Your thoughts and experience: Oly 75mm or Pana 35-100?

Hi everyone. I'm ready to purchase a new tele lens for my m4/3 set-up (GX1 and E-PM2, Pana 7-14, Pana 20, Pana 12-35, Oly 45). Thing is, I'm really torn between the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 prime and Panasonic's 35-100 f/2.8 zoom.

My question relates to the real-life situations in which you have been using those lenses, and not to any sharpness/depth-of-field/image-stabilization issues - as you've noticed I have both Pana and Olympus bodies, I'm well aware of what kind of depth of field I get with m4/3, and for my usage most of the system's lenses at this level are plenty sharp and well-corrected for aberrations. Plus I've got Photoshop.

I was thinking hard about getting the zoom, but then I researched a bit and realized that for about $400 less, if you figure the OEM lens hood in, the Olympus 75 does look like an appealing lens that would complement my set-up so that I could get roughly the same photography I'd get with the 35-100 zoom. *Roughly*. I already have 70mm equivalent covered with the 12-35, 90mm with the 45 and would get a longer focal length (150 equiv.) with the added benefit of a lager aperture. On the flip side, I'd be switching lenses a lot more and losing everything between 70-90, then 90-150, and from 150-200mm (equivalent). I don't care about the whole primes vs. zooms quality debate, I tend to buy zooms because they're practical but this time I'm seriously in doubt.

I'm a journalist (not a photojournalist, I'm in PR these days), I like my equipment to be light and practical for travel (which I do a lot), I do events but not much, and I do portraits, so there's a need for tele.

What do you guys reckon I should buy? Price, while a factor, isn't the main thing. Some real-world usage comparisons would be nice.

Please help me decide - or at least rationalize my eventual purchase!

Cheers!

I could not make the decision for a long time, but I just bought the 75mm.

Why?

• Temptation:
  I would have bought the 75 anyhow
• Cheap:
  400euros less
• Sharper:
  I compared it with the 12-35 using testcharts
• 1.8:
  I like taking low light portraits in natural light or dog action in a forest, f5.6 was noisy, 2.8 would do but 1.8 is best.
  
• 2013:
  Last not least, there are interesting zooms coming in the near future while the prime department has settled now. So I buy the prime now and maybe a zoom next year
  

It seems to me that your decision mostly boils down to the convenience of the Pany 35-100mm lens versus the speed of the Olympus lens -- they are both razor sharp, and in real world use a viewer couldn't tell whether an image was captured with one or the other using the same aperture.

I don't own the 75mm, but I do own the 35-100mm -- because I shoot mostly corporate events, and portraits professionally. The zoom make way more sense for my needs.

I do a lot of head and shoulder portraits and being able to get consistent in-camera crops without moving my tripod around constantly is a no-brainer for me. I don't like shooting commercial portraits any wider than f/2.8-f/4 anyway, because I don't want a client's eyes in focus and their nose out of focus.

Also, I shoot a lot of low light, ambient boardroom/classroom sessions where flash would be a distraction and my moving about needs to be at a minimum -- the 35-100mm combined with the high ISO performance of my E-M5 allows me to maintain a reasonable distance and shoot nice close ups as well as wider shots without moving all about the room.

Your needs may be different, but I find the Pany 35-100mm to be like a whole bag full of f/2.8 prime lenses without the headache of constantly switching lenses:-)

God Bless,

Greg

www.imagismphotos.com

www.mccroskery.zenfolio.com

www.pbase.com/daddyo

Navegador wrote:

Hi everyone. I'm ready to purchase a new tele lens for my m4/3 set-up (GX1 and E-PM2, Pana 7-14, Pana 20, Pana 12-35, Oly 45).

A very intelligently planned lens collection!

Thing is, I'm really torn between the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 prime and Panasonic's 35-100 f/2.8 zoom.

You got shallow DOF for portaits with your 45, so for additional range, the 35-100 would be the lens of choice.

I was thinking hard about getting the zoom, but then I researched a bit and realized that for about $400 less, if you figure the OEM lens hood in, the Olympus 75 does look like an appealing lens that would complement my set-up so that I could get roughly the same photography I'd get with the 35-100 zoom. *Roughly*. I already have 70mm equivalent covered with the 12-35, 90mm with the 45 and would get a longer focal length (150 equiv.) with the added benefit of a lager aperture. On the flip side, I'd be switching lenses a lot more and losing everything between 70-90, then 90-150, and from 150-200mm (equivalent).

This talk about "loosing FLs" is rather obsolete. The difference in perspective between a 150, 170 and 200 mm is minimal and nothing you could not compensate with a few steps in the right direction, at least in situations where you need a tele lens.

I think, reach is what may count: if 75 is not enough. get the 35-100.
But even there you will soon find out, that what you can't get with 75 you can't get with 100 either.

What might be another point with your cameras: with longer FLs you might be in need for IS, and there again the 35-100 might give you a small advantage (1-2 EV considering the smaller max aperture) with the Pana body.

Peter.

I own both lenses. Both are very sharp, the 35-100mm is the best mirrorless tele zoom, to date.

In practice, I use the 35-100mm a lot more, because it is more flexible.

A 7-14mm, 12-35mm, 35-100mm combination is probably the lightest, smallest, and most flexible lens combination you can get on the market now.

I use the 75mm mainly, when I need the fast aperture, or when I simply want to use it. However, it will probably not part of my travel kit.

tgutgu wrote:

I own both lenses. Both are very sharp, the 35-100mm is the best mirrorless tele zoom, to date.

In practice, I use the 35-100mm a lot more, because it is more flexible.

A 7-14mm, 12-35mm, 35-100mm combination is probably the lightest, smallest, and most flexible lens combination you can get on the market now.

I use the 75mm mainly, when I need the fast aperture, or when I simply want to use it. However, it will probably not part of my travel kit.

Amen. I have same lenses and love the Panasonic zooms. Also bought all the Olympus primes before Panasonic came out with the zooms. Now use virtually only the zooms. A couple of things to consider:

• I do a lot of burst shooting when shooting aerial and portraits. The OM-D shuts down the IS when at max speed. So it might be a good idea to turn off the internal IS and use the lens's IS in that situation.
• The zoom ring on an Olympus turns opposite of the Panasonic. So staying with one brand reduces the incidence of schizophrenia when the pressure is on.

But if I did, I think I'd go for the 75 first.

Why? for the brighter aperture.  I have the 40-150 which is fine in good light.  But if I'm shooting in say a cemetery by moonlight, that extra stop comes in handy, if only to see what I'm shooting.

Of course, ideally, I'd want both

Navegador wrote:

Please help me decide - or at least rationalize my eventual purchase!

Rather than help, I'll try to add to the confusion by suggesting that you also have a look at the very nice 40-150. See here, for example:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/51093577

You lose one stop compared to the 35-100, but at the low price you can throw in the 75 as well and still be ahead.

Thank you for your replies, folks. Good insights here.

So, I ended up buying the Panasonic zoom lens despite its high cost as I think it'd make my m4/3 system "complete", with good zoom lenses from 14mm all the way to 200mm (equiv.) plus a couple of special-purpose primes. Oh, and the E-PM2's kit lens which I forgot to mention.

I guess I won't be buying any more lenses for a good while. Or cameras for that matter!

@Chrisphoto

Yes I thought about the temptation to buy the 75 anyway, but Amazon's charged my credit card for the 35-100 and I got this very dissuasive SMS reporting the amount. Oddly enough, the temptation vanished!

I figured I'd pay a little extra for the versatility of having multiple focal lengths, plus image stabilization in-lens (I'm keeping the GX1 for the foreseeable future). Any future Olympus zoom in that range, however fast, won't include that.

@Jman13, daddyo

I think I needed to hear experiences like yours to sort of "validate" a $1300 purchase. The versatility of a zoom lens, even at the cost of 1 1/2 stop, finally won me over. I'll be using it more, especially for the sort of event shots hat Greg mentions, plus candid portraits. The 75, while very nice, wouldn't see that much use, and at $1k with a hood it was harder to justify in the end.

@eques

Thanks for the comment on my lens choice. I'm trying to cover all bases here, and if I count just one body, my whole kit weighs less than a full-frame camera body or most of the full-frame zooms in the ranges I have with m4/3! That's the beauty of this system and it trumps most full-frame advantages for me. (having said that, I do own an Alpha 850 and a bunch of 1980s Minolta lenses bought for a song on eBay, but I'll end up selling all of it for lack of use. Nicer, more natural-looking images than m4/3 for sure, but I just can't take them everywhere).

@tgutgu, Adjuster

The full range from 14 to 200mm (equiv.) is what I'm aiming for here. Looks like a killer combo. 7-14 plus 12-35 already is.

@ArtP

I see your point, but I'm going for focal length versatility here and hope things work out OK at ISO1600+. Depth-of-field, or rather lack of it isn't much of a problem for me. I actually think I'm "safer" with some more DOF. Getting the focus right with extremely thin DOF is a bit of pain for me!

@Ulric

Yes I considered the 40-150 from Olympus but it's just too slow for some work, and would probaly be useless with the GX1 except in very favourable conditions. You can't beat it in value for money though, even at the $199 regular price.