Sacrificing some lenses for 35-100 or add a 45?

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by dav1dz, Apr 5, 2013.

  1. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    I think I am ready for the Panasonic 35-100/2.8. I've sat here and gone over all the pros and cons and it will just simply my kit so much more that I think it will be worth it eventually. But I am stuck on spending that much money for it.

    I also understand that Olympus is probably going to release some kind of telephoto constant aperture lens. But if I just sit here and wait for that, I would miss so many photo opportunities. I don't foresee losing out on reselling this lens either. I am mentally with a loss of $100-150 if I do decide to let it go for the Olympus versions in the future. Also, what if I switch to a Panasonic body in the future? OIS would be useful then.

    Here is my current kit: 9-18, 17/1.8, 25, 14-150.

    I shoot mostly for travel, street, events. I have some options, let me list them and tell me what you think.

    1. Sell 25, 14-150, get 35-100.
    This is probably the simplest way. I would end up with an UWA zoom, a wide normal, and a telephoto zoom. 3-lenses makes it easy to select lenses for uses, but I'm afraid I would miss that 50 mm equivalent focal length and f/1.4. Is the 50 mm f/1.4 that important?

    Also, would I miss the super zoom? While the super zoom isn't the sharpest or the fastest lens, it is very versatile and I am very comfortable with it.

    2. Just get the 45, again.
    I've bought and sold 45/1.8 twice now. It is a wonderful lens, don't get me wrong. But the first time I bought the 45/1.8, I didn't use it a whole lot over a period of 6 months. So I sold it. The second time I bought the 45/1.8, I thought I could live with a legacy 50 instead, but the manual focusing put me off. Yes I know I am a spoiled brat that is brought up on AF but it works for me, MF at the moment is only something I fine tune with after AF locks.

    This option will land me with an UWA, a wide normal, a mid-telephoto, a super zoom. I won't have any weather sealing though. There will be the odd moments that I want to step outside in the rain.

    The worst thing about option 2 is that I would end up with a lot of lenses. I am very much a minimalist. Clutter drives me insane, my fiance is the exact polar opposite. She litters everywhere I spend a day cleaning and putting things away each week to keep the house organized. It's a constant battle, but such is life. That's a discussion for another day.

    Obviously I would be spending less money, or perhaps even saving some money by going option 2. But I wouldn't have the 35-100...

    Which one of these options would you get? I heavily favour the 35 mm equivalent angle of view. I am a big fan of it. So if it comes down to choosing between the 17/1.8 or the 25/1.4, I would stick with the 17/1.8. It is the telephoto end of things that I am debating in this thread.
     
  2. kwalsh

    kwalsh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    775
    Mar 3, 2012
    Baltimore, MD
    You've obviously thought about this a lot already, not sure how much I can add. I'll throw out a few thoughts.

    - Weather sealing... A 35-100 that is weather sealed? Sure, but at telephoto to me weather sealing is an umbrella. You can do that with telephotos. Doesn't work so well with wide angle.

    - I don't particularly like super-zooms myself, so it would be the first to go from the list. Many people swear by them, and it sounds like you've gotten good use out of yours. Seems like that is the biggest question, what does the 35-100 get you that you are missing with your super zoom (presumably fast aperture)?

    - Panasonic lens prices - It seems historically that the most expensive Panasonic lenses drop in price in their first year whereas the Olympus ones tend to stay at their introductory price for a long time. I completely agree with your "just get it now and don't miss the pictures" ethic though. I could have gotten a huge savings on my E-M5, 75/1.8 and 45/1.8 if I'd waited half a year for the excellent lens rebates - but I would have missed a lot of great photos of my daughter in that time.

    - Buying and selling a lens twice tells you something. I just don't know what that is though...

    Good luck!
     
  3. juangrande

    juangrande Mu-43 Top Veteran

    805
    Dec 2, 2012
    COLORADO
    I'll tell you want I'm going to do. I'm going to give you some bad advice and your going to sell me the 25 for $350 in return. The 17/25 debate is what, 5 steps in either direction. Sell, sell sell. The 14-150 from 35mm up will be killed by the 35-100, just crop to 150. Now for the advice. Marriage is ( after the 1st 1-2yrs.) about adjusting your neurosis to placate hers and vice-versa. If she shows no signs of acknowledging her "clutter" problem as a problem, reconsider the commitment. After all, I'm pretty sure you can't sell her on the used market!:biggrin: Please feel free to disregard my last 3 sentences as no one knows for sure what makes a marriage last. It's an astrological thing probably!:confused:
     
  4. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    I would not worry about missing any focal lengths. So now you start off at 35mm instead of 25mm... Take a few steps forward and you're fine!! The only thing to worry about is losing your f/1.4 aperture.

    If you have a fast, high quality f/2.8 zoom lens you will not miss the super-zoom. After using a fast zoom that superzoom would never come out again and would only take up space. So get rid of it first and don't look back.

    No, this option does not sound good for you. It's obviously not what you want, and it won't really improve your standing much with what you have. Maybe if you got the 75mm/1.8 instead or as well as the 45mm/1.8 then you would have a comparable kit, but to add just the 45mm gets you nowhere near the extra capabilities of the 35-100mm/2.8.
     
  5. ill_dawg

    ill_dawg Mu-43 Veteran

    201
    Aug 26, 2010
    My 35-100 should be in my hands tomorrow, I'll let you know if it is all I dreamed it would be and more. I've had the old school 40-150 zoom since I bought my e-pl1. although I can't argue with the pics I get out of it, the focus speed is pretty terrible and I can't use it in anything other than bright sunlight. Although the 14-150 has better focus speed, and of course the reach is better, it seems to be just as limited by its aperture. If you find yourself wanting more subject isolation and better low light performance, It's probably worth unloading the 14-150.

    You can pick it up from Japan for about $1100 I used asuka from japan, the 3rd one in the 'new' options, and I gad no problems with shipping. It arrived safe and sound in the states, and is currently en route to me in Bulgaria with some visiting family members.

    If you can avoid unloading the 25, I'd hold onto it if I were you. It doesn't overlap with the 35-100, and each is good at doing things the other can't.

    Just my thoughts as someone who recently justified the purchase of the same lens.
     
  6. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    I'll just keep on saving I guess. Please let me know how you like it ill_dawg.
     
  7. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    Dave
    David, i would keep the 25 1.4 for sure. keep the 17 and 9-18. sell the 14-150. get the 35-100 or 75. I just bit the bullet with the 35-100, no real world shots yet, but so far initial tests wide open at both ends, they are good enough, not very sharp, but sharp enough that I wouldn't complain.

    9-18, 17, 25, 35-100. very solid.
     
  8. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    David, what body? Define events?

    I may be going against the grain but.

    Travel? Are talking travel or a photography vacation? For travel the kit you have makes more sense, 200mm angle of view versus 300mm all in one instead of having to swap lenses for the 14-35 range (sounds bigger when you say 28-70). A nice wide, some fast primes for inside and your set.

    Street? 17 or 25 fast primes. Honestly the 45/75 or up coming Sigma 60 might be more discreet or your 9-18.

    Events, that's the question. I don't shoot events with my m4/3 setup. But if I did I'd have the 12-35 and 35-100.
     
  9. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    E-M5 currently.

    I don't think I will use the 35-100 for street much. But once in a while a cityscape shot would make sense with a telephoto so it may see some use.

    When I travel it is mainly travel for fun. This is where the 14-150 comes in. I use it as a lens that does it all and quickly. I have no problem switching lenses or moving temporarily to get a shot though. I would miss it, no question. It'll make me less lazy, I guess?

    I am mainly thinking about this lens for events. I think it would really make a difference in those situations. I am by no means rich so saving for it may take a while.
     
  10. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    I've been using the P35-100 for a while. You'll love it for events. It competes with my 75mm for time on camera, it is that good.

    Gary

    GRAB0569-L.
    P35-100 @ 100mm

    GRAA0989-L.
    P35-100 @ 35mm

    GRAB0589-L.
    P35-100 @ 38mm

    GRAB0055-L.
    P35-100 @ 89mm

    GRAA0843-XL.
    P35-100 @ 60mm

    GRAB0864-L.
    P35-100 @ 100mm

    I'd still keep the 25mm if you can ... a very sweet lens.

    GRAA0682-L.
    PL 25mm

    GRAA0017-L.
    PL 25mm

    Gary
     
  11. Savas K

    Savas K Mu-43 Top Veteran

    784
    Jan 10, 2013
    Framing-in on the action like that fast-paced checker game and scoring the excited response is akin to sports shooting. That is where a zoom like the 35-100 shines. It's a tool that supports the alert photographer's goals.
     
  12. sabesh

    sabesh Mu-43 Veteran

    Go with option #1. Just get that "Must have 1.4 for low light and bokeh" idea out of your head :) You prefer the 35mm FOV. Hence, missing the 50mm FOV isn't that big of a deal.

    The 17/1.8 is capable for low light and defocused backgrounds as well, so you won't really miss the 25/1.4. Best of luck with your choices!
     
  13. Highgrovemanor

    Highgrovemanor Mu-43 Regular

    31
    Sep 12, 2011
    Super zoom must go IMO. Which is where my 14-140 is headed, but I've got an Alaska trip coming up this summer, so I must get 100-300 first. I SO want the 35-100, but not yet. :(
     
  14. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    I won't miss the f/1.4 all that much eh? I sure hope so. I need to walk around for a bit in some dark situations.

    The market for 25/1.4 is healthy right now, I'll probably recuperate what I spent on it.
     
  15. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    Oh, you will miss the 25mm ... but for how I shoot, the 35-100 is on my camera longer and delivers more exceptional images than the 25. You can and most probably will re-acquire the 25mm ... but shooting @ 100mm - f/2.8, the ability to shoot in very low light, will open up an entire new arena of photography for you.

    Good Luck and Good Shooting,
    Gary
     
  16. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    Dave
    Gary, with your background in photography, the 70-200 2.8 in FF is I think one of the most important lenses in the reporter's bag?
     
  17. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    I shot news during the film-only days and those premium, 2.8 zooms were not available. Back then zooms were pretty slow and pretty crappy. "Lenses made from the bottom of Coke bottles," we used to say.

    I shot primes, but the Nikkor 180 f/2.8, beyond a doubt, was one of my favorite lens. If I was shooting news today with a pair of 1DX's or D4's, I'd have a 70-200 on one camera ana 16-35/14-24 on the other body. (For general assignments.) The FF 70-200 f/2.8 is probably the single most telephoto lens used for photojournalism.

    Gary
     
  18. Savas K

    Savas K Mu-43 Top Veteran

    784
    Jan 10, 2013
    Although I loved my C70-200 f/2.8, it was my first casualty in the quest to switch into Micro 4/3. It sold immediately on FM and it got me my EM-5 body and the P25 as my kit lens.
     
  19. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    Dave
    I can attest to the 180 F/2.8, I had one before. And my favorite combo when shooting weddings and events is a 17-35 2.8 + 70-200 2.8 on 2 bodies, often leaving my 24-70 in the bag as backup. Like what you mentioned, I prefer having 2 bodies at the same time.

    --

    Back to the topic... hehe. Let us know what you have decided on... I think either the 45 or 35-100 will be fine choices, though I would be leaning on the zoom. It is one of the lenses that solidifies the size+weight advantages of the Micro 4/3s, imho.
     
  20. sabesh

    sabesh Mu-43 Veteran

    Yup, as you stated that you needed f1.4 for dark situations. The wider the lens, the faster the minimum hand hold shutter speed, apertures being equal. The difference in minimum required shutter speed between the lenses is evened by the 0.4 difference in aperture. They should perform about the same in dark situations.

    Check out the guidelines for 35mm and 50mm FOVs:

    http://www.pixiq.com/article/extreme-photography-how-lenses-affect-shutter-speed-choice