Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: 35-100mm f2.0 question

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default 35-100mm f2.0 question

    Am having e620 with 12-60mm and 25mm f1.4, also starting to taking family with kids pictures. Do I really need this 35-100mm Len, is it going to be too heavy, or is autofocus fast enough on kids? I like the 12-60mm, but I like the 50mm f2.0 (previously owned)... That is why I am questioned this 35-100mm.

    Need your input, thank you.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Portland, OR USA
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: 35-100mm f2.0 question

    Hi Kevin,
    I have owned the 35-100 for a few years and love the image quality. I seriously doubt that there are any primes that can best it's IQ in any area. That said, it is very heavy. You need to be committed to the idea that the image quality is worth the extra weight. I also own the 14-35 and it is also quite stunning in the images it produces. The bokeh from these lenses is creamy smooth and gives your large aperture images an amazing 3D kind of quality.

    Good luck on your decision.
    Dan
    E-P1, Zuiko M14-42, Zuiko 17mm, E-3, Zuiko 14-35 f2 SHG, Zuiko 35-100 f2 SHG, 14-54 f2.8-3.5 Ver I, ThinkTank Photo Urban Disguise 40, ThinkTank Photo Urban Disguise 60, more bags...bags...bags...sheesh, where is a good twelve step program for people with too many bags?
    http://www.portlandphotographic.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hongkong, China
    Posts
    5,062
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)

    Default Re: 35-100mm f2.0 question

    AF is not fast enough for kids.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    157
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: 35-100mm f2.0 question

    I have also owned this lens for several years and while I love the image quality it is big and heavy and the AF isn't in the same league as the 12-60mm SWD. However, it does offer a focus limiter feature that can improve AF lock time. I have used mine on an E-3, an E-5, and a E-M5 (with grip) but I think it would overpower an E-620. My daughter has an E-620 so I put the lens on it to see how it balanced with the camera and it was not well balanced. You would definitely have to hold it using the tripod collar. Also, if you use the pop up flash on the E-620 it will cast a shadow with the 35-100 lens.
    EM-1, E-5, E-500, E-P1, E-620, XZ-1, C-4040, OM-2n, HDL-6, Lytro, 35-100mm, 50-200mm SWD, 14-54mm Mk1 X 2, 50mm macro, 40-150mm, 14-45mm, EC-20, MMF-1, MMF-2, MMF-3, 12-50mm m4/3, 14-42 m4/3, 75-300mm Mk II m4/3, Pany 45-200mm m4/3, Pany 20mm m 4/3, OM 50mm 1.8, Om 28mm 2.8, OM 50mm 3.5 macro, MF-1, , FL-50R, FL-36, FL-40, FL-14, FL-300R, VF 2

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Eastern Iowa
    Posts
    2,124
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)

    Default Re: 35-100mm f2.0 question

    The 35-100 f/2 lens is absolutely my favorite lens EVER from ANY camera system, and I have had a number of them since 1971. There is no other lens that renders images and color the way that lens does. That said, the operative word in your original post is "need." Do you "need" it? Well, frankly, yes. It can do things that no other lens can do. I think it should be in EVERY 4/3rd's photographer's lens arsenal. That said, can you live without it happily? Absolutely. The Olympus kit lenses will yield stunning results in the right hands.

    Capturing children is more about knowing how to use the equipment you have than relying on the equipment to do the job for you. If you're a "snapshot photographer" relying on AF/AE to get the shot every time, with the 35-100 you may miss some. OTOH, if you're a hands-on photographer who thinks about how the equipment needs to be configured to get the images, and you're confident, competent, and comfortable with the gear, you'll miss very few.

    The largest issue for the 35-100 for "snapshots" is that it's a large and heavy lens. It's not something you'll just pick up and twirl around, but you'll never be disappointed with the images you get from it.
    My Models Portfolio My Weddings Portfolio

    Current Equipment: Olympus E10, Leica M9P, Leica M8, Leica M4-P, 28, 35, 50, 75, 90, 135 lenses
    Equipment Emeritus: E20n, E1 w/SHLD-2, e520 kit, FL-40, FL-50, E3 w/HLD-4, Sigma 18-125, Sigma 30 f/1.4, Olympus 25 f/2.8 pancake, 50 f/2 macro, EX-25, PL 25 f/1.4, 14-54, FL-36, 50-200,Panny DMC-L1, Leica 14-50IS, Olympus E5 w/HLD-4, 11-22, 18-180, 35-100, FL-50r, SHV-01 power pack, FL-BK01 bracket

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Summit County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,168
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)

    Default I have a different take on the subject

    I owned the 35-100mm for a good time. I agree with the others; there may be no lens to match it available right now. That being said, it is also huge, heavy, and expensive. The AF is good, but not state-of-the-art. I would not consider it an action lens. Use it intelligently, though, and it will do the job most of the time. If you worry about size on the E-620, get the Olympus grip (HLD-5?) for the E-620, that will help a lot.

    I switched to m4/3 a year ago. The lens I'm looking at to replace the 35-100mm for wide-open portraits is the new M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 as I find the (excellent!) 45mm f/1.8 to be a bit short for me. Put the 75mm on an E-M5 body and you get a small, fast (aperture), fast (AF), extremely high image quality lens with great bokeh. Yes, it's not a zoom, but that's the price you pay for "small." The 75mm + E-M5 price is less or similar to, the 35-100mm alone.

    If I still owned standard 4/3, I'd still have a 35-100mm. Since I do not, I'll work with the 75mm and the new Lumix 35-100mm f/2.8 when it arrives later this year.

    Good luck to you.
    Regards,

    Jim Pilcher
    Summit County, Colorado, USA

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Naperville, IL 60563
    Posts
    66
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: I have a different take on the subject

    I own both the 14-35mm f/2 and the 35-100mm f/2 and have to say that they are staple must-have lenses to truly get the maximum quality out of your Oly E-system. The clarity is beyond stunning. These are heavier lenses than the excellent 12-60mm or 14-54mm lenses, but the investment is definitely worth it.

    On occassion, if you are doing portraiture and just want a single lens that is also extremely lightweight- it's hard to beat the 50mm F/2. Your body becomes the "zoom" (assuming you have the space to work with), but this lens is also great.

    IMO, if you are serious about doing something professional with your E-system, I highly recommend investing in both the 14-35mm/f2 and 35-100mm lenses.

    Side Note- until Oly decides to come out w/ a pro-version of the EM-5, I fail to see the benefit of using the adapter with that setup. You lose autofocus speed, and the overall fit just doesn't seem to work. I'm hopeful that an E-7 isn't too far off, taking advantage of sensor and image processor improvements.

    Kind Regards,
    ~Ramon

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Traverse City, MI
    Posts
    1,025
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 17 Times in 9 Posts
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    Real Name
    Clint

    Default Re: I have a different take on the subject

    All I know is that with all the recent used 35-100mm lenses for sale on this forum, I'm jonesing for one...
    Clint
    Rockin' it Mirrorless Style
    Olympus EM-1, E-PM2, LX-7, S110
    7.5, 12-32, 12-40, 14-42, 20, 25, 45, 75
    Asahi 35 2, SMC Super Tak 135 2.5, Super Tak 200 4
    HLD-7, FL-600r, FL-36r, FL-36, Cactus V5 Duo (x2)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: I have a different take on the subject

    Awesome, thank you all!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona - Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    340
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: I have a different take on the subject

    I don't care for the focusing on the E-620 whatsoever, so that is the first thing I would dump.
    My E-500 is rarely off and my E-510 is almost never off, but my E-620 is often out of focus.
    E-510 IR 665nm, 14-42mm II, 40-150mm II

    OM-D E-M1 +
    14-54mm II

    Body Cap Lens 15mm f/8 & 9mm f/8 "fisheye"


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    550
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    36 (100%)

    Default Re: I have a different take on the subject

    Quote Originally Posted by beameup View Post
    I don't care for the focusing on the E-620 whatsoever, so that is the first thing I would dump.
    My E-500 is rarely off and my E-510 is almost never off, but my E-620 is often out of focus.
    Same experience here. The E-620 had the worst autofocus of an DSLR I've had - not just inexplicably slow, but frequently inaccurate as well. After my third one, I gave up.

    DH

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,128
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)

    Default Re: I have a different take on the subject

    Dropping that kind of money on a 35-100mm to take family pictures is just nutty, unless you are rolling in dough. And if family pictures are your main interest, a good look at micro 4/3 might be warranted the portability of those camers is simply great, and the AF is getting pretty snappy.
    ODM
    ----------------
    Recent photos: http://www.ahfairley.com/gallery/index.html
    http://www.facebook.com/album.php?ai...2&l=fad9c02a1f
    E-10, E-M5, 20mm, PZ 14-42mm

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    659
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: I have a different take on the subject

    Quote Originally Posted by dhazeghi View Post
    Same experience here. The E-620 had the worst autofocus of an DSLR I've had - not just inexplicably slow, but frequently inaccurate as well. After my third one, I gave up.

    DH
    I agree the 620 has worst focus out of any non 4 series cameras...actually I cant speak for 3 series either, so let's say its much slower and it needs more light then 5xx and more expensive e cameras.
    Not sure why is that, but it feels slower and more hunt(ier) in my opinion.

    But I don't have any misses. I always shoot for most contrasty target and it's usually spot on if it does lock in.

    But everything else is so wonderful that my E-5 stays in the basement and E-620 is up on the counter top for most of my snapshots.

    p.s. And I agree with ODM about purpose of the lens...to my that lens MEANS crossing line between being hobbyist and getting in the professionals.
    Cameras:E-5; E-3; E-1; E-620; GH-1
    Lens: 12-60mm 50mm f/2; 50-200swd; Ex-25; 70-300; 40-150mkI; 35mm f/3.5; 25mm f/2.8; 14-140 u43
    Lights: Fl36Rx2; Fl50R; FL50; Elinchrom 2x400ws radio controlled.

    Click on the image to see my Facebook page
    And while you are at it, Like it if you like it

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: I have a different take on the subject

    thanks for all advice, I am waiting my used E3 to come in...
    how's the size differences between E3 vs E620?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,141
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: I have a different take on the subject

    If you want gorgeous portraits of your family, there is a much less expensive and much lighter option to the 35-100: the PL25 1.4. In bright light, it's really not much better than, say, the 12-60 at 25mm. But, when the light gets a bit dim, or the subject is illuminated while the background is not, the bokeh is just beautiful: razor sharp where it's sharp, cottony soft where it's soft, and a lovely falloff between the two. I call the PL25 an 'oh wow' lens, because it produces a lot of 'oh wow' shots. The 4/3 PL25, to me, is a no brainer. It's sharper than the M43 version, going for $600 or less on the used market, small and light enough to be useable on even a Pen body, and AF's decently on the EM5, so if you decide to go that route in the future, that lens can come with you. And it's fairly inexpensive, for what you get.

    I've also been lusting for a 35-100, even after making the leap to the EM5. I'm one of those types who doesn't mind putting up with slow AF and extra weight, if the result knocks my socks off. One thing I will say about the Panny 12-35... I've seen user shots from it, and they're good, but they just don't knock my socks off the way a 14-35 shot will. So I have to wonder what the Panny 35-100 will do.

    Trouble is, used SHG prices are just too high right now. There are quite a few 35-100's for sale, and they're not selling. Neither are the 14-35's or 150F2's. I did see one 150F2 sell on ebay recently, for $1400, quite a bit lower than they used to bring. The uncertainty over 4/3's future has people reluctant to put that sort of money into a lens, if contemporary sensor performance can't be had with it.
    E3, E1, E330, EP1, EM5
    ZD: 7-14, 8FE, PL25 1.4, 14-54, 35-100, 50-200, 70-300 50 Macro, EX-25
    MZD: 12-50, 45 1.8, 14-150
    Nikkor: 105 1.8, 400 3.5, TC301 teleconverter
    FL-50, STF-22

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    in a happy place
    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: I have a different take on the subject

    Interesting discussion. It seems about the same size and weight of any top tier 70-200 with an extra stop of speed. Is part of the problem the size/weight of the camera body?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Eastern Iowa
    Posts
    2,124
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)

    Default Re: I have a different take on the subject

    Quote Originally Posted by allegretto View Post
    Interesting discussion. It seems about the same size and weight of any top tier 70-200 with an extra stop of speed. Is part of the problem the size/weight of the camera body?
    I don't think that there's any problem at all. As with any top-tier lens, there's always the question of whether a "snapshot" photographer wants to spend the kind of cash that glass demands. The smaller m4/3rds bodies, it appears, don't have the juice to drive the lenses like the E3/E5 can.

    The market is maturing. Some believe that m4/3 is where 4/3rds should have been originally, and is the future of Olympus. Some are concerned that the E5 is the last of the great flagship Olympus bodies and so there'll be nothing with improved technology to continue soldiering on with the E series glass. The 'pro/advanced amateur' bodies are being outpaced in sales by the smaller consumer bodies. There were lots and lots of folks who over-bought in the DSLR market when a P&S was more in line with what they needed. They're discovering mirrorless bodies now and trying to recoup some of their investment in HG and SHG glass.

    I see it as a natural market shakeout... similar to what I've seen now three or four times in the forty years I've been in the photo business. The sky is NOT falling (IMHO) and I'm not in any kind of rush to "unload" my E5 and SHG glass...
    My Models Portfolio My Weddings Portfolio

    Current Equipment: Olympus E10, Leica M9P, Leica M8, Leica M4-P, 28, 35, 50, 75, 90, 135 lenses
    Equipment Emeritus: E20n, E1 w/SHLD-2, e520 kit, FL-40, FL-50, E3 w/HLD-4, Sigma 18-125, Sigma 30 f/1.4, Olympus 25 f/2.8 pancake, 50 f/2 macro, EX-25, PL 25 f/1.4, 14-54, FL-36, 50-200,Panny DMC-L1, Leica 14-50IS, Olympus E5 w/HLD-4, 11-22, 18-180, 35-100, FL-50r, SHV-01 power pack, FL-BK01 bracket

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pelham, Ontario
    Posts
    747
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 8 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: I have a different take on the subject

    Good words, Roger.

    Every time I see a question posted along the lines of "I want to buy some SHG glass, but I'm worried because":

    A)...I hear it's really big/heavy

    B)...Wow it's expensive

    C)...I might be able to use my [fill in SG/HG/mFT lens here]

    D)...I just don't know about the future of 4/3

    E)...I've heard something about slow/missed/off/front/back/higlight/lowlight/inconsistent/poor focus issues

    F)...I'm not sure a SHG will suit my needs for taking pictures of my backyardbirds/kids/cats/dogs/kidssports/kidscats/kidsdogs

    ...etc.

    Well, I kind of want to shake my head.

    We should have a set of standard response posts stashed somewhere on the forum for these kinds of posts, since they've been asked and answered here (and on the dark side) roughly 5,000 times since 2005.

    I'll make a start:

    "Yes, they are big and heavy. If you are looking for light, I can refer to to this great XZ-1"

    "Yes, so is a Porsche"

    "Absolutely, you can also use a $499 superzoom to 'get the shot' quite well"

    "So am I, since my E5 will stop working the day Oly annouces the end of 4/3...actually they will be useful until I retire from shooting, since my camera will not suddenly stop working and I don't ever have to worry about upgrading lenses again"

    "Yes, only about 80% of my 30,000 shots per year are in perfect focus."

    "Yes, it will take the best possible photos you can possibly take in the 4/3 format of your backyardbirds/kids/cats/dogs/kidssports/kidscats/kidsdogs. Whether it suits your 'needs' is your call"

    Leigh
    zippski

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: I have a different take on the subject

    I got the len with E-3, it was not that bad, let see how long my wrist can handle it.
    E-3/E-620/E-410, 12-60mm f2.8-4, 35-100mm f2, 25mm f1.4

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona - Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    340
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: I have a different take on the subject

    Quote Originally Posted by kevinaldo View Post
    I got the len with E-3, it was not that bad, let see how long my wrist can handle it.
    You have a great combination with the E-3 and 12-60mm lens. Now go out and take lots of memorable images you will cherish forever.
    E-510 IR 665nm, 14-42mm II, 40-150mm II

    OM-D E-M1 +
    14-54mm II

    Body Cap Lens 15mm f/8 & 9mm f/8 "fisheye"


  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Van Nuys, CA
    Posts
    663
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: I have a different take on the subject

    I absolutely LOVE my 35-100mm lens. It's big, heavy, and fits just *perfectly* on my gripped E-3, IMHO.

    Is it "necessary"? Heck no. Not unless you need at least 2 additional stops of light-gathering ability, the absolute best portrait lens *ever*, or just plain want to experience optical perfection for yourself. On the other hand, if you shoot weddings, then you *do* need the 35-100mm and 12-60mm lenses, plus a few backup lenses and bodies.

    If you're a casual shooter, and just looking to "cover the range", then the 40-150mm is a fantastic option, and MUCH MUCH smaller, cheaper, and lighter. You'll be shooting from f/4.0 to f/5.6 at the fastest, but you'll be able to get some quite nice shots, especially if you've got plenty of light available. Plus, it goes longer (150mm vs. 100mm), which will let you zoom just a bit closer when you want to.

    If your budget stretches a bit more, but not all the way to SHG glass, buy the 50-200mm. It's gorgeous, and you won't regret owning it (either version). I love mine, and before I got the 35-100mm, it was just about my most-used lens (after the 12-60mm). Sharp, weather-sealed, and a nice "middleweight" in terms of both bulk and heft, it does a fantastic job all around. You'll get a very clean f/2.8 at 50mm, and f/4.0 at 200mm, which is quite usable in all but the dimmest light. I usually shoot in manual mode, so I'll often just keep mine at f/4.0, and bump the ISO up to whatever it needs to be to get decent shutter speeds. That way, I can get a constant aperture throughout the zoom range. I still use mine regularly, whenever I need more reach than I get from the 35-100mm.

    If you need more reach than the 40-150mm will give you, but can't afford the 50-200mm, then the 70-300mm is a pretty decent choice. It's slow, both in aperture and in focusing speed. But, in addition to being useful at long distances, it's also a pretty good "pseudo-macro" lens for getting close-up shots, especially when you need to be about a yard or two away from your subjects (like at a zoo, botanical garden, or museum). It's the least-sharp of the lenses I've talked about, but the image quality is still pretty darn good. I've got a few woodpecker shots I'll post when I get home tonight, that were taken on vacation a few weeks ago with this lens, from about 15-20 feet away, handheld, and the feather detail is just gorgeous.

    Hope this helps,

    - Rick
    Cameras: Yes.
    Lenses: Yes.
    Lighting: Sometimes, depending upon needs.
    Misc.: Other stuff, as needed.

    CrayonPhotos.com ... pictures that draw you in.
    Follow me on Twitter.
    Like me on Facebook.

Posting Permissions

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