Landscape telephoto lenses

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
Rohith Thumati Contributing Member • Posts: 654
Re: Landscape telephoto lenses
2

I have three telephoto zooms:

  • The 40-150 f2.8 is awesome, but it is big and heavy (relatively speaking) and pricey. It’s worth it if you use it.
  • The 35-100 f4-5.6 is really good, especially given how tiny it is. I’d say it’s a step behind the 40-150 f2.8, but it’s still excellent. Only real criticism I have is that the zoom ring on mine is a little stiff.
  • the Olympus 40-150 4-5.6 is fine. It’s definitely a 1st gen Micro Four Thirds lens. But it’s cheap though! It doesn’t match the 35-100 f4-5.6, but it does have an extra 50mm of reach. I pretty much stopped using mine after I got the 35-100 and f2.8 version  It’s so cheap new/refurbished that I can’t get rid of it.

I’ve also tried the Panasonic 100-300mm and 35-100 f2.8. I thought the 100-300 was fine. It’s a budget supertele. I was disappointed by the 35-100 f2.8; it didn’t seem much better than the F4-5.6 version, if at all. 1-2 extra stops is great though, and it is a lot smaller than the 40-150 f2.8

As for whether the 35-100mm has enough reach - there really isn’t such a thing. I often wish for more reach from my 40-150. But the 35-100 covers a classic range, gives very good results, is small enough that you likely won’t even notice it in your bag, and it’s inexpensive enough that if it’s only used occasionally, you’re not out a ton.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow