1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

12-35, 35-100 did Pany get the priority wrong?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Kiwi Paul, Aug 31, 2012.

  1. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul Mu-43 Top Veteran

    729
    Aug 15, 2011
    Aberdeen Scotland
    Personally I think Pany should have got the 35-100 out first instead of the 12-35.
    There are already many HQ lenses (mainly prime) that fulfill the 7....45ish requirement but apart from the recently released Oly 75mm no native HQ telephoto lenses.
    Surely folk would have relished (and still will once it's released) the 35-100 far more so than the excellent 12-35.
    It's a real shame there is such a long period of waiting for the 35-100 after seeing how good the 12-35 is.

    Paul
     
  2. D@ne

    D@ne Mu-43 Top Veteran

    593
    Feb 23, 2012
    Toronto
    Maybe they wanted the impatient to buy the 12-35 while waiting for the 35-100.

    Still, 12-35, to me, is a much more convenient, everyday lens. I probably won't be buying the 35-100 unless it is something truly spectacular.
     
  3. danska

    danska Mu-43 Top Veteran

    945
    May 21, 2012
    Portland, OR
    Joe
    I'm in the same boat as you. The 12-35 will give me something I can keep on the camera most of the time. Judging from the pictures it takes, you really don't give up anything over the primes other than a couple stops of light gathering (I don't always need super thin DOF). For certain things the PL25 will do a better job so I'll continue to use that lens specifically quite a bit.

    The 35-100 sounds great but I'd probably rather have the 75mm for faster shutter speeds. Using the EM-5 mainly, I don't really need OIS. If it really comes with a $1500+ price tag it would be a hard one to justify for me.
     
  4. Mellow

    Mellow Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2010
    Florida or Idaho
    Tom
    Me too. To be honest, I don't quite get the appeal of the 35-100mm FL . . . it's just not for me. Now the 12-35mm, on the other hand, oh how I lust after that lens! Pity it's way out of my price range.

    So . . . to answer the OP, I suspect that most people are like me and Panasonic got the order right.
     
  5. strang

    strang Mu-43 Veteran

    287
    May 7, 2012
    I agree with OP.

    70-200/2.8 equivalent is the work horse of a lot of people out there.
     
  6. alans

    alans Mu-43 Veteran

    340
    Feb 28, 2010
    I'm waiting eagerly for the 35-100 to go with the 12-35. If it's comparable in build to the 12-35 it will be an excellent lens plus combining these with bodies that keep getting better we'll be in for a treat.
    I'm guessing that we'll have the official announcement this fall but not see it shipping until next spring(and that's if we're lucky). For me that means another season of lugging the 70-200 around with a ff body. I'm spoiled.
     
  7. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul Mu-43 Top Veteran

    729
    Aug 15, 2011
    Aberdeen Scotland
    Geez I hope it comes out sooner than that, I'm hoping Oct / Nov

    Paul
     
  8. danska

    danska Mu-43 Top Veteran

    945
    May 21, 2012
    Portland, OR
    Joe
    ]

    Just curious, what types of things do you shoot with this focal length? I know it's a very popular lens type among the DSLR world. I just mainly use wide to normal focal lengths, only bringing out the long lenses for pictures of birds or other random things. I'm pretty new to this though!
     
  9. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Obviously, market research shows not much demand for fast telephotos.

    If they thought the big money was in a 200-500/2.8, we would have one.
     
  10. gaiaswill

    gaiaswill New to Mu-43

    5
    Aug 7, 2012
    Hawaii
    While I'll agree that the 35-100 fills a more unique function, it doesn't necessarily fulfill a more popular one. Popular lenses pay the bills, therefore...
     
  11. danska

    danska Mu-43 Top Veteran

    945
    May 21, 2012
    Portland, OR
    Joe
    My question was more directed at the many people that seem to have a 70-200 and feel like it is an essential in their bag. It seems like quite a few people I've talked to think that having a lens length that long is quite useful. Certainly I imagine most zooms out there are sold in the wide/normal/short tele range.
     
  12. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    If I were to get any, it would be the 35-100.

    That being said, I have no problems with the order of release. :smile:
     
  13. Linh

    Linh Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 14, 2009
    Maryland, US
    I want to see the 35-100, but if I were Panasonic, I'd do just what they did and get the 12-35 out first if I was forced to pick one. It's just a far more broad audience I think.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. strang

    strang Mu-43 Veteran

    287
    May 7, 2012
    Portrait, landscape, still life, wildlife, sports.

    F2.8 means I can use it in-doors comfortably.

    If I decide to buy it pending pricing and reviews. I would probably have a kit consisting of it, 12/2 and 25/1.4. I would sell everything else except the 14, or change that to a 17/2.8 II if that is made.

    Internal focusing is key to fast AF.
     
  15. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    For me, I like to capture images which I don't see with the naked eye. The 12mm-35mm is so close to the naked eye that I find it unappealing. Now the 35mm-100mm at a fast f/2.8 ... now there's a lens I can sink my teeth into.

    I enjoy shooting people, people doing stuff, from theater, to sports, to events ... people, people, people. A 35mm-100mm will allow me to get tight with shallow DOF, allowing me to capture and present a view of the world different than what we normally see ... a personal, signature type view of the world. I am checking nearly everyday for this lens.

    Gary

    Some images with the Canon 70mm-200mm f/2.8 ... this is the same stuff I will shoot with the 35mm-100mm.

    #1
    2CBL3204.

    #2
    201728502_VqSDA-O-2.

    #3
    65468676_QXnTz-L-1.

    #4
    821114145_22cEV-O-1.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. strang

    strang Mu-43 Veteran

    287
    May 7, 2012
    Won't be the same depth of field but I don't think it'll be that bad. I am really looking forward to the 35-100.

    It's kinda funny but I miss the 200mm focal length so much that I don't see myself going past 100mm too often on my 14-150. I somehow frame with it just I would with the 70-200. It'll also be weather sealed just like the 12-50 and 12-35. Which allows me to sell the 12-50.
     
  17. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul Mu-43 Top Veteran

    729
    Aug 15, 2011
    Aberdeen Scotland
    Those are great people shots Gary!!

    Paul
     
  18. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    [hijack]I don't want to miss this opportunity to ask Panasonic to release a 2X teleconverter with the 35-100. That would be my ultimate travel kit[/hijack]
     
  19. Ig7

    Ig7 Mu-43 Veteran

    298
    Aug 24, 2011
    so, forgive the newbie question, with the teleconverter, would the image quality of the 35-100 at 200 be equal to the regular lens at 200?
     
  20. Linh

    Linh Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 14, 2009
    Maryland, US
    that's going to be impossible to answer since neither lens nor teleconverter exists right now =) You'll certainly lose a stop or two of light depending on the converter. And the quality of it will determine how much IQ loss you'd get.