A couple of things.  Note, I have no experience with any of the 3 Panasonic 14-140mm lenses.  I have shot with the Olympus 14-150mm mark I for 5+ years.  I then upgraded to the Olympus 14-150mm mark II (for splash resistance) and used it for 6+ years.  For the last 3+ years I have been using the Olympus 12-200mm lens.  I did shoot with the Olympus 12-100mm lens for a weekend, but I don't own it.

In terms of f/5.6 and f/6.3, while they are different apertures, there are only 1/3 of a stop difference.  In general, I tend to think you would need to have the lenses be a full stop different to really notice things.

In terms of comparison, I suspect the Olympus 14-150mm mark II lens might be closer to the Panasonic 14-140mm.  It is much cheaper than the 12-200mm and lighter.  I find for an E-m5 style body (mark I or mark III, but also presumably E-m5 mark II and OM-5), the 14-150mm balances better than the 12-200mm or 12-100mm lenses.  If I add a third party grip to the E-m5 mark III, I find the 12-200mm feels better, but the 12-100mm still is unbalanced.  On an E-m1 or OM-1 style body with a deep hand grip, all of the lenses balance better.  I did have an instance 2 years ago where I was having problems gripping things, and I downsized to the 14-150mm mark II instead of the 12-200mm.

Presumably the 12-200mm is heavier and bigger than the 14-140mm and 14-150mm lenses due to the extra focal length.  So it is a matter of choice of what you need.  Do you want the smaller and lighter lens or do you want more focal length.  Like everything else in life, it is a trade-off.

Originally I didn't think the 12-200mm would add much over the 14-150mm.  But at one point, I had a little extra money, and I decided to splurge on a refurbished 12-200mm.  Since then, the 12-200mm is now my main lens for outdoor shooting.  In addition to having the focal range of 151-200mm (which is great), I find in practice, the 12-13mm range also means I am swapping lenses out fewer times (for the 12-40mm lens).  In particular, if you shoot for the decisive moments, not having to change lenses means you capture the moment more often.

The Olympus 12-100mm is bigger and heavier than the 12-200mm, but it is faster at 100mm (f/4) than the other super-zooms.  And the 12-100mm does have stabilization that work with some of the Olympus/OM bodies to do dual stabilization.  IMHO, the stabilization is great for hand held movies.  In theory it allows you to shoot hand held at 100mm than more than you could without the lens stabilization.  But in general, I find since I'm mostly photographing things with people, that the extra IS that the 12-100mm gives you over the sensor shift stabilization doesn't add much.  I.e. in theory you need a shutter speed of 1/200 second to not need any stablization at 100mm.  With the sensor shift stabilization, you might be able to shoot at 1/60 seconds (this is a guess).  However, in shots with people in them, I typically want at least 1/125 second shutter speed because IS doesn't stop subject movement.  If I was photographing non-moving things at a distance, then having a better IS/OIS would be great.  For me, I do use the 101-150mm and 101-200mm ranges quite a bit, so the 12-100mm is less interesting.

Now for the Olympus or Panasonic 100-400mm, the OM 150-400mm lens, the Panasonic 100-300mm lens, or the Olympus 75-300mm lens, sure lens stabilization will help more due to the longer focal length of the lens.

Unfortunately, since Olympus/OM and Panasonic don't share everything in terms of lens design, typically a lens with builtin OIS works best if the camera was made by the same company that made the lens.  In this case, the camera sensor shift stablization combines with the lens' OIS.  If you have mixed body/lens, then you generally have to choose one stabilization method.

Like the Olympus 14-150mm, the Panasonic 14-140mm has had different versions of the lens.  Unfortunately since the first 14-140mm has a different aperture from the second 14-140mm, the second 14-140mm is not labeled mark II, and the current version is labeled mark II, not mark III.  I suspect you have the 2nd version of the lens (which generally people felt was really sharp).  Like the Olympus 14-150mm mark II, the Panasonic 14-140mm mark II's changes is mostly adding splash resistance.

For a travel lens, I find having splash resistant lenses with splash resistant bodies is quite useful, since rain does come up in many trips (at least for me).  Even if I don't go out and shoot in the rain, not having to worry about your camera gear when rain comes up is useful.

I also tried both but in the end I kept the 12-200 not only for the greater range but the pana at 14 distorts a lot unlike the oly which already at 12 is almost perfect

Thanks Gary, as usual, a great video with some beautiful images.  Thank you. 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

Thanks Gary for your latest video. I have neither lens and since I have 10 lenses and 3 cameras in my mft kit, I would have to sell at least one lens to buy another.

Certainly understand the convinience of both lenses not having to switch while travelling or just having a fun day out with one camera and one lens.

Having watched your channel for several years I know that you swear by the Lumix 14-140 and it gets a lot of usage. It was nice toa see the comparison with the Olympus 12-200!

Finally: great production value with all the photos you share combined with smooth short videos clipped in and the care taken with the choices of overlaid text. Very good way of combining the information with technical video quality!

I've seen a lot of photographers work with the 14-140 and it was quite good.  One of my favorite  youtube photography has used the 12-200 in some of his work and I thought that it was good because he is so accomplished but, not quite as sharp as the 14-140.  Now, Im viewing this on Youtube so, that may present another variable.  Great content Gary.  Thank you for your production work and, I appreciate you beginning to introduce your guitar hero  prowess in some of your videos, ha!  Keep up the good work!!

Danke!

Next and not much heavier is the Lumix 100-300 mm f4.0-5.6. My first wildlife lens! I love this lens and gave it a place in my photobag.

Thanks Garry, nice comparison, excellent presenter

I had the Panny 14-140 f/3.5-5.6 i but in a shocking accidental drop, it broke open. After watching your video on the Oly 12-200 I took the plunge. As you mentioned, it is not as sharp as the 14-140 lens. But, it is indeed versatile and have used it on many outdoor adventures where the long zoom comes in super useful. The almost macro capability is something I have not yet utilized but look forward to trying. Thank you, Gary!

Knowing to have a Dual IS on the Panacams give you better stabilized pictures. Especially on tele.

I own the 14-140mm Panny , at F8 it’s amazing ,sharp as they come , I use it for stitched panoramics at slight telephoto length on an OM1 using the hi def setting of 48 mp . It’s an absolute dream ! I’ve owned it now for 5 years & wouldn’t swap , although I could afford the Zuiko . Easier to step forward or back than to cart around a bigger lens .

Hi Gary,  many thanks for your very helpful and inspiring videos. For at least 5 years my go-to lens when travelling has been the 14-140 mm, either on my GX8 (no sign of shutter shock BTW) or on the G9.  It's small, light and in my humble opinion delivers great performance for the price. I also take with me the 50mm f1.4 for any low light work. I think the little 12-32 mm  lens is also a good lens for popping in the bag when I'm doing some street photography..

I shoot with the 12-200 all the time and it’s a fantastic lens.

First camera I bought at an auction was a gh3 with the 14-140. Great lens for starting out and now use it on my gh6. I also got a 100-300 lumix lens. These 2 cover what I need right now. The 12-200 may be another good option. Nice review.

Just to put things in perspective, an f/6.3 is only 0.34 stops slower than f/5.6 (or 79% the amount of light), and f/7.1 is 0.68 stops slower than f/5.6 (or 68% the amount of light). To match the exposure of an ISO 800 in f/5.6, you'd need an ISO 1012 for an f/6.3 and an ISO 1285 for an f/7.1.
You need to go up to f/7.9 to get a full stop slower than f/5.6, getting 50% of the light, and requiring ISO 1600 to match the exposure.
I wish photographers had used a logarithmic scale, where you can easily match these figures much more intuitively.

Also, why do people talk about X mm more or less, when they should be using multiplication instead of addition? If you are using 400 mm and you add 60mm, you are zooming an extra 15% (or 87% of the original framing), which is not very noticeable, but if you are at 8% and you add 60mm, you are zooming an extra 750% (or 12% of the original framing)! Addition makes no sense; multiplication does! The 12-200 is basically zooming 43% more than 14-140, or getting 70% of the framing.

In any case, thanks for the review; I was considering the Olympus, but now I'm definitely keeping my Panasonic 14-140mm.

sería bueno que lo pusiera audio en español

Great review Gary, I've seen reviews of the Olympus 14-150 and the 14-140 before, but never the 12-200.  There's also a Tamron 14-150 I believe but it's only available used. I'm using  an OM-1 these days and I have the  40-150 2.8 which is magnificent but $$$. I'm really hoping Panasonic comes out with an GX-9 II with their new AF. I had the old G9 which I loved but trying to shoot birds and wildlife with it was frustrating. In general like you I want more small M4/3's bodies, Fujifilm new X-M5 is a nice example of the right size camera for nice portable crop sensor cameras.

Nice video Gary - no "battle" when it comes to IG, 14-140 is fabulous for the coverage; I think they got too ambitious coverage wise with the 12-200

Hi Gary. Early on I decided that three of my Olympus cameras would get the most use, I wanted to minimize changing lenses too often. So I chose 2 for each kit. Since one of the lenses was the 14-45 kit lens (or a better equivalent) I needed something in a long zoom that overlapped those focal lengths. The M. Zuiko 14 - 150mm fit the bill nicely. Just grab ‘n’ go, with the only decision being which camera to take.., each of the bag contents was mostly the same. Little fear of missing the shot no matter what I chose. I will say that I’ve used a few Lumix lenses and have been pleasantly surprised at how good they turned out to be, especially the Leica versions. After all that, I just concentrate on shooting. BTW, I have both the Oly 12-200, and the Oly 12-100Pro, but use the 14-150 more often, even with the improved characteristics of these two. Overall a good review with great advise. Keep up the good work.

Great video. I know it wasn’t what you were going for in your video but the Olympus 14-150 would have been a good comparison too.