1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

35-100 2.8 or 75 1.8?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by xdayv, Jan 24, 2013.

  1. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    Interesting times for the Micro 4/3s system.

    Based on my existing Micro 4/3s kit (see signature below), I'm almost all set to get a 12-35 2.8. Will be mainly used for travel and street photography, which one would you recommend (to pair it up with the 12-35) - the 35-100 or 75? Would be interested to know your thoughts. TIA!

  2. Armanius

    Armanius Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 23, 2010
    Get both!!
    • Like Like x 2
  3. veereshai

    veereshai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    May 12, 2011
    Arlington, VA
    The 75mm is just too good to pass up on. That's next on my list :smile:. In other words, get the 75mm, the 35-100 f2.8 can wait :wink:.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. ajamils

    ajamils Mu-43 Veteran

    Nov 20, 2012
    Richmond, Texas
    I don't know why people keep comparing two. Both lenses are completely different and have different advantages.

    If you can afford it, get both. If you cannot then get the one you can.

    Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk 2
  5. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    My immediate reaction is the 75mm, but I tend to prefer primes. Get whichever lens fits your style better. :biggrin:
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Savas K

    Savas K Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 10, 2013
    People want to be nudged into making a decision they really want, but hesitate over.

    There are sharp copies of 35-100. I had no luck in that regard. I did luck out on a sharp 75. To me, it's like a 75-200, because it's so sharp, you can crop heavily and wind up with a photo that does not look like it's been cropped. On the other hand, 35-100 is a workhorse and an imperative for photographers such as event shooters, where framing immediately assembling scenes in often chaotic circumstances requires the versatility that the lens offers.
  7. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    This question is easy....

    Do you shoot with your primes or your zooms more? In other words, you already know the answer.
  8. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    It's a tough decision since both have very strong merits, although both are very costly.

    I started out with all primes 12, 25, 45, but when the 75/1.8 came out, I hesitated because it's a focal length I don't use often enough to justify the price, even though it is the best m4/3 lens to date in terms of sharpness. Instead, I went for the 35-100/2.8 because of its versatility. Being stuck with slow zooms for so long, I was really happy with the 35-100. In fact, I liked it so much that I went on and bought the 12-35 also. Now, the 35-100 and the 12-35 are staples in my camera bag. This lens does have its flaws, but it's still better than any other native zoom lenses available, IMHO, especially when you zoom out to 100mm. Besides, the 2 zooms make for great travel lenses because of their weather-sealed bodies and versatile range.

    I think it all comes down to the best image quality vs. versatility, and I opted for versatility...
    • Like Like x 1
  9. LeoS

    LeoS Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 6, 2012
    I've just received my 35-100mm... and unfortunately so far I have not been floored with its performance. I will take it out on the weekend and hope for better condition to test with and report...

    I do love the 75mm. It's so sharp that I can use 1:1 crop out of pictures taken with that lens!
    • Like Like x 2
  10. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    one at a time please... :rofl:

    I'll keep that in mind. :thumbup:
    • Like Like x 2
  11. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    Can you elaborate on this more? ^^ thanks.

    Leo, kindly update us regarding your 35-100 on this thread, TIA!
    • Like Like x 1
  12. robbie36

    robbie36 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2010
    rob collins
    Well I have the 12-35 2.8 and, as a lens, it has exceeded my expectations (especially given the mediocre reviews). I hardly ever use my 25/1.4.

    I have the 75/1.8 and this is my favorite lens. I took it on a travel trip where a 35-100 would have been more 'useful' but half of my total keepers came from this lens. If you have to have just one, this is the one to have in my view (unless you are a professional wedding photographer who desperately needs the flexibility.)

    Given how well the 12-35 2.8 has turned out I am rather taken by the idea of buying the 35-100 as well. I am really waiting though in the hope that Oly might bring out a 40-150 2.8-4.0 (or something similar) which would actually make a better fit with the 75/1.8.
    • Like Like x 2
  13. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    Sharpness is obviously not as good as the good primes for one, whether it's center or edge sharpness, but this is pretty much expected when I bought the lens. My main gripe is that the lens vignette a little too much. This is quite obvious when I take shots with prominent sky in it, and becomes a particular problem when trying to stitch shots together for panorama. Other than that, I really don't have any complaints.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. gsk3

    gsk3 Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 29, 2012
    This should be a pretty simple decision. You're trading off flexibility for speed and image quality.

    Have you ever used a 150mm equivalent prime? If not, go either tape a zoom lens in one position or find a cheap adapted prime to go borrow.

    Personally I could never use something that long as an every day lens. There's a reason why the standard pro photojournalism kit is a 2_-70 f/2.8, a 70-200 f/2.8, and a 50 f/1.4.... It doesn't help you to have a tack sharp image if that image is only of half your subject. But for others, the 150mm equivalent focal length is about right (certainly, the classic photojournalists used something like 28 or 35, 50, 85, 135mm primes as their standard kit before the f/2.8 zooms became available), and the image quality seems pretty universally acknowledged to be a little better.

    Note that I don't feel this way at the wider end. The difference between a 28mm and a 35mm equivalent is a few steps. Whereas the difference between a 70mm and a 150mm equivalent will have you falling over the back of a railing or getting trod on by a passing horse as you back up to fit everything in the frame.
  15. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    It still vignettes at, say, F5.6? Vingetting is a fact of life with these kinds of zooms, and while it can be easily corrected in post (DxO Optics does this automatically), I rarely ever see it after a lens is stopped down a few, and I almost always shoot stopped down when stitching.

    I'll likely get the 75/1.8 before considering the 35-100, based on my experience with the 70-200 for Canon - great lens, but not a fantastically versatile zoom range, and got used a lot less than my 135/2.0 which remains my favorite 'people shooting' lens on my full frame system. It's less versatile, but it simply works for me. The weight issue is far less prominent with MFT, however, and that was the real reason the 70-200/2.8 stayed home most of the time.
  16. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    You are right. Again, I haven't done any testing, but I think the vignette is much less noticeable beyond f/4.0, but it wasn't something that I expected coming from using mostly Olympus 4/3 zooms (guess I was spoiled)...
  17. harry_s

    harry_s Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 19, 2011
    Wiltshire, UK
    This amused me as it goes to show how different we all are and that there is no one size fits all answer.

    For me I'm not worried about massive gaps at the telephoto end as with what I shoot I can usually find enough room to compensate. But at the wide end I'm far more likely to run into a situation where I want to go wider, but can't.

    Even though I shoot mostly telephoto I have a 30mm gap that doesn't bother me, but I long for the 12mm f2 as quite often my 14mm 2.5 just isn't wide enough!
    • Like Like x 1
  18. DynaSport

    DynaSport Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jan 5, 2013
    I have always been a primarily zoom shooter, in spite of all the people who basically say primes are so much better. For the photos I take, i just found the versatility of a zoom outweighed the better IQ of a prime. The only exception for me was either when I wanted to control the DOF better than a slower zoom would let me. On my Canon gear I ended up with two classic 2.8 zooms and found that I loved the 70-200 2.8, except for the size issue, which is what drove me to look into M43 in the first place. So, I have kept my Canon gear and have focused on keeping the M43 stuff small. So, I think I will go with the kit lens package of 14-42 and 40-150 for size and range and add a couple of primes in for when I need the light or want to have more background separation. From images I have seen online, I am really wanting the 75. If I can ever get the money together, I'll probably have it and the 17 1.8 and be done with it. Ok, and the 45, but really then I would be done...
  19. DynaSport

    DynaSport Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jan 5, 2013
    Oh, and a photographer over on FM whose work is just fantastic once posted that the only zoom he would use was a wide one (16-35), as the difference in each mm was noticable at the wide end, but for telephoto, he always used a prime. It seemed to me that most of his fantastic shots were taken with an 85 on a 1.3 crop camera. But really, I think it was mainly him and not the lens or camera he used.
  20. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    Have used extensively Nikkor 85mm 1.4 and 105 2.8 VR on a Nikon DX body (1.5x) and Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 VR and 200mm 2 VR on a Nikon FX body, if these somehow counts. :biggrin:

    +1 :thumbup:
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.