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

EM-1 & OLY 35-100 f/2

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by masberg24, Oct 6, 2013.

  1. masberg24

    masberg24 Mu-43 Regular

    63
    Mar 20, 2013
    Anybody know or have the OLY 35-100mm; just wanted to get your thoughts on if its really that good of a lens?

    Looking to get the EM-1 and the OLY 35-100

    or

    Does the EM-5 w/ OLY 35-100 work well?

    Need help!
    heard the OLY 35-100 is the best zoom for m4/3

    Thanks guys!
     
  2. gotak

    gotak Mu-43 Regular

    185
    Nov 28, 2012
    Toronto
    I don't have that lens. But I do have the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS Mk2. Which I am going to sell tomorrow to fund some m4/3 stuff.

    So why am i posting?

    Well why am I selling the 70-200? I never use it. It just sits and sits and sits.

    You really need to ask if you will use a lens like that. Long zooms in that range are narrow application lens. Only in certain circumstances do they fully make sense.
     
  3. masberg24

    masberg24 Mu-43 Regular

    63
    Mar 20, 2013
    Yeah I had the 70-200 II; it was a stunning lens but I def agree with it's weight and image it is a little daunting. Need something like that for concerts, venues, etc.

    Just wanted to know with the em-1 if the tracking is good (real world) as people say, if it is the 35-100 should similar to the 70-200 II.

    Just want more people to chime in
    Thanks!


    Sent from my iPhone using Mu-43 mobile app
     
  4. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    Patrick
    This might be slightly off topic, but do you realize the ZD 35-100/2.0 weighs 1.65 kg, which is heavier than the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VRII, which weights 1.53 kg? :eek:

    I am sure the ZD 35-100/2.0 is a superb lens, but I personally would not lug that monster around at concerts. An E-M5 + Panasonic 35-100/2.8 & the 100-300 works fine for me for that purpose. With the bright stage lighting, I find F/2.8 to be fast enough. Of course, YMMV...
     
  5. jeffg53

    jeffg53 Mu-43 Veteran

    270
    Aug 22, 2012
    Sydney, Australia
    Jeff Grant
    As the 35-100 is a SHG lens, I think that it can be assumed to be excellent. My understanding is that the SHG Oly lenses are as good as or better than the Nikon or Canon equivalents. I have the 14-35 and it is superb, albeit heavy, but my use is always on a tripod so it's not a big deal.
     
  6. Clint

    Clint Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 22, 2013
    San Diego area, CA
    Clint
    The Olympus lens is a little shorter but with a slightly larger diameter at the large end and weighs a little more than the Nikon 70-200mm lenses. Until it is replaced with a pro style lens for m4/3s, it is the best lens of this nature available for 4/3 or m4/3s - and even then there will probably be many discussions as to the worthiness of the replacement.

    The Olympus is the only zoom in its range with a f/2.0 aperture and is simply a phenomenal lens.
     
  7. pix530

    pix530 Mu-43 Regular

    56
    Oct 2, 2013
    BC/WA
    best advantage of micro 4/3 imho is its weight and size.
    there is no zoom on this planet that can beat 70-200/2.8 IS II, imho. And yes you have to pay for it - money and size.

    There is no point to take anything around same size and esp put this on smaller body.

    I wait for my new 35-100 Panasonic. Should be small nice tool.
     
  8. napilopez

    napilopez Contributing Editor

    826
    Feb 21, 2012
    NYC Area
    Napier Lopez
    I say this time and time again, and of course your opinion is totally fair, but I don't think the advantage of M4/3 is in its size, but rather in its variability. You can make it small if you want. But you don't have to. Of course, DSLRs also have smaller bodies, with the Canon SL1 doing a particuarly impressive job, but these smallest and low end bodies still occupy more volume than most of the largest and most featured M4/3 cams.

    I typically use my E-M5 with my 25mm and 45mm lenses, which makes for a kit. But what's even more wonderful for me is that I know I can attach something much larger and better if I want to occasionally. This is particularly important for me as a working event photographer who often has to rent gear. My personal kit is on the smaller side, but if I'm on the job, I can rent larger lenses just as easily, and still remain within the boundaries of an FF kit.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  9. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    If your kit is currently an O-MD, it doesn't matter how good other brand lenses are. The Oly lens will make your mu43 system bigger, but that's easier than buying a Canon body as well. Like Napier, I don't believe in the all or nothing theory. I'm happy to have a larger system sometimes, especially if I'm out primarily to so some photography and need the reach. Street shooting or Disneyworld, not so much.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    +2 on the above comments. I'm not sure the 35-100/2.0 is an ideal lens for anything, but it's the versatility that keeps drawing me back to MFT. Size is certainly an important part of the appeal for me, particularly for travel, but I'm willing to get the 'bulky' lenses if they delivery the quality (e.g. the 12-35). I'll be getting an E-M1 w/ 12-40 (probably, anyway) and likely will replace the sadly departed 100-300 with a bigger, heavier, more limited range 50-200 and a tele extender. Why? Because I know 400mm FF equivalent FOV is usually enough for me, and F3.5 and better sharpness beat a few extra mm. And I'm willing to pay the weight penalty for flexibility.

    It's still going to pack smaller than my FF Canon gear.
     
  11. masberg24

    masberg24 Mu-43 Regular

    63
    Mar 20, 2013
    Thanks ya'll! you've been a tremendous help. I'm going to consider the 35-100! Where are all the people that own that lens? Seems like no one has it or used to own it :(
    Waiting and hoping on the 42.5!

    I don't mind the weight, because it'll always be lighter than my setup with canon. This will be the only hefty lens anyways; I have primes for wide and mid range. I DO mind the quality of the image! I want sharpness and bokeh :)


    Sent from my iPhone using Mu-43 mobile app
     
  12. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Technically yes, but practically you'll be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

    6D + 70-200/2.8II IS - 770 + 1490 = 2260g
    E-M1 + 35-100/2 - 515 + 1650 = 2165g

    Honestly, the only reasons I could see for going with the lens is if you found one at a fire-sale price or you're completely committed to shooting only one system and that system is m4/3.
     
  13. masberg24

    masberg24 Mu-43 Regular

    63
    Mar 20, 2013
    Em-1

    Thanks for the 'technical' information
    However what you forget is with a FF you also have different lenses
    Like I stated above I'll be carrying a m43 lenses which are far lighter than the FF counterparts. So yes you're correct if I just have a 70-200 II lens, which I have before but m43 is far lighter.
    Thanks
     
  14. AnS

    AnS Mu-43 Regular

    94
    May 31, 2012
    Moscow, Russia
    masberg24

    RAW E-M1 + ZD35-100/2 + ZD14-35/2
    http://yadi.sk/d/qAz5VzKYASPzS
    http://yadi.sk/d/9-Tpo1SjATfPL

    A few words of the author pictures:
    "- Change the speed on my AF lenses in comparison with the E-5 honestly did not notice, but this figure critical to my conditions has never been, maybe someone will seem different."

    I apologize for Google translation.