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!

75mm f1.8 vs 35-100mm f2.8?

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by vinay, Dec 3, 2012.

  1. vinay

    vinay Mu-43 Regular

    137
    Mar 18, 2012
    Toronto
    The 75mm looks to make a great portrait lens, but the 35-100mm looks like it would be way more versatile

    Also, random thought: how much difference is DoF of 75mm/f1.8 vs 100mm/f2.8 given added distance for similar end result?
     
  2. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    I have both.
     
  3. Chrisnmn

    Chrisnmn Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 26, 2012
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Chris
    none?.
     
  4. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Both focused at 10'
    75/1.8 = 3.4"
    100/2.8 = 3.0"

    I don't know how much further back you would have to stand with the 100, but at 15', the DOF goes up to 6.8"
     
  5. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    I am for 35-100/2.8 being my telephoto zoom and portrait lens, though I'm not sure if it'll match 75/1.8 in DoF.

    I think I calculated that it'll be similar around 95mm, though looking at Rger Cicala's MFT charts, that's where the 35-100 sharpness begins to fall off at f/2.8.

    Can't beat the versatility though. It comes down to your preference for primes or zooms, a question that's been asked a gazillion times since zooms came to be.

    You can't deny the 35-100/2.8 being something to pack to travel though. You simply can't say the same for any of the 70-200/2.8s. There have been times I hear people say that they wish they had their 70-200 on a trip, but nobody ever takes it because it weighs 1.5 kilos.
     
  6. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Being interested in "people shots" and not looking for a generic "telephoto" zoom, I'd rather use the 45mm f/1.8 + 75mm f/1.8 duet for what I shoot. Both being excelent lenses and the 75mm actually being one of the finest of its category in any system, helps a lot in that decision.

    Just to be clear, on the wider end my choice would be reversed; I'd prefer the 12-35 to a combination of, say, 12mm, 17mm, 25mm primes.
     
  7. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    If you shoot with only one body, then typically, a zoom is a better fit. If you shoot with two bodies, then primes work out well.
     
  8. zapatista

    zapatista Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    671
    Mar 19, 2012
    Albuquerque, NM
    Mike Barber
    I'd rather have the 75mm because I don't have to flip as much camera gear to afford it...I don't want to make a living as a photographer. It would be like work or something.
     
  9. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, USA
    I'd rather get the 75/1.8 & 45-175 or 100-300 combo over the 35-100. Either pairing would be cheaper than the 35-100.
     
  10. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    But. Have limited bag space :( 
     
  11. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    Nahh ... I think you'd be better off with the 35-100.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, USA
    The allure of the 35-100 isn't that big for me. I love the FL on full-frame, but without any M43 teleconverters I feel like it's a one trick pony. If Panasonic/Olympus releases a 1.4 TC, I may reconsider.
     
  13. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    I don't know about "one trick", but 35-100 doesn't have enough long end to replace the 45-200 (which I sometimes wish was longer). A teleconverter would take care of that nicely.
     
  14. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    If you really could have only one, clearly the 35-100/2.8. But I have both, and they are a good complement if you have a couple of other high speed primes.
     
  15. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Ad
    Easy decision for me: I have only Panasonic cameras, so I'd go for a lens with image stabilization anyway and 75mm doesn't appeal to me as a focal length, I wouldn't buy it if it had image stabilization.
     
  16. shizlefonizle

    shizlefonizle Mu-43 Veteran

    372
    Apr 21, 2012
    Who wouldn't anyone want both if money was no option?

    I got the 35-100mm for versatility and for using it with sports. If portraits are your thing I would definitely go with the 75mm. Bokeh is not as nice on the 35-100mm compared to the 75mm but most of us probably knew that already.
     
  17. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, USA
    If the rumors are true with an Olympus 40-150 2.8 that would be the lens to get. I think Olympus can make such a lens compact enough for M43. I owned a Tokina 50-135 2.8 DX awhile back and that lens was fairly small. I think Olympus could pull it off. Sometimes I think Panasonic is trying too hard to stick to the established FF/FX focal lengths.
     
  18. sdsyver

    sdsyver Mu-43 Regular

    161
    Mar 14, 2012
    Northern Alberta
    Shawn
    I like the versatility of the 35-100 but I also have the new 17mm pre-ordered and its cost and the cost of the 75mm equals the zoom so I went that way. I'm now covered from 12mm all the way out to 180mm including my legacy glass. As I was taught photography by my grandfather and he had a thing for available light photography I have the same tendencies and am drawn like a moth to the flame to fast primes! That being said I'm sure a couple of fast zooms will eventually make their way into my kit. I really think you would be happy with either choice.
     
  19. arentol

    arentol Mu-43 Veteran

    269
    Jun 29, 2012
    A 75mm f/1.8 has a 2.5 foot horizontal field of view at 10.5 feet from subject. DOF is 0.31 feet, or just under 4".

    A 100mm f/2.8 has a 2.5 foot horizontal field of view at 14 feet. DOF is 0.5 feet, or about 6".

    Not that different, but definitely would be obvious side-by-side, but not so much if the photos were on their own.
     
  20. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    The rumors on the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 turned out to be false. 43Rumors says so anyways.

    The extra reach would be nice though. I would opt for something like that over the 35-100 too.
     
  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.