Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 vs Olympus 40-150 f2.8

I'm trying to decide between these two lenses. I keep flitting between the two and I'm hoping a little chat might help me make a decision.

There are pros and cons to each of course. IMHO these are:

Panasonic 35-100

Pros: Smaller, lighter and cheaper (£771 Amazon), slightly wider

Cons: Shorter reach, no tele-converter (that I know of)

Olympus 40-150

Pros: Longer reach, more versatility with the tele-converter, better minimum focusing distance

Cons: Larger, heavier and more expensive (£1,099 Amazon - strangely you can get it with the 1.4x tele-converter for just £2 more!!)

Essentially I want a lens to use at events (both indoor and outdoor - mainly outdoor). Last year I found my 75-300 was often too long at the short end and my 16-70 (Sony A6000 lens) was often too short at the long end.

I appreciate that only I can ultimately decide which will suit my needs best, but I figure some of you will have had to make the same choice between these two and I'd be interested to know people's thought processes.

kuro_neko wrote:

I'm trying to decide between these two lenses. I keep flitting between the two and I'm hoping a little chat might help me make a decision.

There are pros and cons to each of course. IMHO these are:

Panasonic 35-100

Pros: Smaller, lighter and cheaper (£771 Amazon), slightly wider

Cons: Shorter reach, no tele-converter (that I know of)

Olympus 40-150

Pros: Longer reach, more versatility with the tele-converter, better minimum focusing distance

Cons: Larger, heavier and more expensive (£1,099 Amazon - strangely you can get it with the 1.4x tele-converter for just £2 more!!)

You nailed it very accurately. The 35-100/2.8 is the world's tiniest PRO 70-200 2.8 lens It's incredibly small for what it delivers. Image quality is superb. internal focusing. crisp images. One could really NOT ask for more...

However... the 40-150 offers "more" in some areas, but at a cost. The 40-150 is like a 70-200 on a crop camera ;). It's definitely more useful as a TELE lens, however, the cost in size and weight is considerable. It probably wins *marginally* on IQ, and it definitly wins on build quality (not that the 35-100 is bad, but the Oly Pro series is just superb). So at the end of the day, the question is what you use it for...

Essentially I want a lens to use at events (both indoor and outdoor - mainly outdoor). Last year I found my 75-300 was often too long at the short end and my 16-70 (Sony A6000 lens) was often too short at the long end.

See? here is where you answer the question... for "events" - 70-200 is a classic portrait range. you don't need longer than 200 in the vast majority of cases when shooting events, unless you're doing something wrong or the couple arrives in a helicotper and wants to be shot mid air. you would be very hard pressed to find any serious event photographers shooting Canon or Nikon using a lens longer than their 70-200/2.8 on Full Frame.

And as such, you can enjoy the advantages of the small size which would tire you less during an event.

Had you said you shoot wildlife, then the story would be different...

I appreciate that only I can ultimately decide which will suit my needs best, but I figure some of you will have had to make the same choice between these two and I'd be interested to know people's thought processes.

Well  -hope this helped

kuro_neko wrote:

I'm trying to decide between these two lenses. I keep flitting between the two and I'm hoping a little chat might help me make a decision.

There are pros and cons to each of course. IMHO these are:

Panasonic 35-100

Pros: Smaller, lighter and cheaper (£771 Amazon), slightly wider

Cons: Shorter reach, no tele-converter (that I know of)

Olympus 40-150

Pros: Longer reach, more versatility with the tele-converter, better minimum focusing distance

Cons: Larger, heavier and more expensive (£1,099 Amazon - strangely you can get it with the 1.4x tele-converter for just £2 more!!)

Essentially I want a lens to use at events (both indoor and outdoor - mainly outdoor). Last year I found my 75-300 was often too long at the short end and my 16-70 (Sony A6000 lens) was often too short at the long end.

I appreciate that only I can ultimately decide which will suit my needs best, but I figure some of you will have had to make the same choice between these two and I'd be interested to know people's thought processes.

If is going to be used on events mainly, then is a no brainier, the 35-100mm 2.8 it is. it makes a great combo with the 12-40mm. I can't imagine having to lug around the 40-150mm for 4 hours straight. For anything else, maybe the 40-150 is a better choice, but for events, nothing beats the 35-100. And even for landscape, I find the 35-100 more than enough for me. At least I haven't used my 40-150 (the cheap slow one, not the Pro), in months.

Swartz, I think your'e comments pretty much nail it.  I have both lenses and I don't have a preference....depending on what I'm doing.

If I'm doing street photography, then the 35~100.  Also if I'm traveling I'll usually take it along with the 12~40.  Good travel set up, at least for me.

For "events" I'd take the 40~150 and the 1.4 TC as well.  As all here know it's an excellent lens.

The 35~100 also doesn't have outstanding close focus ability whereas the 40~150 does.  I realize both are expensive lenses and not everyone can afford to own both, so I guess it boils down to what you intend to use it for.  Actually if most of my stuff is kind of general and a long lens is not a prime consideration, I'd get the 35~100 and get the 65~300 for a lightweight long lens to "tag along".  My son bought an absolutely perfect one on eBay for 375.00.  He's thrilled with it.  So you could have both of these  for little more than the price of the 40~150 alone.  Just something to think about.

I notice that the OP already owns the 75~300, so in his particular situation I think I'd like opt for the 35~100 Panny.  I think it would fit well in his equipment set up.  I also think the IQ I get from mine is as good as I get from my 40~150.

was looking at same choice earlier this year.  went with the Panny due to size and price differential.  like other posters, the Oly 12-40 and the Panny 35-100 is my basic two lens kit.  With the 12-40 mounted, I can fit the camera and both lenses in a Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 20. The Oly PRO is very desirable but we have to be practical!  I have the slower Oly 40-150 when I need more reach and am considering the Panny 100-300.

You nailed the comparison  of these two excellent lenses.

I own both.  I got the Panasonic  35-100 f2.8 before the Olympus 40-159 f2.8 was released.  I used the Panasonic a bunch but found it a little short for nature and wildlife.  For when the reach was not enough I will use the Olympus 75-300 lens.  The image quality of the Panasonic is noticeably better than the 75-300.

Anyhow I got the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 and the 1.4x TC when it was released.   For my use landscspes and wildlife I like the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 a lot better than the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8.  Also with the 1.4x TC I have enough reach that I didn't have to carry the 75-300 any more.   So my kit became a little lighter.

It seems like every time I tried to go small by taking the Panasonic  I end but missing the extra length of the Olympus.

Anyhow, you can not go wrong with either of these  two lenses.  It basically comes down what is more important for you between smaller size or extra reach.

If you do a search you'll find another thread on this

I also contributed there

But in summary

I bought and sold the 35-100mm in favor of the 40-150mm

Then I realized I used the shorter focals more often so bought back the 35-100mm

and sold the 40-150mm

Both are sharp, no doubt

I prefer the bokeh on the 35-100mm

The 40-150mm could be fussy at times

Key thing is the 35-100mm is quite small and can easily be mounted on a Pen like body and used for streets without alarming anyone

Both are weatherproof so can be used with weatherproof bodies

I use my 75-300mm for longer reach; not quite as good as the 40-150mm but again lighter and smaller

Cheers,

I use my 75-300mm for longer reach; not quite as good as the 40-150mm but again lighter and smaller

in fact - the 75-300, in the range of 75-150 is quite amazingly sharp. it is afterwards that it loses quality. of course - it's not on the same league as the 40-150 anywhere along the line, BUT, up to 150, the 75-300 is surprisingly good for a consumer lens.

slartz wrote:

I use my 75-300mm for longer reach; not quite as good as the 40-150mm but again lighter and smaller

in fact - the 75-300, in the range of 75-150 is quite amazingly sharp. it is afterwards that it loses quality. of course - it's not on the same league as the 40-150 anywhere along the line, BUT, up to 150, the 75-300 is surprisingly good for a consumer lens.

But then you can use the cheap 40-150/4-5.6. It is also very sharp up to 150mm

CrisPhoto wrote:

slartz wrote:

I use my 75-300mm for longer reach; not quite as good as the 40-150mm but again lighter and smaller

in fact - the 75-300, in the range of 75-150 is quite amazingly sharp. it is afterwards that it loses quality. of course - it's not on the same league as the 40-150 anywhere along the line, BUT, up to 150, the 75-300 is surprisingly good for a consumer lens.

But then you can use the cheap 40-150/4-5.6. It is also very sharp up to 150mm

we might define "very sharp" very differently

I find the 40-150/4-5.6 to be a pretty mediocre lens, all across the board. sharpness, contrast, color, all a little "dead". I personally can't stand that lens...

Thanks for all the feed back guys. I've ultimately decided on the 35-100 for the size and weight saving (and cheaper cost). Shame that Panasonic never released a tele-converter for this lens as that would have made this decision somewhat easier.

I can see a use for Olympus 40-150 and if money was no object I'd get both, but sadly I can't justifying buying both (unless I win the lottery or something).