Showcase Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 ZD 4/3

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,149
Location
Houston
Yes, but those SHG lenses are as big or bigger than their f2.8 FF equivalents.

Honest opinion....do you think the SHG lenses are superior to the m43 Pros? I have the 12-40 pro and it's a fine lens but doesn't seem special. I occasionally wish I'd had my 17,1.8 or 25,1.4 even the 50,1.2 with me instead.
No I do not, main reason is the SHG lenses correct almost everything optically where the Pro lenses relay more on software correction. As great as software correction is, it is still not superior to optical correction. But, they had to compromise because of this (there is thread now about this) stupid perception that µ4/3 is suppose to be super small and light and tiny and I should be able to hide a 300mm ƒ4.0 lens and camera in my speedo. I rate the Pro lenses (300mm Pro not in this list yet because we really don't know the quality of it yet) equal to the HG lenses. Honestly I see no difference between my 50-200 and the 40-150 Pro and is why I got the 50-200, same IQ and longer reach. I do want the 40-150 for sports and for when I do need the faster AF, but most of my photography (just starting to get back into sports photography) does not require that faster focus speed.

Speaking of the 300, Oly claims it is the sharpest lenses they have every made. I look forward to comparing it against my little tuna which honestly is the sharpest lens I have ever used.
 

Speedliner

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Messages
2,666
Location
Southern NJ, USA
Real Name
Rob
that's how I feel even though my experience is much more limited than yours. I could really use the AF speed of the 40-150 Pro, but the 50-200 seems good enough and I like the extra reach and the TCs, but that makes both options feel like they fall short. Maybe the 300,4 is the next step up in Pro quality and we'll see more of it. I think I just convinced myself to wait for the 40-150 Pro II. :)

I just passed on a little tuna at $1200 becvause I go back and forth on the 40-150 Pro for my oldest's LAX season and backyard BIF, or the 150, F2 for my youngest's ballet for which it should be perfect. need to hit the lottery or just add a d750 and a monopod. Yep, definitely need to hit the lottery.
 

nstelemark

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,294
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
Real Name
Larry
Yes, but those SHG lenses are as big or bigger than their f2.8 FF equivalents.

Honest opinion....do you think the SHG lenses are superior to the m43 Pros? I have the 12-40 pro and it's a fine lens but doesn't seem special. I occasionally wish I'd had my 17,1.8 or 25,1.4 even the 50,1.2 with me instead.
I find the 12-40 a bit on the clinical side. This may well be because of software correction. Here are some zoom test shots:

Native and Adapted Normal Zooms - a contrarian review

The 12-35 according the latest French review on the GX-8 is a bit sharper than the 12-40 in the center. The 14-35 is definitely sharper then the 12-35 and simply renders better as well. Some of my favourite shots are from the 14-35. It sucks to travel with.

Phocal - I am interested to hear what you think of the 35-100f2.8. I simply can't get to like mine. It is competent but nothing special. The 75 is smaller and better, but of course not as versatile or weather sealed.
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,149
Location
Houston
that's how I feel even though my experience is much more limited than yours. I could really use the AF speed of the 40-150 Pro, but the 50-200 seems good enough and I like the extra reach and the TCs, but that makes both options feel like they fall short. Maybe the 300,4 is the next step up in Pro quality and we'll see more of it. I think I just convinced myself to wait for the 40-150 Pro II. :)

I just passed on a little tuna at $1200 becvause I go back and forth on the 40-150 Pro for my oldest's LAX season and backyard BIF, or the 150, F2 for my youngest's ballet for which it should be perfect. need to hit the lottery or just add a d750 and a monopod. Yep, definitely need to hit the lottery.
That is a good price on the little tuna if it's in good shape. I paid $1500 for mine and felt I got a good deal on it at the time, prices seem to have dropped a bit on it the last 6 months or so. I love mine and will never sell it. Even after I get the 300 the 150 will continue to see lots of use because for a lot of my gator photography it will just be to much reach.

I love my 50-200 but I will admit the 40-150 does focus faster, not much but enough to make a difference to me (I have pretty high standards for my gear). That is why I will get the 40-150, well that is if I decide to really get back into sports photography again. I am not nor have I ever really been into BiF photography so for wildlife (for me) the 50-200 is way better then 40-150. I just hate (especially on this forum) how most people think that BiF is the only type of wildlife photography or the holy grail of wildlife photography. I guess that is because I can stand just about anywhere and find birds flying for me to photograph. Not many are willing to troll the swamps on backwoods looking for other types of wildlife photography. I have been searching for bobcats in my area (lots of sign, just no cats yet) and go days without seeing a single thing to photograph......such is the life of a wildlife photographer.

I would stick with the 50-200 and if you have problems with the LAX then think about the 40-150. If it works well then I would get the 150 for the ballet and for the LAX and for a lot of other things. It really is a special lens.
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,149
Location
Houston
Phocal - I am interested to hear what you think of the 35-100f2.8. I simply can't get to like mine. It is competent but nothing special. The 75 is smaller and better, but of course not as versatile or weather sealed.
It will be closer to the end of the year before I can get it. Want a few other lenses first and then it depends on when the EM1mk2 comes out also. But I will definitely have it within the next 12 months, really want that lens for some strange reason.
 

Speedliner

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Messages
2,666
Location
Southern NJ, USA
Real Name
Rob
I admit, just once I'd like to see one of your gator pics taken with something like an a7r2, or d810 with all of that DR. Just once...
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,149
Location
Houston
I admit, just once I'd like to see one of your gator pics taken with something like an a7r2, or d810 with all of that DR. Just once...
Not sure I would want to crawl on the ground with towards one with a big old 300mm ƒ2.8. If things went south I would have to leave it there for the gator to eat so I could run away.
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,149
Location
Houston
I admit, just once I'd like to see one of your gator pics taken with something like an a7r2, or d810 with all of that DR. Just once...
Forgot to add........if Olympus had not announced a release date for the 300 Pro I would have been very tempted by the new Nikon cameras just announced. Especially since one of the things that got me to move over to Olympus was the original announcement 2 years ago of the lens and I have been patiently waiting for that lens. Now with the 300/4 and 150/2 I basically have all my wildlife needs satisfied, all other lenses are just for fun.
 

Holoholo55

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
2,853
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
That is a good price on the little tuna if it's in good shape. I paid $1500 for mine and felt I got a good deal on it at the time, prices seem to have dropped a bit on it the last 6 months or so. I love mine and will never sell it. Even after I get the 300 the 150 will continue to see lots of use because for a lot of my gator photography it will just be to much reach.

I love my 50-200 but I will admit the 40-150 does focus faster, not much but enough to make a difference to me (I have pretty high standards for my gear). That is why I will get the 40-150, well that is if I decide to really get back into sports photography again. I am not nor have I ever really been into BiF photography so for wildlife (for me) the 50-200 is way better then 40-150. I just hate (especially on this forum) how most people think that BiF is the only type of wildlife photography or the holy grail of wildlife photography. I guess that is because I can stand just about anywhere and find birds flying for me to photograph. Not many are willing to troll the swamps on backwoods looking for other types of wildlife photography. I have been searching for bobcats in my area (lots of sign, just no cats yet) and go days without seeing a single thing to photograph......such is the life of a wildlife photographer.

I would stick with the 50-200 and if you have problems with the LAX then think about the 40-150. If it works well then I would get the 150 for the ballet and for the LAX and for a lot of other things. It really is a special lens.
Phocal, I've found the 50-200 SWD to work pretty well for sports on the EM1. Use C-AF and getting more hits than misses. The 40-150 Pro may be a little faster, but the 50-200 SWD is no slouch and gives me enough reach to cover most of the kids' soccer field. OTOH, I don't have a 40-150 Pro to play with, so I haven't conducted any side by side tests. Based on my experience, the 40-150 is a little short without the TC. Depends on what you're shooting.
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,149
Location
Houston
Phocal, I've found the 50-200 SWD to work pretty well for sports on the EM1. Use C-AF and getting more hits than misses. The 40-150 Pro may be a little faster, but the 50-200 SWD is no slouch and gives me enough reach to cover most of the kids' soccer field. OTOH, I don't have a 40-150 Pro to play with, so I haven't conducted any side by side tests. Based on my experience, the 40-150 is a little short without the TC. Depends on what you're shooting.
I know, I use both the 50-200 and 150 for sports now and they perform well. But, if I get back into sports photography for money that little faster focusing can make a difference. It's not just the faster focusing, but the FPS difference also. Unfortunately the 4/3 lenses cannot shoot at 10fps when in C-AF and they also slow down if not shooting wide-open even in S-AF.

I am already giving up some performance to Canon and Nikon cameras for the smaller and lighter m4/3 system.
 

Rasmus

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
780
Location
Stockholm, Sweden.
I was considering getting the panasonic because although I love the oly 35-100, it's too cumbersome to carry around. I've hesitated because the oly's images are so good that I don't know if I'll be happy with the panasonic.
Rasmus, I'd be interested on your take on a direct comparison between the two 35-100 zooms.
Honestly, I haven't really ever done direct comparisons between my lenses, but I have a few lenses I consider excellent, and a few I wish someone could improve on. The Panasonic 12-35 was a lens that really raised the bar to me. Sharp at all focal lengths even wide open, even sharper at f/4, vivid colors and great contrast. Next lens that raised the bar was the 150/2.0. Once I had that one I knew I wanted the 300/2.8. The Panasonic 35-100/2.8 is a lens I consider good, but not great like the 150/2 and the 12-35/2.8. It may be partly because 35-100 is a range I don't use that much because I do very few portraits, maybe I just haven't learned to use it.

Anyway, here's (I think) the same woolly monkey, on the same day, in the same light. First, the 150/2:
P9280176.jpg


And here's the 35-100/2.8, at 100 mm:
P9280252.jpg


Both images are shot at f/3.2. Both are very sharp, the 150 mm image is perhaps just a bit back focused. I more or less published the 150mm image right away, but struggled with the 100 mm image for a while. Compared to the 150 image, the 100 mm looked a bit washed out. I believe I made them look rather similar in the end.

Then, half a year later, this happened.
P7050389.jpg

100 mm, f/2.8. Note how the bear isn't sharp, but the tree trunk just beside its head is. I actually used a single, small AF point, right on the face of the bear. I tried moving the AF point around, recomposing, touch AF, defocus and refocus but whatever I did, the camera would lock focus on that tree trunk instead of the bear. I supposed I should just have switched to manual focus, but bears tend not to stay six feet away from photographers forever, so I felt slightly stressed. The PDAF on the SHG lenses frequently misbehave in other ways, but I had no problems with them during those four nights in the Finnish bear hides. I believe it was actually in that exact moment that I decided to get the 35-100/2.0.

Also, F/2 was a great thing to have during those hide nights. When I had to use ISO 4000 on the 300/2.8 I was still (not surprisingly) on ISO 2000 on the 150/2.0. That difference was very noticable.
 
Last edited:

Rasmus

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
780
Location
Stockholm, Sweden.
Not sure I would want to crawl on the ground with towards one with a big old 300mm ƒ2.8. If things went south I would have to leave it there for the gator to eat so I could run away.
A few months ago, I tried hand-holding a Canon 5D MK3 with a Canon 300/2.8, presumably the latest and lightest version. I was really surprised at how manageable that kit felt. Holding the whole kit with just one hand on the body wasn't hard at all, I could probably have snapped a few shots with it. Of course, my wallet would be nearly weightless after I'd purchased such a kit. :)
 

Rasmus

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
780
Location
Stockholm, Sweden.
LOL, don't worry it is on my list as well.........all the ƒ2.0 lenses as well as the 90-250 and 300/2.8 are on it
I believe the 90-250 could be a fantastic lens for shooting windsurfing pics. Typically, windsurfers almost fill the frame of the 300 out at the line-up but end up a bit too close for the 150 on the inside. Being able to follow a windsurfer all the way in with one competent zoom would be great.
 

Rasmus

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
780
Location
Stockholm, Sweden.
No I do not, main reason is the SHG lenses correct almost everything optically where the Pro lenses relay more on software correction. As great as software correction is, it is still not superior to optical correction. But, they had to compromise because of this (there is thread now about this) stupid perception that µ4/3 is suppose to be super small and light and tiny and I should be able to hide a 300mm ƒ4.0 lens and camera in my speedo. I rate the Pro lenses (300mm Pro not in this list yet because we really don't know the quality of it yet) equal to the HG lenses. Honestly I see no difference between my 50-200 and the 40-150 Pro and is why I got the 50-200, same IQ and longer reach. I do want the 40-150 for sports and for when I do need the faster AF, but most of my photography (just starting to get back into sports photography) does not require that faster focus speed.
That really sums up my 7-14 dilemma. The SHG lenses, with the hugely oversized image circle they project, tend to be mindblowingly sharp all the way out into the corners, while the µ4/3 lenses, especially the wide ones, tend to lose some corner sharpness due to software correction. On the other hand, the 7-14 pro is a lot smaller and a stop faster, and when I tried it corner sharpness was actually acceptable wide open and quite good when stopped down to f/5.6 so I feel I might be able to live with it. I tend to stop wide angles down a lot anyway. Also, I'm already starting to feel that I find three images taken with the 7-14 pro for every image from the SHG that I find, which makes it harder to judge how good the 7-14 actually is. Then, a used SHG 7-14 will cost about half as much as a new 7-14 Pro.
 

Rasmus

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
780
Location
Stockholm, Sweden.
Took a short Sunday afternoon photowalk in Åkersberga, a small town near Stockholm. Mostly along Åkers Kanal, a small canal that runs through the town.

Red canoe near the lock. 73 mm, f/4, 1/1000 s, ISO 200
26978754070_e58197ddb5_o.jpg

Lock detail, and a lock on the lock. 93 mm, f/8, 1/125 s, ISO 200
27184507751_2c4e1cf0c5_o.jpg

Dandelions! Dandelions! Dandelions! F/2, 100 mm, 1/640 s, ISO 200
27254060645_c4daf7b5e8_o.jpg

Just two dandelions. 100 mm, f/2, 1/400 s, ISO 200
27254068435_9d59808e84_o.jpg

Lush. 48 mm, f/4, 1/125 s, ISO 200
27184525471_b69fbd3ebb_o.jpg

81 mm, f/2, 1/200 s, ISO 200
27184534291_95a8848b36_o.jpg

Boats in the grass. 88 mm, f/2, 1/250 s, ISO 200
27184539701_2cc8c3bf81_o.jpg
 

Rasmus

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
780
Location
Stockholm, Sweden.
Lillsjön (which literally means the little lake) in Malexander, Sweden. I should probably check my settings a bit better, I shot this at ISO 1600 in full daylight! 68mm, f/2, 1/6400 s, ISO 1600.
29426970443_4d1ec44ce6_o.jpg

Typical Swedish countryside house, falu red painted with white corners. 100 mm, f/2, 1/60 s, ISO 200
29427041533_3cff88849e_o.jpg

Just some winding countryside road. 62 mm, f/2, 1/80 s, ISO 200.
30053829945_c222e33ecb_o.jpg
 
Top