Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 over Olympus 40-150 f2.8?

Jorginho wrote:

Chippy99 wrote:

The Panasonic is a great lens, but do be aware that at the very long end and at f/2.8, it is a bit soft. It's about the only flaw the lens has, but you should be aware of it. If you are planning on using the lens under those conditions, and you are wavering between the Panasonic and Olympus glass, you'd definitely be better off with the Olympus.

I haven't noticed it but I think I have heard about it before. Is this a characteristic or sample variation?

I tried two 35-100/2.8's and they were both soft at 100mm, f/2.8, at portrait distances. Another weakness is that with some of the Panasonic cameras, when shooting video, the 35-100/2.8 OIS creates micro-jitters. But I still kept the 2nd 35-100/2.8 because a) the softness wasn't a deal-breaker...the results were still quite acceptable and b) I moved 100% into micro four thirds for the small size and light weight; the Oly 40-150/2.8 was beyond what I would consider for a lens that I would carry all day.

Several months later I have no regrets. It is a great mix of small size and performance. For video, I can use Adobe Premiere's warp stabilization too to clean up jitter or use it with my EM5 II. The f/2.8 softness I can live with. I only swapped lenses because I wanted to see if this was typical or if I had a bad lens. On our last vacation, I carried the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100 mounted on two bodies (GX7, EM 5II) plus a couple of other lenses in my sling bag every day. No problems with my back, and that's why I love m43.

I think the reach of the Oly as some have noted does come in really handy. With the TC it is actually a whole different lens altogether.

The TC and the fact that it focuses fairly close does make the 40-150 appealing and I did give it some thought.

Also the attention Oly gave to this lens in buildquality is even better. The lenshood is done so well.

That I'm not so sure about. I read some complaints the hood failing. And I haven't noticed any posts that suggest that the 35-100 is inferior in build quality to the 40-150.

This brings up something I've noticed in this forum. A lot of people say how good Olympus' build quality is but I think what they're really admiring is the tactile quality and weight of their products. If you're talking about build quality as a measure of durability and reliability, then I don't know how you can evaluate that without looking inside the product and reviewing its history. I mention this because I've seen a number of posts talking about mechanical/software failures with Olympus cameras in this forum. I've also seen people say that a Panasonic camera feels like a toy when compared to an Olympus but I've also seen far fewer complaints about failures in Panasonics.

I don't want to turn this into an Oly vs Panny sub-thread and I do understand that lots of complaints in a forum aren't a statistically valid way of establishing the reliability of a product. But it should also be understood that you can't judge durability based on how the product feels in your hand. Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals made this point recently when he did a tear-down of Canon's latest pro 35mm lens:

"I have rolled my eyes for years when people say a lens is "Built like a tank" because it has a heavy metal shell. Then we open it up and see the insides are tiny little screws and weak nylon collars set in thin sheet metal helicoids. That kind of 'built like a tank' is probably useful if you want your lens to stop a bullet, but doesn't make the lens reliable."

He then goes on to say,

"This is my kind of built like a tank. There is a flexible polycarbonate shell over a very solid metal core with really heavy-duty rollers, screws, and bearings. That's a logical way to build things; make the core the strongest part, not the shell."

The full article is here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/canon-35mm-f1-4-mk-ii-teardown

The TL;DR from my rant is this: you can't judge the quality of something by feel.

(Jorginho: this reply wasn't directed at you, you just gave me a springboard that launched me off into this tangent)