OM System
M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II
Micro Four Thirds Mount
IP53 weather-sealed standard zoom with constant F2.8, MSC autofocus, and 0.3× magnification at 40mm.
$1,299
Launch priceReleased Feb 2022
OM System
M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO
Micro Four Thirds Mount
600mm-equiv. F4 super-telephoto with Sync IS (6 stops), 1475g weight, removable rotating tripod collar, and PRO weather sealing.
$3,499
Launch priceReleased Feb 2016
M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II is 6 years newer.
Affiliate disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, Cameraegg earns from qualifying purchases. Cameraegg may also earn commission from B&H links, at no extra cost to you.
Wins
M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II
Wins
M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO
Which would you choose?
TL;DR — Key differences
- BM.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO has higher OIS effectiveness (4 stops vs 0 stops)
- AM.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II has lower Min focus distance (20 cm vs 140 cm)
- AM.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II has lower Weight (382 g vs 1475 g)
- AM.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II has lower Length (84 mm vs 227 mm)
- AM.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II has lower Max aperture (Wide) (f/2.8 vs f/4)
Key specs at a glance
Size and weight, to scale
📸 Snap this lens size diff to shareM.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II
⌀70 × 84 mm
382 g (0.84 lb / 13.47 oz)
Credit card
85.6 × 54 mm
for scale
M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO
⌀93 × 227 mm
1475 g (3.25 lb / 52.03 oz)
M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II is 143mm shorter and 23mm narrower than M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO.
M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II is 1093 g lighter than M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO.
Diameter (⌀) is the maximum barrel width; length is measured from the mount to the front of the lens.
Use-case scoring
Which one for what?
Algorithmic scores from verified specs · 10 = best in class
Why pick one over the other
Reasons to choose the M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II
- ✓
Special elements
Adds 1 EDA, 2 Aspherical, 1 DSA…
- ✓
Min focus distance
20 cm vs 140 cm — lower is better
- ✓
Weight
382 g vs 1475 g — lower is better
- ✓
Length
84 mm vs 227 mm — lower is better
- ✓
Max aperture (Wide)
f/2.8 vs f/4 — lower is better
- ✓
Max aperture (Tele)
f/2.8 vs f/4 — lower is better
- ✓
Diameter
69.9 mm vs 92.5 mm — lower is better
- ✓
Max magnification
0.3 × vs 0.24 × — higher is better
Reasons to choose the M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO
- ✓
Special elements
Adds 3 Super ED, 3 HR, 1 E-HR
- ✓
OIS effectiveness
4 stops vs 0 stops — higher is better
- ✓
Optical stabilization
Only M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO supports it
Shared specifications
Internal focus
Both support internal focus
Weather sealing
Both support weather sealing
Control ring
Both support control ring
Custom function button
Both support custom function button
Pros & cons at a glance
Editorially curated highlights and trade-offs.
M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II
Pros
- ✓Constant F2.8 across 12–40mm (24–80mm equiv.)
- ✓IP53 dust/splash/freeze resistance with ZERO coating
- ✓Compact 382g body with MF clutch and L-Fn button
Cons
- –No lens-based IS — relies on Sync IS in compatible bodies
- –Extending barrel design
M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO
Pros
- ✓Prime design typically delivers strong sharpness and lighter weight
- ✓Built-in optical image stabilization
- ✓Weather-sealed construction for outdoor shooting
Cons
- –Premium price point
- –Relatively heavy for extended handheld use
- –Slower maximum aperture limits low-light performance
Decided which one is right for you?
Compare live prices for the M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II and M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO at major authorized retailers.
OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II
OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO
Affiliate disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, Cameraegg earns from qualifying purchases. Cameraegg may also earn commission from B&H links, at no extra cost to you.
Full specifications
✓ = category winner
Specs sourced from manufacturer data. Use-case scores algorithmically derived. Last reviewed June 2026.