Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 impressive pictures

Anders W · Sep 29, 2012

ginsbu said:
Anders W said:

ginsbu said:

m43happy said:

That looks like a combination of leaves in the foreground mixed in with leaves in the background peaking through, which is giving an awkward look to the bokeh. If you look at the background way in the back, the bokeh looks much smoother.

Click to expand...

That's definitely the worst of the posted examples. There is some OOF foreground mixing in, you're right, but there's also pronounced double-edges to the leaves in the near background — that's visible in some of the other shots too where foreground isn't an issue . The deeper background bokeh looks OK, I agree. None of this is too surprising in a zoom.

Click to expand...

This is not due to the lens at all. m43happy is on the right track but it's not simply that the foreground mixes with the background in an awful manner. It's a bit more complicated than that. See this prior thread where we sorted the matter out rather carefully for another lens (100-300). Here's the beginning:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=39557484

and here for the beginning of the explanation

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=39565513

then follow the subthread down for further info.

Click to expand...

The phenomenon you explored in the other thread in very interesting and I appreciate your testing there, but it simply does not follow that here "This is not due to the lens at all." That phenomenon may well be contributing heavily in this shot, and I agreed with m43happy on there being some kind of foreground/background interference — but, I was pointing out that there are other samples in the set where there is some double-edging in the near background OOF areas, and you have neither ruled out that in this case nor explained it away in the other samples. Double-edging/outlining isn't an unusual bokeh characteristic, especially in zooms, so it shouldn't surprise that the 35–100mm exhibits it in some circumstances or that it might contribute in this case.

Could you please point me to some of the other cases you have in mind. I might agree but I'd like to have a look first.

ginsbu said:
That said, I don't think the samples show the 35–100mm to have a notable double-edging/outlining problem and, with the additional contributing factors in this sample, I certainly don't think that anyone should make a negative judgment about the lens based on it. As I said previously, I think overal bokeh quality of the lens is quite decent for a zoom based on these samples (as long as one isn't bothered by the mechanical-vignetting induced swirly bokeh, which I'm not).

Yes, that's roughly my overall conclusion too. Certainly not perfect but not all that bad either.

Bob Meyer · Sep 29, 2012

rayman 2 said:
Overpriced !

For you. Not for everyone.

rayman 2 said:
Just wait until the next year... Sigma is coming and they will have some quite
good fast lenses probably in this range...
I heard there is more coming from March on....

Sigma has been "coming" for a couple of years now. But other than a couple of fairly slow, odd focal length lenses that don't provide distortion data to the camera, all I see is a lot of "heavy breathing."

--

I've stopped thinking in terms of "equivalent" focal lengths on m43. 25mm is what it is, and what it might be similar to on some other format doesn't matter to me any more. We need to learn what to expect from our current equipment, not keep mapping it to the old. No one refers to their 50mm FF lens as "equivalent to 80mm on MF."

Bob Meyer · Sep 29, 2012

If this is the kind of comparative analysis our school systems teach, I fear for the future of the human race.

Gee, a lens with a smaller, variable aperture, shorter max focal length, and cheaper build quality costs less. What a shock!

stimmer said:
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.

--

I've stopped thinking in terms of "equivalent" focal lengths on m43. 25mm is what it is, and what it might be similar to on some other format doesn't matter to me any more. We need to learn what to expect from our current equipment, not keep mapping it to the old. No one refers to their 50mm FF lens as "equivalent to 80mm on MF."

Bob Meyer · Sep 29, 2012

johngraham said:
I do not see this lens replacing any of my existing M/43 zoom lenses that cover the same range:

1. The 14 - 140 covers the same range plus more on both sides so it is really versatile for a single lens when walking around outdoors

2. The 45 - 200 covers the upper range and more and is a bargain so worth keeping together with the 35 - 100 f/2.8

Neither of those lenses will work nearly as well indoors, or in dim light.

I really like my 14-140, too, but it isn't directly comparable. Indoors, it's just too slow.

mpgxsvcd said:
This is more of a video lens than a stills lens. It will work for both but it is a must have video lens for Panasonic cameras that lack IS. For an Olympus camera I would much rather have the 75mm F1.8.

Not sure where you get the idea it's a video lens. IS is important for stills, too, especially with longer FLs, and the 14-140 and 45-200 also have IS. Does that make them video lenses, too?
--

I've stopped thinking in terms of "equivalent" focal lengths on m43. 25mm is what it is, and what it might be similar to on some other format doesn't matter to me any more. We need to learn what to expect from our current equipment, not keep mapping it to the old. No one refers to their 50mm FF lens as "equivalent to 80mm on MF."

Anders W · Sep 29, 2012

Midnighter said:
So, looking at the photos, its internal zoom and focus?

Yes.

Starred · Sep 30, 2012

Is the "ugly bokeh" actually bokeh at all? Isn't it a result of leaves which are out of focus in the foreground combined with leaves in focus that shimmer through?

Anders W · Sep 30, 2012

Starred said:
Is the "ugly bokeh" actually bokeh at all?

If you think about the "ugly bokeh" (the foliage towards the top of the frame) that I discussed with ginsbu and others earlier in the thread, then no, it's not something that the lens can be blamed for.

Starred said:
Isn't it a result of leaves which are out of focus in the foreground combined with leaves in focus that shimmer through?

Yes. But it's not simply that you have two out-of-focus areas (foreground and background) overlaid. As you can see if you look at the thread I linked to in one of my replies to ginsbu, it's that the foreground acts as a set of extra diaphragms, giving rise to multiple, relatively sharp renderings of the background and thus strange double contours. It's a pretty interesting phenomenon that I wasn't fully aware of until I did some experiments in that other thread I linked to. It's something one might even want to utilize as a kind of "art filter".

ginsbu · Sep 30, 2012

Anders W said:
Could you please point me to some of the other cases you have in mind. I might agree but I'd like to have a look first.

Sure…

Lefthand image, leaves on the left side show double-edging quite clearly (especially considering the small image size):

Upper righthand image, double-edging is pretty clear in the stem/branch just above her shoulder on the left (also visible elsewhere in the leaves):

There's some foreground interference in this one so it's less clear, but look at the leaves on the far left in profile (about level with her hand):

None of this is severe, but it's there.

In the image discussed previously, there is larger-scale multiple imaging (often more than double) that I think is clearly attributable to the foreground interference phenomenon you investigated, but there is also some fine-scale double-edging (and only double) that resembles the examples above.

Anders W · Sep 30, 2012

ginsbu said:
Anders W said:

Could you please point me to some of the other cases you have in mind. I might agree but I'd like to have a look first.

Click to expand...

Sure…

Lefthand image, leaves on the left side show double-edging quite clearly (especially considering the small image size):

Upper righthand image, double-edging is pretty clear in the stem/branch just above her shoulder on the left (also visible elsewhere in the leaves):

There's some foreground interference in this one so it's less clear, but look at the leaves on the far left in profile (about level with her hand):

None of this is severe, but it's there.

In the image discussed previously, there is larger-scale multiple imaging (often more than double) that I think is clearly attributable to the foreground interference phenomenon you investigated, but there is also some fine-scale double-edging (and only double) that resembles the examples above.

I'd say that all three examples you show here might well be due to the same phenomenon as the one we discussed earlier and which I try to explain in the thread I linked to. Note that you do not even have to see any foreground contours for this phenomenon to occur. The foreground can be more or less completely dissolved and the background still look very strange due to foreground interference (i.e., the foreground acting as multiple, rather small, diaphragms).

Search

Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 impressive pictures

Anders W

Forum Pro

Bob Meyer

Veteran Member

Bob Meyer

Veteran Member

Bob Meyer

Veteran Member

Anders W

Forum Pro

Starred

Forum Enthusiast

Anders W

Forum Pro

ginsbu

Senior Member

Anders W

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts