I shoot most of my videos on Olympus 12-200 on a Lumix GH6. It's a fantastic lens.

Great seeing some real world experience of this lens, which seems to have been forgotten by many people. I have a similar problem with the 12-40 2.8, which I mainly use for holidays. I got it as a "kit" lens and it's amazing but the 40mm is often woefully inadequate at the long end. The Oly 12-45, Oly 12-50 and even Pan 12-60 don't offer much more reach, and if I'm going to buy another lens I might as well get something with more significant extra reach like the 12-100 or 12-200. The 14-150 is cheaper than both, BUT, even though I want more reach at the long end, I still take a significant proportion of photos at 12mm, indeed, probably more than I'd take above 40mm! So losing 2mm at the wide end makes the extra reach the long end just seem completely pointless!!! For the price of the 12-200 I could either get that to supplement my 12-40, or alternatively sell the 12-40 to (well, almost...) make up the extra I need to get the 12-100. While the 12-100 as an all in one seems to have the best IQ and would make a great compromise between having both the brighter 12-40 and longer zoom range 12-200, it's also extremely large and heavy. The separate 12-40 and 12-200 are both arguably better all in ones in different situations... The extra stop on the 12-40 gives it an advantage as a night/indoors all in one where the lack of reach isn't really an issue (not as much to zoom in on indoors and far away things aren't usually impressive at night), while the range of 12-200 gives it an obvious advantage as a day/outdoors all in one where the slow aperture isn't really an issue (and I'd be buying it mainly for use outside in good sun while on holiday). Sure, you could argue that the amazing stabilisation of the 12-100 makes up for the stop difference with the 12-40 and also probably resolves more detail at 100 than the 12-200 does at 200, but again, it's even bigger, heavier, and more expensive and not something I'd want to carry around with me all day in a hot country... I like lenses being as small as possible. And I dislike selling lenses, especially as the 12-40 always manages to give amazing results, I can't see me parting with it. Obviously the 12-100 is a pro lens, while the 12-200 isn't. But while I'd expect it to be soft around the 200 end, I'd expect it to be useable at least up to 150, if not 200. And then pretty good up to 100, if not 150. If it's very good up to only 80, that's still twice the reach of the 12-40, and obviously the more of the range above there that it's good/adequate/useable/etc, the more of a bonus it is on top of that double reach... So I guess my question is (if you have time to read this and reply!) how would you grade the range of this lens at it's different ranges? Also, I've read a review claiming the 14-150 was significantly sharper, would you say that was an exaggeration (as I've seen impressively good pictures taken with the 12-200, especially the wide end but even at the long end) and is the 14mm limit at the wide end as noticeable as I fear it is, when compared to 12mm? Many thanks if you can add insight on this 😊

Fantastic video. I have the Panasonic G9ii and have serious gear fever... I own a lens for just about every excuse (haha... in my defense I use and love them all)............. EXCEPT for a travel do-it-all lens. Was between the Panasonic 14-140mm and the Oly 12-200mm. Both are weather sealed and the Panny offers me extra stabilization.............. but the Olympus gives me that much more reach. Hmm...!

I finally bought the 12-200mm lens on discount in Dec 22 and have been using it every day since on my EM5 Mkiii. It’s a great all-in-one. 12mm is wide enough for handheld vlogging and 200mm is long enough for most needs. By far, the most convenient lens I have and it stays on the camera 95% of the time. For the other 5%, I may switch for the Oly 17mm f/1.8 or the Rok 135mm/f2 mainly for lower light capability. My copy of the 12-200mm is very good from 12mm to 100mm and then the resolving power drops a bit the closer you get to 200mm. Across the full zoom range though, I find the image with pleasing contrast and very good colour. This review was spot on!

Thanks for this very practical review. I've been sitting on the fence with this lens to hear real life experiences first before purchasing.

