Reading mode: Light Dark

Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 impressive pictures

Go to last post
Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson

Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson

Senior Member
Messages
1,543
Reaction score
759
Location
Reykjavik, IS
Very nice pictures. However, seeing the size of this lens vs it's focal length range makes me better understand why MFT telephoto lenses have been made mostly in the f3.5 to 5.6 range for size considerations. I am now a lot more comfortable with pre-ordering the Panasonic 45-150 lens, which is almost exactly the same length as the Panasonic f2.8 12-35 lens and a little smaller in diameter. I really don't need the extra 1-2 stops of speed in the 45-150 focal length range, since it will be used almost entirely outdoors. I am willing to sacrifice a small amount of speed and IQ for the size and approximately $1200 cost savings.

My E-M5 with 12-35 lens and 45-150 lens plus the clip-on flash, a spare battery and two CPL filters will fit in my very small Kata DC-433 bag. For my purposes, a nearly perfect lightweight kit.
 
To tell the truth I wasn't really looking at the G5 video, more interested in stills... as well as the E-M5... but now you mention it, the video is a bit jumpy/jelli...

I'm seriously interested in this lens, but the price has to come down by 2-300 dollars,,, the 12-35 started at 1299 and is now 1099... so I'll wait a few months and see...

Just ordered the 7-14 f/4 today, have the 25 f/1.4..

I think the 7-14 f/4, 25 f/1.4 and 35-100 f/2.8 will make a great 3 lens combo...
 
for outdoors... 24-300 a good range...

regarding the size of the 35-100, yeah its 100mm, but compared to the Canon 70-200 I used ti have it is small, so, for me it is ok,, I need every light gathering ability possible in dark Iceland...
 
I can see the need for a faster lens in Iceland, for sure. The 35-100 will no doubt be a fantastic lens. Maybe in a year or so I might get one if the price comes down.
 
bgalb said:
seeing the size of this lens vs it's focal length range makes me better understand why MFT telephoto lenses have been made mostly in the f3.5 to 5.6 range for size considerations. I am now a lot more comfortable with pre-ordering the Panasonic 45-150 lens, which is almost exactly the same length as the Panasonic f2.8 12-35 lens and a little smaller in diameter.
Click to expand...
The difference in length is primarily due to the 35–100mm being an internal zoom design. The larger aperture adds a bit to the diameter, but doesn't have much to do with the greater length.
 
Bokeh not good, and those pics look soft.

The 75 is much nicer and to me serves the same purpose for cheaper. Just move the feet.

Hope I'm wrong though. It just seems like the value vs quality is off on the panny he lenses. Give me a 12-60 any day of the week, and its cheaper.
 
Looking at the samples, one thing that jumps out at me is somewhat swirly bokeh due to mechanical vignetting of the aperture (visible as "cat's eye" shapes in OOF areas away from the frame center). I don't find this bothersome, but some do; it's obviously a price Panasonic has paid for keeping the lens diameter down.

Overall the bokeh looks decent enough in the distance, but a couple of the samples show nervousness and double-edging closer in. That sort of issue isn't uncommon in a zoom; it's just something users will have to bear in mind.

The size comparisons are particularly impressive to me: Panasonic is offering a lot of versatility in a very modestly sized lens.
 
If the Canon impresses you so, buy one. Be happy. I'll buy the Lumix, thank you, and I won't belittle the Canon in the process.
forpetessake said:
Comparing it to old (and b.t.w. optically superb) Canon FD 35-105/3.5, which is Full Frame and collecting a lot more light, the size is practically the same:



So where is the promised miniaturization?
Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson said:
From Popco

http://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&no=829
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
 
I'm thinking that my 45mm f/1.8 and a new 75mm f/1.8 will give me better images with enough versatility. I've been waiting for a good 70-200mm equivalent in this format and, now that it's here, I'm not enthusiastic. Maybe the wait is more satisfying than the reality?

I had the 4/3 Zuiko 35-100mm f/2 for a year. Wow. What a lens! I wish Panasonic had created that lens in f/2.8 guise. I don't see that here. The new Lumix may be good, but not jaw-dropping from what I see.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
 
So how is it collecting more light?

If you mount it with an adapter on m43 - it won't be collecting more light - it is 2/3rds of a stop slower.

