Thanks for the numbers and test. How does the Panasonic 35-100mm compare against the Olympus 45 and 75mm f1.8 primes at their respective focal lengths?
It's right there with the Olympus 45. I didn't actually get to test at 75mm, and that's the area where it's starting to soften a bit, so I suspect the 75 f/1.8 would be a bit better, but that's some guesstimating. I'm going to try to take both home tonight and actually take some pictures if there's still some light.
Roger, how does this compare to the latest Nikon and Canon 70-200/2.8 zooms?
I have both 24-70G and 70-200 VRII for reasons of practicality only (I normally prefer shooting with ZF.2 and Leica lenses on my D800), and am considering moving these two zooms over to my MFT system, saving a bit of money and a lot of weight. Does that make any sense (apart from the lack of a solid continuous-AF MFT camera so far)?
I'm hesitant because of the long end to say it would work for everyone, but it will do for me. The 70-200 VR (and IS for that matter) seem just as sharp at 200 as at 70. I'll want to stop down to f/4 with this at the long end if possible.
I'm definitely going to get one, because it's better than anything else available. And I find I carry my OM-D with me more and more.
I take primes and the big camera for when i know I need them, but I'm traveling and walking around with the OM-D - it takes more than half of the pictures I take these days. I've been carrying the 12-35, 45mm and 75 f/1.8. I'll probably switch to the 35-100 instead of the two primes since I tend to shoot at f/2.8 anyway.
Great tests. Thanks, Roger. It's very helpful. Especially knowing that it sharpens up nicely by f4. Wonder how it is at f3.2 and f3.5? I love your articles/blog entries.
Roger, thank you for taking the time to share. The 35-100 is a lens I was looking forward to, and although the softness at f2.8 at the long end is disappointing, I can live with f4.
Chuck Eklund wrote:
Roger, thank you for taking the time to share. The 35-100 is a lens I was looking forward to, and although the softness at f2.8 at the long end is disappointing, I can live with f4.
I think that's a poor result for such an expensive lens. f/2.8 is not that fast on m4/3 so having to use f/4 to get good results and effectively be f/8 in DOF makes it a waste for time for me. This lens needed to be stellar for the price of admission.
