1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

35-100f2 SHD to buy or not to buy... User opinions

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by nstelemark, Aug 2, 2016.

  1. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    So @Phocal@Phocal has started me thinking about this again. I have the 14-35f2 SWD and the 150f2 little tuna. The f2 maximum aperture is a real winner in a lot of situations.

    Darren Miles did a review of this lens recently -



    For me the downsides are obviously 1) weight, and 2) AF speed.

    The AF speed surprised me, I really had not expected the lens not to be SWD. The 150F2 which is pretty similar from an AF perspective is OK but not stellar. The 14-35f2SWD is really very good, good enough I don't notice the difference from a native lens.

    For anyone who has spent time with this lens I'd love to hear your thoughts.
     
  2. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    I really want all the 4/3 ƒ2.0 zooms, just need to figure out which one first. That extra stop of light is handy when shooting in dark situations that require faster shutter speeds. While it may be a bit large and heavy compared to µ4/3 lenses, it is still lighter then Canon's 70-200 ƒ2.8.
     
  3. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    The prices seem to have gone back up on the SHD lenses. There was a glut about a year+ ago which seems to have dried up again.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Man, I don't know. Yes, the SHG lenses are optically excellent, but the size, weight, cost, and AF speed make it hard to justify the price. I have the same argument with the 14-35 (I REALLY wish they would have made it 12 on the wide end, but the SWD focusing mechanism is really nice to use). The 150/2 is a special lens, as is the 90-250 f/2.8, 300 f/2.8, etc.

    I just have a hard time justifying a lens that's larger, heavier slower to focus, and more expensive when comparing it to Panasonic's 35-100 f/2.8, despite it being not as excellent optically and a stop slower.
     
  5. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    Well it hit home the other evening when I was shooting buskers with knives that the 14-35f2 while enormous was the only thing other than say a bag of primes that would have allowed me to capture the crazy knife wielding Aussie. The back story is I was at a restaurant with my wife and we decided to go see buskers with my kids. I did not have my camera so I asked them to grab my E-M1 with whatever was attached. I would likely have put the 12-35f2.8 on if I had a choice but it arrived with the 14-35f2. While I was shooting the knife wielder, I reset the aperture to 2.8 and found my SS too low and my burst rate fell significantly. At f2 I was in business. So for me it is about low light performance mainly.
     
  6. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    I agree that some of the SHG lenses are slower to acquire focus then some of the modern µ4/3 lenses, but once focus is acquired they have no problem keeping up with the action. I have adapted to that and once you get use to the little slower initial focus, they perform flawlessly.

    That is why I value the ƒ2.0 zooms, for low light work. IBIS can not slow the knife wielder down so is useless (so many people like to bring up IBIS and how it can compensate for slower lenses), and µ4/3 has a problem when you push the ISO so that ƒ2.0 gives you a stop faster then any of the current µ4/3 lenses can provide.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    I own, use, and love the 12-60 SWD and 50-200 SWD when paired with my two E-M1's (gonna put 'em to good use this weekend shooting a motorsports event at a local track). I don't find the size of those lenses to be too bad on the E-M1's, both of which have the RRS base plate attached.

    But when I look at something like the 14-35 f/2 and the 35-100 f/2, it's just so hard to justify using them compared to picking up a FF DSLR and a 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8. Yes, the FF lenses are a stop slower, but you can simply bump up the ISO a stop to achieve equivalent shutter speeds, and you should still get better performance from the FF camera in low light (i.e. at an ISO of 6400 on FF vs. 3200 on m43, I would expect the FF to do better. Ffor shooting in daylight, it's pretty much a wash in terms of IQ.

    The 14-35 f/2 SWD weighs 900g, is 86mm in diameter and 123mm in length. Canon's 24-70 weighs 805g, is 89mm in diameter and 113mm in length. The 35-200 f/2 SWD weighs 1650g, is 97mm in diameter and 214mm in length. Canon's 70-200 weighs 1490g, is 89mm in diameter and 198mm in length. Don't forget to add an MMF-3 adapter for both lenses, which adds an extra 42g per lens and an extra 20mm or so.

    So for all intents and purposes, the Canon f/2.8 lenses are the same diameter, shorter in length, and lighter (by a combined 255g looking at the lenses alone, or 340g if taking in to account two MMF-3 adapters) than the Olympus f/2 counterparts.


    I think some of the 4/3 lenses make sense on m43 like the 12-60 (a 24-120 equivalent lens), and the 50-200 (a 100-400 equivalent lens), but when you start talking about lenses as large as the f/2 zooms, it really raises the question of spending the money on lenses that large for a m43 sensor, or buying the f/2.8 zooms for a FF sensor and bumping the ISO up by a stop (this isn't taking in to account things like costs of used lenses, AF speed, mirrorless vs DSLR differences, etc.).
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  8. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    The difference is I am staying within the same system. When I need a lens for low light I can grab the 35-100 and when I will be outside I can grab the 50-200 SWD (or 40-150 Pro if I had it). You also failed to factor in the weight of the FF camera which is going to be around 500g heavier not to mention the $6k price on the Canon 1D (so my EM1 with 35-100 is going to be a bit lighter in the end). I do not consider the 5D a similar camera to my EM1 because it does not have the FPS or buffer ability of my EM1 (I am an wildlife/sports shooter so the only Canon cameras I would look at to replace my EM1 would be the 1D or 7D and if I ever leave µ4/3 it will be to Nikon which I have never shot but I think Canon sensors are not up to the standards of Nikon. Which the only Nikons I would consider a replacement to the EM1 would be the D5/500).

