Help please: 75/1.8 instead of 35-100?

Started Jan 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
S. Miller
Contributing MemberPosts: 621
Like?
Re: Steve...
In reply to daddyo, Jan 27, 2013

daddyo wrote:

I understand your dilemma. The 75mm is a jewel of a lens, and I would really like to own it. However, for me the decision was a 'no brainer' -- I need the versatility of a fast zoom. So I opted for the Pany 35-100mm.

I must say that I am glad I did, as it is an outstandingly sharp lens that focuses very fast and accurately. As the other poster mentioned, if I absolutely need the speed and more shallow DOF I can generally fall back on my 45mm.

To me the answer to your question lies in the answer to the main question -- do you need the flexibility of a zoom, if not, the 75mm would not disappoint you.

God Bless,

Greg

www.imagismphotos.com

www.mccroskery.zenfolio.com

www.pbase.com/daddyo

Greg and everyone else who replied, I really appreciate your comments.

The takeaway is quite clear that the 35-100 gives me so much more versatility. I don't question this at all. However, since I'll be using this outdoors (presumably in decent light), I'm not sure I get so much more benefit than the 40-100 end of my surprisingly good Oly 40-150. Of course, I'm not saying that these two lenses are the same, it's just that in good light, the cheap Oly is pretty good.

What I didn't say in my original post is that $1,500 is a lot for one lens. I have a 70-200/2.8 L IS (I, not II) that is an amazing lens on my 7D. I am therefore well aware of how much of a "bargain" the Panny 35-100 lens is compared to the Canikon equivalent. However, I still keep my 7D/70-200, along with the 1.4x TC for only one reason: sports. If I could use the 35-100 for my kids' soccer with my E-M5, I wouldn't have started this thread because I would have already sold the rest of my Canon gear and bought the 35-100 the day it was announced. Of course, I can't use the 35-100 for sports (to anywhere near the same effectiveness as the 7d/70-200/1.4TC), so now I'm looking at a very expensive lens for non-sports shooting.

Regarding the low light shooting ability and the fact that I'm only losing 1.3 stops, that translates to needing 6400 ISO instead of 2500 for most of the lighting I encounter when shooting indoors. While I think the low-light capability of the E-M5 is great, I generally find that as soon as I bump up to 6400, I'm relegated to converting to B&W. I love B&W, but like to have the color option. So that 1.3 stop gain with the 75/1.8 could be very helpful. Besides, as an outdoor portrait lens, the images I've seen look absolutely amazing.

One area where the 35-100 could be good is for school recitals, etc. There tends to be enough lighting for a 2.8 lens to work.

BTW, the 75/1.8 is hardly a no-brainer as well at $900. Decisions, decisions. Maybe I should just take a Tums to get rid of this GAS.

Steve

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