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

DLBlack wrote:

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.

I actually found, even when I carried the 100-300 on a few hikes last summer, that I seldom go over 90mm. That might be different in Nepal, or if I hiked in Yellowstone, or more often in the Canadian Rockies where seeing notable wildlife is more likely. I bought the 75-300 primarily for birds, which is a specialty use for me, and not my usual focus. I shoot mostly around 14-22 mm and more occasionally to 55 - 90mm for mountain scenics. But people are not my usual focus, it is scenics and artistic compositions. About 2/3 of my hiking is day trips, where I may not even carry a camera, and about 1/3 backpacking. Much of my summer hiking is off trail and above treeline.

Here is my favorite telephoto shot with the 35-100 F2.8 from last summer. I like it because of the lighting and sun and shadow effects.

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 was down to shooting three to five rolls of film with my previous Nikon gear and last spring - summer - fall I probably shot 4000 shots with my EM-1. I may pick up an EM-5 just for astro, although that is probably not necessary with the F1.8 FE.

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.

Thanks, Dave. It is a wonderful lens. I said on another thread, that I don't think a zoom is as important in wide angle because a small amount of footwork or even moving the camera a few inches can change the framing dramatically. I deliberated the same choice last August but ended up placing more value on the fast F1.8 of the FE for MW and landscape. I also rationalized that I already had 12-14 mm with the 12-40 and that the FE would allow artistic composition and was considerably smaller.

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

Agreed. I think the limitation of the appeal of M4/3 for photographers of many diverse interests is really just lack of exposure. I think Olympus believes that, too, as is witnessed by what seems to be very successful sales of Pro lenses to reach a larger audience.

Dave

-- hide signature --

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3380136992_7c5a0986ea_m.jpg