Review Not a test at all, just a first impression: Lumix 35-100 f/4-5.6: shockingly sharp for what it is.

balazs

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
44
Location
SF Bay Area, CA
Real Name
Balazs
For those of you looking for a lightweight kit, you might want to consider this little gem very seriously. Less than 5 ounces (135g) and I believe it is going to be the perfect companion to the soon-to-arrive O8-25 f4 PRO. (I think I can get by without the 25-35mm range.) The cons: no weatherproofing, mostly plastic build and it is a slow lens.

I bought a used copy of this lens for less than $200 and it arrived today. I quickly compared it to my 12-100 f4 PRO, which I love, both at 35mm and 100mm, at f/7.1 The pictures are practically indistinguishable. When on hikes, I am guessing that 90% of my shots are going to be taken with the 8-25, but still want to carry a lightweight tele for those occasional tighter shots - this is perfect for that. Pictures:

_6231518-ORF_DxO_DeepPRIME.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

_6231520-ORF_DxO_DeepPRIME.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Can you guess which one was taken with which lens?

OK, here are some 1600x1600 100% crops of the above pictures:

crop-lumix.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



crop-mzuiko.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



I know, anything can be sharp if stepped down enough, but I am still glad that this lens is going to serve the need I picked it up for. :)
 

billca

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Nov 5, 2018
Messages
234
Nutrition facts look sharper on the bottom picture. Inspection logo looks sharper on the top picture. I'd guess the bottom was focused slightly farther back than the top.
Don't know which is which though.
 
Last edited:

Vermont3133

A New Lens Will Fix It!
Joined
May 11, 2018
Messages
288
Location
Melbourne Aus
It's a very nice little lens.
And *little* is the operative word.
The size comparisons with other similar equivalent focal lengths is astonishing.
I had one and liked it a lot but I found the focal range a bit limiting.
The need to extend the lens to operate annoyed me somewhat [actually...a lot!]

Screenshot 2021-03-18 195926.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

billca

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Nov 5, 2018
Messages
234
It's a very nice little lens.
And *little* is the operative word.
The size comparisons with other similar equivalent focal lengths is astonishing.
I had one and liked it a lot but I found the focal range a bit limiting.
The need to extend the lens to operate annoyed me somewhat [actually...a lot!]

View attachment 894741 Agree, still have mine. Extending doesn't bother me but accidentally closing it while zooming does .
Agree, still have mine. Extending it doesn't bother me but accidentally closing it while zooming does .
 

balazs

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
44
Location
SF Bay Area, CA
Real Name
Balazs
Nutrition facts look sharper on the bottom picture. Inspection logo looks sharper on the top picture. I'd guess the bottom was focused slightly farther back than the top.
Don't know which is which though.
I am sure I have not nailed identical focus distance, but just for the record, according to dofsimulator.net, at this aperture, focal length and distance, the "acceptable sharpness" extends more than 10" both in front of and behind the focal point. The distance differences on that box from the sensor are less than an inch.

First one is the Panasonic, second the Olympus.
 

balazs

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
44
Location
SF Bay Area, CA
Real Name
Balazs
Agree, still have mine. Extending it doesn't bother me but accidentally closing it while zooming does .
I figured if I want to get used to this extending operation for the 8-25, I can do the same for my pocket-tele too. Now I just wish they turned the same direction... which of course they do not.
 

billca

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Nov 5, 2018
Messages
234
. Now I just wish they turned the same direction... which of course they do not.
Yeah, I use the Oly 12-40 80% of the time . The reason I close the Panasonic when zooming from 35. A small price to pay for a 35-100 lens that small.I have no intention of replacing it any time soon.
 

Macroramphosis

Jack of Spades and an unfeasibly large wheelbarrow
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
2,046
Location
Charente Maritime, western France
Real Name
Roddy
I don't have the 35-100, but love my P45-175, which is of the same genre (but zooms internally). All I can add is that for the money, it is incredible how good these small modern lenses are when compared against their consumer-orientated ancestors from the 70's, 80's and 90's, both pre-digital and during the introduction of the digital era. Sure, some of their effectiveness is due to modern sensors, but advances in lens technology make modern glass astonishingly capable.
 

John M Flores

Super Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
3,317
Location
NJ
Yeah, the 35-100 Vario is a little gem that I often bring on trips instead of the larger 35-100 F2.8, particularly when I have limited luggage space.

The Vario always delivers the goods.

44714630292_3683ce4442_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, Montana
by John Flores, on Flickr

43856631835_6df1986c47_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Chief Joseph Scenic Byway
by John Flores, on Flickr

29836109847_35f0fccc53_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Cameron at Beartooth Pass, Montana
by John Flores, on Flickr

42954815680_8f415f2ec5_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Beartooth Pass, Montana on a 2018 Honda Goldwing
by John Flores, on Flickr

48932169033_27c508535e_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Cameron rides into the night.
by John Flores, on Flickr
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2017
Messages
1,168
Location
Thessaly, Greece
I figured if I want to get used to this extending operation for the 8-25, I can do the same for my pocket-tele too. Now I just wish they turned the same direction... which of course they do not.
oh why should they? Like, are they in the same system or so? o_O

It looks like the Oly representative and the Pany representative agreed on exactly the same direction for their zoom lenses extension rings but did not notice they were sitting on the opposite sides of the m43 standards committee table facing each other…
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,893
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
Does anyone have something to say about the Olympus 40-150 f4-5.6 ("plastic fantastic") vs this 35-100? I have the 40-150 and like it a lot (with not too many expectations about amazing IQ!), but have always been intrigued by the 35-100.

Edit: I did a little homework at Camerasizes (so useful!!) and 3 lenses come out to be just what you'd expect, size-wise (mounted on E-M5.3):

o40-150_vs_p35-100_vs_o75-300.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I think that what has always stopped me with the 35-100 vs the 40-150 is that you seem to get a lot more bang-for-the-size with the 40-150. But if the IQ with the 35-100 is significantly better, I might change my tune. Anyone have both?
 
Last edited:

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,680
according to dofsimulator.net, at this aperture, focal length and distance, the "acceptable sharpness" extends more than 10" both in front of and behind the focal point
As something of an aside, the 1/1500 frame dofsimulator.net uses for the circle of confusion is a film-era rule of thumb, making it a generous choice. For 20 MP μ43 the resulting 14.5 μm CoC is 4.3 pixels across, rather larger than efficient sensor utilization criteria in the range of 1-2 pixel diagonals (1.4-2.8 pixel widths) which produce 8-16 cm depths of field in the circumstances described (I suspect a factor of two error in the 51 cm mentioned but the EXIF's stripped).

Judging by the uploaded file names, there's perhaps also some influence from DeepPRIME. If so, that should probably be disclosed as it likely acts to mask differences between the lenses. I wouldn't say there's anything particularly remarkable about low cost zooms approaching or exceeding MTF of higher cost zooms, though, as that's been increasingly common for some years. Even when the higher cost zoom has range comparable to the lower cost one.

The main optical limitation I see with the 35-100 f/4-5.6 is a propensity to veiling glare but it doesn't look like there's enough contrast in the test composition for that to be an issue in this case.

Does anyone have something to say about the Olympus 40-150 f4-5.6 ("plastic fantastic") vs this 35-100? I have the 40-150 and like it a lot (with not too many expectations about amazing IQ!), but have always been intrigued by the 35-100.
I thought about both of these as well as the 45-150. Ended up with the 45-175, though, by similar thinking about return on size and weight and I was able to get a reasonable price on the 45-175. Due to Panasonic's kit bundling last year and people selling it off, the 45-200's been difficult to exceed for cost effectiveness. While it's bigger and heavier I tend to prefer it to the 45-175 for special purpose reasons related to photomacrographic autofocus bracketing with it as a rear lens.
 
Last edited:
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom