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

DLBlack wrote:

NCV wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

The 35-100 is so compact for a lens of it's range it is a no brainer versus the 40-150. I often carry three lenses and on some trips, especially with opportunities for wildlife or majestic peaks I wouldn't be caught without the 35-100.

The thought of hauling the 40 150 up a mountain makes me wince and think of the bad old days with the D300 and 3 2.8 lenses.

I too find the 35 100 great for hiking. I hate arriving at destination knackered. Ones photography suffers.

For me if I was hiking with the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 and would also have the 75-300 F4.?-6.7 with me and those two lenses together is even more weight than the 40-150 F2.8. Plus I would most likely also have my 60 f2.8 macro with me. So for me the 12-40 F2.8 and the 40-150 F2.8 along with the 1.4xTC is perfect for a hike. It will take me from FF equivalent of 24mm to 420mm. The 40-150 F2.8 has very close focusing ability so I will not pack my macro. So those two lenses would cover nearly all my expected and unexpected situations and weight less than I would take if I had the 35-100 F2.8 in my normal hiking kit. I am all into saving weight and the 40-150 f2.8 helps be save weight.

I must admitt I do 90% of my hiking pictures with the 12-35 2.8.

I hike with an EM5 -12-35 over my shoulder or around my neck on difficult stretches. The other stuff lives in the rucksack and comes out for things that really merit a longer or shorter lens.

I find carrying a lot of gear detracts from my enjoyment of the hike and I am thinking of just taking one body with the 14-140 mounted as I do when I use my MB. Simplicity I am convinced will let me concentrate more on the photo’s I am taking.

Here is the sort of thing I do. I do not miss those extra 40mm over the 35-100

http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/2015/10/pathway-to-epitaph.html

http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/2013/09/the-red-carpet-in-clouds.html