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

Oly 14-150 II and Pana 35-100 "compared"

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by aross007, Mar 31, 2015.

  1. aross007

    aross007 New to Mu-43

    4
    Nov 29, 2013
    Compared is in quotes, because of course they are different beasts, but.... I moved from Canon to mu43 because I am reluctantly admitting to senior citizen status, and while I still want to go and see almost everything I no longer want to carry all that weight. I have EM-1 and EM-5, 12-40pro and SWC50-200 lens among others. I was lusting for the oly 40-150, but it is as big as the 50-200, so the Pana 35-100 looks good, but then I read about the oly 14-150 II, which is even lighter but "not as sharp." So my question to self is "Is it sharp enough?" "Can I avoid GAS and learn to be happy?"

    I rented both from LensRentals.com (great people to deal with) and had a chance to shoot with them today at Point Lobos. Thought others might be interested in samples. Here are two shots, both lens at f5, 55mm. I've processed both of them in lightroom, but with only the default sharpening. 2 and 4 are crops from the corners of 1 and 3. On my screen and on a 10x13 print, I can't see any differences. In the crop, you can of course. I've ordered the 14-150, and will consider whether or not to buy another after I use it awhile.

    Alan
    PtLobos-1.jpg PtLobos-2.jpg PtLobos-3.jpg PtLobos-4.jpg
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. Paul80

    Paul80 Mu-43 Veteran

    254
    Jul 6, 2014
    Hi

    The top two look to be much sharper to me, which lens did you use for the top two. Hope it was the 14-150 now you have ordered it.

    Can I ask why you also didn't consider the Panasonic 14-150 as well.
     
  3. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Agreed, the first (and second) image is much sharper than the bottom two. I'm guessing those were the ones shot with the 35-100?

    And as for the 40-150 PRO, did the size ever deter you from bringing the 50-200 anywhere? The nice thing about the 40-150 is that it doesn't trombone while zooming, so the length is fixed which is a big advantage IMO. Also, why get a superzoom if you already have 12-40 covered with the Olympus PRO lens? Why not get something like the 45-175 PZ from Panasonic? I have it, and it's a great little compact telezoom. It's no slower than the 14-150 II, gives you an extra 25mm of reach, doesn't trombone while zooming, and has Panasonic's Nano Crystal Coating (I know it's said the 14-150 II has improved coatings, but is it Olympus' ZERO coating, or something different)?

    At the end of the day, the most important thing is that you're happy with the gear you have, so if this switch makes it so that you get out there more often, then mission accomplished.
     
  4. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    call me Arg
    Which Lumix 35-100? :hmmm:
     
  5. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Considering the OP mentioned his interest in the 40-150 PRO, as well as already owning the 12-40 PRO, I'd say it's pretty safe to assume the 35-100 in question is the f/2.8 version.

    I don't know many people who cross shop an 80-300mm f/2.8 lens that costs $1500 with a 70-200mm f/4-5.6 lens that costs $400.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  6. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Rob
    FWIW, I agree with others in that the top two look sharper and color seems better to my eye, especially in #1.

    Having said that, one thing I've learned is that the Indian is way more important than the arrow. Just like my golf swing. [emoji4]
     
  7. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    call me Arg
    Don't know why you say that, he's cross shopping a 28-300 f/4-5.6 and a 70-200 already. Why shouldn't it be the f/4-5.6 version?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Indeed, I was actually assuming that he was talking about the Mini-Me version of the 35-100mm as an occasional "throw in the bag and forget about it" telephoto. At only 135g, you might not even know it's still there...
     
  9. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Oh, I don't know. Maybe because the 35-100 f/2.8 and 14-150 II are of a similar size, similar weight, and share the same filter size?

    But I guess we'll have to wait for the OP to chime back in and let us know which 35-100 he was talking about ;)
     
  10. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    I agree that it could be either, but I also made the assumption that it was the 35-100 f/2.8 based on the 40-150 f/2.8 and 50-200 SWC.
     
  11. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Probably a more sensible assumption, in retrospect. TBD!
     
  12. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    The fact that he describes the 14-150 II as "even lighter" means it cannot be the 35-100 f4-5.6.
     
  13. aross007

    aross007 New to Mu-43

    4
    Nov 29, 2013
    And the answer is..... the first two are the Pana 35-100 2.8.

    I'm doing this effort because when I'm hiking, I often don't bring the SWC 50-200, instead the 12-40 2.8 and the 75 1.8 and hope that the 75 is long enough for anything I might find. So I'm looking for a light weight replacement for the 50-200. We are planning a river cruise in Europe in November - It would be nice if I could take only the 14-150 and perhaps a fast prime on that trip.

    I put the "compare" in quotes knowing that I would find the 35-100 to be better, but wondering if it would be so much better that I couldn't accept the 14-150 quality. Yesterday the answer was no, today I'm having buyer's remorse. When I look at #3 in isolation, it looks fine - as soon as I compare the two, I see the difference, and I will always know that it is there. poor pitiful me:<(

    I didn't include the Pana 14-150, because......I didn't think of it.
     
  14. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    I don't know how much of an improvement the 14-140 II would have given you over the lens you have now.

    I had the 14-140 II for a while just from a pure convenience standpoint (came from a 14-42 II & 45-150), but eventually "upgraded" to the 12-35 and 35-100 and don't regret it for a second. Yes, the 35-100 can be a bit short at times, but that's why I bought the 45-175 PZ. It's small and weighs nothing, so it's not a big deal to throw it in bag when I think the 35-100 will be too limited.