Is panasonics 35-100 all that?

[robbie36]

Cheers for all that info
I think it all stems from shooting primes then going over to zooms and I'm expecting prime quality which I don't think I'm going to get but practice makes perfect.

This last statement concerns me a bit. The 35-100 2.8 is an extremely sharp lens. I am sure it doesnt quite match the 75 1.8 but you are really hard pressed to notice the difference unless with exceptional pixel peeping (I have both).

I also dont think sharpness increases much at all by stopping down (especially with sports photography). This pic for instance is super-sharp....

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Triggertrevor]

If one of your main uses for it is shooting soccer, I think going to a Canon or Nikon DSLR with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens would suit you much better than any mirrorless camera. Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 II is in fact sharper than many primes in that same range. Yes, it will be bigger and heavier than a M 4/3 system, but it will be much better for shooting sports, or basically anything else where the subject is moving at a decent pace. I used to shoot sports for the university newspaper with Nikon 70-200 and 300mm f/2.8 on D2 and D3 bodies, and the difference was night and day compared to any Micro 4/3 camera. Micro 4/3 is great for a lot of things, but I just don't think sports or fast action is one of them.

The other issue with using M4/3 to shoot sports is that it is difficult to blur out backgrounds, so often times other players and distracting elements are left in the picture. The Panasonic 35-100 may be a f/2.8 lens in terms of light gathering ability, but in terms of depth of field it's only equivalent to f/5.6 on a full-frame DSLR, which is definitely a big difference from a f/2.8 lens on a full-frame camera.

Thanks again for all of that info,this is the kind of feedback I'm after.

I love to shoot really anything that takes my fancy, I'm pretty new to the game so still tring to find what floats my boat.
My son plays football every weekend so I will be shooting that from now on.
Can't really afford to buy a dslr and keep my m43 gear which I'd love to do but don't think my pockets are deep enough.
If I did go for a dslr I wouldn't be full frame so would that make a lot of difference in terms of bokeh.

Thanks kev.

 

[Adubo]

Thanks again for all of that info,this is the kind of feedback I'm after.

I love to shoot really anything that takes my fancy, I'm pretty new to the game so still tring to find what floats my boat.
My son plays football every weekend so I will be shooting that from now on.
Can't really afford to buy a dslr and keep my m43 gear which I'd love to do but don't think my pockets are deep enough.
If I did go for a dslr I wouldn't be full frame so would that make a lot of difference in terms of bokeh.

Thanks kev.

it will all come down to technique, IMO. you can view my USA gallery on my website and take a peak on a few shots. most of those were shot with a 35-100, 100-300 and 7-14. i shot surfing (first time i did that sport, gave me wonderful results, more keepers than posted online-didnt want to flood the gallery)


35-100 100-300 e-m1 or gh3, will be good enough. a ton of speed on both bodies and a ton of sharpness on both lenses (and AF speed on the 100-300 isnt a slacker too)

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

What do you mean?

The main problem I have is nailing the focus on the faces when shooting multiple people playing football, they seem to be in focus but very soft in detail, maybe I should up my appeture rather than should say stops past wide open.

Are you saying you're stopping down to F5.6 or something? For any reason?

 

[Triggertrevor]

What do you mean?

Are you saying you're stopping down to F5.6 or something? For any reason?

Yeah sorry i ment stopping down,say for still shots like taking photos of the kids football team stood together in the nets before the game.

cheers Kev

 

[Triggertrevor]

it will all come down to technique, IMO. you can view my USA gallery on my website and take a peak on a few shots. most of those were shot with a 35-100, 100-300 and 7-14. i shot surfing (first time i did that sport, gave me wonderful results, more keepers than posted online-didnt want to flood the gallery)


35-100 100-300 e-m1 or gh3, will be good enough. a ton of speed on both bodies and a ton of sharpness on both lenses (and AF speed on the 100-300 isnt a slacker too)

Thanks for your input. whats your website address so i can take a look at your usa gallery.

cheers Kev

 

[uscrx]

I sold Canon 70-200mm f2.8IS as I trimmed down my DSLR inventory.

Yet, the lens wasn't optimal for sports as it didn't give me enough focal length.

So I used 300mm f2.8 and 100-400mm with better results. But I always enjoyed the flexibility of a zoom.

That being said, 35-100mm f2.8 gives me what 70-200mm used to give me in shot selection and quality. And that was my expectation. In other words, I love the lens.

But for sports, I still use DSLR, 1DMKIII with Sigma 120-300mm 2.8.

I don't want to turn this thread into primes vs. zoom. More often than not, prime can provide better quality photos. But the limited focal length must be overcome by zooming with your legs.

Unfortunately, m43 today doesn't provide super telephoto primes nor zooms. And no teleconverters.

M43 is here to stay for my photography needs. But I'm also keeping DSLR for other photography needs.

 

[masberg24]

Get the oly 35-100 f/2- that will def rival canon of Nikki's 70-200 for sure!
It's a bit big and expensive but it will be the best out there



Sent from my iPhone using Mu-43 mobile app

 

[hookgrip]

Get the oly 35-100 f/2- that will def rival canon of Nikki's 70-200 for sure!
It's a bit big and expensive but it will be the best out there



Sent from my iPhone using Mu-43 mobile app

Not really. That lens has all 3 strikes going against it:

-Costs more than either the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II or Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 (strike 1)

-Weighs more than either of the full-frame f/2.8 zooms (strike 2)

-AF speed is slow even on Olympus DSLRs since the Olympus 35-100 lacks an ultrasonic motor. On MFT it will be even slower. The Canikon 70-200s are lightning-fast in terms of AF. (strike 3)

Triple whammy...and if you want to add a 4th, it's only equilvalent to a f/4 lens on FF for DOF purposes.

 

[Triggertrevor]

Hi all i've just put a couple of pictures in my gallery but i'm unsure how to get them into this thread.

can someone advise please.

cheers Kev

 

[pix530]

oly 35-100 f/2-

- For me its NO way to go...

If I want best speed and focus I take FF + 70-200/2.8
Heavy but predictable.

For light setup I wait for my small and light Panasonic 35-100 and hope I will be able to shoot with it.
We will see.

 

[Triggertrevor]

Hi all i've hopefully put some pics up that i've took with my Pan G5 and my pan 34-100mm telephoto lens and would appreciate some feedback on them because as you may know I've been having problems trying to find the right focus options on the camera.
I'm getting better but not yet nailed it so feedback would be great
cheers Kev

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[klee]

looks pretty fantastic to me! Great shooting! Are all those at F2.8?

 

[Triggertrevor]

looks pretty fantastic to me! Great shooting! Are all those at F2.8?

Sorry i put the image info on the pics in my gallery but it doesn't show when I've posted the pics so here goes.

pic1 iso 160 42mm f3.2 1/1000 sec
pic2 iso 160 100mm f4 1/500 sec
pic3 iso 160 100mm f4 1/320 sec
pic4 iso 160 35mm f6.3 1/1000 sec

i'll try and find a few at 2.8

cheers Kev

 

[Triggertrevor]

all these shoots are shot at 2.8

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

cheers Kev

 

[klee]

even at 100mm things look pretty darn sharp. I'd say the lens is a keeper.

 

[Triggertrevor]

O I'm keeping it Klee I just thought some of my shots would look better seen as its the flagship lens but I think it to do with me regrading my focus and getting used to a telephoto zoom as all my other lenes are primes.

Thanks for the compliments.

Cheers kev

 

[Armanius]

Most photos seem to be in focus. And the detail rendered (at least as seen in web sized images on my LCD) look pretty good.

 

[Triggertrevor]

Armanius thanks for that.

I wasn't sure wether I made the right choice as I nearly sold up the m43 gear and bought a Nikon 7100 with a 70-200 2.8 I hope I've made the right decision.
I also could do with a bit more range so wondered how good the 100-300 is as with the 70-200 on the Nikon I'd be looking at 300mm which would a better range.

Cheers kev

 

[Armanius]

You are welcome Kev.

Unfortunately, contrast detection AF hasn't quite caught up with phase detection AF when it comes to continuous AF. I've never used a D7100 before, but if I recall correctly, it uses the same AF system as the D300s, which is pretty darn good.

Maybe combining the 35-100 with the upcoming EM1's hybrid AF will give you even better results.

I briefly had the Nikon V1, and its hybrid AF was definitely better for CAF purposes than my EM5.