You mount the Canon on full-frame then it becomes an equivalency argument, but then the point is rather moot anyway - the Pany isn't designed for FF and it has AF and IS.
 
forpetessake said:
Comparing it to old (and b.t.w. optically superb) Canon FD 35-105/3.5, which is Full Frame and collecting a lot more light, the size is practically the same:



So where is the promised miniaturization?
Click to expand...
I don't know that MFT promises to miniaturize slower lenses of the same FL as opposed to the same FoV. In case you didn't know, the Panasonic is not equivalent to 35-105 but to 70-200 on FF.

The Canon is 600 g, without OIS and AF. The Panasonic is 360 g with OIS and AF. Is this your definition of "practically the same"?

As to optical performance, I am sure the Canon doesn't hold a candle to the Panasonic. Feel free to try to prove me wrong. ;)
 
Thank you, I bought one and it's a very impressive lens, I doubt Panasonic will be on the level. I simply wonder why would Panasonic come up with that huge beercan if it promises so little for so much.
James Pilcher said:
If the Canon impresses you so, buy one. Be happy. I'll buy the Lumix, thank you, and I won't belittle the Canon in the process.
forpetessake said:
Comparing it to old (and b.t.w. optically superb) Canon FD 35-105/3.5, which is Full Frame and collecting a lot more light, the size is practically the same:



So where is the promised miniaturization?
Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson said:
From Popco

http://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&no=829
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Click to expand...
 
Guess what, the equivalent Full Frame 70-200/5.6 is also pretty small. But if you mount Canon 30-105mm on m4/3 camera it will be almost the same size, will have almost the same T-stop and will likely be better optically for a lot less.
g_r_w said:
So how is it collecting more light?

If you mount it with an adapter on m43 - it won't be collecting more light - it is 2/3rds of a stop slower.

You mount the Canon on full-frame then it becomes an equivalency argument, but then the point is rather moot anyway - the Pany isn't designed for FF and it has AF and IS.
Click to expand...
 
Love the pics.

Also, I seem to be the one of the few that likes "imperfect" bokeh as a lens characteristic. Generally I'm not one to argue that lens "character" should supercede technical ability; a sharp, contrasty lens is better than a soft one because you can imitate softness and lack of contrast in post. But imitating the unique types of bokeh a lens can produce is quite more difficult, such as that "cat's-eye" effect.

I feel that many of the older users on the site prefer more perfectly even circular bokeh, perhaps because it wasn't that common in the the earlier film days. As someone who started shooting in the digital era, I find that effect intriguing, since I feel like I can rather easily imitate perfect bokeh in post. Perhaps that similarly explains my generation's fascination with instagram, haha(although I certainly don't share it).
 
Anders W said:
forpetessake said:
Comparing it to old (and b.t.w. optically superb) Canon FD 35-105/3.5, which is Full Frame and collecting a lot more light, the size is practically the same:



So where is the promised miniaturization?
Click to expand...
I don't know that MFT promises to miniaturize slower lenses of the same FL as opposed to the same FoV. In case you didn't know, the Panasonic is not equivalent to 35-105 but to 70-200 on FF.

The Canon is 600 g, without OIS and AF. The Panasonic is 360 g with OIS and AF. Is this your definition of "practically the same"?

As to optical performance, I am sure the Canon doesn't hold a candle to the Panasonic. Feel free to try to prove me wrong. ;)
Click to expand...
I don't have to prove anything to anybody, it's none of my business to talk people from spending their money on what they believe. I have facts, I tested Canon, I've seen measurements of Oly 35-100/2.0, which is better than Panasonic, I'm pretty sure Panasonic won't come close to neither Olympus nor Canon optical quality. And if you put aside your articles of m4/3 faith for a while and look at those samples you would also see how unimpressive they are.
 
How do you know? Do you have measurements and weights of both lenses? I can't tell just from these photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6 II POWER and DxO compatibility
Replies
8
Views
226
CaliforniaDave
C
PaulSnowcat
  • User review User review
Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 50-200mm f/2.8-4.0 Lens Review
Replies
6
Views
1K
PaulSnowcat
PaulSnowcat
24thWanderer
Yongnuo 12-35 f2.8-4 now at a logical price
Replies
2
Views
222
24thWanderer
24thWanderer
V
  • Photo Photo
Some concert shots from december + query about Pana 35-100
Replies
3
Views
394
CBR1100XX
C
O
Sigma 28-70 vs 24-105 f/4 (on S5 II or S5 and S1)
Replies
6
Views
679
Off The Mark
O

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top