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

Panasonic 35-100mm

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by microfourthirdsnut, Dec 11, 2012.

  1. microfourthirdsnut

    microfourthirdsnut Mu-43 Regular

    72
    Oct 8, 2012
    I just did a search to see what has bin posted on the lens and now that it has bin out for a bit and many of you own it is it worth owning? Do you use this focal length a lot?
    I find that on all the longer zooms I have had over the years most shoots are take at the long end of the tele lenses.
    Like my 100-300mm most shoots, 98% are at 200-300mm range almost never at the 100mm. I fear if I spent the money on the 35-100 it would only be used at 100mm and also I don't like the 75mm focal length so that lens is out. And with the 100-300mm I have a 100mm but not a fast 100mm.
     
  2. RoadTraveler

    RoadTraveler Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 23, 2012
    On the fence too

    I don't own the 35-100 yet, but really want one. I'd like the speed (indoors), DOF, and reported quality the lens offers, but like you I'm wondering if I would prefer something longer.

    Tough call, as I've not owned a lens longer than 200mm, and only sparingly use my 70-200 f/2.8 Canon, the size and weight make it a PITA. I'm hoping that the small size and light weight of the 35-100 f/2.8 would make it much more user friendly for me.
     
  3. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul Mu-43 Top Veteran

    729
    Aug 15, 2011
    Aberdeen Scotland
    I think you have answered your own question, if you don't use 35-100mm range much then spending a lot of money on the excellent 35-100 lens is a bit of a waste.
    I have just got it and love the fact I can shoot at f2.8 and images are sharp especially now the winter is here and light levels are low but I use it through it's entire focal range and it compliments my 12-35 perfectly.
    However you do have a dilemma as you pointed out there is no m4/3 fast prime lens option at 100mm or above and the 75mm is not far off the price of the 35-100 although it is f1.8 but if that focal length is no use to you then it's a none starter.

    The 35-100 is a very good lens, maybe if you get it you will appreciate it and use it through it's entire range?

    Paul
     
  4. C-Towner

    C-Towner Mu-43 Rookie

    10
    Dec 29, 2012
    If I shot weddings, I would buy this lens in a heartbeat, along with the 12-35. Depending on your uses, the 35-100 could be a very nice lens, but only if you need the speed and the versatility of a zoom.
     
  5. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    ^^ That's the answer ^^

    What you want to shoot (your needs) should drive what you buy.

    Not the other way around.


    I use mine (only had it for a couple weeks), therefor it is worth it to me. I also use a 100-300mm also worth it to me. Reading the last part of the OP's post, sounds to me like the answer is staring them in the face and wonder why the 35-100 is even a consideration.

    In my case, I primarily shoot primes and went a little overboard. Between my two systems, I have way too many. Assuming the 12-35/35-100 combination is reasonably satisfying, I will sell my micro 4/3 prime lenses for no other reason than to scale down.
     
  6. adsinger

    adsinger Mu-43 Rookie

    14
    Jan 2, 2010
    First Coast, FL
    I was wondering the same thing about buying the 35-100. I sold my 14, 14-45 and 9-18 to finance a 12-35, a great lens that made me think long and hard about the 35-100. But I have an Oly 40-150 (bought during the $99 sale a year or so ago) and a 45-200. Neither is very fast or especially sharp, but then again I rarely pull them out, especially the 45-200. I'm sure the 35-100 is a super lens but for the few times I'd use it, it's not for me. Those times when I'd use a 200mm effective view, I usually want more. For example, I'm hoping to go to South Africa this fall, I'll get a day or two at Krueger for a photo shoot. But the 35-100 would be far more limiting than the 45-200. Sure these older lenses are slower, but with the latest generation of m43 cameras (like my G5), ISO 1600 is just fine and another stop or two is possible if needed. I guess I'm saying that you ought to look at the cheaper, longer alternative lenses. Spend the balance on a nice photo vacation!

    Alan.
     
  7. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    I agree with adsinger - I would buy this in a second except I need the longer focal length. I also frequently am at 200 on my 45-200 and wishing for more. The 35-100 + a sharp 2X TC would be my ideal solution for travel.
     
  8. m43dex

    m43dex Mu-43 Veteran

    242
    Mar 5, 2011
    Michigan
    Sometimes the lens and how it renders has a lot to do with how often a lens is used. I bet many of the 75mm 1.8 users didn't use that focal length much before either.
     
  9. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    I tend to shoot at the extremes of zooms, either racked-out or racked-in, (then a slight tweaked of the focal length). So it works for me. The P35-100 is a great lens.

    GRAB0055.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. yekimrd

    yekimrd Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 14, 2012
    Cincinnati, OH
    Mikey
    I agree with this 110% Photography is all about experimenting. If a lens is just that awesome, a good number of people will be willing to retrain their eye(s) to see with this FOV. I certainly did. :smile:
     
  11. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    To me, the 35-100 seems more an indoor lens than an outdoor one. I may buy one, but I agree that it's not really long enough for what I want in a telephoto.

    I'm used to a 70-200 on APS-C, which goes to 320mm FF equivalent FOV on my Canon body. I'm still wishing for a 50-150 f/2.8 for m43, but I'm not holding my breath.
     
  12. CPWarner

    CPWarner Mu-43 Veteran

    244
    Dec 24, 2010
    Cliff
    Well, Panasonic has announced the development of a 150mm f2.8 for M4/3 to be released in 2013. That would be the fastest native autofocusing tele for the system.

    Cliff
     
  13. sam_m

    sam_m Mu-43 Regular

    182
    Jul 26, 2010
    On a full frame the 70-200 is my most used lens, very surprising how versatile it has been too be honest, so with having the 35-100 on a m43 camera for me this is fantastic. Just need to find the funds to purchase it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul Mu-43 Top Veteran

    729
    Aug 15, 2011
    Aberdeen Scotland
    Having used the 35-100 for a bit longer now it really is good, it's tack sharp and reliable just like the 12-35, by reliable I mean it always gives consistent results, focuses perfectly and the IQ is excellent, even in trying conditions, and now I have recently got the GH-3 the 35-100 really shows it's class with that camera.
    I have 7-14, 12-35 and 35-100 and for my style of photography I couldn't be happier.

    Paul
     
  15. Gillymaru

    Gillymaru Mu-43 Veteran

    How does the image quality compare to the Olympus 50-200 SWD Paul? I have the 12-35mm and am happy with the results, I think the 35-100mm would compliment it beautifully.
     
  16. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul Mu-43 Top Veteran

    729
    Aug 15, 2011
    Aberdeen Scotland
    I'd say it's on par with the 50-200 at the very least, it's great having a reasonably fast (f2.8) tele-zoom too and it's such a compact, well built lens. If your happy with the 12-35 (I love it) then you will be just as happy with the 35-100. The only caveat for me was getting used to using and getting the best out of it, my initial shots were ok but maybe a bit disappointing because I didn't use the dof well, it took me a bit to get use to understanding how and when to use it.

    Paul
     
  17. RoadTraveler

    RoadTraveler Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 23, 2012
    I'm right there with you, I think these three are a fantastic, versatile trio, and should help me make m4/3 the system I use for most of my photography. The 7-14 is a very welcome addition, it's a focal length/view I didn't have for my SLRs.

    However, I see the 35-100 f/2.8 as the real game changer for my personal photography of the three. Though I've had a 70-200 f/2.8 Canon for several years, it was one of my least used lenses simply because I didn't like to tote it around, particularly inside. I’ve never taken the big 70-200 f/2.8 with me to visit family for Christmas. But I took the 35-100 because it's so small there is no reason to leave it home. It helped me capture some of my best family candids and portraits in years. The Pana 35-100 f/2.8 is such a discreet sleeper of a lens.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  18. m43dex

    m43dex Mu-43 Veteran

    242
    Mar 5, 2011
    Michigan
    Agreed... Considering the focal length.
     
  19. My experience with 70-200mm lenses was always on APS-C sensor bodies, so I also have the feeling that the 35-100mm on Micro 4/3 might feel a bit short. At least I could carry it discretely, however.
     
  20. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    Yes...A 70-200 on an APS-C is 105-300 Full Frame equivalent so I understand you here.