bluevellet
Senior Member
Pros:
When Panasonic came out with their (ill-fated) GM series cameras (2013), I thought the new (in 2013 again) kit lens, the Lumix 12-32, was overshadowing the cameras. While hardly perfect, such a tiny lens with so much IQ, it seems like it was beating physics. Panasonic did follow suit with a separate telephoto lens companion released the next year, the 35-100mm f4-5.6. Was lightning caught in a bottle twice? Read on and find out.
Double the Size Yet Still The Smallest
Well, something had to give first: The lens is bigger. Twice as long as the 12-32, going from 24mm to 50mm in length. Still smaller than any other telephoto zoom option on m43. In fact, I don't remember seeing a telephoto zoom this small anywhere else, except for, perhaps, on the defunct Pentax Q system. Quite a feat. The zoom range goes some way to explain the size of the lens: It's a short telephoto zoom, covering from 35mm to 100mm. This is a field of view equivalent to many classic lenses on FF/35mm that cover 70mm-200mm.
On FF, these kinds of lenses tend to be long and chunky. But with m43, you're only dealing with a sensor with a quarter of the surface area so lenses can be significantly smaller at the same apertures, than on FF. In fact, Panasonic makes, and is the only m43 manufacturer to make, a pro grade 35-100mm lens with a constant f2.8 aperture, similar to the FF lenses, but roughly at the size of a beer can rather than a fat champagne bottle. But the 35-100 f4-5.6 is even smaller than the Lumix constant f2.8 lens in comparison, it's like a small toy. That is because it drops the constant f2.8 in favour of a variable aperture design (f4-5.6). It also implements a retracting mechanism that reduces the size even further.
Why even 35-100mm?
This is probably a matter of personal opinion, but I do not think 35-100mm lenses are the kind of lenses you go out with without knowing what you will probably be shooting. It's pretty narrow at its widest (35mm) where many subjects will not fit your frame yet doesn't zoom in (100mm) quite as much to catch critters far in the distance. No, The range is more suited for portraits, events, architecture and sports because you are likely tracking large subjects (people/vehicles) not too distant from you.
Personally, I prefer the mid telephoto 40-150mm range (some lenses even go further than 150mm) offered by many rivals as I find them more flexible. In fact, I strongly suspect Panasonic had wanted to zoom further than 100mm with their 35-100, but they couldn't do this without supersizing the lens closer to its mid-telephoto rivals. And since the lens was primarily designed for the smallest m43 cameras, size considerations won over zoom range and so they settled on a classic, short telephoto niche. Practical and it's nice to have different options on m43 so I don't begrudge them for this.
Packs A Few Surprises
Beyond just physical size, the 35-100 implements some much needed improvements compared to the more flimsy construction of the 12-32. Still plastic (with metal mount) but feeling less fragile this time around. And the lens has an actual manual focus ring, which conversely was a glaring omission in the 12-32 lens. Manual focus here is just focus by wire here, non-linear and not tactile, something I've never really liked, but still better than no MF ring at all.
Another neat thing about this lens is that it has optical image stabilisation built-in, like the 12-32 lens also had. Many smaller and older Panasonic camera bodies have no in-body image stabilisation at all, so it's preferable to use stabilized lenses on those camera bodies. Now if you happen to own a Panasonic camera body with in-body stabilization (I don't) then the cool thing is the lens and camera engage in what they call dual IS for even greater stabilisation. Unfortunately, this does not work on non-Panasonic camera bodies so you either rely on the camera's stabilisation or let the lens handle it in that case.
Perfection Is The Enemy of Good
But how is the optical stabilisation on its own? It's pretty good for stills. Stable view to frame your shot and then allows you to shoot at slower shutter speeds for sharp pics. But for video things aren't so good. I don't own any recent Panasonic camera bodies to test what happens here, but on the older cameras this lens was originally designed for (GM series), the O.I.S. doesn't perform well and is in fact noticeably worse than with the 12-32 lens (though that is partially attributed to the longer zoom range which is harder to stabilize). Hand-held footage is shaky, particularly if you start moving around. On Olympus cameras, IBIS is on by default and OIS is deactivated so video footage is still smoother as a result. If you disable IBIS and force OIS to be on, videos will be shakier. There are sometimes debates about which form of stabilisation is best for photography but in the case of this lens, IBIS wins. But if you are using a camera without IBIS then the OIS offers a bit stabilisation that is better than none of all.
[ATTACH alt=" I think this comparison sums up your telephoto options on m43. The Lumix 35-100 (right) can be shrunk to a fairly small pocketable size but needs to be extended to be used and trombones a bit through its zoom range. The "plastic fantastic" Olympus 40-150mm f4-5.6 (middle) can be used immediately at 40mm and trombones a lot all the way to 150mm. And finally, the OM System 40-150 F4 Pro (left) also has a collapsible form but once extended, all zooming remains internal. "]4944304._xfImport[/ATTACH]
I think this comparison sums up your telephoto options on m43. The Lumix 35-100 (right) can be shrunk to a fairly small pocketable size but needs to be extended to be used and trombones a bit through its zoom range. The "plastic fantastic" Olympus 40-150mm f4-5.6 (middle) can be used immediately at 40mm and trombones a lot all the way to 150mm. And finally, the OM System 40-150 F4 Pro (left) also has a collapsible form but once extended, all zooming remains internal.
Furthermore, if 100mm is not quite enough zoom for you, you can always get closer to your subject for greater magnification, right? Sure, in theory, but not with this lens. Minimum focusing distance is almost a meter, and that's at 35mm. It's more than a meter if you zoom in. To be fair, many telephoto zooms don't fare too well here, but this has got to be one of the worst performers I've ever seen on m43. Now, I can give it some slack: This is probably one of those compromises to make the lens as small as possible. It's better to limit the minimal focusing distance than make the lens slower, or compromise the image quality. I think this is the right call. But it's still something to know and to consider if you are interested in this lens.
Unless animals are caged, domesticated or you lure them to you, 100mm is not quite enough to catch shy critters
And then comes the issue of the price: This is one of the pricier, yet low-end telephoto zooms on the system. Some of the alternatives can be had for half the price. Personally, I do not think the lens is worth it at its original, full suggested retail price. But luckily, the lens is a decade old so there is a vibrant used market where much better deals can be found (I went that route myself). On average, used prices for the 35-100 tend to be slightly higher than rivals but nowhere near the discrepancy brand new. Another option is to buy the lens as a pack-in, or rather as a double pack-in (12-32 and 35-100) for a GF/GM camera. As with many pack-ins from other companies, the lenses are heavily discounted as opposed to buying all the items separately.
The Little Engine That Could
So... if this little Lumix 35-100mm mimics 70-200mmm, Full Frame lenses, can it be used for (fast) sports? Well, kind of. First of all, because of the slow, variable aperture, it works better in daylight. And second, though originally designed for the tiny GM1 and GM5 cameras, these camera models are way too primitive for fast action. But on a more high performance camera like the OM-1 (2022), the 35-100mm can mostly follow fast subjects. Not perfect, not fool proof, but much more reliable than on GM series cameras. It follows running people pretty well, erratic animals less so. I find that zooming in and out increases your chances of missing focus (though from my understanding, that is more an OM1 issue than a lens issue). So I wouldn't label the 35-100 a "pro lens" but I think the AF is a lot snappier that you'd normally expect from a "kit lens".
Works well with architecture
When it comes to the all important issue of image quality, I must admit being fairly impressed here. In many ways, it repeats the feat of the 12-32 lens: sharp, good contrast, pleasing rendering/bokeh. It works well with image stacking options too. Overall, I find it compares favourably to the many low-end alternatives I already own. If I start nitpicking and make unfair comparisons against a higher quality piece of optics like, for example, the OM System M Zuiko 40-150mm f4 Pro, well, the little 35-100 can hold its own. The 40-150mm still has an edge in overall IQ, but it's more subtle and certainly not a night and day difference.
Obviously, the 40-150 f4 Pro is also faster, has greater range and is weather-sealed, there's a reason why that lens is bigger and costs significantly more. But if you are indifferent to all those extra features and just want a telephoto zoom lens with good IQ, the little Lumix could be a good option. Its small size is a nice bonus too. I think the 35-100 lens might have been originally designed for the GM series, but it has a bit of future-proofing in its IQ and AF performance that could very well surprise you.
- good overall IQ
- better-than-expected construction
- optical stabilisation with optional dual IS
- fairly fast AF
- smallish and light
- collapsible design (i don't personally mind it)
- no dual stabilisation with Olympus bodies
- OIS alone not very effective for video
- closest focusing distance lacklustre
- pricier than (low-end) rivals
When Panasonic came out with their (ill-fated) GM series cameras (2013), I thought the new (in 2013 again) kit lens, the Lumix 12-32, was overshadowing the cameras. While hardly perfect, such a tiny lens with so much IQ, it seems like it was beating physics. Panasonic did follow suit with a separate telephoto lens companion released the next year, the 35-100mm f4-5.6. Was lightning caught in a bottle twice? Read on and find out.
Double the Size Yet Still The Smallest
Well, something had to give first: The lens is bigger. Twice as long as the 12-32, going from 24mm to 50mm in length. Still smaller than any other telephoto zoom option on m43. In fact, I don't remember seeing a telephoto zoom this small anywhere else, except for, perhaps, on the defunct Pentax Q system. Quite a feat. The zoom range goes some way to explain the size of the lens: It's a short telephoto zoom, covering from 35mm to 100mm. This is a field of view equivalent to many classic lenses on FF/35mm that cover 70mm-200mm.
On FF, these kinds of lenses tend to be long and chunky. But with m43, you're only dealing with a sensor with a quarter of the surface area so lenses can be significantly smaller at the same apertures, than on FF. In fact, Panasonic makes, and is the only m43 manufacturer to make, a pro grade 35-100mm lens with a constant f2.8 aperture, similar to the FF lenses, but roughly at the size of a beer can rather than a fat champagne bottle. But the 35-100 f4-5.6 is even smaller than the Lumix constant f2.8 lens in comparison, it's like a small toy. That is because it drops the constant f2.8 in favour of a variable aperture design (f4-5.6). It also implements a retracting mechanism that reduces the size even further.
Why even 35-100mm?
This is probably a matter of personal opinion, but I do not think 35-100mm lenses are the kind of lenses you go out with without knowing what you will probably be shooting. It's pretty narrow at its widest (35mm) where many subjects will not fit your frame yet doesn't zoom in (100mm) quite as much to catch critters far in the distance. No, The range is more suited for portraits, events, architecture and sports because you are likely tracking large subjects (people/vehicles) not too distant from you.
Personally, I prefer the mid telephoto 40-150mm range (some lenses even go further than 150mm) offered by many rivals as I find them more flexible. In fact, I strongly suspect Panasonic had wanted to zoom further than 100mm with their 35-100, but they couldn't do this without supersizing the lens closer to its mid-telephoto rivals. And since the lens was primarily designed for the smallest m43 cameras, size considerations won over zoom range and so they settled on a classic, short telephoto niche. Practical and it's nice to have different options on m43 so I don't begrudge them for this.
Packs A Few Surprises
Beyond just physical size, the 35-100 implements some much needed improvements compared to the more flimsy construction of the 12-32. Still plastic (with metal mount) but feeling less fragile this time around. And the lens has an actual manual focus ring, which conversely was a glaring omission in the 12-32 lens. Manual focus here is just focus by wire here, non-linear and not tactile, something I've never really liked, but still better than no MF ring at all.
Another neat thing about this lens is that it has optical image stabilisation built-in, like the 12-32 lens also had. Many smaller and older Panasonic camera bodies have no in-body image stabilisation at all, so it's preferable to use stabilized lenses on those camera bodies. Now if you happen to own a Panasonic camera body with in-body stabilization (I don't) then the cool thing is the lens and camera engage in what they call dual IS for even greater stabilisation. Unfortunately, this does not work on non-Panasonic camera bodies so you either rely on the camera's stabilisation or let the lens handle it in that case.
Perfection Is The Enemy of Good
But how is the optical stabilisation on its own? It's pretty good for stills. Stable view to frame your shot and then allows you to shoot at slower shutter speeds for sharp pics. But for video things aren't so good. I don't own any recent Panasonic camera bodies to test what happens here, but on the older cameras this lens was originally designed for (GM series), the O.I.S. doesn't perform well and is in fact noticeably worse than with the 12-32 lens (though that is partially attributed to the longer zoom range which is harder to stabilize). Hand-held footage is shaky, particularly if you start moving around. On Olympus cameras, IBIS is on by default and OIS is deactivated so video footage is still smoother as a result. If you disable IBIS and force OIS to be on, videos will be shakier. There are sometimes debates about which form of stabilisation is best for photography but in the case of this lens, IBIS wins. But if you are using a camera without IBIS then the OIS offers a bit stabilisation that is better than none of all.