    Because I shoot action I place a very high priority in staying with the same camera because I can learn that camera and not have to think about where a button is that does X when I need it. I have my EM1 memorized and can do anything I need without ever taking my eye from the viewfinder and my muscle memory is so good now that my fingers just move to where they need to go for what ever it is I need to change (first 6 months with the EM1mk2 is going to kill me and I know I will miss some shots until I get it all sorted). I love using my EM1 because I can go from a larger camera/lens combo (say the 4/3 35-100 ƒ2.0) when I need a good zoom in low light to a smaller setup when I don't.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    Exactly. It is more than ISO performance. I would seriously consider a 1DX/D5, except they are huge, but the D500 would be a real option.
     
  10. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    I want the f2 zooms, and I would use them at events and possibly use the 14-35mm for night street shooting, but I can't currently justify the expense for any of them as I'm not making any real money from photography.
    The events I shoot are just for relatives & friends and their kids; nothing serious (no weddings etc.) but the light is usually terrible and flash is often not allowed.
    Currently I switch between zooms and primes, but I miss a lot of shots, end up at ISO 6400-8000 frequently and still get motion blur, and I'd rather buy fast zooms than a second body.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    It sounds like the 14-35 has a slower aperture mechanism. I say this because when you don't need f/2.0, modern lenses are better options. I find myself burst shooting at higher f numbers with the 40-150 pro with no lag at all. Sure f/2.0 is good to have, but what about when you don't need that?
     
  12. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    I'd live with the slower burst but the key limitation was shutter speed.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  13. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    The 4/3 lenses do have a bit slower aperture mechanism then the newer µ4/3 lenses. Wide open in SAF they will shoot at the full 10/11fps, stopped down or in CAF they shoot at about 7.5fps. For this reason I tend to set my camera to low sequential drive mode and everything works just fine. At times I miss the full fps the camera is capable of, but if you anticipate the action it is usually not a problem and the amazing IQ of the SHG lenses more then makes up for slight difference in fps. If I don't need the ƒ2.0? Either live with 3fps less or switch lenses, not a big deal really because going in I know the shooting conditions and pick the lens/es that I will need or want to use.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Rob
    I was surprised how significant a difference f2 made when I got the 150,f2 to shoot my daughters ballet performances. Really made adequate shutter speeds at reasonable ISO possible.

    The 35-100, f2 makes me hesitate due to the focusing noise. I'm at a performance, with others nearby. I could use an option for wider shots, but I'm thinking that the 75, 1.8 is an option. Fixed FL will miss a shot I want sometimes, but it might be a good compromise.

    So, that was my 35-100,f2 thought.. the 75, 1.8 may be a good compromise. I haven't decided which way to go yet.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    I use the 50-200 to shoot motorsports, and I don't find the slower aperture mechanism to be a big deal (I'm almost always shooting stopped down, so the burst rate suffers). I'm typically shooting at 5.5 FPS which is perfectly fine for what I shoot, and like Phocal said, if you know where the action is going to take place, you can set it to S-AF and get the full burst rate (although I basically never need/use it).

    I still think not having the SWD focusing mechanism in the 35-100 was a blunder on Olympus' part. I went from the non-SWD to the SWD version of the 50-200, and really appreciate it for its quieter focusing as well as the better MF tactility.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Yeah, I thought that too. Just using the 42.5 f/1.7 and 75 f/1.8. Both lenses will definitely focus faster on a m43 body, and will be dead silent as well.

    Having owned a non-SWD 4/3 lens (50-200), I can say that the focusing was loud on it. Not an issue for when I'm at a race-track shooting motorsports, but if you're in an auditorium or wedding, it would definitely be an annoyance for sure.

    The SWD system fixed all of that, as the focusing is super quiet (not as quiet as Olympus' MSC system in m43 lenses, but still very quiet). That's why it's kind of a bummer that they didn't remake the 35-100 with an SWD motor in it like they did the 50-200.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    Most of the lenses for the 4/3 system were made prior to the development of the SWD technology. They started on a path to upgrade the HG and SHG lenses to SWD but did not finish before moving to the µ4/3 lenses. That is why there are a few lenses that have both non-SWD and SWD versions. I would have loved if they had gotten around to a 150/2 with SWD. I know even if they make a Pro 150 prime it will probably not be ƒ2.0 and will not have the IQ of the SHG stuff. Looking at photos from the Pro lenses I put them at about the HG level of IQ, maybe for a few like the 300 a bit above. The big difference is the SHG stuff was almost all optically corrected (is why they are so big and heavy) compared to a lot of software correction in the Pro lenses of today. You seem to be able to push the SHG lenses in post much farther because of the optical correction over software correction. Maybe I got lucky and got an exceptional copy of the 50-200 SWD but I feel it has better IQ then the 40-150 Pro and is why I have not bothered to get one.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Rob
    I have the 50-200 swd and it's quiet. I also have the 50,2 which is not swd and its noisy. I assume the 35/100 is just as noisy maybe more so. It would be useful though.

    Would t it be nice to have native f2 zooms.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. eteless

    eteless Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 20, 2014
    IIRC the 35-100mm used a design where the focusing ring couldn't be physically attached to the focusing motor (as the zoom ring would be on the front, and the focus on the rear near the camera) so they used the older design with focus by wire.
    People love to complain about how noisy it is without ever having owned or seen one themselves, one noise to contrast with it is the slap of the mirror on a DSLR which is generally louder than it. It's quieter than Canons 50mm f1.4 as an example (a lens I *have* had problems with).

    I personally never had a problem with the focusing speed or noise, only weight and size. The weight was ultimately what led me to sell it and buy a Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 (USD$230) to use on a speedbooster. While it has absolutely no chance of competing IQ wise it is significantly smaller and lighter.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    I agree but we will probably never see native µ4/3 ƒ2 zooms