Who is dumping 35-100mm 2.8 for Oly 40-150mm 2.8?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by uscrx, Oct 13, 2014.

  1. uscrx

    uscrx Mu-43 Veteran

    Aug 26, 2011
    Shasta Cascade
    except for the size, I think 40-150 makes a lot of sense especially with 1.4x TC.

    Thinking of dropping 35-100 and 100-300 in favor of 40-150 2.8 and 1.4xTC.

  2. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010


    from the link above
  3. phigmov

    phigmov Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 4, 2010
    Out of interest, can you use the TC with any lens or is it tuned to the 40-150?
  4. hoodlum

    hoodlum Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 16, 2012
    Toronto Canada
    The TC can only fit on the 40-150 as the lens element protrudes from the TC. Only the 40-150 and the future 300 f4 will have a large enough gap behind the rear element to allow the TC to attach.

    • Like Like x 1
  5. Huff

    Huff Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 30, 2014
    Real Name:
    Interesting side by side comparison. I guess one way to look at it is If you split the 40-150 length into thirds, that extra (approximately) 1/3 length gives you the extra 50mm in reach. Seems like a fair trade off :)
  6. Ramsey

    Ramsey Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 9, 2013
    Zagreb, Croatia
    in the near future, i'm gonna scoop one of the 35-100 that inevitably gets dropped for the purchase of 40-150.

    The images from the 40-150 (so far) are superb (although the link above shows 35-100 is not lacking behind), and that extra 50mm reach definitely comes handy, but for me personally, it defeats the purpose of the m43 system (small,light, low-profile). For pro uses, 40-150 is definitely more appropriate.
  7. owczi

    owczi nareteV 34-uM

    I second Ramsey here. I am getting the 14-150 + TC for things like sports / wildlife / nature, but I'm most definitely not dumping the 35-100 which is my first choice for concerts and other events. It's very light and small for what it is and you can carry it into venues without any hassle. I'm definitely not a "pro" as in I don't make an income from photography, but I tend to approach photography in a pro-like way I guess, as assignments. I think the two lenses are both great tools but each for slightly different purposes. As to defeating the purpose - well, I think the 35-100 already borders on it as you need the grip for comfortable work.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Gary5

    Gary5 Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 15, 2014
    I have the 35-100 and a 50-200. I carry the 35-100 almost always and only carry the 50-200 when I know I'll need it. If I had the 40-150 too, I'd still almost always carry the 35-100.
  9. Mat - MirrorLessons

    Mat - MirrorLessons Mu-43 Veteran

    Mar 10, 2013
    The MZ has a nicer bokeh and is more versatile because of its longest zoom range. Yes it is bigger but after using it everyday for more than a week, I am not bother too much by the difference in weight. Certainly you are less discreet with it :) There is also the MC-14 option as already mentioned before.

    The pana 35-100, you can put it almost anywhere thanks to its reduced size and that is a great advantage.

    The two lenses are similar but yet very different. I am sure that many persons can find good use for both of them.
  10. Rasmus

    Rasmus Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 16, 2013
    Stockholm, Sweden.
    What I find slightly discouraging is that most reviewers seem to think that the flare characteristics of the 40-150 are not significantly better than those of the 35-100. I find the 35-100 somewhat disappointing when I have very gright stuff in the frame and really hoped the 40-150 would be a significant improvement.
  11. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 30, 2013
    I'll stick with the 35-100. A big reason I switched from my FF DSLR gear was to go smaller, and the 35-100 is a perfect example of that being about half the size and less than half the weight of the 40-150. For me personally, 35-100 is a good range for a standard tele zoom, great for general purpose use and travel. While the 40-150mm range sounds nice, I would still need a long lens like my 75-300, even with the 1.4x that only gets you out to 210mm, while for wildlife I find 300mm can be a bit short and often crop further. Also, I can carry both the 35-100 and 75-300 which add up to slightly less weight than the 40-150 alone.

    I'm sure others will have varied opinions, but for me the size of the 35-100 is just right while the 40-150 is simply too big. It would sit on my shelf at home more often than not just like my Sigma 70-200/2.8 did, so no matter how excellent the image quality is, it's simply not a good choice for me.

    This is also not a range I shoot in a great deal, I generally favor 7-45mm range or so, so having a large and heavy (even if excellent) lens for a small percentage of the shots I take doesn't make much sense. The 35-100 is small and light enough that I can throw it in a bag and only use it a few times without feeling like a fool for hauling around a big lens that I barely use, and I often felt that way with the 70-200/2.8.
  12. Huff

    Huff Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 30, 2014
    Real Name:
    I understand where you guys are coming from, but as one coming from (and still keeping at this point) Canon 1Dxxx bodies and the big, fast L-glass this is incredibly refreshing. The equivalent reach of 80-300 in a fixed 2.8 lens at this size and quality is amazing. Yes, it might be big for some who are looking at the m43 stuff with size as the first requirement with certainly find this too big. Others, like me, will find it liberating. My draw to m43 is certainly driven by size but I would never consider it if the quality I need is absent. The other must-have (no exception) is a tough, weather resistant system.

    I use this camera as a tool. I want it to perform without much worry or concern no matter where I might be. From very hot, to cold, to wet conditions. I've only just started down this path with an E-M1 and a 12-40 Pro. The sharpness/contrast/micro-contrast/focus ability/responsiveness is incredible. The 12-40 makes my 24-70L look terrible and I have what most would consider a very good copy of the lens. The edge to edge sharpness and detail resolution are impressive to say the least. Most of what I've seen with the 40-150 with and without the 1.4 tele appear to me to be a winner.
    • Like Like x 4
  13. rapier84

    rapier84 New to Mu-43

    Aug 26, 2010
    I'm seeing plenty of people where I am already selling off their 35-100mm to fund the 40-150mm. But I'll keep mine :smile:

    I find that 200mm is good enough for what I shoot (mainly portraits, some travel and food). The times when I need longer reach such as when I am travelling, 300mm range is normally not enough anyway. And the 35-100mm is so small and light, its perfect to pack into a small bag for travelling with my 12-35mm
  14. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    I expect to stick with the 35-100/2.8. What I wrote in another thread:

    I've thought about this lens a lot and don't think I'll be buying one. When I think about my long-term lens usage (35mm SLR and FX DSLR), I got a *lot* of use out of 80-200/70-200 lenses but relatively little use from the 300mm, in spite of the fact that I carried it most of the time.* That tells me that I'm not going to get a lot of use out of the extra FL from 100-150mm. That being the case, since IQ doesn't differ materially, and since the Olympus lens is relatively a good bit larger than the Panasonic 35-100/2.8, it's hard to see a justification for my needs. The only other difference that's attractive in favor of the Oly zoom is the closer focusing distance, which would be nice, but doesn't make up for the extra size and weight in my bag. YMMV.

    *Meaning that it was on one body around my neck and the 70/80-200 was on another body around my neck, both ready to go all the time.
  15. uscrx

    uscrx Mu-43 Veteran

    Aug 26, 2011
    Shasta Cascade
    35-100mm small size is awesome. But during dslr days, 70 - 200mm 2.8IS was nice yet I longed for 300mm. And when I used 300mm f2.8, it was awesome yet I could have used a zoom range down to 100mm.

    Granted, 40-150mm is big. But it's nothing like 300mm 2.8. And nowhere near the size of 70 - 200mm 2.8IS.

    And I do sports. And have done well with 35-100mm. But it wasn't quite long enough. And with 1.4TC, I think it's an attractive option.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Mu-43 mobile app
  16. gobeatty

    gobeatty Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 15, 2014
    As a related question (I hope), is there enough reason for Panasonic shooters to switch to the Oly zoom? The Panny shooter looses OIS and at these lengths it may or may not be an issue depending on if the primary subjects require high shutter speeds anyway.

    I know for me the much smaller Panny is more attractive having switched to m4/3 for size/weight savings vs my FF gear and no longer shooting professionally. The Oly zoom looks amazing though.
  17. silver92b

    silver92b Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 7, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    Those are valid points. I too found that the 40-150 is a bit shorter than I want for a long lens and maybe I'm not considering the large size of this new lens and how it will affect how much I carry it. I just sold my 50-200 and ordered the 40-150 f2.8 as well as the TC-1.4, I hope that I find the focal length enough for some of the shots I want of BIF, and other animals and objects far away...

    I had the P100-300 and I got *some* good results out of it, but I fund myself struggling with the A/F and missing a lot of shots.. This could be my lack of skill, but I think it could be improved by a faster, better lens. The 50-200 also suffered from A/F issues with the E-M5. The E-M1 was much better for the 50-200, but in the end I decided to sell it and but the new 40-150.

    I had purchased the 12-35 f2.8 and the 35-100f2.8 as well. I loved both of them, but I sold the 12-35 when I ordered the E-M1 and the 12-40.

    Now I am wondering if I will keep the 35-100 or let it go as well... The 35-100 is a wonderful lens, but the 100mm is just not long enough for the zoom I find myself wanting... It is lighter and smaller than the 40-150, but it definitely gives up on reach.

    I do have the little plastic Olympus 40-150 and I really like it. Of course, it's not of the quality of the new lens and is not f2.8 either. I suspect that this new 40-150 with the tc-1.4 is going to be nothing short of phenomenal. If it gives me the IQ and sharpness that I hope, I think I can live with the shorter reach than the 300mm.. I know my weakness and GAS will strike again. I suspect I'll be buying a fixed 300mm f4.0 legacy lens for those longer shots :wink:

    In the meantime, I am impatiently awaiting the arrival of the 40-150 f2.8 and the TC-1.4... Only time will tell if the 35-100 goes on the auction block or not....
  18. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 30, 2013
    Yeah that makes sense, AF speed and extra light gathering even with the 1.4x on at F4 are likely significant advantages over the 100-300 and 75-300. I'll be curious to know how well the AF works with the TC on.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. rapier84

    rapier84 New to Mu-43

    Aug 26, 2010
    Agreed, other than the 40-150mm f2.8 there seem to be no other option for a fast long zoom. My wishlist for this would be a 100-200mm or 100-300mm f4 Power OIS lens. It will probably be the size of the canon 70-200 f4 but it should be spectacular :smile: