Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Telezoom dilemma

  1. #1
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Telezoom dilemma

    M43 was originally for me a lighter, more compact, travel friendly addition to 5D1/11 and L zooms and later Zeiss ZEs. Eight years on, and me only 3 years off 70, the Canons have gone, no more 2 kilos swinging round my neck threatening to dislodge me from my cliffside handhold, or land me with a large bill in narrow constricted antique shops. Now I just have a couple of DP Merrills for tripod stuff. However, there is a degree of mission creep. Having moved from a GH2 to an EM5 mk2 thought I had found nirvana with minimalist selection of lenses (only 9-18, 60 macro, 100-300 barely used now. I compromised on the size/weight issue to get a 12-40/2.8 which is now what I use for 80% of the time. I also had to compromise on body size as my stubby fingers won't effectively engage with EM5 back plate controls, hence now have EM1 mk2 still lying in box (having found its a perfect fit for my digits).

    However, in travel photography having only the 60mm to turn to when I want to be more selective is a bit limiting. But an absolute requirement is everything has to fit in my new, "larger" but still small shoulder bag (Thinktank Retrospective 5). Logically the Oly Pro 40-150/2.8 would be perfect and with the 1.4X means I could sell the 100-300 and I know it's about same size and weight as the Canon 70-200/4L I used to own, but it it doesn't quite seem to fit into M43 ethos that I have embraced. My 2 alternatives are the Panasonic 35-100 or the 75/1.8 as modern day "135" (in both cases keeping the 100-300). Has anyone used the 35-100 with an EM1 mk 2, is it as good as the 40-150 optically and how well does the IBIS/OIS thing work? Or is the 40-150 less clumsy than I think, especially without the tripod socket and huge hood?

  2. #2
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    10,796
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2517

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    I had the Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 and then the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8. The Panasonic is tiny compared to the Zuiko, and every bit as good optically, but also quite a bit shorter. The Zuiko also accepts teleconverters which the Panasonic doesn't. One of the reasons why I sold the Zuiko was the size, particularly the size of the lens hood.

    When it comes to stabilisation, the IBIS of the E-M1 II is probably better than the OIS of the original Panasonic lens, while the Mark II version of the lens has improved OIS. Dual IS won't work with the Olympus body.

    A third alternative, which is what I would favour, is the PL 50-200mm f/2.8-4. It's at least as good as the other two lenses optically, and it takes Panasonic teleconverters. Then you could sell the 100-300mm, which is about the same size as the 50-200mm, and leave home with a smaller kit.

    The Zuiko 75mm is in another class altogether. If you are happy with the 100-300mm for long reach, the 75mm is the perfect gap filler between that lens and the 12-40mm. Incidentally, I have the Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 and the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6 II myself, and have more or less decided to fill the gap with the 75mm. I use GX8 bodies though. No MFT kit should be without the 75mm It's the best lens of the system and at a bargain price.

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Knorp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,764
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    See how different Olympus/Panasonic lenses compare in size (40-150,100-300,12-100,12-200,12-40): Compact Camera Meter

    And yes, that 40-150/2.8 is huge ...
    Bart ...

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,867
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    The 35-100 is clearly smaller and lighter and a very nice travel lens.
    I would only bring the 40-150 if I might need more range. Its clearly big but IMO not that bad. Also it has a nice sun shade design which you can collapse.
    If you need the reach I would rather carry the 40-150+conv, than both the 35-100 and 100-300.
    If you are fine with 100mm the 35-100 is the better travel lens.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Washington D.C. region
    Posts
    132
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    I had the [ Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8. The Panasonic is tiny compared to the Zuiko, and]
    ... Incidentally, I [now] have the Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8
    Yes, bit of changed statement but true to my
    question of how you find the Oly vs. what I recall
    you quite liking, the 12-35/2.8. Surely you'd like
    Pana's smaller size; but otherwise?

    (-;

  6. #6
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    The 35-100 is clearly smaller and lighter and a very nice travel lens.
    I would only bring the 40-150 if I might need more range. Its clearly big but IMO not that bad. Also it has a nice sun shade design which you can collapse.
    If you need the reach I would rather carry the 40-150+conv, than both the 35-100 and 100-300.
    If you are fine with 100mm the 35-100 is the better travel lens.
    I think it's going to be the 35-100 - it's so much smaller than the 40-150; I would only rarely take the 100-300 for a specific purpose so the logic for having the 75 as the "gap filler" is less.

  7. #7
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    10,796
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2517

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by drofnad View Post
    Yes, bit of changed statement but true to my
    question of how you find the Oly vs. what I recall
    you quite liking, the 12-35/2.8. Surely you'd like
    Pana's smaller size; but otherwise?

    (-;
    The Panasonic is much better for people shot, nicer skin tones, subdued contrast. People in general like photos taken with the Zuiko 12-40/40-150 better than those taken with the Panasonics... until they see a portrait of themself taken with the Zuikos. Too much colour, too many wrinkles and other imperfections.

  8. #8
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    4,766
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    The Panasonic is much better for people shot, nicer skin tones, subdued contrast. People in general like photos taken with the Zuiko 12-40/40-150 better than those taken with the Panasonics... until they see a portrait of themself taken with the Zuikos. Too much colour, too many wrinkles and other imperfections.
    This actually shows that the Olympus Pro lenses draw much more accurate and detailed (or however you want to call this) than the Panasonic lenses. I prefer the richer details and sharpness as I always can soften in post. Maybe this also pairs better with an Olympus camera compared to a Lumix camera but this is just guessing by myself ...

    Especially with the introduction of the MC20 the 2.8/40-150 becomes an even more versatile telecom. Use it

    1) without converter it is a FF equivalent of 2.8 80 - 300 - I mean 2.8 300 in such a small size alone is spectacular (at least for me)

    2) with MC14 it becomes a FF equivalent of 4 112 - 420 - actually the classic wildlife zoom range with a whooping F4 all over the whole range

    3) with MC20 it becomes a FF equivalent of 5.6 160 - 600 - show me any other wildlife zoom with that range and constant F5.6

    And all of that in a very small package for that matter.

    What is not to like about that?

  9. #9
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    10,796
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2517

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    This actually shows that the Olympus Pro lenses draw much more accurate and detailed (or however you want to call this) than the Panasonic lenses. I prefer the richer details and sharpness as I always can soften in post. Maybe this also pairs better with an Olympus camera compared to a Lumix camera but this is just guessing by myself ...

    Especially with the introduction of the MC20 the 2.8/40-150 becomes an even more versatile telecom. Use it

    1) without converter it is a FF equivalent of 2.8 80 - 300 - I mean 2.8 300 in such a small size alone is spectacular (at least for me)

    2) with MC14 it becomes a FF equivalent of 4 112 - 420 - actually the classic wildlife zoom range with a whooping F4 all over the whole range

    3) with MC20 it becomes a FF equivalent of 5.6 160 - 600 - show me any other wildlife zoom with that range and constant F5.6

    And all of that in a very small package for that matter.

    What is not to like about that?
    No photos are accurate. The increased contrast and saturation make details more prominent, but the details are still there with the Panasonic lenses. It's a matter of taste. I would prefer to have both.

  10. #10
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    4,766
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    No photos are accurate. The increased contrast and saturation make details more prominent, but the details are still there with the Panasonic lenses. It's a matter of taste. I would prefer to have both.
    I did not say that the 2.8/40-150 makes absolutely accurate photos, but it is close to perfection - at least in my eyes and this is all that counts for me.

    If anybody else likes it as much depends on their taste and they should just build up their own opinion.

    I do not prefer Pana/Leica lenses over Olympus PRO lenses but I agree they come close.

  11. #11
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    Thinking hard about my actual usage I will be getting neither but have ordered the Olympus 75/1.8 (£419 from HDEW Cameras in UK) and keeping my 100-300 (with tripod mount).
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #12
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by eddystone View Post
    Thinking hard about my actual usage I will be getting neither but have ordered the Olympus 75/1.8 (£419 from HDEW Cameras in UK) and keeping my 100-300 (with tripod mount).
    Which appears to be, on the basis of a few test shots,(the 75, that is) very good indeed. Glad I chose the silver version quite apart from being cheaper - looks pretty cool on EM1 mk2; the JJC equivalent lens hood is metal, close enough in shade of silver and one third the price of the Olympus one.

    Glad I decided to keep 100-300 (original version) although don't use very often. Although it seems to be damned with faint praise I'm quite impressed by its sharpness when stopped down and even more by it's compactness. The tripod mount, made by a guy in Germany, is well worth having.

    Sorry, Sunday morning ramblings!

  13. #13
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    4,766
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by eddystone View Post
    Which appears to be, on the basis of a few test shots,(the 75, that is) very good indeed. Glad I chose the silver version quite apart from being cheaper - looks pretty cool on EM1 mk2; the JJC equivalent lens hood is metal, close enough in shade of silver and one third the price of the Olympus one.

    Glad I decided to keep 100-300 (original version) although don't use very often. Although it seems to be damned with faint praise I'm quite impressed by its sharpness when stopped down and even more by it's compactness. The tripod mount, made by a guy in Germany, is well worth having.

    Sorry, Sunday morning ramblings!
    The 75 is a absolutely stunning lens. Bought mine several years ago. But I highly preferred (and still prefer) the black version. And I still love it!

    Although WRT IQ and sharpness it does not come close to the PRO lenses IMO.

  14. #14
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    The 75 is a absolutely stunning lens. Bought mine several years ago. But I highly preferred (and still prefer) the black version. And I still love it!

    Although WRT IQ and sharpness it does not come close to the PRO lenses IMO.
    Sorry, which does not come close to Pro lenses?

  15. #15
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    4,766
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by eddystone View Post
    Sorry, which does not come close to Pro lenses?
    The Olympus 1.8/75 is no Olympus Pro lens and also does to come close IMO - although it is quite good!

    I own and use all of them - so I know from whatever I see almost every shoot.

  16. #16
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    The Olympus 1.8/75 is no Olympus Pro lens and also does to come close IMO - although it is quite good!

    I own and use all of them - so I know from whatever I see almost every shoot.
    Well I have only made a brief test to check there are no obvious faults but my 75 is at least as sharp as 12-40/2.8 which is the only Pro lens I possess. Of course itís not weather proofed like the Pro lenses but build quality seems very high.

    Of my own lenses I would rank them in order of IQ as follows:
    1. 75/1.8
    2. 12-40/2.8
    3. 60/2.8
    4. 100-300 mk1
    5. 9-18/4.0-5.6
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #17
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    10,796
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2517

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    The 75mm f/1.8 is a unique lens and as far as I know, there isn't currently an equivalent lens available for any system if image quality, size, weight and reach is taken into consideration. Back in the day, one could buy 135mm f/2.8 or 3.5 for most SLR cameras. Many of them were good lenses and not expensive. Nowadays, it's all about mamooth lenses with large apertures, the exceptions being the Canon and Nikon 135mm f/2 that are of reasonable size but still much larger than the little Zuiko.

  18. #18
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,194
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    The Leica 75/2 is very good, but MF only and 200g heavier than the 75/1.8. The latter is stunning, and if anyone finds a better zoom, then their copy of the prime is bad.

    Matt
    mattgraysonphoto.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #19
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    The 75mm f/1.8 is a unique lens and as far as I know, there isn't currently an equivalent lens available for any system if image quality, size, weight and reach is taken into consideration. Back in the day, one could buy 135mm f/2.8 or 3.5 for most SLR cameras. Many of them were good lenses and not expensive. Nowadays, it's all about mamooth lenses with large apertures, the exceptions being the Canon and Nikon 135mm f/2 that are of reasonable size but still much larger than the little Zuiko.
    Indeed, a Canon FD135/3.5 was my first non 50mm lens back in 1976 - pretty simple optics with only 4 elements in 3 groups but quite sharp if I recall.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Washington D.C. region
    Posts
    132
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    Just thought I'd tack on a sort of footnote re the 75/1.8 as it's brought into a discussion comparing Pana's 42.5s 1.2 & 1.7, here (with one respondent hoping for the next Oly Pro 1.2 to be a 45) :

    https://www.mu-43.com/threads/panaso...7.89629/page-2

    -d.

  21. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    225
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    After having bought (and used) pretty well all of the lenses mentioned here, I now am going on a trip with two bodies and the Panasonic 12-60/2.8-4 and 50-200/2.8-4 as my mid to longer lenses, with the Panasonic 15/1.7 and Olympus 45/1.8 as my faster small lenses. For wide views I have the Laowa 7.5/2, which is as good as the Panasonic 7-14/4 at the same focal length (by my criteria), and better than the Olympus f/2.8, and a lot smaller than either. If I'm going wider than 12, I usually want a lot wider. I'm also taking the Laowa 4mm/2.8, which I got a couple of months ago. So tiny, it disappears into my bag, so why not take it for those very occasional shots where it works?

    The 50-200 is a lot better optically than the 100-300's, and while it's heavier, it is about the same length, and it does very well with the 1.4x tc. Not so well with the 2x, but that's OK. If I want longer and am willing to carry them, the 200/2.8 with 2x tc is a lot better, and even the 100-400.

    The 40-150/2.8 was just a bit too big for what it produced, and the Panasonic 35-100 was too short too often. The 12-40/2.8 is an excellent lens, but is a bit poorer than my copy of the 12-60 and of course shorter. The 12-100/4 is an excellent one lens solution, but isn't quite as good as the 12-60 and 50-200 at comparable lengths, and is a bit of a handful itself.

    These are of course very personal judgements regarding size and handling, and the optical qualities on the whole are all acceptable and rarely make or break a picture. As far as optical quality is concerned, the standouts in my collection are the 45/1.2 Pro, the 75/1.8 and the 200/2.8. The 17/1.2 would also be in this group if I could have accepted it's size, but it's too much for it's f.l. and I like the 15/1.7 in that range better.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #22
    Senior Member Elderly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    501
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Telezoom dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by henningw View Post

    The 40-150/2.8 was just a bit too big for what it produced, and the Panasonic 35-100 was too short too often. The 12-40/2.8 is an excellent lens, but is a bit poorer than my copy of the 12-60 and of course shorter. The 12-100/4 is an excellent one lens solution, but isn't quite as good as the 12-60 and 50-200 at comparable lengths, and is a bit of a handful itself.

    These are of course very personal judgements regarding size and handling, and the optical qualities on the whole are all acceptable and rarely make or break a picture .
    /\ I agree with all of this, but with one personal caveat:

    I rarely have time to consider what I'm about to shoot (by the time I've changed lenses I would have missed the shot) and the majority of my shots
    are covered by the 12-100 f4, with quite a number towards or at the longer end (so precluding the lighter & faster 12-60).

    So after having the 12-40 and 40-150, I've ended up with just the 12-100 and 50-200;
    a combination for me which gives all the range I want for my style of photography
    and which has a weight and bulk that I'm happy to travel with.
    Ian.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •