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

I think the Olympus 40-150 looks great on paper but after looking at the sample images, I'm not sure if I'm convinced. In my personal opinion, I feel like the out of focus areas in the Panasonic lens is far better than the Olympus. In certain situation, the out of focus blur just looks terrible.

The extra reach would be nice, but the Panasonic lens is so much smaller.

Am I crazy to think that the Panasonic is the better lens here? - if you don't need the extra range.

pxchoi wrote:

I think the Olympus 40-150 looks great on paper but after looking at the sample images, I'm not sure if I'm convinced. In my personal opinion, I feel like the out of focus areas in the Panasonic lens is far better than the Olympus. In certain situation, the out of focus blur just looks terrible.

The extra reach would be nice, but the Panasonic lens is so much smaller.

Am I crazy to think that the Panasonic is the better lens here? - if you don't need the extra range.

I can only speak of Pana 35-100mm which I own. It is a stellar lens. It will not disappoint you.

As concerns out of focus areas, it will not blur the background as much as APS-C or FF lenses. A typical background blur example at f4:

pxchoi wrote:

I think the Olympus 40-150 looks great on paper but after looking at the sample images, I'm not sure if I'm convinced. In my personal opinion, I feel like the out of focus areas in the Panasonic lens is far better than the Olympus. In certain situation, the out of focus blur just looks terrible.

The extra reach would be nice, but the Panasonic lens is so much smaller.

Am I crazy to think that the Panasonic is the better lens here? - if you don't need the extra range.

I got both lenses. Both are stellar. While the AF is a tad faster with the Olympus 40-150 Pro.

Really depends on the body and purpose.

I have had the 35-100 f2.8 and now I have the 40-150 pro. I bought the oly for its extra reach.

They are different lenses, both are great but I prefer the output of the Panasonic.

In my opinion the Olympus renders too harshly, it gives the "wow" effect at first sight but the tonal transitions on the Panny are better.

I also confirm that the Panasonic has smoother out of focus, it's way smaller and lighter.

On the other hand the Oly is faster and accurate on focus and less vignetting at TA.

pxchoi wrote:

I think the Olympus 40-150 looks great on paper but after looking at the sample images, I'm not sure if I'm convinced. In my personal opinion, I feel like the out of focus areas in the Panasonic lens is far better than the Olympus. In certain situation, the out of focus blur just looks terrible.

The extra reach would be nice, but the Panasonic lens is so much smaller.

Am I crazy to think that the Panasonic is the better lens here? - if you don't need the extra range.

What you have seen and noted was noted by reviewers too. So it depends on your needs. Oly indeed has a longer reach and add to that a 1.4 TC that gives it even more reach. Panny being much much smaller, lighter and seem to be having better bokeh it seems. Also: it has OIS so the Panny is more allround clearly from that perspective..

I think the focussing is largely depending on the body. On my GH4 the AF of the 35-100 is extremely fast, on a GH2 not as much nor on the EPL5.

As a testament Gh4 + lens fell 80 cm down on a wooden floor and got away with simply nothing. Not a dent. Stone would probably be less forgiving but wood is not really soft either. Of course it also matters what hits the floor first etc, so it might be luck too. Still: more than a year ago and everyting works flawlessly.

Second point: I have used it for hours in pouring rain, sleet and snow (wet kind, dry kind is no problem anyways) and not one hickup. So weathersealing of that lens seems exceptional actually.

The Panasonic is pretty small and light (360g) so it's a no-brainer to pop in your bag. The Oly has more reach at the expense of greater size and weight. I do like how the Panasonic renders the out-of-focus stuff and will add that getting background blur is more a combination of where you stand and what focal length you use than anything else. Example:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51252546
Do check the full-size version and note (i) f5.6! and (ii) people in background are fairly close.

I own both and I love both. I usually carry the Olympus for its extra reach. The one thing I don't like about the Panasonic is that it vignettes more. I haven't thought about it, but I guess I do like the bokeh of the Panasonic a little better. It is just every time I carry it I always wish it has a little more reach.
--
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3380136992_7c5a0986ea_m.jpg

The Panasonic is a great lens, but do be aware that at the very long end and at f/2.8, it is a bit soft.  It's about the only flaw the lens has, but you should be aware of it.  If you are planning on using the lens under those conditions, and you are wavering between the Panasonic and Olympus glass, you'd definitely be better off with the Olympus.

Chippy99 wrote:

The Panasonic is a great lens, but do be aware that at the very long end and at f/2.8, it is a bit soft. It's about the only flaw the lens has, but you should be aware of it. If you are planning on using the lens under those conditions, and you are wavering between the Panasonic and Olympus glass, you'd definitely be better off with the Olympus.

I haven't noticed it but I think I have heard about it before. Is this a characteristic or sample variation? Will loop up some reviews, some charts at least should show it.
I think the reach of the Oly as some have noted does come in really handy. With the TC it is actually a whole different lens altogether. Also the attention Oly gave to this lens in buildquality is even better. The lenshood is done so well. If it wasn't for the lack of IBIS, I would have gotten more Oly lenses than I do right now. Overall though, both companies offer a lot of very nice to sometimes exceptional (75 mm 1.8 and 42,5 mm 1.2 in particular) lenses.

Chippy99 wrote:

The Panasonic is a great lens, but do be aware that at the very long end and at f/2.8, it is a bit soft. It's about the only flaw the lens has, but you should be aware of it. If you are planning on using the lens under those conditions, and you are wavering between the Panasonic and Olympus glass, you'd definitely be better off with the Olympus.

It's sharp enough for me.  I love this lens.

It think with it's shallower depth of field it's easy to confuse out-of-focus areas as a flaw when using f/2.8.

Pictures are best viewed at original size, not at the compressed size in this message.

This image represents just 1/20 of the original image area.

Isabel

Chippy99 wrote:

The Panasonic is a great lens, but do be aware that at the very long end and at f/2.8, it is a bit soft. It's about the only flaw the lens has, but you should be aware of it. If you are planning on using the lens under those conditions, and you are wavering between the Panasonic and Olympus glass, you'd definitely be better off with the Olympus.

Yes, it is a bit soft at 100mm f2.8. But at f4 the softness is all but gone at 100mm.

http://www.lenstip.com/368.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_G_X_VARIO_35-100_mm_f_2.8_P.O.I.S._Image_resolution.html

pxchoi wrote:

I think the Olympus 40-150 looks great on paper but after looking at the sample images, I'm not sure if I'm convinced. In my personal opinion, I feel like the out of focus areas in the Panasonic lens is far better than the Olympus. In certain situation, the out of focus blur just looks terrible.

The extra reach would be nice, but the Panasonic lens is so much smaller.

Am I crazy to think that the Panasonic is the better lens here? - if you don't need the extra range.

"Better" depends on intended purpose.

I can put the 35-100/2.8 in my small camera bag for travel. No way that going to happen with the Oly 40-150/2.8

OTOH I have the 50-200/2.8-3.5 (similar in size to the 40-150/2.8 ) for wildlife and birds.

Eric Nepean wrote:

I can put the 35-100/2.8 in my small camera bag for travel. No way that going to happen with the Oly 40-150/2.8

OTOH I have the 50-200/2.8-3.5 (similar in size to the 40-150/2.8 ) for wildlife and birds.

Same here Eric. I have the Panasonic 12-35 & 35-100 f/2.8 lenses, as well as the Olympus 50-200. The size of the Panasonic f/2.8 lenses is their biggest benefit over the Olympus versions, which are larger, heavier, and take different size filters (another bonus of the Panasonic lenses, as both take 58mm filters).

When I need more reach and speed, I use the 50-200. In order to get the same reach with the 40-150 PRO, I need to buy the TC which makes it a constant f/4 lens, and that's all the further that lens will go. With the 50-200, I have a native f/2.8-3.5 lens, and I can put a 1.4x TC on it and get a 280mm f/5 lens, all in the same size and weight of the 40-150 PRO (when stowed for travel).

Isabel Cutler wrote:

Chippy99 wrote:

The Panasonic is a great lens, but do be aware that at the very long end and at f/2.8, it is a bit soft. It's about the only flaw the lens has, but you should be aware of it. If you are planning on using the lens under those conditions, and you are wavering between the Panasonic and Olympus glass, you'd definitely be better off with the Olympus.

It's sharp enough for me. I love this lens.

It think with it's shallower depth of field it's easy to confuse out-of-focus areas as a flaw when using f/2.8.

True. But it is still soft at 100mm f/2.8 I have tested it extensively and thought at first it was faulty, but the more perceptive reviewers pick up this flaw too.

f/3.5 sharpens it up considerably, and by f/4 it's perfect. And it is perfect at all apertures at shorter focal lengths.

I am 99% certain it is simply spherical aberration coming into effect when all the glass is needed at the long end. No other focal length nor aperture combination uses the extreme edges of the glass.

I have the Pany 35-100 and sold it to get the Oly 40-150. Mainly for the extra reach but at times I do missed the smaller size of the Pany 35-100.

Every lens made has a peak sharpness point, but there is no appreciable softness with my 35-100mm at full zoom, wide open. Is it sharper at f/4? Yes it is, but not to the extent that it would be noticeable at any size at a normal viewing distance.

Just one example, and I have many more:

Undergrd wrote:

I have the Pany 35-100 and sold it to get the Oly 40-150. Mainly for the extra reach but at times I do missed the smaller size of the Pany 35-100.

I sold my Canon 100-400 because of its weight and bulk.

I really appreciate the 35-100 and it is very well balanced on the GX7.  Super comfortable combination to use and its images take to cropping quite well, retaining a good deal of detail, which makes up for its lack of reach at times.

Isabel