Why is the panasonic 35-100 f2.8 rarely talked about?

Jun 19, 2016
Real Name
Mike Peters
I too loved the 35-100 2.8, it's just the perfect expression of m4/3. However, I more often than not need something longer.

When I shot full frame, I often carried a 70-200 2.8 and a 300 f4 just for the extra reach, and my back was almost always trashed from the weight. I tried to like the Olympus 40-150 2.8, but the size and weight was just too reminiscent of the ff 70-200's in terms of size and weight.

Now I use the P/L 50-200, which is very light and compact for it's reach and ticks off all of the boxes that I need in terms of focal length. The variable aperture is less of a liability than I thought it might be, even indoors.

The other thing about the Panasonic, and especially the P/L lenses as compared to the Olympus Pro lenses is the way they render detail and sharpness. The Oly lenses seem to be very crunchy or blocky in their rendering, making a small detail appear more defined, like pumping up the clarity in post processing. As where the Pana and especially the P/L lenses seem to render details more smoothly and delicately. It's very subtle but often people can mistake clarity for sharpness, especially when it comes to lens characteristics. Having used both, I prefer the rendering of the Panasonic and P/L lenses overall.
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom