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 can't see it. The 40-150 is gigantic by comparison. The 12-40 has excellent close-focusing capability. I carry the 12-40 and 60mm for spring wildflower hikes and add the 35-100, usually without the 60mm for mountain hiking. When I go someplace with outstanding wildlife potential, Wolves or Grizzlies, I might add the 75-300 (last year the 100-300); but really just for Deer, Goats or Sheep, or Marmots, I'll leave the 75-300. If there is no moon, I'll add the 8mm f1.8 (also for certain mountain scenics).