Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 hands-on preview

By dpreview staff on Oct 2, 2012 at 16:27 GMT

Just Posted: our preview of the Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS. The 35-100mm F2.8 is Panasonic's second constant aperture zoom for Micro Four Thirds and is designed to cover the classic 70-200mm equivalent range. It does so in a relatively compact lens that matches the company's existing 12-35mm F2.8 bright standard zoom. The lens we have isn't ready for the rigors of studio testing, so isn't part of the relaunch of lens reviews just yet, but is 'final' enough for us to be allowed to publish a full-resolution samples gallery.

Comments

Total comments: 95
KZMike
By KZMike (Oct 6, 2012)

OKAY. . . In about two weeks I'm upgrading to a 4/3's system, my question is. . . do both Pany's and Oly's Lenses have full capabilities on each others bodies. Don't know if I phased the question correctly or not, but need some help on figuring out what lens I want to start with. . . a short zoom for starters.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HDF2
By HDF2 (Oct 6, 2012)

MFT lenses are fully interchangeable between the two brands. One thing to keep in mind is that Panasonic lenses have the IS built into the lens (if it has IS) while Olympus builds it into the camera body.

0 upvotes
SkiHound
By SkiHound (Oct 6, 2012)

I'd add that Panasonic corrects CA in camera. In some lighting conditions you'll get some CA when using Olympus bodies. That seems to really bother some people but I can almost never notice it with PL25 and I've used the 12-35. If you shoot raw it can easily be corrected in light room. The 7-14 seems to be very prone to bad flare on the E-M5, and this seems specific to the E-M5 and not other Olympus bodies. The PL 25 has some rattlesnake sounds for some folks on Olympus bodies (I hear it occasionally but still really like the combination. But in general they work well together.

0 upvotes
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Oct 4, 2012)

Very sharp, I'm confident about the IQ... but with the equivalent DOF of a 70-200mm 5.6 full-frame lens, not so suitable for portraits, subject isolation generally.

0 upvotes
HDF2
By HDF2 (Oct 6, 2012)

While it doesn't have the bokeh of a full frame f/2.8, it doesn't do so bad on the image isolation as you might think.

Take a look at some of the samples here:
http://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&no=829

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Oct 4, 2012)

Looks like this is the zoom lens to get.

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (Oct 4, 2012)

Let's take this sport sandal and add another strap here, another over here, one more back there... oh darn, we have a sneaker again!

2 upvotes
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Oct 5, 2012)

Ha ha! Very good, Jake.

0 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Oct 3, 2012)

Both necessary and interesting. A good move by Panasonic. They now have assembled a very competent, quite compact "kit" that will allow F2.8 from 12mm to 100mm (X) crop factor.

I have a specific application for this and there wasn't up till now something quite like it.

1 upvote
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Oct 3, 2012)

I think lots of folks are missing the point.

Some folks will whine no mater what Olympus and Panasonic do. Either they whine about "not enough high end lenses" or they whine about "the high end lenses cost too much."

Absolutely no one sells their best lenses for bargain prices.

These high end weather sealed expensive M4/3 lenses aren't for everyone. They just help round out a system so it can have broader appeal.

Ask yourself... is M4/3 better off with or without these options for users who want them? If you want the best value, they just buy mid range camera with a two lens kit. These lenses aren't made for value based buyers, they are made for users who need the capabilities and are willing to pay for them.

If these lenses are too expensive for you, then you still have 35 other native M4/3 lenses you can use.

Lets see if Sony NEX, Samsung NX, Fuji X, Canon M, Pentax Q or Nikon 1 can do that.

16 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Oct 3, 2012)

I use a 200m f/2.8 G on my Sony NEX. Panasonic would need a 150mm f/2.2 lens to match that.

So, when are you buying this lens?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
svuori
By svuori (Oct 3, 2012)

@EinsteinsGhost you mean the Olympus 150mm f2 one? Yeah I would get that if I needed.

(http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=188)

4 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Oct 3, 2012)

Yep, that will work as long as you limit self to comparison with APS-C, and you can thank Olympus for that. Got one?

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Oct 4, 2012)

I was wrong. There are 37 AF lenses for M4/3:

Panasonic 8mm f/3.5
Olympus 12mm f/2.0
Panasonic 12.5mm f/12
Panasonic 14mm f/2.5
Olympus 15mm f/8
Olympus 17mm f/1.8
Olympus 17mm f/2.8
Sigma 19mm f/2.8
Panasonic 20mm f/1.7
Pana-Leica 25mm f/1.4
Sigma 30mm f/2.8
Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2
Olympus 45mm f/1.8
Pana-Leica 45mm f/2.8
Olympus 60mm f/2.8
Olympus 75mm f/1.8
Panasonic 150mm f/2.8
Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0
Olympus 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6
Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8
Olympus 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3
Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6
Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 MSC
Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 MSC R
Panasonic 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6
Panasonic 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 X
Panasonic 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6
Panasonic 14-140mm f/4.0-5.8
Olympus 14-150mm f/4.0-5.6
Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8
Olympus 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6
Olympus 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6
Panasonic 45-150mm f/4.0-5.6
Panasonic 45-175mm f/4.0-5.6 X
Panasonic 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6
Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7
Panasonic 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
igorek7
By igorek7 (Oct 4, 2012)

@ Marty4650
Have you calculated the Olympus 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 twice?
You may also to add also three Schneider-Kreuznach lenses, which will have the Auto Focus:
* Super-Angulon 14 mm/2.0 wide-angle lens (10 lens elements with 4 aspherical surfaces)
* Xenon 30 mm/1.4 universal lens (7 lens elements with 1 aspherical surface)
* Makro-Symmar 60 mm/2.4 wide-aperture macro lens (8 lens elements).

1 upvote
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Oct 5, 2012)

@ igorek7

Yes, and of course there are also some great M43 lenses without autofocus. I use the Rokinon 7.5mm fisheye (a dedicated m43 lens) and it's great. Auto-focus isn't such a big deal at ultra-wide focal lengths.

0 upvotes
chris96326
By chris96326 (Oct 13, 2012)

I see the double lens in the list too... However, since there is the Tokina 300mm Mirror lens and the Bower 8.5mm (plus other brands) the list could actually be 38. All are lenses with the m4/3 mount.

0 upvotes
tttulio
By tttulio (Oct 3, 2012)

Very expensive. I suppose they think by an exorbitant price they will appear to be more "PRO". just like the fake pentaprism bump on the GH2/gh3
You can have an AMAZING lens for $20 like the Vivitar 28-200mm:
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/80/hidden-gems-among-lenses/p1 Ok, it's not f2.8, but it is not $1000 and the quality is amazing.

1 upvote
MaikeruN
By MaikeruN (Oct 10, 2012)

2.8 zooms ARE pro?

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Oct 3, 2012)

Meh... once again APS-C occupies the sweet spot between size and price:

http://imageshack.us/a/img213/2638/f28telezooms.jpg

3 upvotes
SHood
By SHood (Oct 3, 2012)

As long as you can accept no OIS and 2.5 times the weight for that Tokina lens that also has nosier AF. Based on what we have seen from the Panasonic 12-35mm, the 35-100 will likely reveal more detail than the Tokina as well.

5 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Oct 3, 2012)

I'm looking forward to see the 35-100 out resolve the Tokina 50-135...

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Oct 3, 2012)

Good luck with that, the Tokina even out resolves the Nikon and Canon 70-200...

0 upvotes
babola
By babola (Oct 4, 2012)

Steady on Mike...you're getting ahead of yourself a little...

1 upvote
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Oct 5, 2012)

I agree that APS-C DSLRs occupy the sweet spot in terms of price / value for money. However, they can't match m43 "sweet spot" for size and weight. I recently moved from a Nikon APS-C DSLR system to m43 and the size/weight savings are staggering once the lenses are taken into account.

1 upvote
Jogger
By Jogger (Oct 3, 2012)

This is really for people already heavily invested in m43. A Canon user can simply use a 70-200/4L .. there are also many, many zooms that are f5.6 at 200mm for Canon and Nikon.

Its good for m43 users, but, i seriously doubt anyone is going to be cross shopping an FF+70-200/2.8 with this.

0 upvotes
SHood
By SHood (Oct 3, 2012)

From a high ISO and DR perspective the latest m43 sensors are able to match the latest Canon APS-C. If you don't need the slightly shallower DOF then this lens makes a lot of sense.

3 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Oct 3, 2012)

Jogger has a point.

Kudos to Panasonic for delivering another quality lens.

However, these kind of lenses (given the price tag) make sense only to someone who is keen on both of the following:
1-Using MFT as a system
2-Investing in the system via high price lenses

It will be interesting to find out what percentage of MFT buyers fit that profile. The other side to this DPReview Preview is a rather lame comparison with FF lenses. Sure, the FOV of 70-200 is matched (on FF) and so is the approximate T-stop, but not DOF control. And even with T-stop, a modern FF sensor is far more capable, and expected to be over 2-stops better than MFTs in high ISO noise performance.

A more logical comparison would be to APS-C sensors. But then, that FF 70-200 now has a FOV of 105-300mm, at f/2.8. That ultimately renders an MFT 35-100/2.8 lens to be equivalent to an APS-C 45-135mm/3.5 lens.

0 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Oct 3, 2012)

Well, to be fair Canon hasn't come up with anything since, but Canon's "latest" APS-C is 3 years old, and competition came right after that beat it. Will M43 improve much more before the next APS-C comes out from Canon?

1 upvote
zkz5
By zkz5 (Oct 3, 2012)

"Sure, the FOV of 70-200 is matched (on FF) and so is the approximate T-stop"

What t-stop is that? Has the t-stop of this lens actually been measured?

"expected to be over 2-stops better than MFTs in high ISO noise performance."

Expected to be by whom? Try looking at some sample images. It depends on which FF sensor you're comparing it to. They don't all perform over 2 stops better.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Oct 3, 2012)

"What t-stop is that? Has the t-stop of this lens actually been measured?"
I don't know, but it should be fairly close to the f-stop (a tad slower). Too bad we end up using f-stop for t-stop.

"Expected to be by whom? Try looking at some sample images. It depends on which FF sensor you're comparing it to. They don't all perform over 2 stops better."
Your idea of "better" may be different than mine. For objective evaluation, compare DXO ratings.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Oct 3, 2012)

"Your idea of "better" may be different than mine. For objective evaluation, compare DXO ratings."

It may be. Would you subjectively say all of the following samples look equally good: http://imgur.com/5qgqx

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Oct 3, 2012)

Are you trying to prove that you're as likely to use ISO 3200 on an MFT as you're on a contemporary FF DSLR and achieve the same results?

0 upvotes
australopithecus
By australopithecus (Oct 3, 2012)

How many more zooms are Panasonic going to produce ?
A 24mm prime would be nice.

1 upvote
meanwhile
By meanwhile (Oct 3, 2012)

Do you mean a 12mm (24mm @ 35mm equivalent) like the existing Olympus, or a 24mm (48mm @ 35mm equivalent) like the Panasonic/Leica 25mm?

8 upvotes
Panasonicus
By Panasonicus (Oct 3, 2012)

The Canon 70-200mm Mk 2 is $2199. The Panny is $1499. Cheaper and lighter but really not that much cheaper given that the Canon is L quality. I think Panasonic are overpriced at this level. I have a G3 with the MIJ 14-45mm and 45-200mm which are cheapos (compared with the constant 2.8's) but great quality. I do not plan to buy these high end micro-2/3rds lenses and if I was that serious about equipment I would upscale back to a full sized Canon and the L lenses. In fact, the Canon 70-200mm L f4 (closer to the Panny than the 2.8) is $1239 or cheaper than the Panasonic. Bottom line: Panasonic are overpricing themselves and they will kill off any serious photographers thinking about making the switch.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (Oct 3, 2012)

Canon L quality is not the holy grail or something. For example most Zuiko SHG glass is better. Panasonic has proven itself that it can make fine lenses. Just wait until it is tested properly and than decide if it is overpriced.

9 upvotes
HDF2
By HDF2 (Oct 3, 2012)

Sounds like some people are screaming for a lesson in capitalism:

Lesson 1: You price things you make at a level that you cover your costs and make profit.

Lesson 2: Make as much profit as you can, as long as you can. Price products accordingly.

Lesson 3: You will only sell things and make profit if market perceives that what you are selling is worth what you are charging.

Lesson 4: Some will not be able to afford what you sell (regardless of whether they like it or not, others will whine about the price - and may or may not buy). Ignore whiners and focus on getting enough of customers that will buy your product at a price that makes you max profit.

Lesson 5: Only pay attention to whiners if you are not selling enough of your product to make profit - rethink strategy.

Lesson 6: Some people will whine no matter what you offer if it does not fit their individual view of the world. These too can be safely ignored.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Tomas Cermak
By Tomas Cermak (Oct 3, 2012)

Fantastic reply. I can not agree more. I mean also I think that this lens is expensive but Panasonic is setting the price. Take it or leave it. Nobody forces us to buy this lens, right?

0 upvotes
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Oct 5, 2012)

That's true - it's good to have the option, and nobody is forcing us to buy. Personally, I'm going to wait to see what Olympus brings to the table in terms of quality zooms. They should be lighter, as they don't need built-in IS.

1 upvote
babamaru
By babamaru (Oct 3, 2012)

Whats the point of having a small m43 camera if you are going to stick something like this to it?

0 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Oct 3, 2012)

This is small compare to a 70-200/2.8. Besides, do you suggest only having non-tele pancakes?

12 upvotes
Pixel Judge
By Pixel Judge (Oct 3, 2012)

Read the article, and when you see the size of Canon 70~200 F2.8 you will know why.

12 upvotes
NowHearThis
By NowHearThis (Oct 3, 2012)

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.33,378.107,ha,t

not say'n it's better - but there is no comparison between these two in size.
(FYI, The 45-200 is the same length as the 35-100)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Oct 3, 2012)

What's the point? Because the overall camera+lens combo is still a LOT smaller than the same equivalent lens on APS-C or FF.

A picture says it all:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-g-x-35-100-2-8-ois/images/f2p8-telezooms.jpg

8 upvotes
Bart Hickman
By Bart Hickman (Oct 3, 2012)

You'd really need to compare it to an 50-135 F/4 on APS-C (which doesn't exist AFAIK), but, yeah, it's still a lot smaller.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Bart Hickman
By Bart Hickman (Oct 3, 2012)

Oh wait, I just noticed the cheap kit tele-lenses (50-200) for most APS-C cameras are still F/4.5 at 135mm. F/4.5 on APS-C is about 1/3 stop slower than F/2.8 on m43 so that's pretty close in performance and size.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Oct 3, 2012)

@Bart

Where did you get this one stop difference between m4/3 and APS-C? Its more like 0.46 EV (Canon APS) or 0.64 EV (Nikon APS).

Difference between APS-C vs. 24x36mm is MUCH greater.

2 upvotes
Bart Hickman
By Bart Hickman (Oct 3, 2012)

Darkshift, it's a 0.83 stop difference (for 1.5x). F/4.5 on aps-c is 1/2 stop darker (I made an a error) than f/2.8 on m43, but at least in the case o Pentax, the 50-200 lens is actually smaller and a heck of a lot cheaper. I'm sure the Pany is a lot sharper. My point is the size advantage is fairly modest at best and you pay quite a price premium for it.

1 upvote
sadwitch
By sadwitch (Oct 3, 2012)

You will never understand until you try one out physically

1 upvote
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (Oct 3, 2012)

Well, you don't HAVE to stick this on your camera if you don't want. You could stick a pancake on. Having more choice is rarely a bad thing.

2 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Oct 3, 2012)

Well in my case, I do ski photography, and it's a real pain to carry a DSLR + good tele lens around the mountain. Every powder day began with the same question: should I take the DSLR or not?

Now, I use a PEN camera + pancake which fits in the goggle pocket of my backpack. Then in another pocket I have the miniature 40-150mm. This setup permanently sits in my backpack, and you don't even notice it's there.

I'm definitely interested in this Panasonic lens, but it seems quite a bit overpriced.

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Oct 3, 2012)

@Bart Hickman: the excellent Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 exists and is 30% longer than this Panasonic. Everything seems quite in proportion, except the price.

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Oct 3, 2012)

http://imageshack.us/a/img213/2638/f28telezooms.jpg

0 upvotes
Bart Hickman
By Bart Hickman (Oct 3, 2012)

Mike, yes I knew about the Tokina, thanks. I expect it to be bigger because it's got nearly 1 stop extra brightness.

0 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Oct 3, 2012)

Total nonsense. Look at actual images. There's no "APS-C = 2X m4/3 brightness" rule in the real world.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Oct 3, 2012)

http://imgur.com/5qgqx

0 upvotes
Bart Hickman
By Bart Hickman (Oct 3, 2012)

Sigh. It's not non-sense. Just physics and it's precisely in the real world where this fact will be observed. Only in camera reviews (where exposure parameters aren't very well controller) will you think otherwise. If you double the sensor area, you can increase F-stop by 1.414 and collect the same amount of light and keep the same DOF. Which means you can double the ISO for the same amount of SNR. All of this means an F/4 lens on APS-C can be used to capture about the same noise, FOV, DOF, shutter speed as an F/2.8 lens on m43. Yes, the Oly OMD has narrowed the usual gap by 0.5 stop, but this isn't sustainable obviously.

I'm not saying the average m43 kit won't be smaller than, say, the average APS-C kit. I'm just pointing out that showing 70-200/2.8 lens next to a 35-100/2.8 m43 lens is a deceptive comparison. The so-called tradeoffs (both bad and good) of the m43 sensor are much more modest.

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Oct 4, 2012)

Stopping down one full F-stop will give you half the light.

FF is 4 times the area of m4/3 which means 2 stop difference in DOF and total amount of light or am I wrong?

APS-C is not at the middle point of these formats. 1.25X * 1.6X = 2X

0 upvotes
nekrosoft13
By nekrosoft13 (Oct 4, 2012)

babamaru, wow, un-educated post really are funny

0 upvotes
Meuh
By Meuh (Oct 20, 2012)

I can't see this being that much smaller than a k5 with da* 50-135 f2.8 kit especially since the gh3 is around the same size as a k5. Also optically the pentax will possibly be better and is fully weather sealed system too (we don't know how well the om-5 and gh3 are sealed).

Id guess the focusing will be faster on the 35-100 though as the pentax lens is a little slow.

0 upvotes
Jonathan F/2
By Jonathan F/2 (Oct 2, 2012)

I miss Phil Askey's sample shots. At least you get proper people photographs every time he took pictures of his wife/gf. What's up with these samples? Who gets a fast 70-200 2.8 equivalent lens and then goes off shooting land/cityscapes?

Dpreview, you should go check out this Korean photo site which did a much better preview on the 35-100 and a proper one at that with a real model!

http://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&no=829

3 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Oct 2, 2012)

why complain? - you now have both - endless shots of a 'real' model in different poses, and some city / landscapes. The internet is great like that. We never publish reviews without portraits.

7 upvotes
Pixel Judge
By Pixel Judge (Oct 3, 2012)

Thank you, Jonathan F/2.
Your referred site truly better demonstrates the power of this lens.

1 upvote
Jonathan F/2
By Jonathan F/2 (Oct 3, 2012)

I'm not complaining, but a few people shots should always be included in any sample set. Especially a lens like this which will most likely be used in such a manner. My Panasonic 45-175 X lens can shoot good landscape/cityscapes, but a fast lens like the 35-100 will definitely excel for people and portraiture.

1 upvote
gl2k
By gl2k (Oct 3, 2012)

Pretty cool. I have to visit a Korean website to get some serious images because dpreview is not capable of doing a proper test.
The dpreview sample pictures always play in the low hobby shooter league. Sad in a way.

btw. I'm impressed that m4/3 indeed gives more subject isolation than I had thought.

1 upvote
emircruz
By emircruz (Oct 3, 2012)

http://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&no=829

SOLD! wait.. how much is it again?

1 upvote
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Oct 3, 2012)

Wow, Koreans are becoming good at everything.
Samsung now go make a 70-200 equivalent for your NX system and price it right!

0 upvotes
igorek7
By igorek7 (Oct 2, 2012)

Nice to see that my good initial impression about the lens is confirmed in this review. I had a chance to compare various micro four thirds lenses during the Photokina, (http://www.flickr.com/photos/igor29768/sets/72157631558216542/)
and the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 was among my favorites for its decent imaging qualities (sharpness, contrast, etc.) and excellent handling (quick focus, smooth zoom,...).
In fact, I was waiting for a long time for a high quality bright zoom lens in this focal length range, and I would be very happy to retire my frequently used Canon EOS 35-80mm f/4-5.6, which I loved but struggled to use with the EOS-to-MFT lens adapter.

1 upvote
Mike Ronesia
By Mike Ronesia (Oct 2, 2012)

" Panasonic's second constant aperture zoom for Micro Four Thirds"

Isn't it the 3rd?

Looks like this one might be on my list before the 12-35. I've been liking what I've been seeing from it so far.

2 upvotes
Optical1
By Optical1 (Oct 2, 2012)

Yup 7-14 @ F4 and the 12-35 and 35-100 at F2.8.

1 upvote
Demon Cleaner
By Demon Cleaner (Oct 2, 2012)

Likewise held off on the 12-35mm until seeing the capabilities of the 35-100mm. I'm now glad I did!

1 upvote
Mike Ronesia
By Mike Ronesia (Oct 3, 2012)

Yeah, the images from http://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&no=829 sold me a few days ago. If I get the 12-35 it will most likely be because I get it as part of the GH3 kit if the camera proves itself worthy of the upgrade. I do want weather sealing.

1 upvote
putomax
By putomax (Oct 2, 2012)

2 things

VERY VERY NICE SET OF PHOTOS!!! congrats; its is good to see that the "tester/s" got some inspiration in and love out :P

Mixed feelings about the lens performance; the Gx1 didn't seemed to be up to the dress, the oly was a better dummy. Good 35mm overall and much improved middle range sharpness when stopped down to f4. I just get unemphatic with the bokeh substance... or better said, the lack of it.

I'ld like to see how the 12-35 and this perform in video, y por pedir, in a GH3

gashô

0 upvotes
harroeu
By harroeu (Oct 2, 2012)

@admin, link on the last page to the Micro Fourthirds forum is broken (points to a Fuji forum)

Very nice set of samples, lens looks pretty good overall.
Too bad the jpgs show many artifacts, is this the OOC output from the GX1?
I'd like to see how moderately processed RAWs turn out.

(Edit: the jpg artefacts mentioned are in fact from the omd em-5)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
1 upvote
dbateman
By dbateman (Oct 2, 2012)

Quote"Panasonic can't circumvent the laws of optics, and the 35-100mm F2.8's small size means it can't offer the kind of subject isolation and background blur that you'll get from F2.8 zooms on cameras with larger sensors."

I think they really tried. Look at the Minimum focus distance!! Its 85cm, that alone is one reason why I will buy this lens. Most are 150cm. Moving in close to your subject at a even a large aperture, WILL provide suject isolation from background.
Dpreview should test this law of physics to show that subject isolation will be great with the panasonic!

3 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Oct 2, 2012)

Only if being that close still allows you to use the framing you wanted, getting closer can't help if you can't fit your subject in frame.

Of course the fact the lens is so much smaller should count for something when comparing the lens to other systems.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Oct 2, 2012)

I have full frame (D800e) and a few u43 cameras. I always find myself looking for more DOF not less. U4/3 is great for ultra fast/long lenses. Full frame is able to blur out background on ultra wide to wide lenses.

7 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Oct 2, 2012)

It has a closer focus distance because it uses shorter focal lengths to achieve the same field of view. Those same short focal lengths are why the subject isolation (for the same framing) will always be less than a "real" 70-200.

0 upvotes
YouDidntDidYou
By YouDidntDidYou (Oct 2, 2012)

@Andy Crowe
the amount of subject isolation and extreme background/foreground blur you are talking about is 99% used as a lazy gimmick (often by 1st year art college types) and often distracts from the overall composition.

F2.8 on a Four Thirds sensor at 35-100mm is very satisfying on the human eye :-]

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Oct 2, 2012)

I have to agree with other respondents who point out the excessive attention to shallow DOF that has occupied the fad position left vacant when LucisArt filters lost their luster.

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 2, 2012)

So now good subject isolation, and control of DOF in a fast telephoto is a gimmick? It's funny how when a camera system doesn't excel at something, it all of the sudden becomes something "lazy" photographers use as a gimmick. Keep telling yourself that.

2 upvotes
liquidsquid
By liquidsquid (Oct 3, 2012)

Soon, easy in-camera processing will allow any level of subject isolation you wish, regardless of aperture. Start with a small aperture, and do anything you want to the image after the fact. Start with a large one... no way to recover an already blurred image. Already done with "toy" filters.

At least the F2.8 allows some fast shutter times on low ISOs for fast-moving kids without having to be in their faces.

In other words, having the desired effect of subject isolation produced by an expensive lens will not be a factor in the near future unless you are a "purist" (aka Ludite).

0 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Oct 3, 2012)

Of course it's impossible to use a 70-200 f/2.8 at f/5.6 to get the same DoF on FF I guess. Seriously delusional people on this forum in denial. I can get what ever DoF I want on FF, whereas as I can only get a subset of that DoF on m4/3. Yeah and before you whinge I do in fact own an Olympus OM-D and luckily I have the 45 f/1.8 for nice DoF control.

0 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Oct 3, 2012)

On FF you can get more control of dof, but it is still limited by physics. Many people do not think shallow dof is essential for their work. They aren't delusional, they just prefer deeper dof, as did many great photographers of the past.

1 upvote
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Oct 3, 2012)

The recent "Bourne" movie was a horrendous display of tight head shots with only a part of their face in focus, while the camera is constantly shaking and there's lots of talking... I like shallow DOF, but there's times for subject separation and there's times for keeping everything in focus, and thus the argument that shallow DOF is too often in place to "disguise" poor composition

1 upvote
Kim Letkeman
By Kim Letkeman (Oct 2, 2012)

Would have been nice to have seen a few wide-open portraits at 35 and then 100 to check subject isolation ... but otherwise looks like a really nice lens if you've got the bread.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Oct 2, 2012)

First!
Does this do better with 5 axis ibis or the lens stabilization?

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Oct 2, 2012)

By definition, 5-axis, as in-lens can't correct rotation.

6 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Oct 2, 2012)

I remember reading that in lens IS works better on longer lenses but Ony did a great job on the in body IS. What you don't want to do is have both of them on at the same time.

0 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (Oct 2, 2012)

I read that all the time but experience shows that in-body stabilisation is every bit as effective at reducing camera shake, if not better. The advantage of having it in the lens is it keeps the viewfinder image steadier. The advantage of having it in the body is that you don't have to wait as long for it to kick in and the image doesn't recompose every time you touch the shutter button.

0 upvotes
Don Richardson
By Don Richardson (Oct 2, 2012)

I wish Oly or Panasonic would come out with a 100-300 f2.8 now. I know it would defeat the small size but wouldn't it be a kick to have a set of lenses from 12-300mm. I'd buy in in a second if the IQ was good.

3 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Oct 2, 2012)

@deep7: "The advantage of having it in the lens is it keeps the viewfinder image steadier." This is a key advantage in SLRs, certainly, but it isn't necessarily any more with electronic viewfinder cameras. In fact the E-M5's in-body system can be set up to give a stabilized viewfinder image on half-press.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Felix E Klee
By Felix E Klee (Oct 2, 2012)

How about video: E-M5's IBIS also better than in lens stabilization?

0 upvotes
gaiaswill
By gaiaswill (Oct 3, 2012)

100-300 f/2.8 would be a bit... big. Now f/4 on the other hand would be easier on size and cost and still have headroom for a teleconverter...

1 upvote
Total comments: 95