After having bought (and used) pretty well all of the lenses mentioned here, I now am going on a trip with two bodies and the Panasonic 12-60/2.8-4 and 50-200/2.8-4 as my mid to longer lenses, with the Panasonic 15/1.7 and Olympus 45/1.8 as my faster small lenses. For wide views I have the Laowa 7.5/2, which is as good as the Panasonic 7-14/4 at the same focal length (by my criteria), and better than the Olympus f/2.8, and a lot smaller than either. If I'm going wider than 12, I usually want a lot wider. I'm also taking the Laowa 4mm/2.8, which I got a couple of months ago. So tiny, it disappears into my bag, so why not take it for those very occasional shots where it works?
The 50-200 is a lot better optically than the 100-300's, and while it's heavier, it is about the same length, and it does very well with the 1.4x tc. Not so well with the 2x, but that's OK. If I want longer and am willing to carry them, the 200/2.8 with 2x tc is a lot better, and even the 100-400.
The 40-150/2.8 was just a bit too big for what it produced, and the Panasonic 35-100 was too short too often. The 12-40/2.8 is an excellent lens, but is a bit poorer than my copy of the 12-60 and of course shorter. The 12-100/4 is an excellent one lens solution, but isn't quite as good as the 12-60 and 50-200 at comparable lengths, and is a bit of a handful itself.
These are of course very personal judgements regarding size and handling, and the optical qualities on the whole are all acceptable and rarely make or break a picture. As far as optical quality is concerned, the standouts in my collection are the 45/1.2 Pro, the 75/1.8 and the 200/2.8. The 17/1.2 would also be in this group if I could have accepted it's size, but it's too much for it's f.l. and I like the 15/1.7 in that range better.
The 50-200 is a lot better optically than the 100-300's, and while it's heavier, it is about the same length, and it does very well with the 1.4x tc. Not so well with the 2x, but that's OK. If I want longer and am willing to carry them, the 200/2.8 with 2x tc is a lot better, and even the 100-400.
The 40-150/2.8 was just a bit too big for what it produced, and the Panasonic 35-100 was too short too often. The 12-40/2.8 is an excellent lens, but is a bit poorer than my copy of the 12-60 and of course shorter. The 12-100/4 is an excellent one lens solution, but isn't quite as good as the 12-60 and 50-200 at comparable lengths, and is a bit of a handful itself.
These are of course very personal judgements regarding size and handling, and the optical qualities on the whole are all acceptable and rarely make or break a picture. As far as optical quality is concerned, the standouts in my collection are the 45/1.2 Pro, the 75/1.8 and the 200/2.8. The 17/1.2 would also be in this group if I could have accepted it's size, but it's too much for it's f.l. and I like the 15/1.7 in that range better.
