Looks superb as it always does:) Is it still ok at night for street photography? And would you say this is a great set together with the Lumix 14mm 2.5? I just ordered a GX7. Maybe a good combination
@bemhai1766 for low light, it might not be the best choice unless you're using a tripod, because it is only an f4-5.6 lens. But in all other light it's a great choice!
This lens is appealing indeed, especially with stabilization built in. If you want *the* lightest and most capable kit, then the 12-32 + 35-100 is it. The Olympus 40-150 f/4.0-5.6 is also worth considering--it's a bit longer, but has 50% greater reach. But no I.S.
@@Centauri27 Question: My GX7 has inbuilt OIS, is the Oly 40-150 considerable? And does ist challenge Emilys lens?? I mean it's so cheap on MPB. I wait with my order till someone can tell:)
@@benfromatlantis Sure, the Olympus 40-150 should function as well on your GX7 as the 35-100 on a non-stabilized body. The GX7's IBIS is 3-axis I believe, so it's good for at least a couple of stops. Nothing like the fancier 5-axis stabilization on later Pannys and most Olympus cameras. This IBIS should be about on par with the stabilization that's built into the 35-100. (BTW, using the 35-100 on the GX7 won't get you any more stabilization, as the GX7 doesn't have the Dual-IS feature.)
What I use for a versatile weather resistant but not tiny and not as affordable lens is the M.Zuiko 12-200. At least for me, it is a great lens for family vacations. The Lumix 35-100 does look interesting since I already have the 12-32 pancake.
I was intrigued by the 12-200. I already have the 12-100 and the Panny 12-32 and 35-100 f/2.8. The "super zoom" range is very appealing when traveling. I'm just afraid of the lacklustre performance at the long end (like my Olympus 14-150). But you can't have everything I guess.
I've got the lumix 45-150 (f4-5.6), and think it's an absolute stonker. I don't think it's particularly well regarded, but it's probably my most used lens, especially for travel and portrait.
I got that one too as it came with a kit when I bought a used GX80 with the 12-32 and the 45-150 for an absolute steal. I've used the lens a few times only, not being very impressed by it. Maybe I should give it another chance.
@@thedarkslide I have both of those, though I didn't buy them at the same time. For travel they are a great pair. I suspect I just have lower expectations (I use a lot of vintage gear). I get less chromatic aberration off of both of those than I do off of my one prime (panny-leica 25 f1.4)
@@cloudcitydigital define "good". I've used it before and for me it does its job very well. But yeah since it is not a fast lens, it won't give that creamy bokeh.
The P 35-100 is a great lens not just for its size but also for its optical quality. My original "travel kit" was the GM1, O 9-18mm, P 12-32, and the P 35-100 f4. However, I kept finding I wanted a little more reach so I bought the Panasonic 45-175mm f4. This means I have a gap between 36mm-44mm, but I don't miss it. The P 45-175 is a bit longer than the P 35-100 f4, but still small enough to fit into my Cozyspeed bag (along with the P 12-32mm, O 9-18mm, and the P 20mm f1.7 pancake). Speaking of which, the O 9-18mm is another small but powerful lens in the system. It is very small when collapsed but takes beautiful photos.
I have this lens, 12-32 and 20 1.7 as my portable kit with a GX880 as my take anywhere kit. Works really well when size/weight is key. Even take it cycling 🚴♂️😀
Ideal for super-lightweight travel with GM5 or GF7, as a just in case when the expected main subject matter is at the wide end. The 14-140mm is twice the size and weight but still quite compact and far more flexible. So, the 14-140mm tends push out the 35-100mm.
First: I am so happy about your vids because they brought me to MTFs. But this time I followed your recommendation and ordered the 35-100mm I have to say it's waaayyyy too short! Almost for everything. I use the 14mm 2.5 and I tried not to have that big gap so I thought 35mm to start is ok. But with 100mm my range is between all worlds. It's not good enough for portraits, it's too short for layering in distance i.e. to catch mountains and waterfalls. In your video it seemd to make sense, but I have to return it. But I am honest: I really don't know what the solution may be. I need something beside my 14mm.
Thank you for another fun video, Emily. I do love the puffins! I have never gotten that close to them. Now, weirdly this is my least used focal length range. I have the original 35-100 f2.8 but haven't touched it in years! I seem to be using either super-wide or super-tele these days. Maybe it's time to dust it off.
I recently tried Meike extension tubes with my M43 lenses, and the Lumix 35-100mm f4-5.6 works the best, especially at the 100mm end where you get a nice autofocus range. I've got some great macro shots ever with this combo!
Oh, I have the lens and extension tubes and want to try this! I've tried extension tubes with a heavier zoom lens, the Olympus 45mm prime, and some others. I liked the results from the 45mm lens very much. Macro shooting with the 35-100 lens is maybe the set-up I've been seeking, for ultralight macro photography at variable focal lengths, when hiking/backpacking. Many thanks!
This lens is great, I won't get rid of it as it's perfect for my GM1 and EM5 with the vertical grip. However, the drawbacks for me are a not-so-short minimum focusing distance and the fact that it is prone to getting dust inside.
The 14-140mm is definately _not_ a "put it in your bag just in case and forget about it" option, since it has a LOT more heft to it regarding size and weight. Where my GF1 and GX80 remain pocketable options when using the 35-100mm, with the 14-140mm attached a cam bag is obligatory!
It is indeed a great little lens. How often do you really need to use f2.8? I just bump up the ISO in low light and have no problems. Save some money, if you are not a professional photographer, you don’t need a professional level lens; this lens meets all of my needs easily.
Seems like a nice travel lens. But because f4-5.6 not sure I would go that road. I used m43 for 8-9years seriously. Now I still own some m43 gear but don't use it that much. For example for traveling a Sony 1 inch sensor RX10(whatever series) isn't far off in quality with m43. And that lenses are constant f2.8 or f2.4-4.0(600mm). I still like m43 with using some bright MF lenses or the m43 longer tele lenses. Everything in between doesn't really suit in that well.
I enjoy how you try out every camera and lens. You really show that if the User knows what their doing then they can make any lens or camera take good shots
The Olympus 40-150mm RII f/4-5.6 only cost me $90 brand new and it’s stupid sharp. I can’t emphasize that enough 😂 Looks a bit goofy on a G9 or E-M1 Mark III though.
I have this lens, as well as the Olympus 40-150 PRO and the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8. It's pretty sharp at the short end, but only okay at the long end. Still, to get 300mm equivalent for 100 bucks is pretty damn good.
@@Centauri27 must be your copy because mine is sharp throughout the whole range. Yet again my copy of the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 is inconsistent as heck. One day it’ll be sharp as can be and another day it’ll be lacking in sharpness at any stopped down aperture.
@@danny_r27 My 40-150 isn't obviously bad; the quality is about on par with my 14-150. But it's nowhere near as good at the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 or the Olympus 40-150 PRO. I also have the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 and it's good, but not quite top tier. You're getting fluctuations with a prime? That's very odd. Could be the focusing motor going wonky.
@@Centauri27 I’m thinking about getting the Lumix 35-100mm f/2.8 II if Panasonic do in fact announce a Lumix G9 successor. All the images I see taken with it are pretty amazing. And if I do stay with MFT I’ll trade my Olympus 17mm f/1.8 for a PL 15mm f/1.7.
Well done and agree…the 2.8 version isn’t exactly big, but not ‘small” either. Will have to check this one out! Btw: if you haven’t check out the latest vid from Marcuspix and his G7. He is a big fan of small cameras (many of which, but not all are older mft). Always enjoy your videos!
Have you ever looked at the Nikon 1 system when it still existed? those lenses are tiny :) Back when it was new it was out of my reach but nowadays you can find them very cheap ☺
I love telephoto lens for street photography. I did some street photography with the Panasonic 14-140mm and got some really nice photos and people 99% of the time have no clue you are taking photos and the photos look so natural like they are stills from a movie.
Uuuuurrrggg! More photoporn tempting me over my food budget once again! Oh wait, I got one, but seldom use it. Happy hols on the Faroe’s and thanks for keeping us updated on m4/3 ❤️
I can’t believe how small m43 lenses are, it’s actually mental 😂 I’ll slowly but surely get to the point where FF stuff is just too big and stupid , and then come over to m43 for good 🤪
Have you seen what the FF gang is trying now? Super SLOW zoom lenses, just to make them compact enough to compete against Micro Four Thirds! 😆 Would you buy an f/8 zoom from Canon?
I love that lens, it is also very well built, metal and with a metal mount. When I go out with one of my OMs with the M.Zuiko 12-40 f2.8, it is accompanied by that Lumix 35-100 (it's great to have a focal range from 12 to 100mm). Also, as you say, I think it has great performance, offering very sharp images from edge to edge.😁
This lens is most interesting. I already have the Lumix 35-100 f/2.8 (which is nearly compact enough to be be "carry around" zoom) and the Olympus 40-150 f/4-5.6 (which alas is non-stabilized and not very good for my GX850). Do I need another zoom in this range? Hmmmm..... (Oh yeah, I also have the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 PRO + the two teleconverters, but that's a beast in another category.)
Just bought it (silver version) 2nd hand from mpb. It’s great on my gx80, just what mft is all about, small, sharp, light!!! I usually prefer fast primes, but couldn’t get inspired after getting the excellent Lumix 42.5 f1.7 which to this day is my favourite. Where to go next? Tried the Oly 12-40 f2.8 pro - a great lens, but it wasn’t taking me anywhere new and was far too large/heavy on the gx80, and no better than the 42.5 f1.7, so I returned it. I mostly photograph plants in my garden and have been delighted at how the 35-100 has opened up new perspectives for me. Tried it today with extension tubes and got some great macro shots too. I’ve discovered I don’t really enjoy wide angle lenses - I’ve a camera phone for that, so this 35-100 will be my new walk around/family day out lens. So happy. It’s a keeper.
Nice video, interesting lens. For me 40-150mm F/4.0-5.6 or 45-175mm would be a more versatile lens and stil very portable. You can reach portability not only by using light lenses, but also by using less lenses.
I really loved this lens paired with my GM5. It’s far, far, better than any lens that size should be. The 14-140 is a better choice for a larger body in my opinion.
One of the few Mega-OIS that will Dual2. The other tiny zoom is the PZ45-175 f/4-5.6, a little longer and heavier but slips into a pocket. I don't really like the "equivalent to" but that's a 350mm you can conceal in your hand.
It's a good one, but I'm not sure it's much better than the 45-150 f/4-5.6. It's just 70g lighter and not much smaller when in shooting position. I have both, but not quite sure which to take most of the time.
Hi Emily-- I'm enjoying every step of your mini camera/tiny lens journey. You are proving great things can come in small packages. You (and Robin Wong) have inspired me to dig out my GM-1 and Olympus EPL7. I circled this lens for awhile,,especially after I was disappointed by the 45-150 kit zoom. I ended up finding a 35-100 2.8 at such a good price that I went that way for my main kit.... but I could be tempted by one of these. I will say that I find the 45-175 to be a very sharp tiny power zoom to compliment the 14-42- G Vario PZ. My GM-1 with those 2 lenses makes a super tiny but feature packed combo in my new mini set up bag.. and it's your fault!!
I've had this lens for a few years and it is one of my favourites. I don't find the aperture to be slow, even sometimes I put it at 5.6 and I have a costant aperture! 😉 The best thing is the size, this is what m43 lenses should be. The only down side I can think of is the lens hood, I find it a pain to put on. I have a JJC screw on now, works nicely. Oh, something else nice with this lens, it has the 46mm filter thread. If you have a Lumix 25mm f1.7 or 30mm macro, Oly 17mm f1.8, etc, your filters will fit all.
I have this and the 45-175mm Lumix. Huge overlap between the two, but I can’t decide between the two. I think the focus speed is better on the 35-100, but I like the extra reach of the 45-175. Both render quite well and support dual IS. Tough decision. I’ll probably hang on to both for now.
I still use an fairly unusual SMC Pentax 45-125mm, constant f4. It's not huge, but it's quite heavy, adapted on my EM10ii. MF, yes, but optical performance is superb across the frame even at f4. It cost me 30 quid in near perfect condition.
I have the Olympus 40-150 f/4-5.6. It's great if you have a camera with IBIS, but not so good with non-IBIS cameras. Super lightweight, awesome range. The 300mm equivalent is so nice to have! Very affordable too. Just don't expect miracles at the longer end of the range.
That location is breath-taking to do a review. I'm guessing that you will use this location for all your reviews from now on?🤣🤣 I've got the f2.8 and to my shame, it just lives in my lens box unloved. Seeing as you have the odd sponsorship with MPB, maybe you could try and persuade them to let you review the Leica Elmarit 200mm lens? I have a sneeky suspicion that you will not want to give it back.
@@MicroFourNerds It is the best/sharpest lens that I have ever owned. It makes my Leica 100-400mm images look like they were shot on a kit lens. I was at the Blackpool Air Show this weekend and I was able to capture the rivets on some of the older planes. For Safari, and I'd like to go on one, I'd choose the 200mm over the 100-400mm any day of the week.
@@Centauri27 In fact, going around with a lens like this is certainly more comfortable, there is no question of the quality of the olympus but at this point I also buy this 😁
Worst lens to buy. There is 0 sharpness no matter how much aperture is closed, no matter is there stabilization on or not. Soft at 35mm, soft at 100mm, soft at f4.5, soft at any aperture value no matter how much you open or close. I found that Zuiko 45mm f1.8 with digital zoom is way better and cheaper than spend your money on this garbage 35-100 f4.5-5.6.
Thank you Emily, I will go for the 2.8 version ii, actually. I'm building my collection of lenses. I haven't shot Micro Four Thirds since my Olympus e-p2 back in 2008! Now I have the GM-1 and it's so much fun that I'm ready to buy another camera body (with a viewfinder) for street and travel. Must be light but IQ comes first. I'd appreciate any suggestions on the next body that would suit this lens? Thank you!
Ooh with a viewfinder, you could look at the Lumix GX80 if you'd rather stay with lumix, or any of the EM5 cameras in the Olympus lineup! If you wanted something a little bit bigger, perhaps the Lumix G9 or Olympus EM10 series of cameras 😁
@@MicroFourNerds Thank you! GX8 I believe is what we have here in the States. I was looking at the GX9 just now and doing some comparisons. However, I will look at your other suggestions too. Thank you!!!
@juliettemansour the gx8 and gx9 are bloody beautiful, and they're the models above the gx80 (also known as the gx85). they'll all be great!! If you have the budget, the gx9 is the photo-centric one, and the gx8 does good video too
I've been wondering, why the 30-100 istead of the 14-140? In paper, both look similar, but the 14-140 has better apperture wide and better range. They are similar in size, weight and is weather sealed. So.... what am I missing here?
The 14-140mm is much bigger and heavier, it's a similar dimension as the 35-100mm f2.8 constant, or the 12-35mm f2.8 stock lens. While it isn't exactly large, it isn't "tiny" like the 35-100mm f4-5.6 in this video. I'm quite interested in the best smaller lenses at the moment! The 14-140mm seems super versatile though.
Yes, but it is worth it. The 14-140 has a brilliant range. Although bigger than the 30 - 100 it isn't that much bigger and considering the range you get with it it's remarkably small. I am fortunate enough to have many lenses, including some of the Pana Leica ones, but by far my most used lens over many years has been the 14-140. Of course (like all lenses) it isn't good for everything, but as an all rounder especially for outdoor, daylight landscapes, street, travel etc it's ideal. If I was only allowed to keep one lens it would be the 14-140. I'm not knocking the 30-100, it's just that because it doesn't give me anything more than my 14-140 (other than smaller size, which I don't feel I need) it would be a superfluous addition for me. Might be perfect for others though. 🙂
@@kwchalky02 Yeah, those two lenses are incompletely different classes. The 35-100 was created to complement the 12-32 as a kit lens package. The 14-140 is more premium. I have the Olympus 14-150 which I used for many years, until I decided to splurge for a (used) Olympus 12-100 PRO. Big difference in quality!
The 70-200 is the full-frame equivalent, where it is exactly the equivalent of the 70-200mm F8-11. I don't want to have such a lens in my pocket, and I'm certainly not the only one, that's why such full-frame lenses are hardly produced 😕
It's only equivalent to f8-11 when talking about depth of field. When talking about the ability to gather light, it's still f4-5.6. Saying it is exactly equivalent to f8-11 is neither fair nor correct.
@@parkerwilkins5495 you're wrong, this is one of the biggest myths about MFT. It is the same only for the exposure triangle. The same F number affects the exposure per unit area. However, a several times larger sensor will collect several times more light at the same F number. It is the same as rain falling on different sized roofs. The same layer will rain there (exposure), but from the larger roof there will be more water in volume (total light gain). So it does not only affect the depth of field, but above all also noise, and a smaller sensor will encounter diffraction sooner, because the same F at different real focal points is also a different-sized aperture, so there are many (unspoken) effects on image quality. Photographers say: "if you only care about the numbers on the camera display, F is the same. If you care about the resulting photograph, it is not the same"
@@horniuvrat1642 "It is the same only for the exposure triangle" so you agree then that two lenses, one m43 and one ff, of the same aperture will produce the same exposure assuming the rest of the exposure triangle is equal? Because if so then you would also agree that it just isn't fair or true to say that this lens is "exactly the equivalent of the 70-200 f8-11". I don't know about you, but if given the choice between a m43 camera with this lens, or a full frame camera with a 70-200 f8-11 lens, I'd choose the m43 system any day because the full frame lens would gather FOUR TIMES LESS LIGHT than the m43 lens. Yes, the m43 system would experience diffraction sooner, and have worse iso performance (though only slight in the real world), it wouldn't matter because on the full frame system I would need to crank the iso up two stops to get an equivalent exposure (and thus introduce noise). Again, saying this lens is _exactly_ equivalent to a full frame f8-11 just isn't true.
@@parkerwilkins5495 yes, MFT users have created entire legends about this, they have no choice. ...Yes, the exposure triangle is theoretically(*) the same, but photographers don't shoot theoretically and don't present their work through numbers on the display (this is only done here on discussion forums), but they present images and what I wrote applies there. The principle I described is the very reason why a larger sensor makes less noise. It is no coincidence that the professionals (with exceptions and ambassadors) ignore the MFT and the OM is in decline again according to unofficial reports (because the official ones are strictly secret). (*) note - even the exposure triangle does not always apply at the same F. For example, in the video "ULTIMATE WILDLIFE ZOOM REVIEW! Canon Sony Nikon Olympus Fuji Panasonic" on the channel "Tony & Chelsea Northrup" at 9:30 + you can see that MFT exposes for a longer time at lower F and higher ISO compared to FF. As it has already been found out, Olympus and today OM have a different set of ISO so that the cameras perform better in noise tests. Realistically speaking, OM refers to ISO 100 as ISO 200. If you're just watching the numbers on the display, that's OK, but if you're shooting in the real world next to someone with FF, you'll always lose in light gain regardless of whether you're watching the numbers on the display, or the resulting photo. Anyone who has a comparison knows this for a long time. I'm sorry.
@@parkerwilkins5495 so you must correctly say that the 35-100 lens on the MFT has the same angle of view as the 70-200 on the FF. But you must never write that the 35-100/4-5.6 on the MFT is the same as the 70-200/4-5.6 on the FF - this defies the physical laws of optics, which is an exact science. The aperture number is given here as f/4 where f is the focus - so 35/4 is a mathematical example and the result is 8.75mm lens diameter. So when you claim that 35/4 is the same as 70/4, you are actually saying that 8.75 = 17.5 ... I don't know how in your country, but this is not the case here and whoever says that should go back to schools ;-)
I don't see a point about this lens, and I don't like variable aperture lenses in general, but I can't deny that it's very compact and reasonably priced and I don't know how is the optical performance.
As a new-ish photographer I tended to ignore slower zoom lenses, especially in this focal length range. Now they are starting to sound tempting. Especially for travel/street photography or landscapes. I’m curious how well the AF will work on OM System bodies, though.
What do you make of this tiny yet mighty lens?!
Looks superb as it always does:)
Is it still ok at night for street photography?
And would you say this is a great set together with the Lumix 14mm 2.5?
I just ordered a GX7. Maybe a good combination
@bemhai1766 for low light, it might not be the best choice unless you're using a tripod, because it is only an f4-5.6 lens. But in all other light it's a great choice!
This lens is appealing indeed, especially with stabilization built in. If you want *the* lightest and most capable kit, then the 12-32 + 35-100 is it. The Olympus 40-150 f/4.0-5.6 is also worth considering--it's a bit longer, but has 50% greater reach. But no I.S.
@@Centauri27 Question: My GX7 has inbuilt OIS, is the Oly 40-150 considerable? And does ist challenge Emilys lens?? I mean it's so cheap on MPB. I wait with my order till someone can tell:)
@@benfromatlantis Sure, the Olympus 40-150 should function as well on your GX7 as the 35-100 on a non-stabilized body. The GX7's IBIS is 3-axis I believe, so it's good for at least a couple of stops. Nothing like the fancier 5-axis stabilization on later Pannys and most Olympus cameras. This IBIS should be about on par with the stabilization that's built into the 35-100. (BTW, using the 35-100 on the GX7 won't get you any more stabilization, as the GX7 doesn't have the Dual-IS feature.)
What I use for a versatile weather resistant but not tiny and not as affordable lens is the M.Zuiko 12-200. At least for me, it is a great lens for family vacations. The Lumix 35-100 does look interesting since I already have the 12-32 pancake.
I was intrigued by the 12-200. I already have the 12-100 and the Panny 12-32 and 35-100 f/2.8. The "super zoom" range is very appealing when traveling. I'm just afraid of the lacklustre performance at the long end (like my Olympus 14-150). But you can't have everything I guess.
I've got the lumix 45-150 (f4-5.6), and think it's an absolute stonker. I don't think it's particularly well regarded, but it's probably my most used lens, especially for travel and portrait.
I've one too and it does the business for me
I have owned this lens twice and I just CANNOT get good photos out of it. What am I doing wrong? How do you shoot with it?
I got that one too as it came with a kit when I bought a used GX80 with the 12-32 and the 45-150 for an absolute steal. I've used the lens a few times only, not being very impressed by it. Maybe I should give it another chance.
@@thedarkslide I have both of those, though I didn't buy them at the same time. For travel they are a great pair. I suspect I just have lower expectations (I use a lot of vintage gear). I get less chromatic aberration off of both of those than I do off of my one prime (panny-leica 25 f1.4)
@@cloudcitydigital define "good". I've used it before and for me it does its job very well. But yeah since it is not a fast lens, it won't give that creamy bokeh.
The P 35-100 is a great lens not just for its size but also for its optical quality. My original "travel kit" was the GM1, O 9-18mm, P 12-32, and the P 35-100 f4. However, I kept finding I wanted a little more reach so I bought the Panasonic 45-175mm f4. This means I have a gap between 36mm-44mm, but I don't miss it. The P 45-175 is a bit longer than the P 35-100 f4, but still small enough to fit into my Cozyspeed bag (along with the P 12-32mm, O 9-18mm, and the P 20mm f1.7 pancake). Speaking of which, the O 9-18mm is another small but powerful lens in the system. It is very small when collapsed but takes beautiful photos.
Lumix bundled a 45-150 with gx85. It's good too, but I'd have preferred this one for sure! Smaller.
I have this lens, 12-32 and 20 1.7 as my portable kit with a GX880 as my take anywhere kit. Works really well when size/weight is key. Even take it cycling 🚴♂️😀
Happy cycling and hunting photo
Ideal for super-lightweight travel with GM5 or GF7, as a just in case when the expected main subject matter is at the wide end. The 14-140mm is twice the size and weight but still quite compact and far more flexible. So, the 14-140mm tends push out the 35-100mm.
First: I am so happy about your vids because they brought me to MTFs. But this time I followed your recommendation and ordered the 35-100mm I have to say it's waaayyyy too short! Almost for everything. I use the 14mm 2.5 and I tried not to have that big gap so I thought 35mm to start is ok. But with 100mm my range is between all worlds. It's not good enough for portraits, it's too short for layering in distance i.e. to catch mountains and waterfalls. In your video it seemd to make sense, but I have to return it. But I am honest: I really don't know what the solution may be. I need something beside my 14mm.
Thank you for another fun video, Emily. I do love the puffins! I have never gotten that close to them. Now, weirdly this is my least used focal length range. I have the original 35-100 f2.8 but haven't touched it in years! I seem to be using either super-wide or super-tele these days. Maybe it's time to dust it off.
I recently tried Meike extension tubes with my M43 lenses, and the Lumix 35-100mm f4-5.6 works the best, especially at the 100mm end where you get a nice autofocus range. I've got some great macro shots ever with this combo!
Oh, I have the lens and extension tubes and want to try this! I've tried extension tubes with a heavier zoom lens, the Olympus 45mm prime, and some others. I liked the results from the 45mm lens very much. Macro shooting with the 35-100 lens is maybe the set-up I've been seeking, for ultralight macro photography at variable focal lengths, when hiking/backpacking. Many thanks!
This lens is great, I won't get rid of it as it's perfect for my GM1 and EM5 with the vertical grip.
However, the drawbacks for me are a not-so-short minimum focusing distance and the fact that it is prone to getting dust inside.
No way would I choose this over the 14-140 f3.5-5.8. There isn’t even that much difference in size and weight. So it comes down to price.
The 14-140 is double the weight and 50 percent longer....
The 14-140mm is definately _not_ a "put it in your bag just in case and forget about it" option, since it has a LOT more heft to it regarding size and weight.
Where my GF1 and GX80 remain pocketable options when using the 35-100mm, with the 14-140mm attached a cam bag is obligatory!
It is indeed a great little lens. How often do you really need to use f2.8? I just bump up the ISO in low light and have no problems. Save some money, if you are not a professional photographer, you don’t need a professional level lens; this lens meets all of my needs easily.
Seems like a nice travel lens. But because f4-5.6 not sure I would go that road. I used m43 for 8-9years seriously. Now I still own some m43 gear but don't use it that much. For example for traveling a Sony 1 inch sensor RX10(whatever series) isn't far off in quality with m43. And that lenses are constant f2.8 or f2.4-4.0(600mm). I still like m43 with using some bright MF lenses or the m43 longer tele lenses. Everything in between doesn't really suit in that well.
I enjoy how you try out every camera and lens. You really show that if the User knows what their doing then they can make any lens or camera take good shots
I'm digging the short body of this lens. How would this compared to Olympus 40-150?
I missed this review first because in the pic with the movie it says 70-200mm!!! Edit: buy now I get it cause that’s the full frame equivalent.
The Olympus 40-150mm RII f/4-5.6 only cost me $90 brand new and it’s stupid sharp. I can’t emphasize that enough 😂
Looks a bit goofy on a G9 or E-M1 Mark III though.
Agreed. I use this lens. It's pretty cheap and pretty good.
I have this lens, as well as the Olympus 40-150 PRO and the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8. It's pretty sharp at the short end, but only okay at the long end. Still, to get 300mm equivalent for 100 bucks is pretty damn good.
@@Centauri27 must be your copy because mine is sharp throughout the whole range. Yet again my copy of the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 is inconsistent as heck. One day it’ll be sharp as can be and another day it’ll be lacking in sharpness at any stopped down aperture.
@@danny_r27 My 40-150 isn't obviously bad; the quality is about on par with my 14-150. But it's nowhere near as good at the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 or the Olympus 40-150 PRO. I also have the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 and it's good, but not quite top tier. You're getting fluctuations with a prime? That's very odd. Could be the focusing motor going wonky.
@@Centauri27 I’m thinking about getting the Lumix 35-100mm f/2.8 II if Panasonic do in fact announce a Lumix G9 successor. All the images I see taken with it are pretty amazing. And if I do stay with MFT I’ll trade my Olympus 17mm f/1.8 for a PL 15mm f/1.7.
You should do a little puffin impersonation in every video! Love it.
Well done and agree…the 2.8 version isn’t exactly big, but not ‘small” either. Will have to check this one out! Btw: if you haven’t check out the latest vid from Marcuspix and his G7. He is a big fan of small cameras (many of which, but not all are older mft). Always enjoy your videos!
I'm waiting for the Leica 35-100.
Have you ever looked at the Nikon 1 system when it still existed? those lenses are tiny :) Back when it was new it was out of my reach but nowadays you can find them very cheap ☺
I love telephoto lens for street photography. I did some street photography with the Panasonic 14-140mm and got some really nice photos and people 99% of the time have no clue you are taking photos and the photos look so natural like they are stills from a movie.
That really is an underrated lens. I'm in the U.S. I got mine for around $130 on eBay, brand new but unboxed.
Uuuuurrrggg! More photoporn tempting me over my food budget once again! Oh wait, I got one, but seldom use it. Happy hols on the Faroe’s and thanks for keeping us updated on m4/3 ❤️
What you need is the Panasonic Leica zooms, not some slow and low rez stuff.
It’s a neat lens, but I prefer the 14-140 II or 45-175 PZ for when I want a small zoom.
Ease of use, M4/3 lens, ! Work with them on a new interface ! G9II !
Your photos sell the lens - great shots! Looks fantastic for a travel setup.
Thank you! And I love your channel 😁
@@MicroFourNerds I'm a big fan of yours and super pumped about what you've been doing lately. Great content.
Great Video. This looks like a great performer and a no brainer if you don't need the f2.8. Might have to sling one of these in my mpb basket🖖
I prefer 14-140 F3.5-5.6 lumix.
this one is a gem, as well as 12-32 :)
I can’t believe how small m43 lenses are, it’s actually mental 😂 I’ll slowly but surely get to the point where FF stuff is just too big and stupid , and then come over to m43 for good 🤪
Have you seen what the FF gang is trying now? Super SLOW zoom lenses, just to make them compact enough to compete against Micro Four Thirds! 😆 Would you buy an f/8 zoom from Canon?
I love that lens, it is also very well built, metal and with a metal mount. When I go out with one of my OMs with the M.Zuiko 12-40 f2.8, it is accompanied by that Lumix 35-100 (it's great to have a focal range from 12 to 100mm). Also, as you say, I think it has great performance, offering very sharp images from edge to edge.😁
This lens is most interesting. I already have the Lumix 35-100 f/2.8 (which is nearly compact enough to be be "carry around" zoom) and the Olympus 40-150 f/4-5.6 (which alas is non-stabilized and not very good for my GX850). Do I need another zoom in this range? Hmmmm..... (Oh yeah, I also have the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 PRO + the two teleconverters, but that's a beast in another category.)
Just bought it (silver version) 2nd hand from mpb. It’s great on my gx80, just what mft is all about, small, sharp, light!!! I usually prefer fast primes, but couldn’t get inspired after getting the excellent Lumix 42.5 f1.7 which to this day is my favourite. Where to go next? Tried the Oly 12-40 f2.8 pro - a great lens, but it wasn’t taking me anywhere new and was far too large/heavy on the gx80, and no better than the 42.5 f1.7, so I returned it. I mostly photograph plants in my garden and have been delighted at how the 35-100 has opened up new perspectives for me. Tried it today with extension tubes and got some great macro shots too. I’ve discovered I don’t really enjoy wide angle lenses - I’ve a camera phone for that, so this 35-100 will be my new walk around/family day out lens. So happy. It’s a keeper.
Oh yes. Any Lumix or Olympus with the 12-32mm, this 35-100mm. If you must, add the basic 14mm and/or Oly 17mm 1.8, and/or 20mm1.7, and the 45mm f1.8.
Nice video, interesting lens.
For me 40-150mm F/4.0-5.6 or 45-175mm would be a more versatile lens and stil very portable.
You can reach portability not only by using light lenses, but also by using less lenses.
I really loved this lens paired with my GM5. It’s far, far, better than any lens that size should be. The 14-140 is a better choice for a larger body in my opinion.
My best all-Around lens is Vario 14-140mm absolute gold.. for both Video & Photo.
One of the few Mega-OIS that will Dual2. The other tiny zoom is the PZ45-175 f/4-5.6, a little longer and heavier but slips into a pocket. I don't really like the "equivalent to" but that's a 350mm you can conceal in your hand.
It's a good one, but I'm not sure it's much better than the 45-150 f/4-5.6. It's just 70g lighter and not much smaller when in shooting position. I have both, but not quite sure which to take most of the time.
Hi Emily-- I'm enjoying every step of your mini camera/tiny lens journey. You are proving great things can come in small packages. You (and Robin Wong) have inspired me to dig out my GM-1 and Olympus EPL7. I circled this lens for awhile,,especially after I was disappointed by the 45-150 kit zoom. I ended up finding a 35-100 2.8 at such a good price that I went that way for my main kit.... but I could be tempted by one of these. I will say that I find the 45-175 to be a very sharp tiny power zoom to compliment the 14-42- G Vario PZ. My GM-1 with those 2 lenses makes a super tiny but feature packed combo in my new mini set up bag.. and it's your fault!!
You’re certainly selling me on the Faroe Islands! But also reminding me that I have a 45 to 150 that I don’t bring with often enough.
I've had this lens for a few years and it is one of my favourites. I don't find the aperture to be slow, even sometimes I put it at 5.6 and I have a costant aperture! 😉
The best thing is the size, this is what m43 lenses should be.
The only down side I can think of is the lens hood, I find it a pain to put on. I have a JJC screw on now, works nicely. Oh, something else nice with this lens, it has the 46mm filter thread. If you have a Lumix 25mm f1.7 or 30mm macro, Oly 17mm f1.8, etc, your filters will fit all.
I'm very new to M43 photography and this looks like a really great recommendation. Thanks.
I have this and the 45-175mm Lumix. Huge overlap between the two, but I can’t decide between the two. I think the focus speed is better on the 35-100, but I like the extra reach of the 45-175. Both render quite well and support dual IS. Tough decision. I’ll probably hang on to both for now.
Really enjoying your content, just getting back into photography after too many years, lots has changed so finding your videos really helpful, Thanks
I love your videos; they are always so informative. And of course, I also love your photos 😅
I have one and love it. Sharp, light and great colour. Can't see how the 2.8 could add much.
One of my favourites and feels like cheating when I use it - one of the two I take everywhere when on foot. IMO an example of M4/3 at its best.
That lens is wild and I want it!
I got this and the 12-35mm as kit lenses with my GX80.
Still can't get over the size of this lens 🤯 MFT is just so much fun!
Looks to fit a niche nicely. Thanks for the review.
Seahawks!
I still use an fairly unusual SMC Pentax 45-125mm, constant f4. It's not huge, but it's quite heavy, adapted on my EM10ii. MF, yes, but optical performance is superb across the frame even at f4. It cost me 30 quid in near perfect condition.
Bargain! And if it works, it works!
Fantastic - I wasn't aware of this lens, thank you.
Could you compare this against Olympus 40-150mm f4? I heard it is the ultimate travel zoom lens
I have the Olympus 40-150 f/4-5.6. It's great if you have a camera with IBIS, but not so good with non-IBIS cameras. Super lightweight, awesome range. The 300mm equivalent is so nice to have! Very affordable too. Just don't expect miracles at the longer end of the range.
Nice review!
I took some of my favorite photos with my lumix, unfortunately I remember the autofocus
Yeah it definitely isn't the quickest in the AF department!
45-150 my fav at the moment 😌💙
That location is breath-taking to do a review. I'm guessing that you will use this location for all your reviews from now on?🤣🤣
I've got the f2.8 and to my shame, it just lives in my lens box unloved.
Seeing as you have the odd sponsorship with MPB, maybe you could try and persuade them to let you review the Leica Elmarit 200mm lens?
I have a sneeky suspicion that you will not want to give it back.
Oooo don't tempt me hahaha that would be lovely for safari!
@@MicroFourNerds It is the best/sharpest lens that I have ever owned. It makes my Leica 100-400mm images look like they were shot on a kit lens. I was at the Blackpool Air Show this weekend and I was able to capture the rivets on some of the older planes.
For Safari, and I'd like to go on one, I'd choose the 200mm over the 100-400mm any day of the week.
Really pretty this lens, practically half of the 12-100 olympus I just bought 🙄.. Thank you 😊👍
Gosh, weight-wise, it's less than 1/4 of the Olympus 12-100. 😄
@@Centauri27 In fact, going around with a lens like this is certainly more comfortable, there is no question of the quality of the olympus but at this point I also buy this 😁
I got this lens a few years ago for £50! Love it :)
50 quid?! You win the bargain hunt 😂
Worst lens to buy. There is 0 sharpness no matter how much aperture is closed, no matter is there stabilization on or not. Soft at 35mm, soft at 100mm, soft at f4.5, soft at any aperture value no matter how much you open or close. I found that Zuiko 45mm f1.8 with digital zoom is way better and cheaper than spend your money on this garbage 35-100 f4.5-5.6.
I didn't think it was THAT soft. But you can definitely tell the difference between this one and the 2.8 constant for sure.
@IvarsDayPhotolab did you possibly get a bad copy?
@@StephenStrangways I compared mine with a friends silver version and they both are soft.
Nice photos.
Thank you Emily, I will go for the 2.8 version ii, actually. I'm building my collection of lenses. I haven't shot Micro Four Thirds since my Olympus e-p2 back in 2008! Now I have the GM-1 and it's so much fun that I'm ready to buy another camera body (with a viewfinder) for street and travel. Must be light but IQ comes first. I'd appreciate any suggestions on the next body that would suit this lens? Thank you!
Ooh with a viewfinder, you could look at the Lumix GX80 if you'd rather stay with lumix, or any of the EM5 cameras in the Olympus lineup! If you wanted something a little bit bigger, perhaps the Lumix G9 or Olympus EM10 series of cameras 😁
@@MicroFourNerds Thank you! GX8 I believe is what we have here in the States. I was looking at the GX9 just now and doing some comparisons. However, I will look at your other suggestions too. Thank you!!!
@juliettemansour the gx8 and gx9 are bloody beautiful, and they're the models above the gx80 (also known as the gx85). they'll all be great!! If you have the budget, the gx9 is the photo-centric one, and the gx8 does good video too
@@MicroFourNerds great! thank you - and the GX9 is what I'm leaning towards at the moment. 🙏
I've been wondering, why the 30-100 istead of the 14-140? In paper, both look similar, but the 14-140 has better apperture wide and better range. They are similar in size, weight and is weather sealed. So.... what am I missing here?
The 14-140mm is much bigger and heavier, it's a similar dimension as the 35-100mm f2.8 constant, or the 12-35mm f2.8 stock lens. While it isn't exactly large, it isn't "tiny" like the 35-100mm f4-5.6 in this video. I'm quite interested in the best smaller lenses at the moment! The 14-140mm seems super versatile though.
Also to add to Emily's response: the 14-140 is considerably more expensive too (even used).
Yes, but it is worth it. The 14-140 has a brilliant range. Although bigger than the 30 - 100 it isn't that much bigger and considering the range you get with it it's remarkably small. I am fortunate enough to have many lenses, including some of the Pana Leica ones, but by far my most used lens over many years has been the 14-140. Of course (like all lenses) it isn't good for everything, but as an all rounder especially for outdoor, daylight landscapes, street, travel etc it's ideal. If I was only allowed to keep one lens it would be the 14-140. I'm not knocking the 30-100, it's just that because it doesn't give me anything more than my 14-140 (other than smaller size, which I don't feel I need) it would be a superfluous addition for me. Might be perfect for others though. 🙂
@@kwchalky02 Yeah, those two lenses are incompletely different classes. The 35-100 was created to complement the 12-32 as a kit lens package. The 14-140 is more premium. I have the Olympus 14-150 which I used for many years, until I decided to splurge for a (used) Olympus 12-100 PRO. Big difference in quality!
cool!
The 70-200 is the full-frame equivalent, where it is exactly the equivalent of the 70-200mm F8-11. I don't want to have such a lens in my pocket, and I'm certainly not the only one, that's why such full-frame lenses are hardly produced 😕
It's only equivalent to f8-11 when talking about depth of field. When talking about the ability to gather light, it's still f4-5.6. Saying it is exactly equivalent to f8-11 is neither fair nor correct.
@@parkerwilkins5495 you're wrong, this is one of the biggest myths about MFT. It is the same only for the exposure triangle. The same F number affects the exposure per unit area. However, a several times larger sensor will collect several times more light at the same F number. It is the same as rain falling on different sized roofs. The same layer will rain there (exposure), but from the larger roof there will be more water in volume (total light gain). So it does not only affect the depth of field, but above all also noise, and a smaller sensor will encounter diffraction sooner, because the same F at different real focal points is also a different-sized aperture, so there are many (unspoken) effects on image quality. Photographers say: "if you only care about the numbers on the camera display, F is the same. If you care about the resulting photograph, it is not the same"
@@horniuvrat1642 "It is the same only for the exposure triangle" so you agree then that two lenses, one m43 and one ff, of the same aperture will produce the same exposure assuming the rest of the exposure triangle is equal? Because if so then you would also agree that it just isn't fair or true to say that this lens is "exactly the equivalent of the 70-200 f8-11".
I don't know about you, but if given the choice between a m43 camera with this lens, or a full frame camera with a 70-200 f8-11 lens, I'd choose the m43 system any day because the full frame lens would gather FOUR TIMES LESS LIGHT than the m43 lens.
Yes, the m43 system would experience diffraction sooner, and have worse iso performance (though only slight in the real world), it wouldn't matter because on the full frame system I would need to crank the iso up two stops to get an equivalent exposure (and thus introduce noise).
Again, saying this lens is _exactly_ equivalent to a full frame f8-11 just isn't true.
@@parkerwilkins5495 yes, MFT users have created entire legends about this, they have no choice. ...Yes, the exposure triangle is theoretically(*) the same, but photographers don't shoot theoretically and don't present their work through numbers on the display (this is only done here on discussion forums), but they present images and what I wrote applies there. The principle I described is the very reason why a larger sensor makes less noise. It is no coincidence that the professionals (with exceptions and ambassadors) ignore the MFT and the OM is in decline again according to unofficial reports (because the official ones are strictly secret). (*) note - even the exposure triangle does not always apply at the same F. For example, in the video "ULTIMATE WILDLIFE ZOOM REVIEW! Canon Sony Nikon Olympus Fuji Panasonic" on the channel "Tony & Chelsea Northrup" at 9:30 + you can see that MFT exposes for a longer time at lower F and higher ISO compared to FF. As it has already been found out, Olympus and today OM have a different set of ISO so that the cameras perform better in noise tests. Realistically speaking, OM refers to ISO 100 as ISO 200. If you're just watching the numbers on the display, that's OK, but if you're shooting in the real world next to someone with FF, you'll always lose in light gain regardless of whether you're watching the numbers on the display, or the resulting photo. Anyone who has a comparison knows this for a long time. I'm sorry.
@@parkerwilkins5495 so you must correctly say that the 35-100 lens on the MFT has the same angle of view as the 70-200 on the FF. But you must never write that the 35-100/4-5.6 on the MFT is the same as the 70-200/4-5.6 on the FF - this defies the physical laws of optics, which is an exact science. The aperture number is given here as f/4 where f is the focus - so 35/4 is a mathematical example and the result is 8.75mm lens diameter. So when you claim that 35/4 is the same as 70/4, you are actually saying that 8.75 = 17.5 ... I don't know how in your country, but this is not the case here and whoever says that should go back to schools ;-)
How is the G9M2 review going?
Haha I have no more info than anyone else at the moment unfortunately! But I'm hoping we get one eventually 🙏
Nice Try 😀 And I also demand an answer Emily!!!
@@MicroFourNerds I'm going to IFA2023 in Berlin. At least I expect that something will be on display there.
@@bingbong4848 In any case just 14 days to go.
@@GrenlandUnderVann You have given me hope. I hope your sources are reliable and you don't disappoint. :)
M4/3 is trash go Fuji atleast or sony apsc. They are both compact
I don't see a point about this lens, and I don't like variable aperture lenses in general, but I can't deny that it's very compact and reasonably priced and I don't know how is the optical performance.
As a new-ish photographer I tended to ignore slower zoom lenses, especially in this focal length range. Now they are starting to sound tempting. Especially for travel/street photography or landscapes. I’m curious how well the AF will work on OM System bodies, though.
Only buy Leica branded stuff with f
@@GrenlandUnderVann Luckily for my pocketbook I've never had that outlook.