Good review, Gary! I've heard good things about the picture quality of the small 35-100. Is it really "as sharp" as the f/2.8 version, even at 100mm? Btw, even though I already own the 35-100 f/2.8 and Olympus 40-150 f/2.8, I just placed an order for a used 35-100 f/4-5.6. I'm with you: use the tiny 35-100 for everyday shooting; use the f/2.8 version for more serious shooting, and use the 40-150 PRO with my two extenders for really long telephoto applications.
There was a time when no one mentioned the Lumix 35-100 f4-5.6. I am glad you and others are telling the world about how great it is. I take it on trips because if I do need a tele lens, it is there and it isn't much larger than a prime.
Hi Gary...Liverpool Kev here....Hope you are well....Thank you for your clear comparison video...I have the smaller lighter 4-5.6 lens...I find myself preferring smaller lighter kit these days....On the subject i bought gain the 14mm 2.5 Panasonic lens...ridiculously small on my GM1 body...I seem to spend my life selling lenses only to buy them back later ...not wise and not good for my wallet either.....haha....Take care Gary ...cheers Liverpool Kev
Yes, I sold both my 20mm f/1.7 and 14mm f/2.5 lenses a few years back, and now I regret it. So much for listening to those who say "if you don't use it, sell it!". I just ordered a used 35-100 f/4-5.6 to add to my collection, even though I was completely cold to my Olympus 40-150 f/4-5.6 (which I don't regret selling). Btw, I also own the pro versions of those lenses from Panasonic and Olympus.
Well explained, Gary! I used the tiny f4-5.6 for a year. I loved that lens. It is fine for every kind of photography except portrait. It can also be used for portrait of course, but you won’t get the classic blurry backgrounds that everybody feels obligated to produce. It is a great walk around lens. It is useful for street photography. You can get candid shots from a distance without your subject, thinking that you were aiming a howitzer at them. It is tiny. It is reliable. It can be used to take great pictures. If you take many portraits, get a separate lens for that. I doubt the twi will be heavier or more expensive than the 35-100 f2.8
Thanks Gary. I too have the little gem of a lens f4-5.6mm. love it but writing to Santa for the 2.8 pro lens. Not that im a pro. But i do want it for portraits,low light and it's weather sealing. I don't own a m⁴3 weather sealed lens but i live in England and it rains a fair bit here. Not much on RUclips about the 2.8 so thanks for adding more content on it. Any idea how it handles on Olympus bodies????🙏🏾
The 2.8 would be a great addition for your setup. It will definitely work fine on Olympus bodies no problem, the camera will automatically prioritize lens stabilizer which on the 35-100mm f2.8 works good. All the best! 😁
Great video and very relevant for all of us. I do have a few expensive lenses, but I also have the Lumix 12-60 F3.5-5.6. I still get Lumix-Leica 12-60 F2.8-4 envy, though, a lens which costs twice as much. Do I get great shots with the cheaper lens? Sure! Is it waterproofed? Sure? Can I afford the Lumix Leica? By this time next year, if I start saving now... It's the same with other lenses. I have the ultra cheap Olympus 40-150mm F4-5.6, but which limb would I not give for the F4 Pro version, or better yet, the F2.8 Pro version, which is almost 10x more expensive? I still get great shots with the cheap lens I bought for GB£150 (as long as I don't take it out in the rain!). So what gives? I think we see that extra aperture stop and/or Pro/Leica badge and think we'll be better photographers with them. But I don't think many people would be able to tell how expensive your lens was for that fantastic photo you took in the real world.
@@tobiasdavid3096 i think you compared it with a pro lens. Or maybe you had a bad copy, sir... Btw pro lens are very good. Always better in every aspect...
I think you should have taken a few portraits of your wife to see the bokeh. Even if you don't have a person to photograph you can just focus on a tree and see what's past the tree or a street sign or even if there is nothing just focus five feet away and see the blow further away. The Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 I use a lot at weddings.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Good review, Gary! I've heard good things about the picture quality of the small 35-100. Is it really "as sharp" as the f/2.8 version, even at 100mm? Btw, even though I already own the 35-100 f/2.8 and Olympus 40-150 f/2.8, I just placed an order for a used 35-100 f/4-5.6. I'm with you: use the tiny 35-100 for everyday shooting; use the f/2.8 version for more serious shooting, and use the 40-150 PRO with my two extenders for really long telephoto applications.
I have the Olympus 40-150 plastic fantastic. It seems to to a pretty decent job.
There was a time when no one mentioned the Lumix 35-100 f4-5.6. I am glad you and others are telling the world about how great it is. I take it on trips because if I do need a tele lens, it is there and it isn't much larger than a prime.
What is that black tape on the barrel of the f2.8 lens?
Hi Gary...Liverpool Kev here....Hope you are well....Thank you for your clear comparison video...I have the smaller lighter 4-5.6 lens...I find myself preferring smaller lighter kit these days....On the subject i bought gain the 14mm 2.5 Panasonic lens...ridiculously small on my GM1 body...I seem to spend my life selling lenses only to buy them back later ...not wise and not good for my wallet either.....haha....Take care Gary ...cheers Liverpool Kev
I think many of us do the same: selling lenses and then buying them back. I think this is about understanding your own needs better.
Yes, I sold both my 20mm f/1.7 and 14mm f/2.5 lenses a few years back, and now I regret it. So much for listening to those who say "if you don't use it, sell it!". I just ordered a used 35-100 f/4-5.6 to add to my collection, even though I was completely cold to my Olympus 40-150 f/4-5.6 (which I don't regret selling). Btw, I also own the pro versions of those lenses from Panasonic and Olympus.
Well explained, Gary!
I used the tiny f4-5.6 for a year. I loved that lens. It is fine for every kind of photography except portrait. It can also be used for portrait of course, but you won’t get the classic blurry backgrounds that everybody feels obligated to produce.
It is a great walk around lens. It is useful for street photography. You can get candid shots from a distance without your subject, thinking that you were aiming a howitzer at them.
It is tiny. It is reliable. It can be used to take great pictures. If you take many portraits, get a separate lens for that. I doubt the twi will be heavier or more expensive than the 35-100 f2.8
I've had 35-100 f2.8, it was my favorite lens on this system
Thanks Gary. I too have the little gem of a lens f4-5.6mm. love it but writing to Santa for the 2.8 pro lens. Not that im a pro. But i do want it for portraits,low light and it's weather sealing. I don't own a m⁴3 weather sealed lens but i live in England and it rains a fair bit here. Not much on RUclips about the 2.8 so thanks for adding more content on it. Any idea how it handles on Olympus bodies????🙏🏾
The 2.8 would be a great addition for your setup. It will definitely work fine on Olympus bodies no problem, the camera will automatically prioritize lens stabilizer which on the 35-100mm f2.8 works good. All the best! 😁
I love the wear and tear on your gear lol. Don't they make a 12-35mm in that small form factor other than the f2.8 version? I can't seem to find it.
😁😁 yes they are all kind of falling apart. They do, I have the first OG version if the Lumix 12-35mm f2.8. Now it is rebranded as Leica 12-35mm f2.8.
Great video and very relevant for all of us. I do have a few expensive lenses, but I also have the Lumix 12-60 F3.5-5.6. I still get Lumix-Leica 12-60 F2.8-4 envy, though, a lens which costs twice as much. Do I get great shots with the cheaper lens? Sure! Is it waterproofed? Sure? Can I afford the Lumix Leica? By this time next year, if I start saving now... It's the same with other lenses. I have the ultra cheap Olympus 40-150mm F4-5.6, but which limb would I not give for the F4 Pro version, or better yet, the F2.8 Pro version, which is almost 10x more expensive? I still get great shots with the cheap lens I bought for GB£150 (as long as I don't take it out in the rain!). So what gives? I think we see that extra aperture stop and/or Pro/Leica badge and think we'll be better photographers with them. But I don't think many people would be able to tell how expensive your lens was for that fantastic photo you took in the real world.
I like the lumix 45-150... I produced sharp images
Mine doesn‘t. 😢
@@tobiasdavid3096 why? Defective?
@@gabrielconcepcion5866 maybe a bad copy? Maybe because I compared it to the Olympus 40-150 pro ?
I don‘t know.
@@tobiasdavid3096 i think you compared it with a pro lens. Or maybe you had a bad copy, sir... Btw pro lens are very good. Always better in every aspect...
I think you should have taken a few portraits of your wife to see the bokeh. Even if you don't have a person to photograph you can just focus on a tree and see what's past the tree or a street sign or even if there is nothing just focus five feet away and see the blow further away.
The Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 I use a lot at weddings.