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

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

    668
    Mar 19, 2012
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    Mike
    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, CA
    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, CA
    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, CA
    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.