Are the constant aperture Panasonic lenses worth it (and are you wating for Olympus?)

Started Apr 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
Najinsky Veteran Member • Posts: 5,739
Very depressing

The lengths some of you go to to twist and over exaggerate peoples words so you can attack them, rather than accept a small criticism is really starting to kill my enjoyment of the forums.

All I said was the drop in performance from 100/4 to 100/2.8 is a little steeper than I think it should be for a premium priced lens. Another owner has commented the same, and Roger Cicala from lens rentals expressed the same:

"There was a slightly different story at 100mm, though, where resolution dropped significantly (100mm mtf 50 is 86% of what it is at 35mm, hence the article title). This is still good, but it’s not what I was hoping for. I’ve already got a sharp f/2.8 zoom at 35mm. The difference is worth showing in chart form since it’s quite consistent with all 7 copies I tested."

If you genuinely believe it is physically impossible to improve on this without creating a $3,000 1.3KG monster, that's fine, sit tight one day your world will be rocked, in a nice way.

But deep down you probably know this lens could have been a bit better wide open, and rather than accept a small but justified criticism of the lens you instead set about exaggerating my opinion so you can then attack it.

And that, I really find it quite depressing.


Marty4650 wrote:

Najinsky wrote:

Canon EF 70-200/4L USM - $700 - Check out it's optical performance. It's superb.

Canon EF 70-200/4L IS USM - $1,100 - Even better.


The Panasonic 35-100 is $1,500. It should be a bit better than it is. Nothing to do with being a perfectionist, just comparing it to the standards set by it competitors and one of my most used lenses. And certainly not ridiculous to expect excellent performance all round from a lens of this price.

If it were $900, I'd forgive the reduced (though still good) F/2.8 performance. But at $1,500 I'm less forgiving.

I get your point, but you are missing one important fact.

It is physically impossible for a M4/3 lens to be "as good" as full frame lens at the same or similar price. Because the sensor is 1/4th as large, you would need a much faster M4/3 lens, and then it will become much more expensive and much larger. And then you will be upset about that.

You seem to be unhappy about the cost of the Panasonic 35-100mm lens, and say "if it was cheaper" but you are asking for a more expensive lens design. This just won't happen in our lifetimes.

Do you recall how LARGE and HEAVY the 4/3 35-100mm lens is?

The Olympus 35-100mm lens costs almost twice as much and weighs three times as much. But it is a much better lens. Is this what you want?

When you selected a M4/3 system you made a compromise that everyone else who selected that system made.  You chose reasonably good performance with a smaller size and weight at a reasonable cost rather than the absolute best performance with no regard for price or weight.

If you really need the absolute best lens then the best solution for you is to stick with full frame.

If you can tolerate almost as good, then M4/3 might be for you.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow