Why is the 35-100 f/2.8 not as popular as the 70/200 on FF?

I've avoided the 35-100 for years because 40-150 has been a more useful focal range for me. I do have the mZuiko 40-150/4 Pro lens which I like very much, but there are occasions when f2.8 comes in very handy and frankly the 40-150/2.8 is too bulky for me to bother with (I used to own one and it's fantastic, just not for me as the size defeats the reason why I bought into m43).

I recently purchased the Lumix lens secondhand and couldn't be happier (not the latest WR version). It's surprisingly small and in common with some of the other higher grade m43 telezooms, I like the fact that it doesn't trombone as you zoom. I'm very happy with the image quality that I've got so far, even wide open, and it is perfect for my intended use - indoor/low light theatre rehearsal photography, mounted on my OM-1.

I'm not sure I'd spend a fortune on a new one, but I think they are a very good secondhand value. A few samples below, all taken from recent dress rehearsal of Separate Tables, which has just opened at the Abbey Theatre in St Albans (UK).











--
http://thephotographersblock.wordpress.com
http://jonschick.smugmug.com/

I sometimes feel in an oversensitive minority when I say that the 40-150/2.8 was just too bulky for me as well. :-D But the Panasonic 50-200 was just on the good side of bulkiness, to use with an EM5. Shorter, lighter, weight seems closer to the camera. Also expensive and rarely seen second hand.

Jon Schick said:

I've avoided the 35-100 for years because 40-150 has been a more useful focal range for me. I do have the mZuiko 40-150/4 Pro lens which I like very much, but there are occasions when f2.8 comes in very handy and frankly the 40-150/2.8 is too bulky for me to bother with (I used to own one and it's fantastic, just not for me as the size defeats the reason why I bought into m43).

I recently purchased the Lumix lens secondhand and couldn't be happier (not the latest WR version). It's surprisingly small and in common with some of the other higher grade m43 telezooms, I like the fact that it doesn't trombone as you zoom. I'm very happy with the image quality that I've got so far, even wide open, and it is perfect for my intended use - indoor/low light theatre rehearsal photography, mounted on my OM-1.

I'm not sure I'd spend a fortune on a new one, but I think they are a very good secondhand value. A few samples below, all taken from recent dress rehearsal of Separate Tables, which has just opened at the Abbey Theatre in St Albans (UK).

Click to expand...

It's subject matter for me. I like the size/weight of the 35-100. I often find it too short and I find f/4 fast enough for most of what I do so I use the 40-150 f/4 a lot. The M43 kits are so compact and light it is not a burden for me to carry a lens with more reach. Even the 40-150 f/2.8 is not a burden for an all-day carry but it would be uncomfortable for something like street photography. That's where I think I might use the 35-100 but I use the 12-150 instead so I don't have to change lenses. I know that isn't fast enough or sharp enough for some photographers but you can make good subject separation if you use the long end and the short end is as sharp as a PRO lens. I had a 35-100 but I found it too short, too often.

gaul said:

Hello

As a newbie M4/3 user and longtime Canon user.. surprised to see that the 35-100 f/2.8 not as popular as the 70/200 on FF..

Is this because Panasonic is these days not too clear on FF vs M4/3.. and that Olympus does not have this focal range zoom..

Or is this because 35-100 f/2.8 is not providing enough subject separation and people prefer the much smaller 35-100 f/4 - f/5.6 supplemented by a fast prime ?!!

Tempted by a very good condition 35-100 f/2.8 Mk ii at a very good price .. Talk me out of it as I am seriously considering it..

Click to expand...

I think a simple explanation is because the Olympus 40-150/2.8 is so flipping good. Yeah, it's bigger but it is optically superb, incredibly well built, etc. I simply wouldn't look at any 35-100 already owning that.

