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!

70-200 f/2.8 Tamron or Sigma instead of MFT LUMIX 35-100 f/2.8

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by shanguli, Jun 5, 2015.

  1. shanguli

    shanguli Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 16, 2014
    I sometimes shoot with a Canon 5D, but the camera I own and use often is a Panasonic GH3. That said I need to get a telephoto to complement my Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 zoom lens and Oly 45mm f/1.8 Prime.

    As far as Telephoto lens goes (i.e Full Frame 70-200mm f/2.8 which is equivalent to MFT LUMIX 35-100 f/2.8), will I be in a disadvantage if I get a full frame lens like the 70-200 f/2.8 Tamron or Sigma to shoot with my GH3, using say a lens adapter (instead of MFT LUMIX 35-100 f/2.8) ?

    Thank you for sharing your experience and insights!
  2. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Really not sure what you are asking here. Using an adapted 70-200 is totally different then using a 35-100 native lens. To start with the adapted lens will be an effective 140-400 and the native lens will be an effective 70-200. So, the focal lengths are completely different. The adapted lens will be manual focus only and depending on adaptor you will have no aperture control or pseudo aperture control. Or you could get one of the metabones adaptors that I believe allow aperture control and exif data but they are kind of expensive and to further complicate matters you can get it with or without the focal reducer.

    So to answer your question, yes .............. no .......... maybe
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. agentlossing

    agentlossing Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jun 26, 2013
    Andrew Lossing
    35-100 =/= 70-200.

    They're different lenses with totally different focal lengths.
  4. davidzvi

    davidzvi Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    If you're asking if you should get the 70-200 to use on your 5D instead of the 35-100 on the GH3 I would ask the question about Depth of Field and maybe low light tracking. The 5D will track better than the GH3 as phase detect AF is still better than and surely better than contrast in a 3 year old GH3. Also while they are both f/2.8 the 5D will give you a shallower DOF.

    But your question about GH3 w/ lens adapter I think is the thing that is confusing.
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2015
  5. Holoholo55

    Holoholo55 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 13, 2014
    Honolulu, HI
    +1 on Phocal's response. It's an apples and oranges situation. The Lumix 35-100 f2.8 is a native MFT lens that has image stabilization and will autofocus quickly and accurate on the GH3. It's also compact and light, which neither of the EF mount 70-200s would be. And, as he says, they'd be equivalent to 140-400 full-frame on your GH3, not 70-200 as you might think. Kipon has a new EF to MFT adaptor coming that promises to enable autofocus and autoexposure, but it's not yet available here and I dunno how much it'll cost. If you're looking for a 70-200 equivalent on your GH3, the Lumix lens is pretty much it. The Olympus 40-150 f2.8 Pro is also an excellent lens, but it doesn't have optical image stabilization because the Olympus OMD bodies have IS built in. (Note: I don't own any of the lenses mentioned, so take my free advice at its worth. :) 

    At any rate, the Lumix 35-100 would be an excellent choice for that field of view range. Panasonic has a new lower cost 35-100 f4-5.6 that's even more compact.
  6. eteless

    eteless Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 20, 2014
    The equivalent to the 33-100mm would be a 50-150mm on a speed booster... which just happens to be exactly what the Olympus 35-100mm f2.0 is (It's the last version of the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 with an integral speed booster group, earlier versions were much smaller and less optically impressive).

    However it's likely the focus will be terrible if it exists at all (Kipon adapter isn't out yet and Metabones hasn't got it).
  7. tkbslc

    tkbslc Super Moderator

    I don't think so, man. Just compare the weights and sizes and you'll quickly see a BIG difference. Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 II lens has a much smaller filter size, is 90mm shorter and weighs less than half of what the 35-100 does.
  8. eteless

    eteless Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 20, 2014
    You're looking at the first version (the II wasn't actually a new lens, it was the same as the first IIRC), the second version was designed to have optical stabilization and was the one I was talking about.


    The design is by no means identical (one element was changed to a doublet rather than ED glass, The OS was removed, and telecompressor on the back was modified) however it was the original basis of the design.
  9. tkbslc

    tkbslc Super Moderator

    Where are you getting this info? Sigma 50-150 OS came out 7 years after the 35-100. Even The first non stabilized 50-150 came out after the 35-100. Sigma didn't even have any OS lenses in 2005 when the 35-100 was released. It seems very implausible that sigma gave Olympus a lens design prior to 2005 and then sat on it for 7 years, while releasing inferior versions of the same lens in that span.
  10. eteless

    eteless Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 20, 2014
    Actually Sigma had patented Vibration reduction lenses starting in roughly 2002, the main problem is while the lens designs existed to make use of optical stabilization Sigma didn't own a VR patent. Not owning a VR patent held Sigma back from releasing lenses for years, they had filed dozens of designs which could incorporate them once they gained access however it took them about 4-5 years before they actually gained said patent.

    Once they realized they didn't have a viable VR system they stopped patenting many designs as they couldn't release them anyway (there's a gap of about 5-6 years where they only patented non VR lens designs thus prolonging the patents once the lenses were ready to be released).

    Firstly, a few lenses with VR showing that they designed many of their OS lenses as far back as 2002 (filing dates are mostly 2002).
    2003-241098 - 80-400 OS (same layout as half a dozen different lenses patented but never released, while filed in 2002 this lens was not released until 2006 - oops).
    2004-061605 - An early 70-300 OS.

    The actual VR system to be incorporated as part of the above designs.
    2003-322889 - Early VR patent (rejected)
    2004-177530 - VR design patent (not used afaik).
    2005-156893 - One of their first workable/used VR patents filed in 2003 and granted in 2005, since void in 2010 (violated a Nikon patent).

    2012-118097 - Sigma 50-150mm lens
    2006-301412 - Olympus 35-100mm lens
    I cannot show that one was based on the other however that is what I've been told by several different people, I can say that they're both fantastic lenses however.
  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.