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

Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 on OM-D

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by kevinaldo, Jan 18, 2013.

  1. kevinaldo

    kevinaldo Mu-43 Regular

    77
    Nov 30, 2012
    CA, USA
  2. ajamils

    ajamils Mu-43 Veteran

    211
    Nov 20, 2012
    Richmond, Texas
  3. danska

    danska Mu-43 Top Veteran

    945
    May 21, 2012
    Portland, OR
    Joe
    Works great. Tried it out, took 100 pics or so. Very nice lens, I didn't think it was as un-sharp on the long end at f/2.8 as the reviews indicated. Will buy it down the road as the price drops.
     
  4. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    There's a whole thread dedicated to this lens on a variety of m4/3 cameras including the EM5. Suggest you start there.

    Gordon
     
  5. mistermark

    mistermark Mu-43 Regular

    105
    Oct 16, 2012
    Yes, all native micro 4/3 lenses work on all micro 4/3 bodies. I have the 12-35 and 35-100 Lumix optics on my E-M5. They focus quickly and accurately, and at most aperture and focal length settings out-resolve the sensor.
     
  6. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Rule 2

    "Be nice. Rude comments have no place here. If you know an answer to a question, either answer it or say nothing. Answers like "Do a search", RTFM, or linking to "letmegooglethatforyou" are not allowed."
     
  7. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    Pointing someone to a specific thread with relevant information to help them is NOT rude. I didn't tell the OP to do a search. I told them to have a look on the 35-100 thread. The reason I didn't provide a direct link is that I typed the answer on my smartphone.

    It was more of a useful answer than your post.

    Gordon
     
    • Like Like x 6
  8. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Justify it however you like, its still against the rule either way.

    In the tripod case, the NEXT active thread was discussing the same thing - no search was even necessary, just looking at the list of open/active threads.
     
  9. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    Bob
    Ease up a bit please - let's keep things friendly! :biggrin:
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    Bob
    Sorry, but I don't agree - lot's of folks point folks to a relevant thread that they might find helpful. I don't see it as a nasty comment (ie, "search Google"). It appears to be an attempt to be helpful.
    Let's drop this now, please. Thank you.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  11. Jman

    Jman Mu-43 Veteran

    475
    Apr 20, 2011
    Columbus, OH
    I absolutely love my 35-100/2.8, and I use it almost exclusively on the OM-D. I do use the IBIS over the OIS, as it's slightly more effective, but it works great. In the reviews link posted above, mine is the last one listed, if you want a more detailed explanation.

    In fact, today I did my annual cast member shoot for my wife's HS musical. Was very pleased how they came out this year, and the OM-D + Panasonic 35-100 was absolutely stellar. Made me truly appreciate how awesome a lens this is, and how accurate CDAF is for single shot work. In all my years I used DSLRs for this, even with the 1 series, I'd often have several misfocuses due to the dim ambient light I have (in order to keep the background black). Today: Not a single miss. The image quality out of this combo today was easily on par or better than what I got out of my 1Ds II with 100L. These are always all converted to B&W, but the ones I liked better in color, I'm keeping in color here.

    These are all with the 35-100.

    col1.

    young_man.

    rach1.

    col2.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  12. Savas K

    Savas K Mu-43 Top Veteran

    784
    Jan 10, 2013
    Lovely work, Jman. I had to return my copy for its softness on the long end at 2.8, a pity. I'll try again at some point and hope to score a good one in the sample variation lottery.
     
  13. Jman

    Jman Mu-43 Veteran

    475
    Apr 20, 2011
    Columbus, OH
    Thanks. That is a pity - mine is very sharp throughout, even at f/2.8. Surprisingly sharp, actually. So much so that my 75/1.8 has actually gotten somewhat neglected since I picked up the 35-100. (I'm not saying it's as sharp as the 75/1.8...just that the difference is often not worth losing the flexibility of the zoom, though I still use the 75 when I want that special look it gives).

    For instance, here's a 100% crop of the second image straight from RAW at 75mm, f/5.6 (stopped down since I wanted more depth of field. It's only very slightly less sharp at f/2.8). I actually softened the final portrait a little due to the texture of his skin being so clearly defined in the original image:

    ey_crop.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  14. CPWarner

    CPWarner Mu-43 Veteran

    244
    Dec 24, 2010
    Cliff
    Jman, I thought that it was interesting that you picked the 35-100 versus the 75 or 45 to do that shoot. I also have the 35-100 and have not purchased the 75 as I felt it would not get used much due to the versatility of the 35-100. Would be interested in your thoughts/experiences there.
     
  15. Jman

    Jman Mu-43 Veteran

    475
    Apr 20, 2011
    Columbus, OH
    When I've done these cast photos in years past, I've generally used primes. While they have been good for me, I did have to very often change lenses to get the framing I wanted for a particular shot. Shooting with the 35-100 sped up the process considerably (considering there were 14 students to shoot in 3 hours). The fact that the AF was dead on was a big help. Since for these, I'm shooting stopped down anyway, the extra background blur afforded by the 75 is a non-issue, and frankly image quality wise, there's only noticeable differences if you pixel peep.

    The 45/75 combo would have worked well, but I'd have been swapping lenses or lens/body combinations all morning. There's a reason the 70-200/2.8 has been a mainstain in pro kits for decades...it's the perfect combo of portrait focal lengths, and it worked great. I honestly am thinking of selling my 45/1.8. I haven't used it hardly at all since getting my 35-100 and 75/1.8. In fact, I think I'm going to sell my GX1, 12/2 and 45/1.8 and get a Fuji X100s for my 'small' camera. The OM-D plus my other great lenses will continue to get about 90% of my snaps, but I've got a lot of money tied up in lenses basically just for their small size for times I want a pocket type camera.

    I did use the 25/1.4 for a few shots yesterday as well, but only when I needed the wider look (though one of my favorites is with the 25/1.4)

    Here are a few other shots from yesterday's shoot:
    gr1.

    murg1.

    br1.

    And here's my favorite with the 25/1.4:
    sitting.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  16. CPWarner

    CPWarner Mu-43 Veteran

    244
    Dec 24, 2010
    Cliff
    Jman, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I mainly shoot nature photography, and am usually frustrated with changing primes in the field. With the 12-35 and 35-100, I feel less of a need for the primes than even a year ago. I find that I am using my 12-35 and 35-100 as the top 2 lenses I use. My 60mm Macro comes next and then the 100-300, 25mm and 45mm do not see much use. I was considering selling my 45mm as well as I have gone to the new Panasonic zooms. The 25mm would be difficult to part with as I just like it so much. I never quite got the same feeling with the 45mm.

    Cliff
     
  17. Ross the fiddler

    Ross the fiddler Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I needed to hear (read) those words. Our (Australia's) 20% cash back offer on some Olympus (M4/3's) lenses is about to come to an end & I can get the 75mm lens at a nice price as a result, but I don't think I'm going to use it much if I did. Most of my photography (at least of late) is pretty much the same as you & the Panasonic 100-300 lens (for birds mainly) will probably be the next on my shopping list & now I'm starting to see how useful the 35-100 would be too.
     
  18. Jman

    Jman Mu-43 Veteran

    475
    Apr 20, 2011
    Columbus, OH
    Yeah, the 25/1.4 will be a staple for me for a very long time. If I had to trim my kit to just three lenses, I'd keep the 7-14, 25/1.4 and 35-100/2.8. Then the Oly 60 Macro, 75/1.8 and Panny 8mm fisheye.
     
  19. Savas K

    Savas K Mu-43 Top Veteran

    784
    Jan 10, 2013
    I'm looking forward to a sharp copy of 35-100 like yours, Jman. My 12-35 has been wonderful. These two and the 75 share the same filter size, which I am liking. (I have some nice ND and polarizer from my Canon 50mm.) To which I'll probably spring for Olympus' 75-300 at some point to attain the same filter size for long telephoto.