ntsan
Senior Member
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
40-150mm F2.8 and 35-100mm F2.8 size compared!
- Thread starter ntsan
- Start date
Jesus that's a bigger difference than I was expecting.
Going to have a bit of a conundrum because I could do with a slightly longer lens for sports shooting but the 40-150mm is definitely to big to replace my 35-100mm for travel. I guess I'll have to see what the image quality is and how it handles when it comes out.
Going to have a bit of a conundrum because I could do with a slightly longer lens for sports shooting but the 40-150mm is definitely to big to replace my 35-100mm for travel. I guess I'll have to see what the image quality is and how it handles when it comes out.
Gregm61
Forum Pro
At 50% more reach, it should be bigger. The difference from there comes down to how optically "finished" is the Zuiko vs. the Panasonic, which obviously made some optical compromises to make it the smaller size it is.
I understand it should be bigger due to the reach. I think it's a bit early to be saying about how "finished" it is though. The 35-100mm also provides IQ that can rival the primes for resolution in the centre and it isn't far off, if any, on the edge, so I don't think they sacrificed much for size.
My only disappointment with the 35-100 is the bokeh. I was really hoping Panny would get that right. Great lens, but creamy bokeh is too important to me.
RealPancho
Senior Member
That's interesting, because my experience has been the complete opposite. The 12-35 is another story, which is another reason why I'm looking forward to the 12-40.
daddyo
Forum Pro
I have been drooling ever since I heard about the 40-150mm f/2.8, but from looking at the video, it looks to be as big or bigger than my ZD 50-200mm -- we're only talking about 1/2 stop difference at 200mm with the ZD.
Unless this lens is a world beater, I may be hard pressed to sell my Pany 35-100mm and invest in this lens, rather than hang on to my ZD50-200mm and take advantage of the extra focal length.
The Oly 50-200mm is one of the finest lenses I have ever owned, and it looks like it will focus fast and accurately on the E-M1.
We'll see...
God Bless,
Greg
www.imagismphotos.com
www.mccroskery.zenfolio.com
www.pbase.com/daddyo
Unless this lens is a world beater, I may be hard pressed to sell my Pany 35-100mm and invest in this lens, rather than hang on to my ZD50-200mm and take advantage of the extra focal length.
The Oly 50-200mm is one of the finest lenses I have ever owned, and it looks like it will focus fast and accurately on the E-M1.
We'll see...
God Bless,
Greg
www.imagismphotos.com
www.mccroskery.zenfolio.com
www.pbase.com/daddyo
Gregm61
Forum Pro
Definitely.
I picked up the 12-35/2.8 to use with my E-M5 because it's available now and I wanted it for my trip last week to San Francisco and another couple of photo ops next month. I've yet to be disappointed using it to capture a lot of images and that definitely has me considering the 35-100 over the next 2-3 months.
--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights
Last edited:
reygon
Senior Member
Wow... This is a very big/long lens for m43. It must be way better on image quality and bokeh than Pana's 35-100mm for low light, sports and birds/animals lens, with price to be reasonable else it won't sell lots of units.
Definitely not a travel lens for me!
Definitely not a travel lens for me!
Grobb
Senior Member
If the Oly 12-40 is much better than the Pany 12-35 and the Oly 40-150 beats the Pany 35-100 in sharpness and total IQ, (and cost less), the Oly zooms they will both sell very well ;-)
Lucas McDonald
Forum Enthusiast
For me the 12-40 and 40-150 on an EM-1 is a match made in heaven :-D and those lenses combined with some primes that I have ( pannaleica 25, oly 75,oly 60 macro and rokinon 7.5 ) I think I am covered for anything I want to shoot , except maybe a 300F4.
YesI know the 40-150 is bigger than the Panny but have you ever tried carrying around a DSLR with Canons 70-200 2.8 mk2 ;-) the Oly kit is just so much easier on your shoulder/back.
So as long as the IQ is up there and the price is not ridiculous ,I will be madly saving my pennies for one .
YesI know the 40-150 is bigger than the Panny but have you ever tried carrying around a DSLR with Canons 70-200 2.8 mk2 ;-) the Oly kit is just so much easier on your shoulder/back.
So as long as the IQ is up there and the price is not ridiculous ,I will be madly saving my pennies for one .
purpleray
Senior Member
Greg
Yes, Ill keep my 50-200 and my 50 F2 macro.
The 50-200 may not beat the $10,000 Canon 100-400 F4 but it is plenty sharp for me giving the same FOV.
While, I have the 45 f1.8 and the 2 Pany F2.8 zooms, I dont have a macro for m4/3s and the 50 is such a sweet lens.
I'll sell up the rest of my 4/3 gear - E5, E620, 12-60 and 40-150.
I wont get the new 40-150 f2.8. Comparing with my 35-100 & 50-200, it looks like the 40-150 is longer but thinner than the 50-200.
The 12-40? Maybe if I get a good package deal and I feel I don't lose too much of the compact advantage of the 12-35. If the IQ is as good as the 45 F1.8 prime, I might get it even if I lose the compactness. Most likely it wont be too much better than the 12-35, but we'll have to wait and see.
Cheers
Ray
Peng Bian
Leading Member
Sgt_Strider
Senior Member
I agree. Now if only Olympus offers better video and 7 exposures with 1 EV difference for AEB and it would be a perfect camera.
I agree with you on the lens setup, but I wouldn't want the Rokinon lens. I'd add the Panleica 42.5mm f/1.2 lens.
I saw somewhere that somebody had calculated its size, from comparing it w/ the known specs of the 12-40, and guesstimated the 40-150 to be approx 152 mm long. The 50-200 SWD is 157 mm, but probably a great deal thicker, so weight and bulk will be way less for the 40-150.
You can compare the Zuiko 12-40 and the Pana 12-35 in the samples shown here (bottom page):
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/6
Just one picture though, but it seems the 12-40 is better, at least for corner sharpness.
--
Erik Aaseth
http://www.pbase.com/eaaseth
Last edited:
I would have said size and weight matters just as much. If IQ and cost were all that mattered I would have gone straight past m4/3 to a cheap FF DSLR.
Jon555
Veteran Member
I really like the Bokeh on my 35-100, but different people will see it differently I guess...
Jon555
Veteran Member
I think most Panny Owners will stick with the 35-100 (which I think is a great lens BTW, my favorite m43 lens to date) as they want the stabilisation for stills and video. Also it's small and light enough to carry around all day without worrying about it.
exdeejjjaaaa
Veteran Member
FF 70-200/2.8 as usual is the wrong orange for Olympus' apple = APS-C 24mp dSLR w/ Sigma 50-150/2.8 iis just this size (and you can crop center 16mp to go beyond 150mm):
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum