Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 vs 4.0-5.6 for outdoor/nature/landscape photography

[Markr041]

i compared a friend's 14-140 II with my 35-100 f/2.8 and it was only slightly noticeably sharper. if i were to buy again, i would have to think twice about spending that much more on the f/2.8. it's about 3 times the cost. i'm not sure if both support dual-iS but i tried my 35-100 f/2.8 before the dual-is firmware update and after. it was a HUGE difference.

Yep, both lenses support dual-IS.

As does the cheaper, lighter and equal-quality f4.0-5.6 35-100.

 

[jeffharris]

i compared a friend's 14-140 II with my 35-100 f/2.8 and it was only slightly noticeably sharper. if i were to buy again, i would have to think twice about spending that much more on the f/2.8. it's about 3 times the cost. i'm not sure if both support dual-iS but i tried my 35-100 f/2.8 before the dual-is firmware update and after. it was a HUGE difference.

Yep, both lenses support dual-IS.

As does the cheaper, lighter and equal-quality f4.0-5.6 35-100.

Every stabilized Panasonic lens supports dual-stabilization except for three… I believe they're the 14-45mm, 45-20mm and 100-300mm.

 

[mentos77]

I recently bought the 35-100/4-5.6 after lots of research. I love it. It was the 2nd most affordable lens: new split from a kit on eBay. Only the Oly 40-150 was cheaper, but it is not as good and bigger. The only annoyance with the Panny is the minimum focusing distance. For close ups I will use a faster prime, or just move back a bit. I can see now why 70-200mm is such a popular zoom on bigger sensor cameras- I expect this lens to stay on most of the time, with the miniscule 12-32 in my bag.

 

[richj20]

I recently bought the 35-100/4-5.6 after lots of research... The only annoyance with the Panny is the minimum focusing distance. For close ups I will use a faster prime, or just move back a bit.

Congratulations on your lens! I've heard many good things about it.

May I suggest you get an Achromat to mount on the lens for closeups, and also for a bit of increased magnification.

My 45-150mm has a Minimum Working Distance of about 3 feet. With my Achromat mounted, the distance is reduced to about 8 inches.

You have a lot of flexibility using a Zoom lens + an Achromat for closeup work.

You may need a step up ring - I use one.

- Richard

--
http://www.rsjphoto.net

 

[darrinlingle]

i compared a friend's 14-140 II with my 35-100 f/2.8 and it was only slightly noticeably sharper. if i were to buy again, i would have to think twice about spending that much more on the f/2.8. it's about 3 times the cost. i'm not sure if both support dual-iS but i tried my 35-100 f/2.8 before the dual-is firmware update and after. it was a HUGE difference.

Yep, both lenses support dual-IS.

As does the cheaper, lighter and equal-quality f4.0-5.6 35-100.

the image quality is very very close but is noticeable. i tried it on my gx8 with my f/2.8 and a friend's f/4.0-5.6. we both agreed that the f/2.8 images looked better. you didn't have to pixel peep but it was close.

 

[darrinlingle]

nice sharp and colorful photos!

 

[darrinlingle]

i'm not familiar with an achromatic lens. is this the same as a close-up filter?

i also see that they have different lens numbers or strengths (like #1 - #10). which one did you use and which one would be good for a 12-35 f/2.8 lumix lens?

 

[richj20]

i'm not familiar with an achromatic lens. is this the same as a close-up filter?

Yes, and no.

The close-up filter (#1 - #10) is a single element lens, whereas the Achromatic lens is at least 2 elements.

When I started photographing 40+ years ago, the single element lens was pretty bad, susceptible to chromatic aberration and other things. The 2 element Achromatic lens is designed to prevent that, and is usually sharper at the edges.

It's possible that technology has improved things, and you will have research the topic and test for yourself.

i also see that they have different lens numbers or strengths (like #1 - #10). which one did you use and which one would be good for a 12-35 f/2.8 lumix lens?

I didn't use that type of close up lens, rather, a Nikon 6T Achromatic lens.

I assume you are thinking of increasing magnification, since the 12-35 mm already has a close working distance of about 5."

One problem with short focal lengths for closeup work is that you get closer as the magnification increases, which is annoying if you use flash, or get too close to insects and frighten them.

Here is a quick test using the 12-35mm @ 35mm (=70mm):

[ATTACH alt="Working distance is about 5" @70mm"]1325125[/ATTACH]
Working distance is about 5" @70mm

[ATTACH alt="Working distance is about 3" @70mm + Nikon 6T 2.9 diopter Achromatic lens"]1325126[/ATTACH]
Working distance is about 3" @70mm + Nikon 6T 2.9 diopter Achromatic lens

Also, the magnification isn't that much with a short focal length lens. You could get a higher strength lens, of course. Strength is measured in diopters.

Again, you will have to research to see what magnifications/working distances are possible with the 12-35 mm

regards,

- Richard

--

http://www.rsjphoto.net

 

[darrinlingle]

ok. although those are more expensive than i thought (about $150 used on ebay).

so to avoid having the lens and camera block the light by getting too close, i could use my 35-100 f/2.8 with a nikon 3t or 6t and get much closer.

 

[Fredrik Glckner]

The Lumix X 35-100mm f/2.8 is a good lens in the short-medium range, but zoomed all the way to 100mm, it is not very sharp unless stopped down to f/4-5.6 or thereabouts. See, e.g.:

Loading…

m43photo.blogspot.no

Unless you absolutely need the f/2.8 (or weatherproofing), I would rather get one of the slower lenses. All the recent Lumix zoom lenses are very good, e.g., Lumix G 45-150mm (very compact and inexpensive), Lumix G 14-140mm II (compact superzoom).

 

[richj20]

ok. although those are more expensive than i thought (about $150 used on ebay).

so to avoid having the lens and camera block the light by getting too close, i could use my 35-100 f/2.8 with a nikon 3t or 6t and get much closer.

This post discusses using Achromatic closeup lenses:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56281452

- Richard

--
http://www.rsjphoto.net

 

[darrinlingle]

The Lumix X 35-100mm f/2.8 is a good lens in the short-medium range, but zoomed all the way to 100mm, it is not very sharp unless stopped down to f/4-5.6 or thereabouts. See, e.g.:

http://m43photo.blogspot.no/2015/10/lumix-tele-lenses-compared.html

Unless you absolutely need the f/2.8 (or weatherproofing), I would rather get one of the slower lenses. All the recent Lumix zoom lenses are very good, e.g., Lumix G 45-150mm (very compact and inexpensive), Lumix G 14-140mm II (compact superzoom).

do you think the others will focus as fast. i was very surprised at how fast this lens focused but that's another advantage of f/2.8. i really don't need f/2.8 but they tend to be higher performance and better image quality. it did rain at the jetcar races and i was happy to have the weather sealing of the gx8 and this lens. i'm still open to using something that would be sharper at 100mm, wide open.

thanks for the link. i'm relatiely new to m4/3 and looking for some good review sites. i usually use photozone.de.

--
Darrin Lingle, Colorado

 

[kenw]

The Lumix X 35-100mm f/2.8 is a good lens in the short-medium range, but zoomed all the way to 100mm, it is not very sharp unless stopped down to f/4-5.6 or thereabouts. See, e.g.:

http://m43photo.blogspot.no/2015/10/lumix-tele-lenses-compared.html

I wonder about your copy of the lens. SLRGear/IR found no such corner fall off at 100mm F/5.6, nor did Photozone, and in my tests for infinity targets I found the same thing - corners just as sharp as the center at 100mm F/5.6 with barely perceptible lower contrast in the extreme corners.

Now everyone, including on my copy, does see both center resolution noticeably worse at 100/2.8 than at 35/2.8 but by 35/4 and 100/4 they are equal.

For some reason it appears your copy has soft corners at 100 even stopped down which doesn't seem to match the SLRGear/IR and Photozone test chart distance shots nor my infinity distance shots.

35-100/2.8 at 100/5.6 100% center crop from 16MP imager

35-100/2.8 at 100/5.6 100% extreme upper right corner crop from 16MP imager



--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list

 

[RobbieBear]

Bit late to the party here but just thought would post an example shot with the tiny 35-100mm f4-5.6 on the GM1.

Just shows that, with the right shooting technique you can achieve excellent image separation and bokeh.

Picture was taken at 80mm f8, that's FF f16 equivalent! I rather like the bokeh too as it happens.

 

[third son]

The smaller 35-100mm is an excellent lens with great rendering. I used to have it but had to let it go to help finance another purchase. The 35-100mm 2.8 is in a class by itself. There is really something special about that lens.

 

[Jorginho]

I cannot find a weakness in the 35-100 F2.8. It is better than my 12-35 mm f2.8 and it is also better than my 100-400 F4 to F6.3. Why since these might not be so comparabke? Because the other two have weaknesses. The 100-400 is a bit weak at 400 mm. Beyond 350 mm IQ goes down a little so you need to work on it but it aint much. What is worse is that zooming is stiff. Not very stiff but far removed from silky smooth.
12-35 mm f2.8...prone to lfaring and its OIS is not as effective as the one on the 35-100 and surely not on the 100-400.

35-100 f2.8....has no weakness. So that it is why it is the best lens I ever had. It is also all internal and it weighs astonishingly litte. 360 gram...where the 12-35 is 305 gram (so not far off the 35-100) and not all internal zoom either which the 100-400 of course is not either.

 

[Yannis1976]

I am looking at adding a telephoto to my M43 nature photography setup and am wondering if for my purposes the extra expense of the 2.8 would be worth it. I do most of my photography while on long hikes or or backpacking trips, so size and weight are definitely a strong consideration (which is the main reason I opted for a M43 system). However, image quality is important, and though I end up sharing most of my photos only on the web, I do want to print the select best shots.

I have been doing a lot of research on the 35-100 4.0-5.6 and it seems great in terms of size, weight and image quality. The 2.8 would obviously be faster, but I am not sure how important that is for me, doing almost entirely nature/landscape photography. It seems like most of the time I opt for smaller apertures and more DOF. The weather sealing is nice, but not sure if that feature alone would be worth the extra money.

My main question is whether image quality and sharpness would be significantly better with the 2.8 version compared to the 4.0-5.6 version. I have not found any direct comparisons in my research, except for one enthusiastic youtube review by David Thorpe in which he said there is is not a huge difference in sharpness. Does anyone here have experience with both lenses? Anyone know how the sharpness would compare to the Olympus 40-150 4.0-5.6? The extra reach would be nice, but the tiny size of the 35-100 seems very appealing for my uses.

Thanks for any feedback!

Are you sure the 100mm are enough for your nature photos? Last weekend I visited some waterfalls in a forest and there were times I missed a longer FL while trying to shoot wildlife (insects, birds).

 

[jeffharris]

35-100 f2.8....has no weakness. So that it is why it is the best lens I ever had. It is also all internal and it weighs astonishingly little. 360 gram...where the 12-35 is 305 gram (so not far off the 35-100) and not all internal zoom either which the 100-400 of course is not either.

That's good to know. I've been debating about the 35-100mm. My girlfriend wants a longer zoom for night time city "spy" shooting. Everything we have that she'd use is too slow.

Our 14-140mm is too WAAAAAY slow and often refuses to focus in the dark even with the ISO cranked up. The 12-40mm is too short. I'm happy using any of my longer adapted lenses… Voigtländer 75mm f2.5, Nikon 105mm f2.8 or Oly OM 135mm f2.8.

The upcoming 50-200mm would be ideal… IF it was constant f2.8, but with variable aperture, NO SALE. (Sorry Panny. BAD move.)

In fact, I'd have replaced the 12-40mm and 7-14mm f4 had the 12-60mm and 8-18mm been constant f2.8 aperture. (Sorry Panny. BAD move.)

So, as it stands, the 35-100mm is just about long enough, but not as big and heavy (my girlfriend would BALK! ;-) ) and pricey as the Oly 40-150mm.

 

[Yannis1976]

35-100 f2.8....has no weakness. So that it is why it is the best lens I ever had. It is also all internal and it weighs astonishingly little. 360 gram...where the 12-35 is 305 gram (so not far off the 35-100) and not all internal zoom either which the 100-400 of course is not either.

That's good to know. I've been debating about the 35-100mm. My girlfriend wants a longer zoom for night time city "spy" shooting. Everything we have that she'd use is too slow.

Our 14-140mm is too WAAAAAY slow and often refuses to focus in the dark even with the ISO cranked up. The 12-40mm is too short. I'm happy using any of my longer adapted lenses… Voigtländer 75mm f2.5, Nikon 105mm f2.8 or Oly OM 135mm f2.8.

BTW I think Panasonic really needs to update this 14-140 lens at least with WR and maybe starting from 12mm or making it a bit faster.

The upcoming 50-200mm would be ideal… IF it was constant f2.8, but with variable aperture, NO SALE. (Sorry Panny. BAD move.)

In fact, I'd have replaced the 12-40mm and 7-14mm f4 had the 12-60mm and 8-18mm been constant f2.8 aperture. (Sorry Panny. BAD move.)

So, as it stands, the 35-100mm is just about long enough, but not as big and heavy (my girlfriend would BALK! ;-) ) and pricey as the Oly 40-150mm.

 

[jeffharris]

35-100 f2.8....has no weakness. So that it is why it is the best lens I ever had. It is also all internal and it weighs astonishingly little. 360 gram...where the 12-35 is 305 gram (so not far off the 35-100) and not all internal zoom either which the 100-400 of course is not either.

That's good to know. I've been debating about the 35-100mm. My girlfriend wants a longer zoom for night time city "spy" shooting. Everything we have that she'd use is too slow.

Our 14-140mm is too WAAAAAY slow and often refuses to focus in the dark even with the ISO cranked up. The 12-40mm is too short. I'm happy using any of my longer adapted lenses… Voigtländer 75mm f2.5, Nikon 105mm f2.8 or Oly OM 135mm f2.8.

BTW I think Panasonic really needs to update this 14-140 lens at least with WR and maybe starting from 12mm or making it a bit faster.

12-140mm f4 with weather sealing? SOLD! ;-)