The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Telezoom dilemma

eddystone

Member
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?
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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 :lecture: It's the best lens of the system and at a bargain price.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
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.
 

drofnad

Member
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?

(-;
 

eddystone

Member
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.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
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) :thumbup:

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 :thumbs:

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 :thumbs::thumbs:

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

What is not to like about that?
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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) :thumbup:

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 :thumbs:

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 :thumbs::thumbs:

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.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
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.
 

eddystone

Member
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).
 

eddystone

Member
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!
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
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.
 

eddystone

Member
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?
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
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.
 

eddystone

Member
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 it’s 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
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
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
 

eddystone

Member
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.
 
Top