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

Wallybipster wrote:

I'm sure the 35-100 provides better sharpness and contrast across the overlapping ranges than the small 40-150, but I'm curious if users of the Panny lens feel they could crop out to 150 or so without a terrible penalty.

Pana 35-100mm f2.8 provides extraordinarily sharp images at 100mm f4.

Oly 40-150mm f4-5.6 is truly a no match.

Have a look (click sharpness):

Pana: http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Panasonic/Panasonic-LUMIX-G-X-VARIO-35-100mm-F28-POWER-OIS-mounted-on-Olympus-PEN-E-P5---Measurements__883

Oly: http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Olympus/Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-40-150mm-40-56-mounted-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M10---Measurements__937

So, cropping Pana to get Oly's reach might be feasible.

All this measurebating is just that.

40-150mm f2.8 + MC14 @210mm f5.6

1:1 crop

50% crop

50% crop

50% crop

Just get out and take some photos, this is what its for, isn't it?

Or have I missed something? 

Cheers

Dennis

I own and use both lenses. In terms of sharpness the Olympus is a little better, out of focus areas render about the same.

Both lenses have their own advantages. The Panasonic is small and lightweight, it is my pereffered telezoom, when I take my ThinkTankPhoto Mirrorless Mover 20 with a two zoom setup (O 2.8/12-40mm).

The O 2.8/40-150mm, offen with the MC 1.4 extender, is the preferred telezoom when more reach is required: landscape, wilderness, sports.

The image quality of both lenses is very good.

If you want a smooth bokeh, zoom lenses are the wrong choice anyway.

Denjw wrote:

All this measurebating is just that.

I was talking about Oly 40-150mm f4-5.6.

But your shots are very nice! Thanks for posting!

40-150mm f2.8 + MC14 @210mm f5.6

1:1 crop

50% crop

50% crop

50% crop

Just get out and take some photos, this is what its for, isn't it?

Or have I missed something?

Cheers

Dennis

-- hide signature --

http://dwehner.zenfolio.com/

Okay, missed that completely. didn't look at the f numbers.

But I thought the thread was about the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 over Olympus 40-150 f2.8?

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.

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 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.

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

Dave

I do not have the 40-150 f2.8, as I don't shoot that long enough to justify buying it. I use the 50-200 SWD with the EC-14 still and it works fine, though a bit larger than the 40-150.

I do have the 35-100 as a complement to the 7-14 and 12-40. When I travel, these 3 lenses are in the bag and the 75-300 is in the suitcase. When I know I want low light performance with a tele, I use the 50-200. If I did not already own it, I might spring for the 40-150.

Still boils down to how much you use each focal length and what you want to carry.  I would not do travel photography without the 35-100.  It is a great lens in a compact form.  I agree with other posts, that it is good enough to take a lot of crop.

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.

Though the Oly seems as sharp as the panny, and then even sharper at 100mm (and obviously longer), it is a significantly larger, and heavier lens. I find the Panny 35-100mm f2.8 to be a defining lens of this system as it does a good job balancing IQ, size/weight. It's also significantly cheaper (can be found for $780). I think objectively though, the Oly is a little better in overall IQ in the longer focal ranges, but that is a sacrifice worth making to me for the size/price advantage of the Panasonic.

daddyo wrote:

"And by the way (please don't be offended by this) what on earth is the point in trying to demonstrate sharpness by uploading a 1 megapixel 180k jpeg?

I could have taken that with an iPhone 2."

Well, because (and don't be offended by this) if an image looks sharp on my computer at 1MP @ 180kb it sure as heck isn't going to get fuzzy and soft if I include the original missing 8 MP to the image.

The prevailing notion that web sized images do not reflect the actual sharpness of an image just because pixels have been eliminated is absurd.

How on planet earth have you come to that bizarre and by the way, completely wrong conclusion???

OF COURSE a 1 Mpixel resized image cannot demonstrate how sharp the 16 Mpixel original is. How utterly baffling you should think it can!

Your suggestion that if the 1MP image is sharp, that the 16MP image must be sharp is completely wrong. We have NO IDEA how sharp the original is when looking at the resized image.

By way of example, here's two images taken with an E-M1 and 35-100 f/2.8, one at f/2.8 and the other at f/4. I have resized them, as you did:

Next one:

One is sharp, the other is not. But which is which?

Here's crops from the two:

and the other...

One is soft, the other is sharp.

EDIT: Actually I chose the wrong images - one of them was at 75mm, not 100mm.  But it matters not, the point is made.  The two resized images both look sharp.  The full size crops reveal that only one of them is.

I find the 35-100 sharp enough at 100 f2.8. I bought into this system primarily because of the size and IQ compromises and in this regard I believe Panny is doing a better job of meeting my needs in the 2.8 zoom lens category.

Is this image super sharp, no, but he was coming at me at 40mph and it is sharp enough for my hobbyist needs. I'd just go to FF if size and weight weren't a major part of my kit choice. I am thrilled we have these two great options though.

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.

Do you need reach from 100 - 210mm?

Do you need the fastest autofocus (particularly C-AF) on Olympus cameras?

If so, then you should probably buy the 40-150.

If you don't then I'd say the 35-100 is ideal. It's at least the equal of the 40-150 between 40 and 100mm, and half the size and weight.

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

Mike Ronesia wrote:

I find the 35-100 sharp enough at 100 f2.8. I bought into this system primarily because of the size and IQ compromises and in this regard I believe Panny is doing a better job of meeting my needs in the 2.8 zoom lens category.

Is this image super sharp, no, but he was coming at me at 40mph and it is sharp enough for my hobbyist needs. I'd just go to FF if size and weight weren't a major part of my kit choice. I am thrilled we have these two great options though.

Dear Mark,

Nice photo.

I used to take amateur yachting photos, with an E-1 and a 50-200 (not the SWD version). I have not tried the 50-200 yet on an EM-1 properly setup (I bought my son EM-1 so I can now try it properly, I have had an EM-5 since they first came out).

My post though, is about your sharpness. With the old E-1, in very bright Australian light on the waves, I was taught by the internet by a very helpful Pro yachting photographer who posted from  Sweden, to shoot the boats at ISO 400. Even with the somewhat suspect ISO 400 of the beautiful Kodak CCD 5 MP sensor.

My 50-200 still works, because I used to wash the lens and camera down under a tap after each session. When I told Canikon people I did that 14 years ago, I got abused as being a lying nutcase. The only issue with that gear, is there is now a bit of corrosion around the flash attachment point. Salt water can be dangerous stuff.

I reckon your bike photo would be sharper if shot at ISO 400, or an even higher ISO level.

Cheers

Doug

Melbourne Park wrote:

I reckon your bike photo would be sharper if shot at ISO 400, or an even higher ISO level.

Cheers

Doug

Interesting, I'll give it a try.

I remember the first professional cycling sprint I shot, I was just gob-smacked how fast they came at me... Formula One is easier...