Joe, great video! I just bought the Olympus 12-200mm based on your reccomendation. I used to have the Lumix 14-140mm but the Oly has a greater focal range. Plus, the Oly image quality is fine enough for pro work. I will be shooting two professional magicians in Denver on the 9th of next month. I intend to use the 12-200mm Oly. BOOM! Thanks for the recommendation! Mark

I have this lens and agree, it’s so very versatile. Of course it’s what on the camera (OM-D E-M5 Mark III) when going on vacation/hikes. But it’s also my go-to lens for doing videography, especially of my son’s lacrosse games. Bonus: the short focus range let’s me take same darn good macro shots even though that word appears nowhere on this lens.

Some wonderful photos here! I’ve been thinking for this lens with an OM5, but it seems a bit too big for an everyday carry. Thinking of a fast prime and perhaps the 40-150 F4…still I get the need for a bit more reach some days! Tempting! Nice video!

Haha thank you for saying my dilemma. I feel the same way about the 12-200 and the primes. I just wish was a little more bright. F4 or even F2.8 but would have been double the size and much heavier.

Thank you for the review. Definitely interested in that lens.

Great stuff! I've been rumination over where to go for my travel kit. I shoot Sony FF and Olympus E-M1 III. I go back and forth between the E-M1 III with the 12-100/4 and the Sony A7 IV with the Tamron 28-200. Surprisingly, the 2 kits are roughly the same size and weight. In a perfect world, I would carry one body and one lens. My travel is primarily as a tourist, not a photographer, and my wife , surprise, surprise, has very little tolerance for lens changing.😁 The Tamron with a wide end of 28 mm really leaves me wanting to bring a wide angle too. Just got back form Alaska, and 200mm was serous;y inadequate for shooting a moose at 200 yds . This lens looks like it really could be a solution to my dilemma. I looked at your images on Flickr and they look way more than good enough. Thanks a lot.

You got me thinking about this lens. Good argument.

The 12-200 mm is also my go to every day walk about lens. I couple it with the Olympus OMd 5 mk 3 with a wrist strap and use it all day. With a couple of spare batteries it takes as many images as I need. It does have its issues particularly chromatic aberration on flower images with light coloured flowers on a dark background, this shows as a dark blue halo, which can be tuned out in Lightroom. I had an issue with the lens, it was not sharp at the 200 mm end, after a discussion with Olympus it was sent back for investigation. I sent with it several images of the softness to show the problem. The repairers got in contact and after that they did a complete alignment and it came back a different lens. As its not a Pro standard lens the production process is less rigorous and tolerances can build up. I do have an Olympus OM d 1 mk 3 with various primes and the 12-100 mm, but I find that gets used less and less.

I would like to have this lens but I can't afford one at the moment but my 14-150mm mk1 is just a satisfying for me and saves me having to chop and change lenses all the time

Thanks Zoe -I have been in a prime lens mind set until recently. I have however started to use the zoom on my iphone 13 while shooting transport videos and it has opened an whole new dimenision to me and I have been looking around for a good camera. The topic of this video has therefore been of great interest.

At the moment I've got a 9-18mm and a 75-300mm, and also two bodies, an E-M10 MkII and an E-M5 MkIII, because I don't especially like switching lenses. I was thinking about the best in between lens to get for most scenarios and I can't, for the life of me, decide between between the 14-150mm and this 12-200mm. The 12-200mm is obviously superior in most respects, but it it more expensive and also heavier. About 180 grams heavier which, when mounted on the E-M5 MkIII, could make a difference after a day of carrying it around.

I am considering to buy this lens to use it for hiking. Do you think image quality is good for golden hour landscape shots when the light is low without having to use tripods?

Hi ows the manual focus ring? Focus by wire

Maybe it was my copy but it was terribly soft at every focal range. Returned it after two days.

I can’t be sure but judging from youtube I don’t think this lens has as much punch as the 14-150….. you have both, what do you think?

I enjoy and appreciate your videos. Taking about image quality. Which lens do you think is better betwin the 14-150 and the 12-200 ? Is there a big difference ? Same question about size and weight ?

3.5-6.3 is pretty bad aperture range no...? Portraits = 1.2 or 1.8, 2.8 for general, 4 is fine for bright sunny days / landscapes. Seems limited. ISO is bad on m43 to start with...

Did this work well on G9?

your 12-200 pics are more punchy than red45’s …!!

❤❤❤❤❤