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

Olympus Zuiko 35-100mm f2.0 vs Olympus M.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 on E-M1?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by ecnz, Sep 7, 2015.

  1. ecnz

    ecnz Mu-43 Rookie

    15
    Nov 30, 2013
    Hi everyone

    I'm wondering how these two lenses perform side by side on the E-M1 with the latest firmware.
    Is the autofocus with the 35-100mm f2 comparable to the 40-150 f2.8?

    How does the 35-100mm f2 compare to DSLR counterparts, such as the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 II VR?

    Would the either the 35-100mm f2 or 40-150mm f2.8 with E-M1 be on the same level as a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 on a prosumer Nikon body for indoor sports?

    Sorry for all the questions.

    Cheers!
     
  2. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    How do you mean compare? IQ wise the 35-100 is going to be superior to either of them (all the SHG glass is just amazing). For light gathering it's going to be a stop faster. It's a heavy lens and it's a bit noisy when focusing. The 40-150 will focus a bit faster and more accurate. I would get something like the Focus a Tune software to dial in focus. I have used it for my 150/2 and 50-200 SWD, and find it works very well. Personally, I plan on getting the 35-100 before the 49-150 but I also have an extremely sharp copy of the 50-200. My next lens will probably be the 300/4 followed by the 35-100.
     
  3. shermanshen

    shermanshen Mu-43 Regular

    109
    Jul 28, 2014
    Here's a review of the 35-100 on an em1.



    Here's his review of the 40-150:



    My pick would be the 40-150. At f2.8, you should be able to get all the light you need and autofocus should be faster than the 35-100. Finally, the size and increased depth of field advantage of the em1 and 40-150 would make it my preference over the Nikon. I think the one big advantage of the Nikon for sports would be focus tracking (depending on the body). My two cents.
     
  4. eteless

    eteless Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 20, 2014
    The 35-100mm f2.0 is slower focusing than most of the other SHG glass (and certainly m4/3) however it's not something the lens springs on you randomly, I don't go out and deliberately make situations where my equipment doesn't function or get surprised/upset if it doesn't instantly acquire focus. I also do think that the above video is overplaying the noise a lot also (or the lens in question is *really* worn out).

    Externally all SHG is going to look pretty flawless regardless of how much use it has had as the build quality is top shelf, nothing in m4/3 can match it (the "Pro" level equipment is a distant third). The only flaw with the 35-100mm build is the lens hood mount as it wears out over time and need replacing after 5-10 years of use (I'm on my second hood and bayonet due to wear). This sort of wear and tear is really no different to any other lens in the same time frame.

    People seem to complain about the weight of it and ignore one side benefit of it, vibration is heavily dampened and you can hand hold longers exposures easily (as long as you're not tired, if you find yourself getting tired it might be worth practicing more for future events).
     
  5. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul Mu-43 Top Veteran

    729
    Aug 15, 2011
    Aberdeen Scotland
    Yep I'll agree with the others, the SHG lenses are superb. I was fortunate to own 4 of them in my 4/3 days, 7-14, 14-35, 35-100 and 90-250 and I can testify the optics are second to none. They worked fine on a E5 but how they would work on an Em-1 I don't know, the 35-100 would probably be a slow to focus lens I'd imagine. It is a BIG and heavy lens though so be warned, that's the reason I ditched the SHG set, the weight and bulk was just too much, to mention nothing of the money I had tied up in such an exotic set of lenses.

    Pau;
     
  6. Clint

    Clint Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 22, 2013
    San Diego area, CA
    Clint
    Slower yet dead on.

    Excellent


    Yes, as well as the 4/3s 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    832
    Sep 30, 2013
    Personally, if I was going to go with a lens as big and heavy as the Olympus 35-100/2, I would simply go for a FF nikon rig. The 70-200/2.8 II is actually a bit lighter, and will give a stop or so better light gathering when you consider the difference in performance, so it will be better suited for indoor sports/low light (Nikon D750 is about 2 stops better at high ISO, minus 1 stop for the 2.0 vs 2.8 difference and you're still a stop ahead), and will almost certainly focus faster and more accurately (probably depends on the body thou).

    The Nikon 70-200/4 weighs about half as much as the 35-100/2, and should provide very similar performance.

    This is not to say that the 35-100/2 is not an exceptional lens, I'm sure it is, I just don't see the point of using it on M43rds body when we have the 35-100/2.8 and 40-150/2.8 lenses which are much more reasonably sized and focus faster.

    Saying all that, I ditched my big DSLR (Sony A900) and huge 2.8 lenses (Sigma 24-70/2.8, and 70-200/2.8) for a reason and have no intention of going back.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2015
  8. Clint

    Clint Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 22, 2013
    San Diego area, CA
    Clint
    The Nikon 70-200 II maybe ounces lighter, and slightly smaller - but at these sizes and weights the differences are minimal. Cost is about the same and you can find used Oly lenses for a lot less than a used Nikon. And to make up that stop difference you suggest a additional FF $2,000 - $2300 body that would only be used with one? lens, requiring different batteries, accessories, etc. And that lens IQ can't quite keep up with the Olympus.

    The 35-100 f/2.0 with an E-M1 makes more sense in every way (unless the person is a Pro photographer), see Paul's comments above. He had a lot of experience with the SHG lenses, I used mine just long enough to dread selling them and moving to Nikon.

    BTW, if I still had my 35-100mm f/2 Olympus - the Nikons would probably never see the light of day. Actually because of the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8, the Nikons almost never see the light of day as it is. Only when I need 36MP of photo does the D800 come out.

    Because the 4/3s lens on the E-M1 are so slightly slower to focus (I could not measure the difference but can tell) it does take a knack for using the lenses and knowing what your equipment and understanding what are shooting.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2015
  9. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    832
    Sep 30, 2013
    More sense in every way? This really depends on the OP's circumstances and goals, which haven't been fully explained in this post.

    Again you'll get similar performance out of the Nikon 70-200/4 VR, which sells for about $900 used, plus $2K for a D750. EM1 is $1100 and 35-100/2.0 used is about $1400 from what I can see, so $2900 vs $2500 but the Nikon kit is smaller, lighter and likely focuses faster and tracks more accurately. If your compare new prices, the Nikon kit is cheaper too.

    If you've already got a significant M43rds system, and you're looking for one fast tele zoom I agree, switching to Nikon would be overkill.

    However, if you're not invested in any system, and you're looking for something that excels in lowlight sports, the M43rds system would not be my first or even second choice. If you want a system that is good in lowlight with sports but with minimal size and weight, M43rds fits the bill, but even then the 35-100/2.0 + EM1 would not be my choice.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2015
  10. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Rob
    Is the 35-100 f2 really fast enough for sports and wildlife? I find the 50-200 SWD just adequate. C-AF even with e-m1 still slow and confused compared to the better Canikons. Slower lens just makes it worse, so I assume the 4/3 SHGs would be mediocre at best.

    Would love to be wrong. I had the opportunity to buy one for under $1000 but passed due to AF concerns.
     
  11. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    I do not own the 35-100 ƒ2.0 yet, but I will within the next year. I want to get all of the SHG ƒ2 glass because I have been really spoiled by the 150mm ƒ2.0. I actually find the 50-200 SWD more then capable for sports, it may not be as fast as the 40-150 Pro but it has a much better focal range (personally I feel they really screwed up when they did not make the 40-150 a 50-200 aka 100-400). Have use the 50-200 SWD for Dock Dogs and an airshow and it had no problems keeping up (Dock Dogs was after and airshow before firmware 3 was released). My 150mm ƒ2.0 focuses as fast and maybe a bit faster then my 50-200 so I would think the 35-100 is about the same. While at minor league baseball game I had the 150/2 and I still struggled keeping ISO low and shutter speed high, those fields under lights at night are not as bright as you think. I think the 35-100 would make a great lens for say basketball where you are in shit lighting and that extra stop of light will be super valuable. If I found one for under $1,000 in good condition I would have bought it on the spot.
     
  12. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Rob
  13. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
  14. ecnz

    ecnz Mu-43 Rookie

    15
    Nov 30, 2013
    Hi everyone

    Thanks for all the informative replies.
    I was using the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 II on a D7000 this weekend for casual shots on the beach and nailed a lot of shots with fantastic shallow depth of field.

    The reason why I am considering the Olympus 35-100 f2.0 is because I could get it new for ~$640 USD from a trusted local (that hasn't been able to sell it for years, hence the price), and then maybe another $125 USD for a 2nd hand Olympus MMF-3 adapter.

    This is a few hundred dollars less than the 40-150 f2.8, which is why the option of 35-100mm is still very interesting to me.

    Just an FYI, the rest of my gear consists of an E-M1, 12-40 f2.8, 25mm f0.95, and 60mm f2.8 macro on the way.
    Additionally I also have the Panasonic 45-200m f4-5.6, however I am selling this lens as it focuses very slow.

    That all being said, I could also get either a used Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 OR Olympus 75mm f1.8 for ~$550 USD.

    What do you think? To be honest I would just be using this lens for casual use and portraits. Maybe some sports too, but not often. Leaning towards the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 right now due to the price.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2015
  15. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Rob
    It's at KEH.
     
  16. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    Well shit........I may have to buy it now
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. Redwing

    Redwing Mu-43 Rookie

    17
    Feb 2, 2015
    I'm a little late to the party here, but if all that matters to you is the ultimate image quality, and you are considering the P35-100F2.8 vs the O35-100F2.0, the optics of the Oly are superior. Wide open, the P is soft at the edges, whereas the Oly is sharp edge to edge, at any focal length, wide open. It tracks fine for me for baseball and Swimming (in relatively low light conditions on an E-M1).

    That being said, for most other general shooting I do, I use the Pany as the IQ is still excellent overall and it's a much smaller lens. It does track slightly better, but, with swimming especially, the extra stop of the Oly is critical to keep the ISO down. In the end, I probably split 30/70 in favor of the Panasonic.

    At the prices you mentioned, I think you'd be nuts not to buy both the Olympus and the Panasonic!:D