1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

P35-100 vs Canon 70-200L IS?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by CanonConvert, Apr 23, 2013.

  1. CanonConvert

    CanonConvert Mu-43 Regular

    50
    Nov 22, 2012
    has anyone made a direct comparison between the P35-100 vs the Canon 70-200L IS v1 and v2 yet?

    i've been having my e-pl5+20/1.7 combo for quite some time.. but i find myself going back to my 5d2 more often as the bar set by my dslr/L lenses has been pretty high. then again i need to go for a vacation soon - thinking whether to lug my dslr or get a 35-100 for my e-pl5.
     
  2. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    I've seen quite a few folks compare it favourably to the mark I 70-200/2.8L IS; I do understand what you mean, since the 5DII is an absolute beast when coupled with some nice L lenses, but what 'cured' me was printing a few moderately large test prints from the E-M5. A 'direct comparison' will be tough, given the differences in sensor/camera. You could mount the 70-200 on an E-M5, I suppose, to level the playing field.

    pixel peeping at 100%, the 5DII almost always wins, but not by very much at all. Printed? Viewing the full image on a (good) screen? Pretty much a wash with the right PP. The more I shoot, the less I worry about the 'perfect' combo. I sold the 70-200 a while ago (prefer the size and quality of the 135), sold the 100-400 last weekend (will fund underwater housings, as the 100-300 panny is almost as good and has much more reach, plus tiny and lightweight), sold the 17-40 (the 7-14 is the better lens, except for slight purple blobbing tendencies). The 5DII comes along on shorter outings, usually domestically, or on vacations where lugging around a camera doesn't matter too much (not when backpacking/moving around a lot, in other words), otherwise it's MFT and the RX100.
     
  3. CanonConvert

    CanonConvert Mu-43 Regular

    50
    Nov 22, 2012
    hmm, i just wanted to see how much difference is there between the two different combos, rather than comparing the cameras (and keeping lens constant).

    the samples i see from the 35-100 users have been less astonishing than the C70-200 group, but it's hard to compare cos we're looking at 2 different user groups..
     
  4. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    I think the biggest difference will be the fairly significant drop in subject separation for the panasonic combo due to the smaller sensor size. That explains most of the difference for me, other than the fact the number of canon 70-200 users is an order of magnitude larger than the number of 35-100 users...
     
  5. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    By all accounts, the 70-200/4 IS is one of Canon's very best lenses and incredibly sharp across the range. The Panasonic is well regarded but doesn't get the same ratings as the Canon. On the other hand, there are some obvious operational advantages to the Panasonic lens: Compact Camera Meter
     
  6. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    Amin - the F/4 IS L is a better lens optically than the 70-200/2.8 L IS mark I, which is what I think the OP is asking about (which seems to be the worst of the 70-200's Canon has made. I liked but never loved my copy. It was sharp, colours were good, but I just never quite got along with the focal range, always either too short or too long).
     
  7. CanonConvert

    CanonConvert Mu-43 Regular

    50
    Nov 22, 2012
    actually i never asked about the f4L, and it would be unfair to compare a f2.8 with a f4. put both @ f4 and they would perform similarly i believe.

    back from the OT - anyone got any side-by-side identical images to show from both combos?:confused:
     
  8. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
  9. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    I'm not understanding the comparison :smile: The two systems (you can't compare lenses in isolation) are so totally different in every way. About all they have in common is that they make digital images - am I missing something? :confused:
     
  10. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    It's reasonable to compare them I think. The FOV of the 35-100 on u43 and 70-200 on FF are almost identical and in the right hands they'll both produce stunning images. As Mattia said, I doubt that there would be much to distinguish a 5dii+70-200 (any of them) from an OMD+35-100 in even a large print, except for DOF.

    Personally I've decided to 'replace' my 70-200 f4is with a 75/1.8 rather than the 35-100. Not because I think the zoom won't cut it, just that having seen lots of images with the 75, it just seems a cracking piece of glass. F1.8 at that FL gives some excellent subject separation.
     
  11. w7ox

    w7ox Mu-43 Regular

    64
    Jun 18, 2010
    Phil Wheeler
  12. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    I have the 70-200 f/2.8 and it is my most used lens for my 1D's.

    I have the 35-100 f/2.8 and it is fast becoming my most used lens on my OM-D's.

    From a non-technical POV I find them both equally sharp and I would use them interchangeably.

    1)
    GRAB0569.

    A)
    _MG_2272-151-L.

    One image is from the P35-100 f/2.8, one is C70-200 f/4.5.

    Gary
     
  13. Drdave944

    Drdave944 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    693
    Feb 2, 2012
    I don't think you can ignore the camera bodies. I have used all these combinations. Bench testing results are not helpful. To be brief, I think your OMD is superior to the Canon 5D MKII. Image stabilization is superior. The Canon 5DMKII has a nasty tendency to back focus on straight lines in the background.
    This is ameliorated with a 2.8 lens because it can cross focus.Also they just perform better with telephoto. So your Mk5 with your lens will get great performance even though it weighs a lot. If you move up to a 5D MKIII you will get positively mind numbing performance. You get much more accurate focus. Carlsbad_1. Carlsbad_1.
    If you get the Panny 30-100,F2.8 and use it with the OMD you will have a tossup on your hands. I think the Cannon combo will be better for sports, action ,but in low light still photography you will get sharper pics with the OMD. You get better image stabilization and better focusing. This is an avilable light picture in Carlsbad Caverns. OMD Panny 35-100/ On zip tripod
     

    Attached Files:

  14. CanonConvert

    CanonConvert Mu-43 Regular

    50
    Nov 22, 2012
    my main purpose for the 70-200 is usually for portraits or in zoos where they don't allow people to get closer - any side-by-side identical shots you guys have?

    on the side-note, i've found pictures from 75/1.8 to be far closer to the C70-200 v1's standard - not just for the DOF, but for the contrast/punch of the colors..
     
  15. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    The O75mm is better than any 'L' I've owned (16-35, 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8, 70-200 f/4, 135, 200, 300), at least the equal of the C135.

    GRAB0272a-L.