IS on Olympus 12-100 f4 vs. other lenses

Can anyone who has used both the Olympus 12-100 f4 and other lenses with IS (e.g. Panasonic 12-35) shed light on how its image stabilization compares when used on BMD cameras? My specific interest is the BMPCC but a comparison on other cameras would also be worth hearing.

Thanks.
Steve

Can anyone who has used both the Olympus 12-100 f4 and other lenses with IS (e.g. Panasonic 12-35) shed light on how its image stabilization compares when used on BMD cameras? My specific interest is the BMPCC but a comparison on other cameras would also be worth hearing.

Thanks.
Steve

I've used the 12-100 quite a bit now.

I like the IS and the way it's working on my camera.

I haven't used the panny 12-35 for a long time and sure haven't used it on the P4K.

The range of the zoom is great. The slower F4 aperture doesn't seem as bad as I thought it would be, especially at the long end of that range when you consider what you get. I like it a lot and have been shooting it hand held quite a bit and generally with the IS on and working well.

JB

I've used the 12-100 quite a bit now.

I like the IS and the way it's working on my camera.

I haven't used the panny 12-35 for a long time and sure haven't used it on the P4K.

The range of the zoom is great. The slower F4 aperture doesn't seem as bad as I thought it would be, especially at the long end of that range when you consider what you get. I like it a lot and have been shooting it hand held quite a bit and generally with the IS on and working well.

JB

Thanks, John. I need to get to a workable handheld setup or I'll never take my camera anywhere. I've got the Zacuto Z-Finder loupe which helps quite a bit and wear an XTPower battery in an iPhone case around my wrist. This lens might be my last purchase for a while (famous last words).
Steve

Can anyone who has used both the Olympus 12-100 f4 and other lenses with IS (e.g. Panasonic 12-35) shed light on how its image stabilization compares when used on BMD cameras? My specific interest is the BMPCC but a comparison on other cameras would also be worth hearing.

I've been using the 12-100/4 quite a bit myself.

Very impressed by what this lens offers in usability - zoom range, stabilisation and quality of image. F/4 is very usable, especially when you can bump the ISO to 3200 without the noise concerns.

There is quite a bit of distortion at the wide end, but I 'm happy to live with that considering what this lens offers overall. I've actually grown to quite like that character (a bit anamorphic looking) for certain jobs, so things don't look too clinical.

I have both, the Olympus 12-100 (thanks to John Brawley) and the Panasonic 12-35.
The Olympus OIS wipes the floor with the Panasonic.
The Panasonic has the same distortion at 12mm, so only advantage is f/2.8

Thanks Tristan, Robert.
Selling off some excess gear and saving for it.
Steve

Steve, you won't regret buying it.

Unless you require a parfocal Zoom. Please don’t lose sight of that. There are shooting situations that require a parfocal Zoom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And don’t forget it is heavy compared to the Panasonic zooms, all of them in the same range. But in my limited experience with the 12-100 I was thrilled with its speed of focus

Unless you require a parfocal Zoom. Please don’t lose sight of that. There are shooting situations that require a parfocal Zoom.

I wonder if any AF m43 lens is *true* parfocal, any more than the Oly Pros m43s are *true* manual focus.

You see parfocal claims for the leica/panny 12-60 (though not, strangely, in the specs at dealer websites or in the Panny product page), but there are just as many reports that it's not really, if tested under conditions where zooming out isn't providing enough added DOF to ensure sustained focus. I think the Oly Pro 12-40 is also supposed to be parfocal, but again, is it really?

Unless you require a parfocal Zoom. Please don’t lose sight of that. There are shooting situations that require a parfocal Zoom.

I wonder if any AF m43 lens is *true* parfocal, any more than the Oly Pros m43s are *true* manual focus.

You see parfocal claims for the leica/panny 12-60 (though not, strangely, in the specs at dealer websites or in the Panny product page), but there are just as many reports that it's not really, if tested under conditions where zooming out isn't providing enough added DOF to ensure sustained focus. I think the Oly Pro 12-40 is also supposed to be parfocal, but again, is it really?

I've just run some tests on the Pany/Leica 12-60 on the P4k. It is NOT parfocal. (focus at 60mm on 12 ft distance. Zoom out to 12 mm. Image is soft.)

Interesting if the product literature doesn’t describe the Leica 12-60mm lenses as parfocal which I thought Denny had found to be true on the Micro cameras. I think I shouldn’t really comment on technical things like this for which I have no experience! Apologies. From here on, I’ll put a sock in it unless the conversation is about truly manual PL lenses or the Anamorphots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And don’t forget it is heavy compared to the Panasonic zooms, all of them in the same range. But in my limited experience with the 12-100 I was thrilled with its speed of focus

Not exactly what I would call heavy:

Olympus M.Zuiko digital ED 12-100mm 4.0 IS PRO ... 561g

Panasonic Leica DG Vario Elmarit 12-60mm 2.8-4.0 ASPH ... 320g
Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm 2.8 ASPH II OIS ... 305g

Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 14-140mm 4.0-5.8 OIS ... 470g
Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-140mm 3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS ... 265g

There are no parfocal claims in the Panny literature, for any of its m43 lenses, as far as I can tell. Olympus claims it's "E-series" are true zooms and therefore parfocal, but it's unclear whether the m43 lenses are included in this series. I don't think so, E-series appears to go back the 4/3 era, but don't know for sure.

User reports suggest that none of the m43 lenses, including the best of them, are true parfocal.

David, how is the lens mount on the camera you used for the test, any play in it? If so, this would cause the discrepancy in focus, a kens Mount thst is slightly off, will effect the zoom’s ability to be parfocal.

I tested my lens on my Olympus PenF, the Micro Studio and my AF100, all have a tight mount. I used a lens focus target at around 10-feet, and I got the same focusmpoint at 60mm and 12mm on my PL 12-60, using f/4 at 60mm and f=2/2.8 at 12mm to get less DoF effect in the focus.

I initially set the focus at 60mm and pulled back, checking the focus target at several points, with the lens set at f/2.8 at 12mm and let it ramp up the iris to 60mm. I tired the focus both ways, same results both times. I did a similar test outdoors on some tress 30-40 feet away, and agin, the lens maintained focus whilst being zoomed.

I did the same test with my Angenieux 17.5-70, which is a parfocal cine Zoom by design, and got the same results. So maybe I lucked out with a parfocal cooymon the PL 12-60, but I have read of several,other users also experiencing their PL 12-60s were parfocal also.

John, at one point when the PL 12-60 first came out, Panasonic was saying, “the lens maintained its focus while being zoomed...” if my memory serves me correctly. They did not use the term Parfocal however. The only Oly E zoom that I am aware of in the MFT/Four Thirds line up that are parfocal is the Oly SW 14-35 f/2.0, and this lens was also a true manually coupled focus, in addition to AF.
Edited to correct typos
Cheers

Unless you require a parfocal Zoom. Please don’t lose sight of that. There are shooting situations that require a parfocal Zoom.

I wonder if any AF m43 lens is *true* parfocal, any more than the Oly Pros m43s are *true* manual focus.

No “stills” lenses are parfocal because no one except us video shooters really cares about that. There are some that accidentally end up being parfocal, but that’s usually down to individual copies of lenses, on individual copies of cameras.

In my view the Olympus Pro lenses are true MF lenses. They offer AF, manual focus by wire OR you pull the focus ring back to engage a mechanical clutch.

How is that not true MF ? It has hard stops for minimum and infinity. You can put a focus motor on it, calibrate it and get repeatable focus.

JB
- Should declare my status as an Olympus Visionary here and mention that I’ve met with their optical team and consulted a lot with Olympus on these very issues...making their PRO lenses more motion friendly.

Thank you, John.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

David, how is the lens mount on the camera you used for the test, any play in it? If so, this would cause the discrepancy in focus, a kens Mount thst is slightly off, will effect the zoom’s ability to be parfocal.
Cheers

Denny, As I mentioned, my test were performed with the Pocket 4k. The lens is nice and snug in the mount.

The consensus with Panny and Oly lenses that appear to be parfocal, is that the camera firmware uses a software compensation to maintain focus through the zoom range (if the zoom is slow enough). I therefore think BM is not using this, at least not yet, and not with the P/L 12-60.

John B, was is not you who first said several years back to me, when the when the Pocket Camera came out, the Oly 14-35mm f/2.0 had a real manual focus, and was parfocal, and was the only FT/MFT Zoom that was? Based on this, I got one back then for the AF100, and found your statement to be very true. Now, if the zoom lens was parfocal, is down to a luck on my copy, or not, I do not know.
But I am glad I got this lens, it has a nice IQ for video work.

But I agree, still camera designed zoom lenses are not normally parfocal by design, as they do not need to be. Wasn’t the first parfocal cine zoom down to Angenieux, who developed the first true parfocal by design zoom lens?

David, thanks for your report, sorry to hear your PL 12-60 is not holding focus while being zoomed.
Another issue with MFT zooms and parfocal performance is the lens mount FFD is not necessarily exactly the same from one camera to the next, and this will effect the zoom’s ability to be a true parfocal. So designing a parfocal MFT lens becomes very difficult, if the kens Mount FFD is not consistent with in a given range or specification.

I discovered this with my Angenieux 17.5-70, a true parfocal Cinema Zoom, and using the same Wooden Camera MFT/PL adapter (the one designed for the original Pocket camera) on my BMPCC, the Zoom parfocal, holding focus on a lens test chart whilst being zoomed. When I got my Micro Cinema camera, I put the same WC MFT/PL adapter on the Micro camera (both cameras had WC cages and the PL adapter was attached to the cage to eliminate MFT lens mount play), and the zoom was not longer parfocal. I had to get eye WC Pro MFT/PL adapter with its shim kit, and add a thin shim to the Micro camera PL adapter to get parfocal performance again from the Angie zoom.
Cheers

John B, was is not you who first said several years back to me, when the when the Pocket Camera came out, the Oly 14-35mm f/2.0 had a real manual focus, and was parfocal, and was the only FT/MFT Zoom that was? Based on this, I got one back then for the AF100, and found your statement to be very true. Now, if the zoom lens was parfocal, is down to a luck on my copy, or not, I do not know.
But I am glad I got this lens, it has a nice IQ for video work.

But I agree, still camera designed zoom lenses are not normally parfocal by design, as they do not need to be. Wasn’t the first parfocal cine zoom down to Angenieux, who developed the first true parfocal by design zoom lens?

The Oly 14-35F2 was the only one that’s true. This is a 4/3 mount lens though and is no longer made. It was part of the original E series, which is what Olympus called 4/3. When they went to MFT it became EM, so my E5 became an EM5.

Those F2 zooms are amazing lenses. For video though, they do have too much image shift of focusing (for me)

JB

Yes, they do shift a little, especially the longer 35-100. But not as bad the the Panny Leica 14-50 FT zoom, which had really bad focus shift/breathing when doing a focus pull from near to distant. I useually use my 14-35 for some slow zooms, once focused in a landscape shot, or a fixed focus, then zoom to change AOV (not a live zoom) during event coverage. So the focus shift is not an issue, unless you do a focus pull from one subject to another, and I prefer Primes for this.

I think the Four Thirds Mount was one of the best still camera mounts made, it held its FFD more precisely. I wish the MFT group had kept the original FT physical mount, only changing the mount FFD, when they went to the mirrorless Camera design. This would have opened up lens design, with the FT mounts larger diameter allowing for lenses with a slightly larger back pupil, and helping to keep a flater filed of view, to improve edge sharpness, like Nikon has done with its Z Mount system.
Cheers

David, thanks for your report, sorry to hear your PL 12-60 is not holding focus while being zoomed.
Another issue with MFT zooms and parfocal performance is the lens mount FFD is not necessarily exactly the same from one camera to the next, and this will effect the zoom’s ability to be a true parfocal. So designing a parfocal MFT lens becomes very difficult, if the kens Mount FFD is not consistent with in a given range or specification.

Thanks, Denny. As you say, it could be small differences in the camera mount or this particular lens. Then again, it could be that all of the 12-60 lenses will not be parfocal on the P4k. It's still early in this game so let's see what other 12-60 owners report with this camera.

In my view the Olympus Pro lenses are true MF lenses. They offer AF, manual focus by wire OR you pull the focus ring back to engage a mechanical clutch.

How is that not true MF ?

I don't own these lenses and have no experience of them, so I'm relying on third party reports, where the persistent admission is that, despite the clutch and the hard stops, it's still focus by wire and, at least to some degree, with the limitations of that design. OTOH, it's not as if the internet is never wrong....

If you know for sure that once the clutch is engaged, it's strictly and solely a mechanical mechanism -- and would work if (for example) the contacts weren't transmitting power to the lens -- then I guess that answers it.

On the question of the Panny Leica 12-60, there are *many* reports that it fails at being parfocal. And, as already noted, it's not advertised as such. Even if one mount in a dozen provides something approaching parfocal performance, that's still a perilously slim basis for making the claim, in the real world.

I don't own these lenses and have no experience of them, so I'm relying on third party reports, where the persistent admission is that, despite the clutch and the hard stops, it's still focus by wire and, at least to some degree, with the limitations of that design. OTOH, it's not as if the internet is never wrong....

The good new is that you don't have to trust the internet, but I do suggest you can trust John because of his experience.

IMO they (Olympus Pro lenses) optimize shooting with the P4K. If you want to use touch AF, they work great. For MF, which I normally use, the damping and feel are equally great as is build and weight/size.

But yes, these are reliably repeatable manual focus lenses w/ AF. The ony MFT lenses I own that aren't full MF and my new favorites.

Unless you require a parfocal Zoom. Please don’t lose sight of that. There are shooting situations that require a parfocal Zoom.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rick, thanks (as always). With my current skill set (and time to devote to this), parfocal is not yet an issue. But maybe someday it will be for me. I can only hope. As folks use these threads as a resource (I know I do), all this input is great to capture and the comments about parfocal really help folks learn and understand the issues.

Nice to hear that John is advising Olympus. Good stuff.

Steve

That’s all good; thank you, Steve! According to others, it seems the parfocal feature is not a guarantee so it may depend on what camera it is used on as there can be variations in specifications due to different tolerances and possibly some variations in the lens itself, but the mount is the likely source of variance in my opinion. I agree with those who recommend it. The 12-100mm focal length range is incredibly appealing as that’s likely all I would use with the BMPCC4K.

If you ever step up to a Cine Zoom, I think the Fujinon MK T2.9 series (Super 35) is getting good reviews. The range is different though with an 18-55 and a 50-135mm. Under $7,800 total. So longer but not as wide. However you can combine this with a SLR Magic 1.33x-65 Anamorphot Adapter that was specifically made for the MK zooms. For $1,800 you will be able to purchase the adapter with focus gears. Then you add the PD Movie wireless follow focus system that simultaneously controls focus on both the zoom and the adapter for about $1,000. So you have a very useful anamorphic setup for under $11,000. If I was starting all over, that would be my goal for zooms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously looking at the 12-100 - will need to save some pennies, but it looks like a great option. Or maybe I can sell some of my other lenses

According to others, it seems the parfocal feature is not a guarantee so it may depend on what camera it is used on as there can be variations in specifications due to different tolerances and possibly some variations in the lens itself, but the mount is the likely source of variance in my opinion.

Unlikely. Olympus refers to "true" zooms, as distinguished from "variable focal length" (or "varifocal") lenses, the latter being the norm in this class of relatively low cost lenses. Only the "true" zooms, according to Olympus, are parfocal. It sounds a bit tautological -- you know a true zoom, because it's parfocal -- but you get the idea.... There's nothing to indicate the 12-60, or any other lens in this class is a "true" zoom.

OK, I recant my claim that rhe PL 12-60is Parfocal. The copy I have thst I have rested on three cameras I have used it on, seems to hold focus when zoomed from 60mm to 12mm and back. How any other copy of this lens will perform on any other camera is unknown until that lens is tested on the camera in question by the user of the lens in question.

The only true parfocal zooms, are the PL mount Cine variety and Broadcast B3/B4 zooms that are made to the close tolerances required to be parfocal on a lens mount that can maintain the correct FFD of that lens.
Cheers

OK, I recant my claim that rhe PL 12-60is Parfocal.

It's too late Denny, the force has been misaligned, and now the universe out of balance.

You shall now be banished to the Kodak corner to wait your slow demise. Or was that the Nokia corner? I forget.

I don't own these lenses and have no experience of them, so I'm relying on third party reports, where the persistent admission is that, despite the clutch and the hard stops, it's still focus by wire and, at least to some degree, with the limitations of that design. OTOH, it's not as if the internet is never wrong....

Focus by wire means (to me) not having repeatable focus action and lacks feel in focus pull situations.

The mechanical clutch of the Olympus PRO primes offers repeatable focus pulling, hard stops and a manual focus feel.

Now the encoder of that mechanical clutch may be "by wire" but it has to be. AF lenses need to be light and fast to be able to move the elements. If they were directly coupled it wouldn't be as fast or precise.

I only manual focus. I pull my own focus often and the feel to me of manual focus is really important to me. I'm like the manual focus guy. It's one of the most important parts of my operating style and is why I often STILL pull my own focus even when I have a foc us puller available. I do it because it connects me to performance and I know where and what I want to pull focus between and my muscle memory and experience with different lenses serves me well.

That's all to say, I consider myself fussy about manual focus and how it feels to the operator.

The Olympus Pro primes MF is by FAR the best manual focus experience you'll ever have on an autofocus lens of ANY brand.

To be better you need to go to cinema style lenses (which also address the parfocal issues being discussed)

I honestly haven't seen any "limitations of that design" so I'm not sure what is being referenced here. In fact when self focus pulling, the shorter throw is actually BETTER because I don't have to move my fingers on the barrel so far. (Olympus lenses are typically 90 degrees Vs 300 degrees on cinema lenses)

The earlier Oly 4/3 lenses had a mechanical focus ring BUT no hard stops. Most canon lenses like the EFS 17-55 F2.8 have terrible image shift, a very thin focus ring also with no hard stops and a very lightweight feel. The panaleica 4/3 zooms were also pretty bad for image shift on focus.

The stills manufacturers are only just addressing the motion demands of users like us.

As I said, if you want a MF feel with an AF lens (and IS), then there really isn't anything better. It's as close to a mechanical action as you'll ever get.

JB

The Olympus Pro primes MF is by FAR the best manual focus experience you'll ever have on an autofocus lens of ANY brand.

Now I own an Olympus 12-100/4 (a recent purchase based on your positive experiences) I would have to agree with you, apart from one exception - the Fujinon XF lenses with manual clutch.

That said, I only XF lens I own with a manual clutch is the XF 14mm f/2.8, but that manual clutch feels even more directly coupled to the elements than my 12-100. With the Olympus I can feel just the tiniest (and I mean tiny, you would only notice if you're really, really looking for it) motor responses.

Nevertheless, the Olympus feels great use as a manual lens - very happy to have it attached to my Pocket 4K for certain shooting situations.

John, have you been able to get some decent bokeh out of that F4?

On my GH5 the 12-60 will use the AF to maintain focus as you zoom but if you zoom too fast it will not keep up. Not tested this on the P4k. My worry with all these lenses ( I have the 12-35, 12-40 and 12-60) on the P4k is the severe amount of distortion at the wide end which I would assume the 12-100 also suffers from. It's correctable with the lens distortion feature in Resolve but it does seem to degrade the image detail and you loose quite a bit of coverage so you need to account for this when framing. I've often considered the 12-100 but on the GH5 I'd loose IBS and the excellent I.S Lock mode.

John, have you been able to get some decent bokeh out of that F4?

I am not John, but yes.

And 2 more

The interview_5 shot may be what we are looking for. All samples have great out-of-focus separation of foreground and background, but interview_5 shows us a couple of the round bokeh highlights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd like to check out the newish cine zooms with the Pocket 4k like the Fujinon MFT

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1436743-REG/fujinon_mk18_55mm_t2_9_m4_3_mk_18_55mm_t2_9_lens.html

or the Canon EF with Metabones

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1246187-REG/canon_1714c002_cn_e_18_80mm_t4_4_compact_servo.html

I guess the P4k is too new for anyone to have any experience with these lenses.

The more expensive Canon has OIS

...

If you ever step up to a Cine Zoom, I think the Fujinon MK T2.9 series (Super 35) is getting good reviews. The range is different though with an 18-55 and a 50-135mm. Under $7,800 total. So longer but not as wide. However you can combine this with a SLR Magic 1.33x-65 Anamorphot Adapter that was specifically made for the MK zooms. For $1,800 you will be able to purchase the adapter with focus gears. Then you add the PD Movie wireless follow focus system that simultaneously controls focus on both the zoom and the adapter for about $1,000. So you have a very useful anamorphic setup for under $11,000. If I was starting all over, that would be my goal for zooms.

Allow me to adapt a comment originally made about car guys: "How many expensive lenses should a lens junkie own?" Answer: 3 more than his (or her) spouse knows about!

Steve

Well, the Fuji lens is not out yet, so no one could be testing this version. MTF Services did make a MFT mount for the Sony E mount, that someone might have had a chance to test.
Cheers

Good advice, Steve.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just got the 12-100 yesterday - and I can handheld 100mm ! Wow.

For best in lens IS, and long range, the Oly 12-100 looks like the winner.
Cheers

Just got the 12-100 yesterday - and I can handheld 100mm ! Wow.

Nice! Good to hear. Hope to get mine soon.
Steve

Just got the 12-100 yesterday - and I can handheld 100mm ! Wow.

Yeah, I've no concerns shooting at that length with the camera/lens combo when handheld.

I've even gotten stable, usable shots at 100mm on the Ronin-S. Though I'm not planning to use that focal length on a gimbal very often.

May I ask owners of the Olympus 12-100 how you avoid vignetting at 12mm when you use screw-on filters with a lens hood? I already tried a 95mm wide-angle lens hood but it still vignettes at 12 mm.

No big deal though to zoom a tiny bit in when using cinemascope e.g. but I'm still curious as this never
got mentioned anywhere.

Thanks.

The best solution is a WA Matte box, or something like the Wooden Camera clamp on hoods that use 4x4 or 4x5.6 filters.
Cheers

Bright Tangerine Misfit Atom can work as a clamp-on with the right adapter for your lens. It’s very light weight and flexible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, yes it can.
Cheers