Lumix lens on an Olympus body: I am considering acquiring the Lumix 35 to 100 f2.8 lens to use on my OM D1 camera body. Image stabiluzation is built into the OM D1 whereas the lens IS...

Eric Bornstein Loc: Toronto Canada

I am considering acquiring the Lumix 35 to 100 f2.8 lens to use on my OM D1 camera body. Image stabiluzation is built into the OM D1 whereas the lens IS can be turned off. Does anyone have experience with this combination and any words of warning as to the photo results. I shoot JPEG (as opposed to RAW) thus limiting my pits production of my images.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Is there a reason you wouldn't want the 12-40?

Not that there is anything wrong with the 12-35.

http://suggestionofmotion.com/blog/panasonic-12-35mm-vs-olympus-12-40mm/

A refurb 12-40 is about $650 when available, and unless you absolutely need a slightly smaller/lighter lens, I'd take the build quality (and extra function button) along with the 5mm.

Eric Bornstein Loc: Toronto Canada

I already have the 12 to 40. I want something 'longer' and fast but Olympus only has the 40 to 150 f2.8, but it is heavy.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Eric Bornstein wrote:

I am considering acquiring the Lumix 35 to 100 f2.8 lens to use on my OM D1 camera body. Image stabiluzation is built into the OM D1 whereas the lens IS can be turned off. Does anyone have experience with this combination and any words of warning as to the photo results. I shoot JPEG (as opposed to RAW) thus limiting my pits production of my images.

One drawback with the Panasonic lenses on the Oly cameras is that the camera can self correct for chromatic aberration. It doesn't bother me because I shoot raw and everything comes into LIghtroom a yway, and I have the import preset take care of it. Works great most of the time. If you don't do any post processing it might be an aggravation.

Oly has two similar range lenses- the 40-150s. One is an expensive, bright and slightly large pro lens that is excellent. The other is a super not so bright but very inexpensive consumer lens that weighs nothing and is way way better than it has any right to be. Another option in the range is the venerable 50-200 4/3 that requires an adapter

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Eric Bornstein wrote:

I already have the 12 to 40. I want something 'longer' and fast but Olympus only has the 40 to 150 f2.8, but it is heavy.

I mis read...I thought you said 12-35. DUH...it's getting late here.

The 35-100 is a great lens too, but in my book 100mm at the tele end wouldn't be long enough. It is much more compact though.

Eric Bornstein Loc: Toronto Canada

Thank you. What about this 'chromatic aberration' stuff?

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Eric Bornstein wrote:

Thank you. What about this 'chromatic aberration' stuff?

Panasonic cameras correct it in camera. Olys can't correct Panasonic lenses so you sometimes so the little purple fringe along edges where there is sharp contrast between bright and dark. Lightroom has a one button click that gets rid of it quite well. My beloved Panasonic 20 prime is rather notorious for it but it's still my favorite lens. I don't know what kind of reputation that particular lens has on Oly cameras but Google is your friend, you can be sure lots of people have this combination and they post both good news and bad.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Eric Bornstein wrote:

I am considering acquiring the Lumix 35 to 100 f2.8 lens to use on my OM D1 camera body. Image stabiluzation is built into the OM D1 whereas the lens IS can be turned off. Does anyone have experience with this combination and any words of warning as to the photo results. I shoot JPEG (as opposed to RAW) thus limiting my pits production of my images.

It should be a perfectly good combo. Just remember that you have to choose either the in-camera stabilization or the in-lense stabilization, not both at the same time.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Check the lens database here for more examples:

http://www.mu-43.com/threads/36769/

Edcase Loc: Savannah GA

Your suggested combo should be fine. But a lot of $$ for a fairly short zoom range. But, it is indeed compact. Don't know your use intentions, but can't
Help suggesting or recommending the OLY 60mm 2.8 macro. I love mine.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Edcase wrote:

Your suggested combo should be fine. But a lot of $$ for a fairly short zoom range. But, it is indeed compact. Don't know your use intentions, but can't
Help suggesting or recommending the OLY 60mm 2.8 macro. I love mine.

Not bad, when you can find them used...finding them is the hard part. I just saw one pop up the other day. If I weren't saving for that darned 7-14, I might be all over this.
http://www.mu-43.com/threads/76084/

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Eric Bornstein wrote:

Thank you. What about this 'chromatic aberration' stuff?

Panasonic bodies correct CA in Panasonic and Leica lenses. Olympus bodies can't do that. So CA is visible when using these lenses on Olympus cameras.

CA is a failure of the lens to focus all colors of light at the same point in some areas of the scene. It's often visible as purple fringing next to backlit items such as trees, window frames, and the like.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Eric Bornstein wrote:

Thank you. What about this 'chromatic aberration' stuff?

Burkphoto is correct about what is chromatic aberration (see his reply previous to this reply). Software can correct some of the chromatic aberration such that it can be hardly noticeably in prints. All lenses, no matter who makes them and what format the lense is made for, will have some chromatic aberration. The better the lense design (= cost), usually the chromatic aberration is less. Do not let the mention of chromatic aberration stop you from buying a lense unless several different reviews mention it is unacceptable.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Edcase wrote:

Your suggested combo should be fine. But a lot of $$ for a fairly short zoom range. But, it is indeed compact. Don't know your use intentions, but can't
Help suggesting or recommending the OLY 60mm 2.8 macro. I love mine.

1 - that zoom range = 70-200 in ff term, how can you say that it is short and too much $$$? Have you seen the prices of the canon/Nikon versions? It is an extremely useful range along with the 12-35. I guess all those pros who use these 2 focal length zooms should have consulted with you first. I hope that your intention are sincere, but your opinions are way off on both accounts.

2 - Why would you recommend a prime lens over a zoom? The quality of the 35-100 matches the macro lens. Which SUV should I consider? A Camry? :mrgreen:

dmsM43

I have an Olympus EM-1 and use Lumix lenses on it. In the case of the EM-1, the CA and linear distortion is corrected just as on a Panasonic body. The earlier EM-5 did not have this capability, although the mark ii version does now. You can check this with DPReview on their test of the EM-1 a while back. In fact the EM-1 and EM-5 mark ii also correct all Olympus lenses now, too.