trade in my Oly 75 for a 35-100 f2,8?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by manju69, May 27, 2015.

  1. manju69

    manju69 Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Jul 1, 2011
    Stroud, UK
    Hi Folks

    I have been away from this forum for a while - taking photos and even put on an exhibition... refining what I do... hence this question.

    I have the Oly 75mm, which i love. I use it for candid portraits of my family and for getting lovely shallow bokeh on subjects (a couple of typical samples attached) Yet, having one focal length can sometimes be limiting so was pondering swapping it for a Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8. I have a feeling I would use the zoom more often. I see from a DOF calculator I can get similar shallow DOF when i want it, albeit at a longer FL (with different field of view) I can't afford both!

    How does the bokeh quality differ? and the sharpness? I might miss the simplicity of a prime but to be honest it's main use is super shallow DOF. Any thoughts?

  2. RamblinR

    RamblinR Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Aug 16, 2012
    Qld Australia
    If you think it would benefit you more I would do the change but if size isn't a problem I would consider the Olympus 40-150 f2/8. I have the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 which is fabulously sharp but I found the 40-150 larger than I wished to carry.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  3. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here Subscribing Member

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    I think you'll do fine with the 35-100 f2.8. The Oly 75 is a lovely piece of glass as we all know, but it can be rather limiting. I do not own either of the 2.8 zooms but here is an example I've taken with my Minolta Rokkor 100mm f2.5, you should be able to achieve similar (most likely better) results with the modern zooms.
    Japanese Maple
    by Vincent Tsai, on Flickr

    One thing is though, you will lose one and a half stops of light going from f1.8 to f2.8. May I suggest an Oly 45 to complement the f2.8 zoom?
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. slau

    slau Mu-43 Regular Subscribing Member

    Jan 26, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    The best lens is the one you actually use the most often. I own the Oly45, 75 and the Panasonic 35-100f2.8. While I use the zoom lens all the time, the Olympus lenses stay inside the cabinet all the time. Shallow DOF is nice but it is just one of the characteristics of a lens. The Panasonic 35-100f2.8 is an amazing lens for its price, quality and size. I will not go shooting without it. Here are a few samples from the zoom lens:

    . 158128170.




    Good luck in your decision. Happy shooting.
    • Like Like x 3
  5. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    This is the way I use my lenses.

    I have the primes for shooting portraits and for very low light, where having f/1.8 is necessary to get the lowest ISO and the highest shutter speed to meet my needs.

    The zooms I use most of the time for their convenience. It doesn't hurt that the Oly 12-40 & 40-150 // Panny 12-32 & 35-100 fast zooms are some premium glass that rival some of the best out there.

    So, if you are looking for near identical performance but more convenience - lean more towards the zoom.

    Either way you are in a "good problem to have" situation. Either lens is awesome. I don't envy your choice.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Zoom comvenience is nice. Low light capability is too though. What is your light requirement? Do you shoot a lot indoors? At night? Indoor sports? F1.8 raises the detail in the shadows, even in a well lit gym. F2.8 depends....

    What f-stop are you usually shooting? I'm considering simlar option, but I want the f1.8 for indoor portraits and sports. Not sure how important that extra light is.
  7. manju69

    manju69 Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Jul 1, 2011
    Stroud, UK
    Hi. I mostly shoot outdoors in good light (90% of the time)- and never sports. F stop depends... sometimes i have to close down the 75mm because my camera speed wont go that fast to match it! so much so that i have a 2 stop ND filter for it now.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. manju69

    manju69 Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Jul 1, 2011
    Stroud, UK
    Great shots - thanks for sharing them, the 35-100 looks good.
  9. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Legend

    If you are using an ND filter, then it sounds like you don't want to shoot at f2.8 (because you could have stopped down to f2.8 rather than using an ND filter).

    I would say use your 75mm at f2.8 max for 1-2 months solid and see if you can live with the 1.33 stops aperture loss. If so, then get the zoom! It will have so much more flexibility with framing and perspective.
  10. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    Another option is the 4/3 35-100 ƒ2.0...........little faster.......shallower DOF and can even throw on the EC-14 for more reach if you need it and still be at ƒ2.8.
  11. DoofClenas

    DoofClenas Who needs a Mirror! Subscribing Member

    Nov 9, 2012
    Traverse City, MI
    but only if shooting on an em1, and if you don't mind the huge lens. No way I'd trade my 75 for that lens...not at least the way I use it.
  12. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    How big and heavy is the 35-100 f2 Phocal? Without looking it up, I thought it was a big, heavy chunk of glass that I wouldn't want to carry around often.
  13. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    3 1/2 pounds or so.........not light............but a sweet piece of glass................probably my next lens, unless I go for the 90-250..........loving my 150 ƒ2 so far.......there is just something special about the SHG glass that no piece of m4/3 glass has yet compared to.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Legend

    It definitely is: 3.4lbs, 8.5" long and 4" in diameter. It's actually about 10% larger and heavier than Canon's full frame 70-200mm f2.8 IS II .

    Here's a size comparison:,289.366,289.346,ha,t

    Except the 35-100 f2 would be even bigger than the Canon I used as a stand in, plus need an adapter.
  15. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    And a stop faster
  16. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Legend

    Than the Canon? Not in the real world when used on a FF sensor.

    But that's not really the point I was trying to make. It's a massive and heavy lens. Even bigger than the ones most of us moved to m4/3 to avoid using.
  17. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    How do you figure it's not a stop faster? When it comes to light gathering f/2 is a stop faster then f/2.8, full frame-apsc-4/3-m4/3......makes no difference.

    Never said it was not big or not heavy. But, there is nothing else out there that compares to it.

    OP was concerned about the increased DOF going from a f/1.8 prime to a f/2.8 zoom. I gave him an option that no one else suggested that would allow a bit less DOF.
  18. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    The 75 was one of the first u43 lenses I bought and i've still got it. I had the 35-100 for a short time but sold it on. It's a nice lens, but I don't do a lot of event shooting or such like where a zoom's flexibility is a must.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Legend

    It makes a ton of difference given that larger sensors have different DOF control and better noise performance at higher ISO. Using f2.8 on FF with one stop higher ISO gives the same shutter speed, but shallower DOF with less noise. That makes it "faster" in the real world.

    There isn't anything quite like it specifically for 4/3, no. But it doesn't provide a unique capability across the entire camera spectrum. And on m4/3, the f1.8 primes can get you similar output with a much cheaper and smaller footprint and AF on all bodies.

    Again, I wasn't trying to start an FF vs m4/3 battle, I just used that as a commonly seen lens that is in the same ballpark size/weight wise.
  20. chrisada

    chrisada Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 4, 2014
    With a decent flash, like an FL-600R, the f2.8 zooms will do just fine in a typical room. And you'll be shooting ISO200, not 3200.