Panasonic 35-100 or 45-175

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by grumps1974, Nov 25, 2015.

  1. grumps1974

    grumps1974 Mu-43 Rookie

    Nov 25, 2015
    Hi all

    I am new to this forum and to Micro Four Thirds having spent years with DSLR. I have just bought a Panasonic GX7 with the 14-42 kit lens. I am seeking to pick the brains of those experienced with this format.

    I am looking to add to my lens with a short telephoto and I am stuck in a choice between the 35-100 and the 45-150. I have read the reviews but I would much rather hear the advice of those who have used these lens in anger so to speak. So if anyone can give me advice on which of these two lenses I should buy and why I would be most grateful. For various reasons I want to stick with lenses that built in OIS so please no suggestions for Olympus.

    I am not yet convinced that the 14-42 is the best choice at this length so any suggestions on how I could improve on this lens as well would be appreciated.

    Many thanks
  2. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    The 14-42, so long as it's the mkii version, is a very decent kit lens. It's slow though and I personally think the format needs bright lenses to make the best of the sensor. The 12-35 f2.8 is a better lens and is faster so if a standard zoom is what you want then I'd recommend that.

    As to your choice between 35-100 and 40-150, do you mean the "Pro" f2.8 versions or the slower cheaper ones? As per my comment above, the slower zooms are OK, but the f2.8 versions will deliver better results. They both give great sharpness, contrast and a decent max aperture. The 35-100 is notably smaller than the 40-150 which, for me, is pushing the limit of lens size for u43. The 35-100 has OIS too, which on the GX7, will be a distinct advantage.
  3. grumps1974

    grumps1974 Mu-43 Rookie

    Nov 25, 2015
    Thanks for the advice. Yes I do mean the slower ones. My DSLR will remain my main camera but this will be used when I don't want to carry heavy kit. So I want to keep expenditure on lenses reasonable.

    Does the 45-150 panny not have OIS then?
  4. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Ah - you're referring to the Pany. Sorry, thought you meant the Oly 40-150. Yes - the Pany 45-150 has OIS. I don't know much about it TBH.
  5. skellington

    skellington Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 4, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    Real Name:
    I think he's talking about the Panasonic 35-100 f4-f5.6 (the new small zoom released with the GM1/5) or the Panasonic 45-150 f4-5.6.

    There is also the Panasonic 45-175 power zoom (again, f4-5.6.)
  6. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    Real Name:
    What DSLR did you have? What lenses did you have? And what do you shoot?

    35-100, 45-150 or 75-300? Your title and post aren't the same.

    If you mean the variable aperture zooms you should look at the Panasonic zooms with OIS. All the offerings are not really bad. I would look at what focal length and physical size you want first. I've owned the 35-100, 45-175, 45-200, and 100-300 at one time or another. None were really bad, some felt odd depending on the body I had at the time. Like the 100-300 on the old Olympus E-PM1 I had, but that would be fine on the G7.
  7. flamingfish

    flamingfish Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 16, 2012
    Real Name:
    I'd look at the 45-175.
  8. jimr.pdx

    jimr.pdx Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 5, 2010
    near Longview ~1hr from PDX
    Real Name:
    Jim R
    I plan to start with 14-42 + 45-175 on a G7. If the kit suits me I would pick up 20/1.7 and 30macro and adapt my 50/1.7 Pentax as next steps, to address the slow spot in the kit zoom. Whether that would be sensible for you I cannot say.. ;)
  9. grumps1974

    grumps1974 Mu-43 Rookie

    Nov 25, 2015
    Spot on. Sorry about confusion in title. That's what happens when you post from an IPad not a PC. Typos are easier to make.
  10. excman

    excman Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 16, 2012
    Odsherred, Denmark,
    Real Name:
    Agree to 45-175 is a good choice. Sharp up to 160 mm.
  11. scott rawson

    scott rawson Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 17, 2015
    west yorks
    I had both..both as good as each other optically..but the size difference is minimal so go for the 45-150 as the range is far more useful...200mm always seemed not long enough for me ..the main point of telephoto is reach at the end of the day.
  12. listers_nz

    listers_nz Mu-43 Veteran

    Nov 22, 2013
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Real Name:
    The 45-150 is smaller than the 45-175, and the 45-175 is power zoom and I never got on with the power zoom switch on the 14-42mm PZ so that wouldn't me my choice. I'm not sure there is enough difference between the "slow" zooms that there is a right or wrong answer in terms of image quality. What is most important to you - size, price, reach, etc? Following is a size comparison of each compared to the 14-42mm:
    Compact Camera Meter
    Personally, I have the 14-42mm II and 45-150mm paired with a Panasonic G3 that my daughter uses, which makes a relatively compact, cheap, and light weight setup.
    If you go for the 35-100mm, then you could consider swapping the 14-42mm for the 12-32mm.
    Personally, if money was no object, I'd go with the Panasonic 14-140mm f3.5-5.6.
  13. manju69

    manju69 Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 1, 2011
    Stroud, UK
    Real Name:
    I've had both - and sold both!... I would go for the extra reach of the Panasonic 45-150 as in most other areas they are quite close. (I have the f2.8 35-100 now which is amazing but expensive of course)
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. grumps1974

    grumps1974 Mu-43 Rookie

    Nov 25, 2015
    Due to my typo in the title I have confused the issue.

    I am looking for a medium range telephoto lens at a budget price (circa £200 or so). When I need the best results I shall use my 5D mk3. The GX7 will be my carry around camera so I don't want to spend a fortune (well not yet anyway). From all my research two lenses seem to broadly fit my needs the 35-100 (not the f2.8) and the 45-175 (both Panasonic). I have read lots of reviews on both and it seems they both have their pros but also their cons. The 35-100 seems to offer slightly better IQ, the 45-175 the extra reach. The extra reach would be nice but I don't want to sacrifice IQ too much. Hence my conundrum.

    The 35-100 has the higher retail price which would suggest it is the better of the two. But the 45-175 is the later technology.

    I am watching Black Friday deals - if one of these comes up at a bargain price I shall bite the bullet and buy it. Otherwise I shall take my time until I get a clear(er) picture of which one is right for me.

    Thanks to everyone for their contributions - they are appreciated.
  15. Ramsey

    Ramsey Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 9, 2013
    Zagreb, Croatia
    +1 for the 45-175.

    Just an amazing lens, and can be found for peanuts used...
  16. RKStarr

    RKStarr Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 4, 2013
    St. Croix, US Virgin Islands
    Real Name:
    I had the P45-150 and enjoyed it very much for its iq, size and weight. I sold it when I bought the Oly pro in that size and soon came to regret that. The Oly is magnificent, but it stays home a lot. I'll look into the 45-175 if I go back to a slow tele.
  17. skellington

    skellington Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 4, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    Real Name:
    The 35-100 F4 is very new. The 35-100 F2.8 is an older lens; but much more expensive and larger.

    The 35-100 F4 is VERY small, but of course doesn't have a lot of reach. It has the slightly worse Mega-OIS and is about $400(**) here in the US.
    The 45-175 is larger (but doesn't telescope), and has the longest reach of the bunch. It has the better Power-OIS and is about $400 here in the US.
    The 45-150 is between the two in size. It has the slightly worse Mega-OIS and is about $200 here in the US.

    For a size comparison: Compact Camera Meter

    (** The 35-100 was available in a kit with a GF7 and the 12-32 recently for $500 US. So I expect it could show up somewhat more cheaply...)

    None of these are "great" lenses (like the 2.8 zooms) but they're all very solid lenses. I think it would mostly come down to price and your preference on size (tiny vs. small.)
  18. grumps1974

    grumps1974 Mu-43 Rookie

    Nov 25, 2015
    The size comparison chart is really interesting. i was leaning towards to 45-175 but know I am wondering if the body would feel imbalanced with this lens on it. Has anyone tried the 45-175 on a GX7? If so what are your thoughts?
  19. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    It's actually not really a problem as the 45-175 is very light. I have used it on my GM5, it feels silly to hold as there's way more lens than body but balance was not a problem.
  20. SojiOkita

    SojiOkita Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 23, 2014
    When I bought my 45-150, the 35-100 wasn't available (but I was looking for an "equivalent" of my 70-300 on APS-C, so 35-100 was too short anyway).
    I was looking for a not too expensive, not too big, not too bad telezoom.
    My "short list" was: 0ly 40-150 (not the pro one), Panasonic 45-150 / 45-175.

    I chose the 45-150 over the 45-175 because:
    - I don't like power zooms (even the ones with a simulated mechanical ring like the 12-50 and the 45-175)
    - it's more compact
    - it's cheaper

    (and the Oly was more expensive, without OIS, and with lower reviews ratings at 150 mm)
    I didn't regret my choice.
    It doesn't take too much space in my photobag and I get decent results with it.
    • Agree Agree x 1