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

Gary from Seattle wrote:

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).

Everyone has different kits and reasons for such differences.  This is a reason MFT is a great system, is because you can go the Panasonic way or the Olympus way or miss and match between them.

Yes, the 40-150 F2.8 is gigantic when compared to the 35-100 F2.8.  I do own both and use both.  When out on a photo-hike I usually my kit is the E-M1, 12-40 F2.8, 40-150 F2.8 and the 1.4xTc.  Before I got the 40-150 F2.8 my photo-hike kit was the E-M1, 12-40 F2.8, 35-100 F2.8, 75-300 F4.?-6.7, and the 60 F2.8 Macro.  It seems like I was always changing between the 35-100 F2.8 when it didn't have the reach and the 75-300 when I needed the extra reach.  Then the 75-300 was too slow for dawn and dust wildlife photography.  My current photo-hike kit seems more compact, and more flexible and better in low light.  I guess I tread toward longer focal lengths to isolate subjects in the landscape.

If I was hiking and just want to carry a camera just incase my kit would be the E-M5 Mkii, 12-35 F2.8, 35-100 F2.8 and the 60 F2.8 Macro.

If I was just about the city and want to have the camera just incase my kit would be the E-M5 Mkii, 12-35 F2.8 and the 35-100 F2.8.

I love how I can have different kits for different reasons and whatever kit is still smaller than the similar DSLR kit.

I really love the shots you got from the 8 F1.8 fisheye lens.  I tried one at the camera store near me when the Olympus rep was there a week ago.  It is a really neat lens and I am considering it or the 7-14 F2.8 lens before I summer vacation.

Anyhow, it is great that we have both Olympus and Panasonic developing great lenses to choce from.

Dave