The combination of the 24-70, plus the 70-200 made its reputation with FF canermen when there was nothing else better - and it was very useful. IMHO the 35-100 lens often gets overlooked because I do not like to change lenses and the 12-100 lens is both very good and has the wider FL end covered and the same FL at the long end in one lens. Then there is the 40-150 lens available, which is very good and covers about the same FL at the wide end and has more FL at the long end, simply surpassing the 35-100. Then there is the very good 50-200 available, which doubles the FL of the 35-100 at the long end. Then there are TCs available for the 12-100 and the 40-150, and the 50-200, but not for the 35-100. With those lenses available, and very good, the 35-100 often gets overlooked by me when it comes time to shoot, which is probably a bad thing as it it a very capable lens - light, no tromboning, fast, and good, but often surpassed in reach and features, but with the same "goodness" in m4/3. The 35-100 lens sole advantage is it does not extend when zooming, and has a fast aperture, but lacks extended reach both on the short end and on the long ends with the same "goodness." M4/3 cameras are so good today that the increased ISO due to lenses being a stop slower then the 35-100 is not a factor.

Peace.

John

Sam Bennett said:

gaul said:

Hello

As a newbie M4/3 user and longtime Canon user.. surprised to see that the 35-100 f/2.8 not as popular as the 70/200 on FF..

Is this because Panasonic is these days not too clear on FF vs M4/3.. and that Olympus does not have this focal range zoom..

Or is this because 35-100 f/2.8 is not providing enough subject separation and people prefer the much smaller 35-100 f/4 - f/5.6 supplemented by a fast prime ?!!

Tempted by a very good condition 35-100 f/2.8 Mk ii at a very good price .. Talk me out of it as I am seriously considering it..

Click to expand...

I think a simple explanation is because the Olympus 40-150/2.8 is so flipping good. Yeah, it's bigger but it is optically superb, incredibly well built, etc. I simply wouldn't look at any 35-100 already owning that.

Click to expand...

Twice the mass. It's why I ended up with the 35-100. Having said that, I can understand why people would overlook it for the 40-150 f/2.8 or 12-100 f/4. The Lumix 35-100 f/2.8 had a solid case when it launched, but it's become niched over the years.

We have far more alternatives in m43 than the FF frame people.

We have the excellent Olympus 40-150 2.8 and 12-100 f4 plus a whole host of smaller, cheaper choices with very decent image quality. If we look beyond the premium lenses I counted 11 lenses that might be alternative choices listed at a photo retailer. True, most of them are f5.6 at the long end, but that works for a lot of people, especially given that most of them are very affordable and some of them quite compact.

I owned the 12-35 and 35-100, and while they are great lenses the break at 35mm drove me a little crazy. I'm much happier with the Oly 12-100 even if I do give up a stop. But since that is a fairly large lens by m43 standards, for daily carry I go with the more compact Pana 12-60 -- I have both the kit and premium versions.

If I wanted a two-lens premium kit I'd probably go with the Pana 12-60 2.8-4 and the Oly 40-150 2.8. Some would go with one of the 2.8 shorter zooms, but the 12-60 zoom range really works for me.

So there you are

Gato

gaul said:

Is this because Panasonic is these days not too clear on FF vs M4/3.. and that Olympus does not have this focal range zoom..

Click to expand...

Since "these days" predate Panasonic's foray into so-called "full frame," I don't think that plays into it. But it probably didn't help that Panasonic didn't stick a Leica badge on this model. It's also interesting to note that Olympus didn't try to update its 35-100mm f/2 to MFT.

gaul said:

Or is this because 35-100 f/2.8 is not providing enough subject separation and people prefer the much smaller 35-100 f/4 - f/5.6 supplemented by a fast prime ?!

Click to expand...

Disclaimer: I bought my first xx-200mm f/2.8 lens for 35mm film in the mid-1980's, and I can hardly imagine not having one in my arsenal.

Control over depth of field is a large part of it. I use my 70-200 f/2.8 for event photography (when I can't get out of it), for stage photography, and for sports when I can get close enough to the action. In all three applications, I'm willing to put up with the extra weight for subject isolation. Even a "fast prime" such as the 56mm f/1.4 only gets me back to even, and then I give up the flexibility of a zoom.

I can't speak to what "people" prefer. But for me, the 35-100mm f/2.8 falls into the "neither fish nor fowl" category. If my plans for the day call for subject isolation, I'll break out my "full frame" gear. When it doesn't, I'll happily use MFT and my slow 45-150mm.

gaul said:

Tempted by a very good condition 35-100 f/2.8 Mk ii at a very good price .. Talk me out of it as I am seriously considering it.

Click to expand...

Not even slightly interested in trying. If it suits your own needs and style, go for it!

and like others pointed out theres better alternatives with better reach.

for pros a 35-100f1.4 would be popular i guess, but it will never exist.

who needs 70mm f5.6 when your 50mm f3.5 equiv gives you more separation, so reach is obviously more important (hence 300mm equiv)

Andersonm said:

I sometimes feel in an oversensitive minority when I say that the 40-150/2.8 was just too bulky for me as well. :-D But the Panasonic 50-200 was just on the good side of bulkiness, to use with an EM5. Shorter, lighter, weight seems closer to the camera. Also expensive and rarely seen second hand.

Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat as you. I tried the 40-150 F2.8 and 50-200 back to back and the added weight/more forward hand placement just made it so the ergonomics didn't work as well. So the 50-200 is on my list especially since it gives m43 a light/sharp/400mm lens at the long end which is something I don't have on my other kits.

The 35-100 F2.8 also is the lens that got me to go big on m43 last year. I couldn't hold my D750/70-200 F4 due to health issues and needed a telephoto lens to cover part of a performance so I rented the mkII Lumix and used it on my E-M10 mkII. It worked so well that I found a mkI for a good price and bought it. Then when that was on its way a local shop had an E-M1 mkII and I grabbed that... followed by a bunch of lenses and a second E-M1 mkII. They've let me keep up my work and I haven't heard any negative reaction from the switch from any clients. And I specifically asked 2 long term ones what they thought VS my previous shoots and both were happy with the results.

So the 35-100 is going to hold a special place for me.

paolop23 said:

and like others pointed out theres better alternatives with better reach.

for pros a 35-100f1.4 would be popular i guess, but it will never exist.

who needs 70mm f5.6 when your 50mm f3.5 equiv gives you more separation, so reach is obviously more important (hence 300mm equiv)

Click to expand...

f4 for DoF but f2.8 for aperture and yes the fl is as advertised but the aov is that of a 70-200.

Atho said:

paolop23 said:

and like others pointed out theres better alternatives with better reach.

for pros a 35-100f1.4 would be popular i guess, but it will never exist.

who needs 70mm f5.6 when your 50mm f3.5 equiv gives you more separation, so reach is obviously more important (hence 300mm equiv)

Click to expand...

f4 for DoF but f2.8 for aperture and yes the fl is as advertised but the aov is that of a 70-200.

Click to expand...

5.6 for DoF.

unhappymeal said:

• unhappymeal wrote:

Atho said:

paolop23 said:

and like others pointed out theres better alternatives with better reach.

for pros a 35-100f1.4 would be popular i guess, but it will never exist.

who needs 70mm f5.6 when your 50mm f3.5 equiv gives you more separation, so reach is obviously more important (hence 300mm equiv)

Click to expand...

f4 for DoF but f2.8 for aperture and yes the fl is as advertised but the aov is that of a 70-200.

Click to expand...

5.6 for DoF.

Click to expand...

of course you are correct

I have both 40-150 and 50-200. Great lenses.

The 50-200 eliminates some bulkiness and adds reach at the cost of a stop of light. For me, having purchased the PL years after the Oly pro it makes sense keeping both lenses.

I wouldn't get rich by selling it anyways..

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If only closed minds came with closed mouths..

gaul said:

Hello

As a newbie M4/3 user and longtime Canon user.. surprised to see that the 35-100 f/2.8 not as popular as the 70/200 on FF..

Is this because Panasonic is these days not too clear on FF vs M4/3.. and that Olympus does not have this focal range zoom..

Or is this because 35-100 f/2.8 is not providing enough subject separation and people prefer the much smaller 35-100 f/4 - f/5.6 supplemented by a fast prime ?!!

Tempted by a very good condition 35-100 f/2.8 Mk ii at a very good price .. Talk me out of it as I am seriously considering it..

Thx

Gaul

Click to expand...

Most folk here are Oly/OMSYSTEM users and since pany lenses are unable to access some of the more advanced computational features such as focus stacking and SH2 on the OM1, this makes them less attractive.

Don't let that put you off as the 35-100 f2.8 is excellent and according to ePhotozine the MTF data it is sharper at the big end (2012) than the 40150 pro (2015) is at its business end.

I have this lens and use it for dark days and use the newer f4 40150mm for brighter days. They are the same weight, proper mft.

Both mark I & II of the 35100 f2.8 are weather resistant.

Maybe once upon a time that 100/150mm difference mattered much more but now with all the advances in the digital darkroom it matters less and to some of us it never did.

If you need longer than 100mm chances are you’ll need longer than 150mm and for that could consider the PL100-400.

Add: I use an EM1 III


One of my favourite bird shots, an inquisitive nuthatch. Taken using the 35100 f2.8 mark I & EM1 II

--
the whole is something besides the parts

Andersonm said:

I have wondered the same thing. It's hard to pin down the reason.

I have tried a 70-200 on FF, and it was built very solidly, like a blunt weapon. The Panasonic 35-100 feels much more flimsy to me, like I would almost be worried about it breaking just from being in my bag.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you never owned the lens, so the opinion falls a bit short.

Andersonm said:

It didn't seem supremely sharp to me. I check the review now, and I guess this is why: https://www.lenstip.com/368.4-Lens_...5-100_mm_f_2.8_P.O.I.S._Image_resolution.html . You specifically want a long zoom to perform well at maximum zoom, because that's when you have something really interesting and worthwhile to take photos off, and poor performance defeats the point.

Click to expand...

I've had the lens since 2015 and can say at the same FL it is sharper than the 12-40. There is no poor performance, on the contrary- but then I shoot images with it, not test patterns.

Andersonm said:

mFT cameras are often chosen for portability. Much of the time a fast prime with a shorter focal length is preferred, or something longer. It's not such a big issue to carry around both a short zoom, a fast prime and a long zoom like a 50-200 or 100-300.

As you mention, for portraits a fast prime would be better for subject separation.

The 35-100 just falls a bit in between - you can easily carry both shorter and longer for different purposes, and it's not outstanding at 100mm (until you step down to f/4 - I didn't know, I will start doing this)

Click to expand...

Depends. On certain hikes the 35-100 pairs with either the 12-40 or 12-45. It is long enough to shoot large mammals and most landscape type images,









but not small creatures. It is very small. I more recently acquired the 50-200 for hiking and certain birding outings where I can tolerate the extra weight. I believe the 35-100 is ca. as sharp as the 40-150 but not as good for creatures because of FL. But the 40-150 is far larger and heavier. But if I am going to do a hard hike I have to find a reason to justify the larger and heavier 50-200 - which is also a great lens. The other thing I realize is that in most landscape I shoot at F5 or 5.6 to F8.

Andersonm said:

I like it a lot in concept, but in practice there's often a few I like more.

Click to expand...

Zeiss4me said:

CBR1100XX said:

108 said:

This is one lens I have been lusting over

I want it for blue hour " compressed" street shots. I love shooting 40 to 100 mm , I don't really need more reach . F2.8 is a must

Right now I have to decide between this lens and an Oly 75 mm f1.8 , good price at my retailer's . Don't have budget for both . I would combine the 75 with the 45 f1.2 on two bodies .The 35-100 would negate the need for two lenses

If I had real money I would go for Canon R6II with the compact RF 70/200 f2.8 ...

Click to expand...

What are you shooting and do you have 2 bodies? the 45 + 75 would be a good combo.

Click to expand...

If you do a lot of lower light blue hour or portrait photography I would go with the 75 and 45 f1.2 combo. Both really excellent lenses. Having said that as a general travel lens I prefer the 35-100 f2.8 because of its size and weight if 100mm is long enough for you. The Oly 40-150 pro and PL 50-200 are superb but significantly larger and heavier.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Pretty much the conclusion I have reached

unhappymeal said:

gaul said:

Hello

As a newbie M4/3 user and longtime Canon user.. surprised to see that the 35-100 f/2.8 not as popular as the 70/200 on FF..

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

News to me - I thought it quite popular. As an owner of the huge Canon EF 70-200/2.8 (I still have it and would adapt it to M4/3 if this made sense.

The 35-100/2.8 was one of the first lenses I bought for M4/3 maybe 8-9 years ago and I still appreciate its reach, OIS for GM5, and intrenal focus/zoom)

unhappymeal said:

unhappymeal said:

Is this because Panasonic is these days not too clear on FF vs M4/3.. and that Olympus does not have this focal range zoom..

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not really the 35-100/2.8 has been one of the standard Panasonic lenses for M4/3 and sold over many many years. Most of the hype we see on forums such as this are excitement about new lenses rather than appreciation of old stalwarts that keep bringing smiles to our faces.

unhappymeal said:

unhappymeal said:

Or is this because 35-100 f/2.8 is not providing enough subject separation and people prefer the much smaller 35-100 f/4 - f/5.6 supplemented by a fast prime ?!!

Tempted by a very good condition 35-100 f/2.8 Mk ii at a very good price .. Talk me out of it as I am seriously considering it..

Thx

Gaul

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The tiny 35-100/4.0-5.6 extending lens was supposedly made specially for the GM5 camera body. It is quite a good lens and relative bargain but the 35-100/2.8 is the one with true performance credibility.

The Panasonic 45-175/4.0-5.6 OIS lens is a bit of a sleeper here - more reach and physically smaller than the 35-100/3.5. Also internal focus and zoom, has Lens-IS and is very sharp.

unhappymeal said:

I think it's because the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8

Click to expand...

Also an older lens and probably the very best in this class (the 35-100/2.8 OIS is close though). The 49-150/2.8 is a much larger physical lens, also internal focus/zoom but has no in-lens stabilisation (not that I have ever missed this)

unhappymeal said:

and Olympus 12-100 f/4 exist.

Click to expand...

This is a much newer lens compared to the 35-100/2.8 - also an excellent lens - it is an extending zoom (quite a lot) but has that rare thing for Olympus - in lens stabilisation (which luckily is very good as it shuts down the Panasonic IBIS when mounted). Lack of IBIS soon shows that lens-IS is in fact very good on its own despite the IBIS-hype.

But being a very good new lesns it does get more published excitement that the excellent but much older very capable warriors.

unhappymeal said:

The 40-150 f/2.8 gets you more reach, just as sharp wide open throughout the zoom range (and becomes prime sharp stopped down to f/4) and takes TCs.

Click to expand...

Probably the best of the bunch at the coal face but its 1.4x TC disappointed me. Image quality does fall off noticeably wen the TC is used. Maybe because the standard lens quality of the base lens is so good. But it does not necessarily follow as the PL 200/2.8 is an amazing lens also and both its 1.4x and 2.0x TC accessories do not seem to affect image quality at all.

unhappymeal said:

The 12-100 f/4 is the same reach and if you're willing to give-up a stop, just as sharp.

Click to expand...

There probably was a reason why Olympus felt that it needed Lens-IS, but I agree that the image quality and the lens-IS are very good..

unhappymeal said:

The Panasonic 35-100 doesn't take TCs and sharpness really drops off at the long end if wide open.

Click to expand...

Not sure that I agree with the last comment.

unhappymeal said:

Having said that, I really like the lens for its combination of size, internal zooming, OIS, bright aperture and sharpness when stopped down a bit. It's part of my main two lens kit (8-25 f/4 Pro + 35-100 f/2.8).

Click to expand...

Easy to take into venues, compact, light, internal zoom and focus, and powerful.

The 45-175/4.0-5.6 is a slower lens of course but arguably in the same class as the 12-100/4.0 and stabilised. It is smaller than the 12-100/4.0 and of course does not extend its length when zoomed.

CBR1100XX said:

6 X 17 Feind said:

unhappymeal said:

gaul said:

Hello

As a newbie M4/3 user and longtime Canon user.. surprised to see that the 35-100 f/2.8 not as popular as the 70/200 on FF..

Is this because Panasonic is these days not too clear on FF vs M4/3.. and that Olympus does not have this focal range zoom..

Or is this because 35-100 f/2.8 is not providing enough subject separation and people prefer the much smaller 35-100 f/4 - f/5.6 supplemented by a fast prime ?!!

Tempted by a very good condition 35-100 f/2.8 Mk ii at a very good price .. Talk me out of it as I am seriously considering it..

Thx

Gaul

Click to expand...

I think it's because the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 and Olympus 12-100 f/4 exist. The 40-150 f/2.8 gets you more reach, just as sharp wide open throughout the zoom range (and becomes prime sharp stopped down to f/4) and takes TCs. The 12-100 f/4 is the same reach and if you're willing to give-up a stop, just as sharp.

The Panasonic 35-100 doesn't take TCs and sharpness really drops off at the long end if wide open. Having said that, I really like the lens for its combination of size, internal zooming, OIS, bright aperture and sharpness when stopped down a bit. It's part of my main two lens kit (8-25 f/4 Pro + 35-100 f/2.8).

Click to expand...

Pretty much, all this in a nut shell. Alas the 35 to 100f2.8 was a good idea just poor execution.

My question is, how many FF users would give their eye teeth for a 80 to 300 F/4? Hummmm the things that make ya go hummmm.

Click to expand...

Isn't it more like an f5.6 for FF?

Though I use an equivalent 105-300mm F4 on a Nikon D500 sometimes with the 70-200 F4 VR; it's a pretty nice setup when there's enough light.

Click to expand...

If it has similar reach and you get the image I might wonder why the equivalence is an issue. When you compare the Canon EF 70-200/2.8 size on a FF camera body then I can quite gladly give up some subject separation for this.

But I still don't understand why this lens is regarded as not popular. It has been around for a long time but it is an excellent lens and quite compact for its power.

I would suggest that the Olympus 40-150/2.8 gives a bit more reach and is the most desirable highest quality lens of this type. But this lens is much larger, heavier (of course) and is not lens-IS which is not normally regarded necessary for Olympus bodies.

Gary from Seattle said:

Andersonm said:

I have wondered the same thing. It's hard to pin down the reason.

I have tried a 70-200 on FF, and it was built very solidly, like a blunt weapon. The Panasonic 35-100 feels much more flimsy to me, like I would almost be worried about it breaking just from being in my bag.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you never owned the lens, so the opinion falls a bit short.

Gary from Seattle said:

It didn't seem supremely sharp to me. I check the review now, and I guess this is why: https://www.lenstip.com/368.4-Lens_...5-100_mm_f_2.8_P.O.I.S._Image_resolution.html . You specifically want a long zoom to perform well at maximum zoom, because that's when you have something really interesting and worthwhile to take photos off, and poor performance defeats the point.

Click to expand...

I've had the lens since 2015 and can say at the same FL it is sharper than the 12-40. There is no poor performance, on the contrary- but then I shoot images with it, not test patterns.

Gary from Seattle said:

mFT cameras are often chosen for portability. Much of the time a fast prime with a shorter focal length is preferred, or something longer. It's not such a big issue to carry around both a short zoom, a fast prime and a long zoom like a 50-200 or 100-300.

As you mention, for portraits a fast prime would be better for subject separation.

The 35-100 just falls a bit in between - you can easily carry both shorter and longer for different purposes, and it's not outstanding at 100mm (until you step down to f/4 - I didn't know, I will start doing this)

Click to expand...

Depends. On certain hikes the 35-100 pairs with either the 12-40 or 12-45. It is long enough to shoot large mammals and most landscape type images,



but not small creatures. It is very small. I more recently acquired the 50-200 for hiking and certain birding outings where I can tolerate the extra weight. I believe the 35-100 is ca. as sharp as the 40-150 but not as good for creatures because of FL. But the 40-150 is far larger and heavier. But if I am going to do a hard hike I have to find a reason to justify the larger and heavier 50-200 - which is also a great lens. The other thing I realize is that in most landscape I shoot at F5 or 5.6 to F8.

Gary from Seattle said:

I like it a lot in concept, but in practice there's often a few I like more.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I agree Gary.

All those posting in reply have just assumed that the OP assertion of lack of popularity is correct.

As I have already noted - this lens has been around for many years and most hype about lenses is reserved for new lens releases.

Not that it is just an old stager staggering along - it is a fine lens in its own right and always has been.

--
Tom Caldwell