[ATTACH alt=" I think this comparison sums up your telephoto options on m43. The Lumix 35-100 (right) can be shrunk to a fairly small pocketable size but needs to be extended to be used and trombones a bit through its zoom range. The "plastic fantastic" Olympus 40-150mm f4-5.6 (middle) can be used immediately at 40mm and trombones a lot all the way to 150mm. And finally, the OM System 40-150 F4 Pro (left) also has a collapsible form but once extended, all zooming remains internal. "]4944304._xfImport[/ATTACH]
I think this comparison sums up your telephoto options on m43. The Lumix 35-100 (right) can be shrunk to a fairly small pocketable size but needs to be extended to be used and trombones a bit through its zoom range. The "plastic fantastic" Olympus 40-150mm f4-5.6 (middle) can be used immediately at 40mm and trombones a lot all the way to 150mm. And finally, the OM System 40-150 F4 Pro (left) also has a collapsible form but once extended, all zooming remains internal.
Furthermore, if 100mm is not quite enough zoom for you, you can always get closer to your subject for greater magnification, right? Sure, in theory, but not with this lens. Minimum focusing distance is almost a meter, and that's at 35mm. It's more than a meter if you zoom in. To be fair, many telephoto zooms don't fare too well here, but this has got to be one of the worst performers I've ever seen on m43. Now, I can give it some slack: This is probably one of those compromises to make the lens as small as possible. It's better to limit the minimal focusing distance than make the lens slower, or compromise the image quality. I think this is the right call. But it's still something to know and to consider if you are interested in this lens.
Unless animals are caged, domesticated or you lure them to you, 100mm is not quite enough to catch shy critters
And then comes the issue of the price: This is one of the pricier, yet low-end telephoto zooms on the system. Some of the alternatives can be had for half the price. Personally, I do not think the lens is worth it at its original, full suggested retail price. But luckily, the lens is a decade old so there is a vibrant used market where much better deals can be found (I went that route myself). On average, used prices for the 35-100 tend to be slightly higher than rivals but nowhere near the discrepancy brand new. Another option is to buy the lens as a pack-in, or rather as a double pack-in (12-32 and 35-100) for a GF/GM camera. As with many pack-ins from other companies, the lenses are heavily discounted as opposed to buying all the items separately.
The Little Engine That Could
So... if this little Lumix 35-100mm mimics 70-200mmm, Full Frame lenses, can it be used for (fast) sports? Well, kind of. First of all, because of the slow, variable aperture, it works better in daylight. And second, though originally designed for the tiny GM1 and GM5 cameras, these camera models are way too primitive for fast action. But on a more high performance camera like the OM-1 (2022), the 35-100mm can mostly follow fast subjects. Not perfect, not fool proof, but much more reliable than on GM series cameras. It follows running people pretty well, erratic animals less so. I find that zooming in and out increases your chances of missing focus (though from my understanding, that is more an OM1 issue than a lens issue). So I wouldn't label the 35-100 a "pro lens" but I think the AF is a lot snappier that you'd normally expect from a "kit lens".
Works well with architecture
When it comes to the all important issue of image quality, I must admit being fairly impressed here. In many ways, it repeats the feat of the 12-32 lens: sharp, good contrast, pleasing rendering/bokeh. It works well with image stacking options too. Overall, I find it compares favourably to the many low-end alternatives I already own. If I start nitpicking and make unfair comparisons against a higher quality piece of optics like, for example, the OM System M Zuiko 40-150mm f4 Pro, well, the little 35-100 can hold its own. The 40-150mm still has an edge in overall IQ, but it's more subtle and certainly not a night and day difference.
Obviously, the 40-150 f4 Pro is also faster, has greater range and is weather-sealed, there's a reason why that lens is bigger and costs significantly more. But if you are indifferent to all those extra features and just want a telephoto zoom lens with good IQ, the little Lumix could be a good option. Its small size is a nice bonus too. I think the 35-100 lens might have been originally designed for the GM series, but it has a bit of future-proofing in its IQ and AF performance that could very well surprise you.
