Lens Rentals reviews the 35-100 / 2.8

Started Nov 2, 2012 | Discussions thread
junyeu
Regular MemberPosts: 227
Like?
Re: Results indicate this is an f/4 lens
In reply to Thomas Streng, Nov 4, 2012

Thomas Streng wrote:

Horshack wrote:

In terms of getting an acceptably sharp image, at least at the long end where it's likely to be used the most. Disappointing for a $1500 lens that is supposed to compete with the big boys from Canon/Nikon.

I did some more comparison shots today - with the 35-100 vs the Pana 100-300 at 100mm, with the 14-150 and 75/1.8 at 75mm, and with the 14-140 and the 45/1.8 at 45mm.

My conclusion:

The 35-100 at f2.8 is allready better than the 14-150 at 5.6! (ok, unfair comparison)

The primes (45 and 75) are maybe slightly better at f2.8 but the 35-100 is very close, I am not even sure I could tell a clear difference.

For me, as someone who shoots primes only with my other cameras (Leica M and S) and wants the m43 as a fast, flexible outdoor and sports camera the 35-100/2.8 fits the bill perfectly.

The focal length range is great when I am outside with the kids, reaching from portrait focal length at the shorter end to 200mm fov at the long end. And with f2.8 I can keep iso low and still freeze action if necessary.

From the (admitted few) images I have taken this weekend I can use the 35-100 at all focal length and f-stops without hesitation.

I agree with others that the 75/1.8 is not a direct competitor IMO. I can see how the size and speed of the 75/1.8 is appealing as well.

If m43 was my one and only system I would probably want to own both, some nice primes and the zooms.

and how did the pana 100-300mm go?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow