CameraStuffReview posted the first test of the brand new Panasonic 35-100mm f/4.0-5.6 lens:
In terms of construction and image quality, the Panasonic 35-100 mm gives nothing up to other inexpensive, but larger, micro-43 telephoto zooms (45-150 mm, 45-175 mm) that we have reviewed previously. The metal construction of the Panasonic 35-100mm f/4 is more luxury and might even be better. The even sharpness, the beautiful background blur (“bokeh”) at the longest focal distance and the low sensitivity to flare and ghosts surprised us in a positive way. The Panasonic 35-100 mm f/4 guarantees beautiful vacation photos, without neck pains.
35-100mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
—
Olympus preorders:
Silver E-M1 body at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus. In Europe at Wex UK.
40-150mm f/2.8 PRO lens at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus. In Europe at Wex UK, Technikdirekt and Amazon.
LH-76 lens hood at Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus.
MC-14 1.4x teleconverter at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus.
PRF-ZD62 Z protection filter at Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus.
PRF-ZD72 Z protection filter at Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus.
General links to all new Olympus stuff at Adorama.
ALL new stuff announced at Photokina at Amazon.
Panasonic preorders:
LX100 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto. Europe at WexUK.
GM5 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto. Europe at WexUK.
GM5 in red at Adorama.
35-100mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
73 Responses
This lens not only for GM but also form a nice combination with the GX than the 14-140mm HD lens .
A good vacation lens , hard to find a reason not to agree with .
vacation lens….how if i dont go on vacation then? is there a lens for people with a boring life? j/k ofcourse
YES!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082046-REG/olympus_v315050bu000_m_zuiko_digital_ed_40_150mm.html
To REALLY spice up your life…please ad 1.4x!!!
No vacation, boring life get the Olympus 40-150 F2.8. But you are surrounded by beautiful girls Mr. Bürer. How can your life be boring? Everyday is a honeymoon for you.
thats a good question, short of answer here right now Leslie…
Nah, just get the 45-150mm.
Even though it’s a bit more expensive, it’s smaller (about the same size as the original Panasonic 14-42mm or 14-45mm!) and better all-around… lens hood included! Heck, it’s even sharp at the long end. Just keep it at f5.6 all the time. I was really pleasantly surprised by it!
The little 35-100mm seems pretty nice. I’d love to see a GM5 kit with all three lenses… 12-32mm, 15mm and this. Of course, it’ll never happen. 🙁
😉
For photos of wildlife where longer focal length is needed the 45-150mm lens is the obvious choice. However for the general travel the 35-100mm range is better as goes wider. With a tele lens I have found that having an effective range of 90-300mm I would be constantly having to change lens for most scenic shots while the 70-200mm effective reach is just wide enough to use as a normal lens and still have sufficient tele reach for most travel shots.
Am surprised few have mentioned what is said about the new 35-100 lens having excellent brokeh and low flare as that is what many are paying for to get with the faster bigger and more expensive lenses.
Overall in my opinion this small 35-100 makes an excellent combo with the small kit lens on any GM.
For nature and wildlife shooting the 100-300mm is the way to go. The 45-150mm doesn’t have enough reach for my needs in those types of situations. The 45-150mm is more of a general purpose lens when longer reach is needed in a small and light lens.
Usually I shoot wider angles with the 7-14mm, Voigtländer 17.5mm and 42.5mm, then use the 45-150mm for more reach and to keep my kit simpler and more compact.
That new 35-100mm does look pretty compelling, though. Small is good!
The term of vocation lens is highlighted by camera review stuff & is for someone need compactness rather than anything in their journey time & general purpose .
Be fair with the lens after all is just a kit lens .
Lens for boring life , you have to look for Lenstip & may got something from there .
Go out shooting , I realise if you don’t shoot for long time , skill will depreciate as I just experienced it .
I know you are joking, but there is truth to your joke. This zoom isn’t just for vacations: is qualifies as a modest carry all the time tele zoom.
Not the brightest, not the longest, but sometimes the best lens you have is the one available right now.
yes that is true too, when a friend borrowed me his camera and kitlens, i was hoping for a fast prime included like a 1.8. I got teached again that a kitlens can do most of the things I wanted. Always good to realize at such times
I’m not the brightest and tallest either, but I do have a purpose in life.
I’m not sure that a 12-35 + 35-100 is even a reasonable replacement for the 14-140mm.
I use mine a fair bit. It’s not the greatest optically, but the flexibility is just amazing. The only way I’d get a big step up in IQ is going with a prime, or a $1000 zoom. None of the shorter consumer zooms that overlap the range are noticeably better…
Yeah, the 14-140mm is pretty hard to beat as a general purpose travel lens.
I got one for my girlfriend to use with our GX1 and it’s pretty nice and only slightly bigger than the 45-150mm! The image quality is surprisingly good and MUCH better than the original 14-140mm!
I’m only using the original 14-140 because I was to get it for a good price ($350) whereas the Mk. II is going for twice that. So it does have its optical compromises, and it’s heavier and bulkier. But it’s certainly not bad considering the range it offers.
Not a replacement for 14-140mm lens but on compactness comparison .
It’s a kit lens after all .
The 12-32 and 35-100 are smaller and lighter than your behemoth 14-140mm.
Small and light isn’t the point here. The value of a super zoom is being able to go from wide angle to telephoto instantly.
And 100mm is a lot more limiting on the tele end than 140mm.
The 14-140 II also only weighs 265g, and is less than 3″ long with a 58mm filter…behemoth is a bit of an overstatement, don’t you think?
cute, but I still prefer the regular kit telephoto zoom: More range and a bit faster (is below f5.6 at 100mm).
No, I prefer this lens. Soo small and lightweight. Doesn’t get any better than this.
Nah, no thanks. This lens should have been made slightly bigger but still compact and constant F4 aperture. At F5.6 might as well get the Tamron 14-150 F3.5-5.8 for more focal length flexibility. Thumbs down for this lens.
For those looking for a more portable solution, this Panasonic, with its metal build, weight almost 1/3 of the Tamron, and it’s smaller. Overall I see it as a really nice add to a GM1/5 owner, but also to those looking for a light travel solution.
Ok, just like the 12-32 bundled with the GM1. I get you. Would be nice to have a compact 35-100 F4 or slightly larger 35-150 F4 too.
Really? In the same size? Are you paid for those pointless comments?
Hey stupid! You cannot read? You misconstrue what I write you damn idiot!!! I said this lens should have been made slightly bigger but still compact and constant F4 aperture. Stupid idiot!
What kind of person are you Leslie? That kind of name calling is really so not cool.
Yeah. It’s as if the guy insulted his mother or something. Talk about insecurity.
It’s funny when you assemble the longest words you could find with the glue of cheap education. Write more often, give us a laugh.
Agreed. I covered my grandson’s 2500 meter run yesterday using the 35-100mm f2.8 and found myself wanting more reach. For outdoors a constant f4 out to 150mm would be a viable acquisition.
It’s for the GM line. It’s small for a reason.
At least Panasonic “gets it”, with micro four thirds. Obviously, you don’t.
You just don’t get it
No, it is you who don’t get it.
Never. It is we who got. It.
I don’t get it.
Look, Canon and Nikon have their 70-200 F2.8 which is huge and the 70-200 F4 which is smaller but still huge. The Panasonic 35-100 F2.8 being micro four thirds is already tiny compared to the above so a 35-100 F4 would be smaller still compared to the F2.8 and not an unreasonable request at all. And probably not much bigger than the 35-100 F4-5.6 kit lens if Panasonic wanted to make one. I’d be interested in the F4 too.
You just proved my point.
Panasonic already have a premium 35-100 and now this lens. WHY would they have to make ANOTHER lens in this focal length? It’s a waste of money and resources and it IS unreasonable.
And Chow would go tamron 14-150, when panasonic makes a 14-140 with O.I.S.: http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Lumix-Vario-14-140mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B00CFCTH14/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1412961643&sr=1-3&keywords=panasonic+14-150
Yeah, I would pay slightly more for the Panasonic. I bet it renders better and nicer contrast, too.
panasonic 14-140 mark 2 much better than any zoom on any system,thx MrALLCAPS,its my favourite lens
get the 35-100/2.8 or get out.
We do not all have the same needs. Two thumbs up your *ss.
I had a constant f2.8 before and this is just a toy for girls !
haha… so virile men use 2.8… ts ts… strange way to prove masculinity … more likely a girl pretending to be a boy
oh yes this is not for girls.. this is for little girls
If being seen as a big, rugged, macho man is a high priority you might want to consider a different avatar. The happy green cartoon is not helping your case.
This could be a nice lens for GM1/5 owners but if I was looking at a smaller supplement to 100-300 I already own for my GX7 it would be the less expensive and not much larger 45-150.
yes I’m machomatofoka
yes I want only the 40-150mm f2.8
Don’t feed the green troll. 🙂 the worst thing you can do to them is to ignore them.
He’s right. I know because I pretend to be a girl in front of the mirror
Pillow biter!
All nano four thirds is for girls.
I have the constant f2.8 and it takes great photos. I can’t imagine this one matches it but the constant f2.8 is big on my GM1 so I could see why people might sacrifice some image quality for size.
Toys, toys, toys, Micro Four Thirds lenses and cameras are all toys! You hear me?! I’m an angry troll. Toys! Boohoo, mama!
It looks like a nice little lens, perfect for small cameras. The price might point customers toward a bridge cam though.
I predict modern bridge cameras will eat away at micro four thirds. Let me add, it was high time they’d shut down.
I’m afraid you might be right. Mainly, because MFT seems to be recycling the same slow zoom lens designs and failing to really come up with many new ground-breaking optics. Compact affordable non-pro zooms with fast f-numbers and super-fast affordable primes are what’s required to compete with modern bridge cameras. We have none of the above.
Yeah Micro Four Thirds has seen its best days. It’s all going downhill from here, fast. Just like the classic DSLR the system will completely disappear. O wait, DSLR’s are still here and manufacturers are making a lot of money on the MFT system. Hm…
Ordered mine today, I have no problem with the price.
Lazy question, but is there any rumour or roadmap of a 100-200mm or even 100-300mm in this style?
the current 100-300 is f/4.0-5.6.
Size-wise, gains could be had with internal zoom, but there is only that much tour de force that can be expected. A new 100-300 won’t be that perfect lens for the GM1
It seems to be pretty dishonest marketing to show this 35-100mm compared to the size of a professional 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8 lens. If it’s equivalent to anything in 35mm terms, it’s a 70-200mm f/8-11.2. If such a lens even existed, it could be made quite compact as well.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. They talk BS, and you talk BS. No one wins.
Sort of. Part of it is just that it’s not a 200mm lens, so it doesn’t have to be 20cm long. It’s not a 200mm lens, so f/5.6 also doesn’t require the same diameter…it’s going to require the same diameter as a 200mm f/11.2 would. That’s the math part and it’s not up for debate to that point. The lens is half as thick because it’s half as long, simple. That’s just the way f-numbers work.
Now we come down to the real claim: engineering. Have they made the lens so amazingly small because they’re incredible engineers, or should it be that size to begin with? The math says it should be half as long and half as fat. So anything beyond that, I guess that’s the BS zone. 🙂
Look, no one is fooled. We all understand the compromises in speed and DoF required to get a comparable FoV this small.
Should it have been compared to the X35-100 ? Probably, but again, I give people enough credit to tell the difference.
To be fair, it should have been compared to:
A – a 35-100 f/4-5.6 on MFT.
OR
B – The 35mm equivalent 70-200 f/8-11.2
Anything else is comparing apples to oranges. And to be fair, since the 35mm equivalent lens probably doesn’t exist, B would be comparing apples to oranges too.
I’m not trying to fool anyone. I’m an olympus user and I love their gear. But this ad is totally dishonest, no two ways about that. It’s not even remotely comparable to a 70-200mm f/4 or f/2.8 on a 35mm sensor. It’s a slow kit lens, really.
Slow kit lens indeed.
This is fairness based on premises that no one are forced to agree with.
Oh, come on, be reasonable. No premises? Pfffft!
So why do we buy compact systems, or compact cameras like P&S ? If it’s that simple, we should just buy a FF camera and f/8 to f/22 lenses, depending on equivalence. Thanks for enlightening, Andrew, my next compact camera will be a Nikon full frame PEN, with a 28-84mm f/8-f/11 power zoom lens. I will also add the 28mm f/5/6 pancake to it. And my next RX100 upgrade hopefully will have a FF sensor and a f/5.6-f/16 zoom. Why bother with the 1 inch sensor, it makes no sense.
Now serious, we all know how all this works, but the fact that a small format 35mm lens will gather the same amount of light at a narrower f-stop than a lens for a smaller format at a larger f-stop while having the same DOF, has really 0 relevance, because that’s never a reason why you choose a smaller than 35mm system.
Come on, you’re taking the opposite extreme. I’m trying to offer a more balanced picture here, from an MFT shooter.
The truth is that there are some gains with a smaller sensor and shorter flange distance: bodies are smaller, IBIS is amazing, wide lenses are more compact.
What you don’t gain: fully equivalent lenses are still equivalently large. You can’t overcome the laws of physics here…you want certain FOV, DoF and light gathering capabilities, you’ll find there isn’t much savings in the size.
On the other hand, if you’re willing to settle for a slower lens, those exist, and they are smaller than anything on FF, mainly because nobody wants a lens that slow on FF. My only question would be “why do we want a lens that slow?”
I wonder what the lenses for the Nikon 1 system would be…
You still have to engineer optimal image quality.
Well, you surely lose “Meister”.
The usual marketing lies, someone at crapasonic is desperate.
“DeThe Panasonic 35-100 mm is an ideal, not very noticeable lens for street photography. ”
Caption of a shot taken at 200mm equiv.
Riiiiiiiight…
The test photos I have seen so far don’t look promising. Potos look downright awful at 100mm. Check out the test photos in the review by ephotozine. It almost looks like shutter shock. I believe they used a Panasonic GX7 and that camera (like many other MFT cameras) is known for its shutter shock issue. Maybe it’s a camera issue, I don’t know.