agree, I have the 12-100 since a year and I need almost no other glas anymore on my em1m2. I use my very old 50-200 ft-lense with an adapter for wildlife and zoo‘s once in a while, but the 12-100 ist just great. Good video. Best regards from Germany

Small is beautiful. 12-45 F4.0 is the best zoom lens in all the mounts.

I would say that if you already own the 17mm (1.8 or 1.2) or the 25mm lens and you want a short zoom then go for the 12-45mm. It is cheaper than and just as good as the 12-40 to a point but if you need to shoot in low light then carry the 17mm or 25mm in your pocket....either of those tiny lenses weigh next to nothing.

Even though this video is a few years old, it is the first time viewing it.I have several 4/3 camera bodies in my collection of Pentax, Panasonic,Olympus, Fujifilm, Nikon and one Sony A7 ii. I have a Olympus OMD 1MKII and MKIII along with the EM5 MKIII. I have several different zoom and prime lenses the 12-40mm f2.8 and the 12-100 f4 are great lens, I use the 12-100 for distant landscape and wildlife when I travel but for just walking around the 12-40 is my choice. The Em5 I mostly use a selection of primes as Olympus and Panasonic have a host of fast small prime lenses. I will be going to Aruba in a few months and I will be packing a Panasonic G9 and the Olympus OMD 1MKIII and Em5 MKIII along with a few primes and zoom lenses, it makes for a compact system and that is my carry on in a small camera backpack.

I got the 12-45 as the kit lens with my EM5 Mk3 and liked it enough that I bought the 12-100 to get more range for a single lens travel kit. It was pricey, even used, but it was a good purchase.

I just brought the 12-45/f4.0 today. It looks to be a great lens from my initial 200 plus photos I took this afternoon. I now own all three. My workhorse is the 12-40/f2.8 because it pairs up so well to the 40-150/f2.8. The 12-100/f4.0 is my one lens wonder. The 12-45/f4.0 will be my small family outing lens. All great lenses. Great video.

I found this video very helpful in comparing sizes and weights. I owned the 12-40 f/2.8. It is an amazing lens, but I like really light weight gear. The 12-40 on my EM5, was out of balance and I couldn’t really carry it on my shoulder comfortably so it ended up in my backpack. Based on what I saw and the opinions stated, I bought the 12-45 f/4. It’s the lens I’ve been looking for.

Thanks Chris for an honest review. I'm a 12-40 kinda guy. I use and need the f/2.8 aperture, but fully get the other 2 lenses. Nice review.

Great video, Chris. I did the same choice. Started with 12-40, having 12-100 now. 😉

Everybody loves t he 12-100. I bought it when it came out, and it's still my favorite.

The 12-100 is the most appealing - especially with SyncIS. The 12-45 is only convincing if it is significantly cheaper than the 12-40, as there are more compact options.

12-45 is amazing on the EM5, EM10, and Pen-F. Very sharp, great macro capabilities.

I am considering buying the new 12-45mm for my Pen-F as my everyday lens, I have fast primes if I need to shoot in low light condition.

finally I am convinced. Thanks. Got both 12-100 & 17f1.2👍.

Nice one! As you know I'm also into other brands, but that 12-100 really is awesome! I mean it's a small, stabilized 24-200 lens. In my personal opinion it's also sharper than the 12-40 I've used for quite a while

My Oly 40-150 f/2.8 serves the purpose of your Oly 12-100 f/4 in a manner of speaking. It gives me, what I really want out of a zoom lens: Reach (at Oly pro quality) and on top f/2.8 in a focal range where it is not easy to come by. And since it's quiet heavy it's accompanied by the Panasonic 12-32(TWO)mm which doesn't have great light capability but weights just 70grams. And if I really need to shoot in more darker areas, I just purchased the 17mm f/1.8.

Awesome work, Chris, comparing three great choices succinctly. Like you. I had the 12-40/2.8 when I purchased my first E-M1. I had almost always lived at f/2.8 in Canon days and so the f/2.8 lenses for Olympus were like bread and butter, especially the trinity 7-14/2.8, 12-40/2.8 and 40-150/2.8. But when Olympus let me borrow the 12-100 with one of my E-M1.2 bodies back in January, 2018, I was hooked. And like you. a dear friend switched from Canon to Olympus using my E-M1 and 12-40/2.8 and he is still taking incredible shots with it. I realized recently the 12-45/4 Pro is really a nice successor to the 12-50/3.5-6.3 kit lens and when I first began testing the OM-D system in 2012-13, that kit lens was amazing on an E-M5. I think for any of the smaller OM-D bodies, the 12-45/4 would be an awesome travel lens on one of those with maybe a small telephoto zoom like the 40-150/4-5.6 and the 8mm fisheye or a 17/1.8 for museums and night scenes.

I have the 12-100mm but for a sunday Walk ist is to Heavy. Additional i consider the 12-45mm ( & the 40-150mm f4-6.3)

Thx for the comparison. I came to the same conclusions you did, 12-100 for outdoors (especially hiking in the mountains) and 12-40 for events with people (especially indoors). And I agree that all Olympus lenses (with very few exception) are optical superb. That being said it would interested in two image quality aspects of the 12-45: perceivable corner sharpness difference at 12mm at f5.6ish and vignetting at 12mm (the only “weak” point of the 12-100 if you shoot single shots of high dynamic range scenes and you want/need to lift shadows I feel that there is a visible increase in noise in the corners from remove vignetting plus lifting shadows even at ISO200). I ask this in this the context of printing larger (A2ish) not looking at the image at 400% in Lr. Any opinions? Thx, Frank

Good video Chris! Owning the 12-40 f2.8, I think I would go for the 12-45 f4 now, just because I like that compact and light feel of my 1.8 primes

Great video. I am one of those people who owned the 12-40. It was a beautiful lens but was too heavy for my camera over-the-shoulder style shooting with my EM5. Just too heavy; it made the camera unbalanced. It sounds like the 12-45 is the one for me.

Thanks for this review. I'm about to reintroduce myself to Olympus, having acquired a PEN EP-3 & a Stylus II. Currently, I'm shooting w/Fuji gear but am not happy with a variety of things Fuji. Be Well!

Excellent video, very well explained and I agree with your logic - the 12-100 is the one!

I sold my 12-45 and 40-150 f4 to get the 12 to 100 f4 and although it is a lovely lens and it is as you say a versatile range, sharp but it is way too front heavy for a lightweight EM5 mk3 body. I was influenced by the idea that I wouldn't need to change lenses and the 12-100 would do it all. Thing is I hated how unbalanced the camera and lens felt. I now regret selling the lightweight lenses. I've now sold the 12-100 and bought the 12-45 f4 again and eventually I will get the 40-150 f4 back but it has been an expensive lesson.

If resolution is equal, then more light = lower iso, which is always better.

Chris. A really great review, open, factual using analytical facts. Brilliantly concluded with a positive summary of each lens with its pros and cons. Thanks

Going small i would get the 14-150mm or 12-200mm

The 12-100mm is indeed (for many) the only lens you need. It sealed my choice 2 1/2 years ago to abandon Canon and switch to MFT, with the EM-1 ii + 12-100mm "kit lens" being my first purchase. Recently a friend tried out my camera+lens combination; this convinced him to switch system and buy the same kit. To make the kit complete, a long telephoto zoom like the 75-300mm or the Panasonic 100-300mm will add a lot of versatility, while those with a large budget might want to get the superb pro-grade Panasonic 50-200mm F2.8-4 (perhaps with the 1.4x TC) to complement the 12-100mm, and it's even a stop brighter at the low end.

There is no other lens like 12-100 f4 in any other system. Basicly that lens hold me to m43 at the moment.

Love the 12-100, before that it was the 12-60mm until it died.. got it repaired, but I bought the 12-100 and now the 12-60 gathers dust...

Thanks Chris for a very interesting and useful video! I have the 12-40 which I sometimes use on my em5 iii. It's sharp and I love the extra stop of light.

I use 1240 for 3 years and am bit cautious about 12100. But since so many people said it was good I decided te give it a try. For the time being I cannot say if one better then another.

If you have large hands 12-40mm is perfect

My EM1X ALWAYS has the 12-100 f4 Pro attached, if I need more light I have the 12-40 f2.8.

Very helpful video Chris thank you.

Still relevant in 2023.

Great overview. I agree with you- the 12-100 is on my EM1 iii the lion’s share of the time- both for nature videography and photography. I am partial to the 12-40 for interviews. I find the 12-45 intriguing as a street/urban lens for my EM5 iii. But I actually love the 12-50 on my EM5 for all around shooting. Its the ultimate “gadget lens” with its switch for macro mode, electronic and manual zoom (in lens without extension), and weather sealing. Its light weight and portable and I snagged one for just $175 and its one of my favorites! Did you test the macro performance on the 12-45?

