I recently sold my 12-100 f4 Pro. It was my most expensive lens and my least used.

I struggled with selling it on a few levels, as I had little really to complain about.

• It was super sharp through the range.

• It had tremendous range (which was why I bought it as a landscape all-in-one).

• It had very good close focus at a decent working distance.

but,

• It was big and heavy, especially for M43. I am very acclimatised to the M43 dynamic now and when one lens weighs more than any other camera and lens combined, it is a struggle to include it. As intended, as a landscape fix it was a decent compromise, but that was all too seldom. The 12-40 just fits my hand and bags better.

• I respected it’s “hard” sharpness and micro contrast, but preferred the nicer images made by the 12-40 or primes. This is much the same thing I found with my 40-150 Pro compared to the 75-300. The Pro lens was superior in every way, but I just like the images the 75-300 put out enough, for half the weight, one third the price and twice the reach.

• I find the 12-40 easier to use for abstract macro work. Shorter macro lenses generally are, but the added working range of longer macro lenses is better for insect stalking.

• I much prefer the bokeh from my primes, the 12-40 or even the 75-300. The jittery Bokeh that all of my hard-sharp Oly lenses have had was a little unpredictable. Sometimes I could not get it to disappoint even when I was trying to find fault, then there it was. It seemed to especially dislike sunlit winter trees in the middle distance. Both 40-150’s also have this quality, likely due to superior micro contrast.

• I find an f2.8 or faster aperture more creatively exciting, especially in M43.

• The 12-40 feels like a premium hobbyists lens. The 12-100 is over-kill for me right now.

Minor things I know, but in an under used kit with too many options, it felt unbalancing and wasteful.

This leaves me with a kit that has two lenses left in the “hard” sharp-high micro contrast category (17mm and 40-150 kit), one in the “perfectly balanced” class (75mm) and the rest in the bolder, smoother “simple” sharp camp (25, 45 and 75-300).

Below a close-up comparison between the 12-100 and 75-300. In super fine detail, the 12-100 wins by a mile, but they are equal in perceived edge sharpness (any contrast differences are easily fixed). The finer detail has it’s place, but rarely adds to a print in any way except to occasionally make an image look less smooth. The 12-40 and 75-300 are harmonious, lush and gentle lenses. Lenses that do not get in the way of your images. Some of the “sharper” tools are less forgiving.

*

I usually get a feel for a lens pretty quickly and the cost to like equation is pretty unpredictable.

I bought the 12-100 as the perfect “best technique” landscape lens, which on paper it was, but it never really took.

The 40-150 kit lens on the other hand was a freebie in a cheap three lens set that I bought for the other two lenses, but it has become an unlikely go-everywhere lens with the 12-40*.

My 17mm lens was a compromise purchase at a time when M43 offered several lenses in it’s class with equal strengths and weaknesses. Chosen over the 20mm Panasonic for it’s better handling and focus and the Leica 15mm as a slightly cheaper lens and one that was already “in the hand”, it has proven to be one of my favourites and perfectly suited to it’s intended task (street).

The 12-40 was purchased hurriedly on special the day before a family holiday as a catch-all standard in response to the size of the 12-100 and over fussiness of primes for casual shooting. It is my first choice for most things now.

*Something I am aware of is my natural suspicion of top tier lenses and my adoration of little lenses that punch above their weight.