Another happy 35-100 owner

Started Nov 7, 2012 | Discussions thread
OP mpresley Regular Member • Posts: 474
Re: Another happy 35-100 owner

Allan Brown wrote:

I'm sure this is a good lens but is it worth the price. Other than it being f2.8 I don't think it is any better than my 45-200.

Here are a couple taken with my 45-200 at 200mm, 1600ISO, wide open (f5.6) OOC jpeg just resized down.

I am not trying to start a fight, just saying that unless you really need f2.8, there are other options.


You won't get any arguments from me - I'm willing to pay the price for the very reason you start your reply with - the 45-200 won't do f/2.8 - there's a huge difference in the performance of these lens if you use flash - which I do most often - to me it's an apples and oranges comparison. I have the Oly 40-150 and it's very sharp as well, cheaply made, but can certainly produce some pretty nice pictures. As much as I like the E-M5, I'm not as enamored with it's performance at ISO 1600 as some are. I prefer to keep it to 800 or less, so the 2.8 lens lends itself to that end. There's always a point of diminishing returns - I had the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 - a fine lens by most any standard, but I bought the 85mm f/1.4 just because it's got that edge that costs if you want it. So, I'm certainly not going to participate in a fight - but for the reasons stated, it's way better than your 45-200 at f/2.8

-- hide signature --

Not a pro, just a Granddad with to much camera gear

 mpresley's gear list:mpresley's gear list
Nikon D50 Nikon D1 Olympus PEN E-P1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +15 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow