1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Oly 35-100mm f2 4/3 or oly 40-150mm f2.8 m4/3

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by Digital noob, Jan 8, 2018.

  1. Digital noob

    Digital noob Mu-43 Rookie

    10
    Jan 1, 2018
    I am sure this has been discussed before however with both lens prices being about the same on eBay and other sites, which one would you go with? I am using an e-m1 and mostly shooting equine sports and occasionally portrait again mostly with horses , any suggestions would be greatly appreciated as I cannot currently afford both it is a one or the other type of deal.

    Thank you
    David
     
  2. Christop82

    Christop82 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    701
    Sep 10, 2016
    I think it depends on how much reach you need. If you need 150mm then that's it. If 100mm will do, I would buy the Panasonic 35-100 2.8. I can't say I would recommend the 4/3 lens, but I'm sure it's excellent and huge.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. Digital noob

    Digital noob Mu-43 Rookie

    10
    Jan 1, 2018
    I was considering the pan 35-100 but I figured if I needed that extra reach with the only I could use the teleconverter
     
  4. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    I think the better comparison and consideration would be the Oly 50-200 SWD and MMF3 versus the Oly 45-150/2.8 PRO.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, USA
    I wouldn't mind the 35-100mm f/2. I find I prefer the fast glass on M43!
     
  6. Digital noob

    Digital noob Mu-43 Rookie

    10
    Jan 1, 2018
    I wasn't really comparing as much as trying to decide which to buy, I like the idea of the faster glass but just was hoping to get some feedback as to which might work better for what I'm looking to do with it
     
  7. Holoholo55

    Holoholo55 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 13, 2014
    Honolulu, HI
    Walter
    Seems to me that the 40-150 Pro may give you more reach at the track or field, depending on where you're shooting from. Plus, it'll focus quickly to get action shots. The 35-100 won't be too slow on the EM1, but I have no personal experience with it. I have a 50-200 SWD, which is much less expensive used.
     
  8. Digital noob

    Digital noob Mu-43 Rookie

    10
    Jan 1, 2018
    Reach isn't really an issue, I'm never really far from the action , just a decision on iq I suppose , I've heard the 4/3 lenses have superior glass but that's coming from people who are vested in saying so, so there's that.
     
  9. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    If reach isn't an issue, then there is something to be said for the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 in native mount. I got one for a great price and find that it is a great performer and much smaller than the Oly 40-150/2.8
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. Clint

    Clint Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Apr 22, 2013
    San Diego area, CA
    Clint
    At nearly 3.75 lbs - you'll know you have been shooting with it after a few hours.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Digital noob

    Digital noob Mu-43 Rookie

    10
    Jan 1, 2018
    Yea, I'm not too concerned with the size , i was using an adapted Nikon 80-200 2.8 prior which was pretty large also, so I guess what I'd really like to know is
    1)is there a real noticeable difference between the 35-100mm and the 40-150mm in sharpness?
    2)I know af would be faster in the 40-150mm but is it so much faster that I would feel the 35-100mm is unusable?
    3)does one have better bokeh than the other?
    4)I am favoring the 4/3 glass mostly because I've read and heard of its glass superiority, is this still the case or is that only because at the time there were no other real competition?
    5)another reason I am favoring the 4/3 lens is because I already have an ec-14 tc, so would it be worth switching to the mc-14?
    6)I have not considered too seriously (yet) the Panasonic 35-100 because as stated earlier I have the ec-14 tc, so again, is it worth switching?
    7) are neither worth the money because iq just is not that much better and I'd be better off sticking with a 50-200 swd as one poster eluded to earlier?
     
  12. Clint

    Clint Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Apr 22, 2013
    San Diego area, CA
    Clint
    Add about two pounds to that lens and now you have the 35-100mm.

    1. The real benefit of the 35-100 is the f/2.0 which has made the lens very usable for some photogs I know that shoot rodeo, horse shows, and the like.
    2. No, but you might have to adapt to how the lens focuses. I have not used it in a long time but it seems as if the 35-100 was slightly slower than the 50-200.
    3. Yes, the 35-100 is much better! It matches what Olympus is now calling feather bokeh.
    4. IMO the SHG glass by Olympus was and is still some of the best glass ever produced. Even the Olympus 4/3s HG lenses hold there own against today's Olympus Pro lenses.
    5. you have to use the corresponding tele converter with the appropriate lens so if you switch to the 40-150 and want a tel converter, you'll have to switch.
    6. There is no tele converter for use with the Panasonic 35-100mm.
    7. The 50-200mm produces excellent IQ. If you had photos from all three lenses taken at the same aperture, that were not side by side - it would be really hard to tell which photo came from which lens. As for 35-100, it can produce photos that are easily describable from the other lenses - but then you would be shooting at f/2.o or so.

    I choose not to go with the Olympus 35-100mm because of size, weight, and the fear of not being able to recover what I would consider a reasonable value. On the other hand, there are few photographers I know that won't use anything other the SHG Olympus lenses.
     
  13. Giiba

    Giiba Something to someone somewhere Subscribing Member

    Aug 19, 2016
    New Westminster, BC
    Not a direct comparison but maybe I can help a bit.

    I've used an SWD version of the 50-200 and while it focused reasonably fast, the 40-150/2.8 makes it seem rather pokey. The 40-150 is fast and if you need to follow action I think it's the best choice.

    As the 35-100 isn't an SWD design (dunno what, but something older) I'm confident that it'd be the slowest to focus of the 3.
     
  14. Jon Li

    Jon Li Mu-43 Regular

    111
    Jan 15, 2014
    Jakarta - Indonesia
    Which camera body are you intending to use with the 43 lenses , only both versions of Olympus E-M1 are known to have fast autofocus with the 43 lenses . I have Panasonic 35~100/2.8 n Olympus 40~150/2.8 with 1.4TC , when travelling overseas the Olympus stays home due to its weight n I use this internal croppings to get " more reach " from my GX8 .

    Jon .
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2018
  15. comment23

    comment23 Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    489
    Aug 26, 2016
    Hampshire, UK
    Simon
    E-M1 is mentioned in the original post (which you quoted ;) ).
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. ionian

    ionian Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 20, 2016
    Kent, UK
    Simon
    The 4/3 lens is the bokeh master and if weight, reach and speed of autofocus are secondary to the bokeh then that's the one to go for.

    The 40-150 is a technical marvel but some find the bokeh a little nervous. Still, it has weight, reach and lightning fast AF going for it.

    If it helps, I went for the Panasonic 35-100 AND the olympus 75mm f1.8. My arms thank me and I get the best of both worlds.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. Digital noob

    Digital noob Mu-43 Rookie

    10
    Jan 1, 2018
    I appreciate everyone's input, now I just need to ask for a raise in pay so I can afford all these wonderful options! Sigh
     
  18. BPCS

    BPCS Mu-43 Regular

    27
    Oct 15, 2017
    If u shoot something that requires CAF u will want a m43 lens.
    If u are say a full time fashion photographer the SHG would be superb for IQ and bokeh and versatility in framing.
     
  19. Digital noob

    Digital noob Mu-43 Rookie

    10
    Jan 1, 2018
    I don't do fashion but the bokeh is nice for multiple reasons in the equine world not the least of which is hiding undesirable backgrounds, most of the time you are in or near a barn after all, where the animals like to behave like animals and not every horse farm is picturesque
     
  20. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    Houston
    I am going to go the other way and suggest the 35-100 f2.0. I started shooting some local rodeo and most of the small local arena's have roofs with no walls (more like a pavilion). They have terrible lighting and I found when using my 50-200 SWD that I had to push the ISO higher than I liked. Took my ZD 150mm f2.0 one time and found that f2.0 was almost perfect but the 150mm prime was just to much reach. When using the 50-200 SWD I also found that at times I needed something shorter than 50mm, so I was seriously considering the 35-100. Would have bought it but I made move in my photography and now only shoot sports when I get a writing assignment related to sports..........but the 35-100 f2.0 is still on my list of lenses to get.

    Yes, 4/3 lenses focus a fraction slower than m4/3 lenses but it is really not that big of a difference. The biggest difference is really the fps when shooting in burst mode. The 4/3 lenses just don't have the mechanical ability of the newer lenses. In SAF the lens will shoot full fps of your camera if you shoot wide-open, once you stop down it will only shoot around 6.5fps. When in CAF the lens will only hold around 6.5fps, regardless if you are stopped down or wide-open. I have shot a lot of different action with 4/3 lenses and have never really felt I gave up anything in focus speed or ability to maintain focus in CAF. The only area I felt I gave up anything is in the fps ability of the 4/3 lenses.

    If you have or get a mk2 then know that Pro Capture will not work with the 4/3 lenses.

    As for IQ, the 35-100 is in another league from the 40-150 Pro. The 40-150 also has a problem with bokeh, in the right situations it will look real nervous (I guess that is the best way to describe it). The nervous bokeh of the 40-150 Pro is the main reason I don't have it and use the 50-200 SWD, plus the 50-200 is more versatile since it works so well with the EC-14 and EC-20.

    For portrait types shots the 35-100 is going to be superior, some describe it like having a pocket full of primes.

    If you are going to be shooting inside of stables, barns or arenas the 35-100 is going to give you that extra stop of light that could be crucial. There is also the 4/3's ZD 14-35mm f2.0 which could be useful in the stables if you want a fast zoom over a couple of primes.

    I am actually hoping to have the 35-100 before I go to the New Orleans Jazz Festival this year.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.