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!

35-100mm or 45mm+75mm (or 40-150)

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by abhisheks77, Oct 11, 2014.

  1. abhisheks77

    abhisheks77 Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 26, 2013

    Both sets will have their own strength and cons. 35-100mm is versatile while prime lenses are sharp. I usually do not go for photography in less light. So better light thing is not decision factor for me. I have reached to a level, where I can say 'I am zoom lover' or 'I am prime lover'. If we talk about a nice bokeh, will 35-100mm fall too behind than other two primes ? I understand that better bokeh effect can be gained by using longer length, if we use that, still prime will simply outperform 35-100 or there will be only marginal difference ?

    If longer length is really a plus, will 40-150 f/2.8 (new Oly) come close to 45mm/75mm ?

    Can owner of 45mm/75mm sell their primes to buy 35-100mm or 40-150mm (f/2.8) ?

    It would be great if somebody is having same picture taken by both lenses at same distance. I just want to see, if that would be distinguishable difference.

    Thanks in advance
  2. silver92b

    silver92b Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 7, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    Depends what your needs are.... 2 primes are nice if you need the faster glass and are prepared to chance lenses whenever is needed, and you can use your feet instead of the zoom ring. Also, they are lighter and more compact.

    The fast zooms are nice if you need versatility and don't want to have to change lenses, and can sacrifice the low light performance. Also the zooms are larger and heavier than the primes. If you have the 12-40 f2.8 and (the not yet released) 40-150 f2.8, you have much, much more facility to change the focal length and versatility to shoot. If you only have the 45mm and the 75mm you are definitely limited as to how close and how far you can shoot. You are not even close to the 12mm to 150mm range that the zooms will give you.

    Anyway, none of this matters much. If you have to have the fast primes, nothing anyone says is going to change your mind. And if you need the flexibility that the zooms provide, you will not even consider the 2 prime option. You have to decide what is important to you.

    Good luck
  3. jeffg53

    jeffg53 Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Aug 22, 2012
    Sydney, Australia
    Jeff Grant
    I have the three lenses. The 35-100 is a superb travel lens. In a recent trip to NZ, it was the lens I used 90% of the time. I love the 45 and 75. They are both excellent and I use them when I have the time to chose the right lens for the situation.
  4. abhisheks77

    abhisheks77 Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 26, 2013
    As of now I have E-M1 and 12-40mm f/2.8 and I liked it very much. Also, I have Oly 75-300mm. Recently I ordered 45mm f/1.8. I am yet to see IQ of 45mm.
    On another side, I am thinking, if I IQ of 45mm is close to 35-100mm, I will sell 45mm and will buy 35-100mm. There will be very less chances for me to use over 100mm, but will use 75-300mm for sometime before deciding..
    40-150mm will be expensive as of now. But if this can be replacement of 45mm, 75-300mm and (willing to buy) 35-100mm, then I can go with that way. 40-150mm is being praised a lot, but it is yet to be in market.
  5. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 30, 2013
    True for the 40-150mm, not true for the 35-100, which is just a tiny bit larger and heavier than the 75mm, and weighs less than the 45+75. Neither of those two options is particularly large or heavy though. On the other hand, the 40-150mm is about 2-2.5x as big and heavy.

    I've owned the 45, 75 and 35-100. The 45 and 75 are fantastic lenses, but I sold both for different reasons. The 45 was replaced by the 42.5/1.2, and the 75 was replaced by the 35-100/2.8. When I want a super high quality prime lens I shoot with the 42.5, so the 75 was redundant, while the 35-100/2.8 provides a a great choice when I care more about the versatility of a zoom. The 45/1.8 and 75/1.8 will deliver better technical results optically speaking, but the 35-100/2.8 is an excellent lens too, I don't think you give up much with the 35-100, but it depends on how you shoot. If you need the best lowlight performance, the primes win, if you need the absolute most control over DOF, the primes win, if you need to print extremely large, the primes win. However, if you need a high quality, weather sealed zoom lens with super fast af in a package that is absolutely tiny compared to the same lens range in other systems, while still delivering excellent optical quality, well, thats the 35-100.

    I can't really give specific advice to the OP, other than deciding what is more important to you, absolute image quality or convenience.

    If you're curious about how much you can blur the background with these lenses, check out this:

    Basically, the 35-100/2.8 gives you a similar ability to blur the background as the 45mm when shot at 100mm, and a little less than the 75mm, but its not a huge difference. At the short end its significantly lower though.
  6. Chris5107

    Chris5107 Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jan 28, 2011
    IMO, the 45mm will not get you much over the 40mm you have in the 12-40. The IQ of the 12-40, and the 35-100 are very good and they are relatively fast. Having these lenses, you will not miss the primes.

    For me, I am now travelling with the 12-35mm Panasonic and the 75mm prime. The 75mm is a special lens in the m4/3 lineup and is a nice prime to have.

    Good luck making a decision.
  7. Geoff3DMN

    Geoff3DMN Mu-43 Veteran

    I used my 45mm a lot before I bought a 12-40 f2.8 but I haven't used it at all since then.

    I really should sell it and put the money towards the 40-150 f2.8 or a 75mm prime or a 35-100 f2.8 *decisions* :) 

    My recommendation would be 12-40 and 75 or 12-40 and 40-150 FWIW.
  8. abhisheks77

    abhisheks77 Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 26, 2013
    Thanks all. It was very good insight. Seems like there are so many lovers of this new one :) 
    So 40-150 f2.8 is going to replace your other lenses (prime+zoom) with this range (Even though it is 880 gm vs 35-100 is 360 gm) ?
  9. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 30, 2013
    When it comes down to the 35-100 vs 40-150, I think it really depends on how important that 150mm end is to you. If you do a lot of sports or wildlife shooting, the difference in the long end probably makes a huge difference. If you're using it for more general purpose, I don't know, I bet the 35-100 is long enough.

    For me personaly, 35-100 is a great range for events, portraits and overall general use. When I want a longer lens than that, I want a MUCH longer lens, in which case I use the 75-300mm. Also, the 35-100 plus 75-300 combined weigh less (783g) than the 40-150/2.8. So I personally find it hard to justify the 40-150, but again, if that 150mm reach at 2.8 is a big deal to you, I could see why that lens would make sense.
  10. abhisheks77

    abhisheks77 Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 26, 2013
    Thanks. It makes sense.
  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.