12-100/4 is my choice number 1 for the last 2.5 years

Thanks for the comparison video.I already have and 12-40mm, and I mostly shoot in street and some landscape(not very adventurous type),do I need to add an 12-100mm?

Thanks and a great review. I have the 12-40 2.8 Pro and the 12-100 Pro, basically never take the 12-100 off. I wonder, how does the 12-45 Pro compare to the older 12-50? That lens was what got me back into Olympus with an E-M5 mk1. (long since upgraded)

Great comparison. But unfortunately there is no focus clutch on the 12-45.

12-45 is the weakest PRO lens, but it has charm, I use it

very useful .

Awesome video and very clear Chris. When you say you can leave the tripod home....what about those low light situations? Does the lens and in-body stabilization do the job? That 12-100 is big for me anyway. ... And, tell the folks at Olympus to make "Break Free" t-shirts!

Having carried the 12-40 f2.8 for the better part of 3 years, I would never have considered it in anyway heavy. It really is a great "all rounder" lens. It is a perfect match for any Olympus body, which delivers excellence. I feel that if anyone really wanted to complain about a heavy lens, perhaps they should try the 12-100 f4.0 on an EM-5.

Hi Chris, big fan of your channel, and I'm also a very happy Olympus em1.2 and em1.3 user with 6 olympus lenses. We all learned the news of Olympus having the intention of selling its imaging division to JIP. What do you think about the future of olympus and new gear development ?

f2.8-4 would have made way more sense.

Hi Chris. I wanted to consult with you about purchasing another lens. I have the following equipment: Body: EM10-Mark 2 Lenses: 1.Kit 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 2.45mm f1.8 3.75mm f1.8 4.40-150mm f4-5.6 What do you want to recommend as my next lenses? Saturn in Germany has a good deal on 12-45mm F4.0 PRO only for 300 Euro. Does that make sense to buy these lenses?

Thank you, really helpful.

Hi Chris, thanks for your detailed video. As a "kit lens" with EM5 Mark III, which one do you think is better? I do mainly nature photography (landscape, animals, flowers) and of course family pictures. Thanks.

what’s the difference between EZ and ED lenses please …. I have a pen f

I love the 12-100 f4. This amazing lens was the best gift create by Olympus for all m4/3 user, The IQ and range does not exist on any other interchangeable-lens camera system. And I don't think it was heavy either . It lighter than any 24-105 f4 on full frame world and it give you 100mm range extra .That's why m4/3 shine , really enjoy to carry this lens for hiking, with the em1mk3, it can handle 80% of my landscape image.

Did I miss something because I don't remember prices mentioned and I would find that a factor as well. It maybe that I was pouring a bourbon and missed it. Anyway liked and subscribed and thanks for the video.

You are the guy who should be the next omd “spirit”. The only chance to survive in this new Phone camera market and go pro thing, is to have long end zoom with less weigh and size to compete with full frame, and a superb quality construction ( bye bye Sony), all weather capable. And you are the one, by your look and work, the next “hero of travel and adventures”, the value thing for newer generations. ( yeah blogging capabilities too...)

Wir waren gerade 2 Monate in Japan. Wir, ein älteres Ehepaar, wegen des Gewichts MFT, jeden Tag 8 Sunden mit der Kamera unterwegs. Meine Frau mit dem Zuiko 12-100, ich mit dem Lumix 14-140, beide OM D M1 Mk2. Meiner Frau fehlte etwas die Tele-Brennweite, mir war ihre Combo etwas zu schwer. Für die Art, wie wir reisen, zu sehen hier auf unserem KZfaq Kanal, interessiert uns die angebliche Schärfe eines Objektivs überhaupt nicht, nur Robustheit und Gewicht. Außerdem: Schärfe ist keine Angelegenheit des Objektivs, sondern des Bildes. Haben aber alle Zuiko-Pro Objektive im Schrank. Antworten

Good explanation. You mention that you use 2 E-M1X Bodies with Lenses attached. How do you fit the E-M1X Bodies in your Atlaspack Athlete ? According feedback I got from Atlaspacks the E-M1X is a bit too large for this bag so it fits only 'flat' without Lens attached. Is this right ?

As much as I want to, I don’t get the new 12-45. Yes, it’s smaller and lighter and would work great with my em5mk3, but the f4 aperture limits it’s use considerably. It would be a fantastic lens if it had either of the following: 150€ cheaper retail price or IS. If it had IS, the lens would be a nobrainer.

Thanks for the video. One suggestion I have is to show some comparison photos, e.g., at the longest focal length, at the same focal length, etc. Somewhat ironic that a photography equipment review video doesn't have any photos. Try to avoid making a "talking head" video in which you just talk and be more creative. I had the 12-40 and sold it because I found myself selecting the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8, which is smaller than the Olympus 12-40 f2.8. I have been thinking about getting the 12-100 f4 as it is an "all in one" wide angle to telephoto lens. Based on your review, I plan to get one.

Interesting thanks. Do you think it's likely the 12-40 will be updated anytime soon with IS? Cheers

minimum focus distances?

Is the Zoom of the 12-100mm smooth enough to be used during video recording?

Hallo Chris, I got the 12-100 and the 7-14 for my E-M1 II know I need a smaler lens PRO for street photography and for the evening when I go out. Which one you suggest me to buy?

I'm new to photography and am thinking of upgrading the lens for my omd em10-ii.. I'm primarily into landscape photography and taking pictures when I hike. I like the idea of an all in one lens but wonder if the 12-100 will be too big on my hikes as the hikes I go on usually require a great deal of physical agility and sometimes scrambling with the use of my hands etc. Comparing the smaller lenses.. I like the idea of the 12-40 with the larger aperture for possible shots at dusk or dawn.. but the 12-45 compactness is also appealing.. what do you think?

I'm a complete amateur. Had an India trip planned last year so made an impulse purchase, em1ii w/ 12-200. Trip fell thru; never tested 12-200. Read that 12-200 is soft near 200. Still want to visit India and take photos + vids (who knows when). Your thoughts on 12-100 to replace 12-200 or get the 12-40 to supplement the 12-200? (have 7-14f2.8 & 25f1.4) Thanks!

This appears to be your latest video. I stumbled onto your videos this evening. I also shoot with Olympus when traveling and going light and free. I have subsequently sold all of my Nikon gear and have also been experimenting with the Canon RF systems. But still Olympus is for the road. I presume you are on some sort of adventure and look forward to more creative and informative productions.

Cris, I am considering switching to MFT from my Nikon FF. Does the 12-100 have more stress trying to stay sharp, due to building the longer zoom range?

Great explanation Chris. I absolutely love the 12-100 f4, you just can’t get the equivalent in full frame as they would never consider making a 24-200 f8.

The 12-100 never left my body! But that may be because it's the only lens I own now xD But I must say, I didn't really miss another lens till now. It really does it all. Of course I'd love to have some prime lenses, for filming those intimate cinematography shots.

To bad you cant focus stack with the 12-100.....

Hello, thanks to share your interesting video. I'd like to ask something please. I make only 4K 10 bit videos. I'm considering of buying Lumix GH5 II only if ..... there is a very good zoom lens to clip on. But it must be really very good lens and that has at least a focal range up to 80mm or more. I'm thinkig of Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-100 mm F4 IS Pro. but I don't know if it is so good like I want. And the most important thing is that it has to communicate with the Lumix GH5 II in everything (stabilizer and continous AF). Is there such a lens for the GH5 II or That Olympus M. Zuiko 12-10 is really good? In your opinion is it better than Leica 12-60 n regards to image quality? Thank you so much.

Street photography??

The 12-45 is near perfect. I love it, but I would love it more if it has a manual focus clutch.

Too heavy for my m5 iii

what is the good for having such a little bit tiny lens but cant help to shot a better low light??? oh hey i have tiny light lens but sorry we cant shot in the church cause my ISO at 12800. i would carry more heavier lense if it can shot better in low light. if LIGHTER is more important well just bring camera phone, your iphone quality probably on par with12-45 f4 i say its a bullsht philosophy about compact and tiny, if it can archive something better than a phone camera its fine, but if the camera and lens only archive what a phone can do??? who's gonna investing for it??? this why olympus log them self out from camera sells. full frame getting smaller almost as small as micro 4/3 alot APSC even smaller than MFT mean while smartphone already catch up with MFT quality, multi focal lenght, can blur the background, also had it macro lens in one small device. boom game over, the arguments about size is dead. the users wants f1.2, an affordable f1.4 or f1.7, who cares about size and weight, just pull out your smartphone and done.

Stop making such video or I will get an Olympus !