Customer Ratings: 
List Price: $1,499.99
Sale Price: $1,338.00
Today's Bonus: 11% Off
Background:
While in grad school, I shot weddings as a second source of income, and by the time I was through I'd amassed quite a collection of Nikon gear. These days, I'm shooting far fewer weddings (none), but I am doing a fair amount of consulting work that requires high quality photographs, but also requires hauling photo equipment across the country. It took me exactly one trip to realize that toting my SLR gear through airports was not going to fly (literally). I tried various mirrorless systems (Sony, Nikon 1), but I was consistently disappointed by the quality of the images and specifically the quality of the lenses.
Within a period of a few months, Panasonic announced the 12-35 f2.8, the 35-100 f2.8, and Olympus announced the 60mm macro lens for the micro-4/3rds mount three lenses that would, in theory, cover 99% of my shooting needs. Combined with rave reviews received by the Olympus OM-D E-M5, I decided to bite the bullet and try the system out. No regrets.
The Lens:
If you own the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8, you'll feel right at home with this lens.
Build quality is perfectly acceptable, though the lens is markedly less dense than the 12-35. Only about 50 grams separate the two in weight. As a result, the 35-100 doesn't *feel* quite as solid, but the build quality is still a step up from, say, the Panasonic 45-175. It certainly doesn't feel "cheap", even if it doesn't feel like a tank and to be quite honest, when the main benefit of the micro-4/3rds system is size and weight, I'm not sure "tank" is what I really want. In terms of size, the 35-100 is almost exactly the same size as the 12-35 when fully extended in the 35mm position. The 35-100 does not extend telescopically, maintaining a constant size through the zoom range.
Image quality is very good, though not up to the standards of some of the newest 70-200 designs from Nikon and Canon. In general, it seems to be about on par with the previous generation of Canon/Nikon 70-200 2.8's in terms of sharpness and color saturation, which is certainly nothing to complain about. Indeed, if this lens had been released 2-3 years ago, reviews might have been amazed at how close the lens came to the (then) top of the line products from major manufacturers. It is, of course, worth noting that you don't get quite the image separation you would on the larger formats with this lens, due to the effective f-stop really being more like f5.6 on a full frame camera, in terms of depth of field. Nonetheless, the lens exhibits a fairly pleasing bokeh, and in some cases having a slightly wider depth of field when shooting at f2.8 can be rather useful (like, say taking pictures of children running around indoors, if you want to have their entire face sharp and in focus).
Focusing is sharp and fast, particularly in good light, though it does seem to be slightly slower than the 12-35. The image stabilization worked well for me down to about 1/6-1/8th of a second at 100mm, handheld (picture of text was sharp and readable), though your results may vary. I haven't experienced any significant issues with flare, though I also haven't had the lens in situations where I would really expect it yet.
If I had to nitpick, it would mostly center on two things:
First, from a usability perspective, the physical moving distance of the zoom ring is very short less than a quarter of the circumference of the lens. This is a small thing, really, but it feels a bit short, particularly compared to most other professional-level zooms.
My bigger complaint, though, would be the minimum focusing distance. Recent 70-200 f2.8 designs have tended to have longer minimum focusing distances than their older counterparts, which in general is a good trade-off for the increased sharpness you get across the zoom range. The Panasonic has a minimum focus distance that is about what you would expect from one of these newer lenses, rather than the older models. In general for portrait work, this shouldn't be a problem, but if you're taking pictures of babies or (small) pets, it might become an issue. It is worth noting that the minimum focus distance is not constant across the zoom range, and seems to be shortest at about 75mm. For most people, this won't be a major issue, but it is something to be aware of, particularly if you're planning on using this lens to take pictures of small things.
Conclusion:
All in all, I'm pleased with the lens. For my purposes, the bottom line is that I can carry a camera, two f2.8 zooms, and a macro lens with less weight and bulk than my single 70-200 f2.8 zoom. To me, that is the value of the system, and it is worth the price I paid.
In terms of objective quality, both with respect to build and image, this lens is not the equal of the newest designs from Canon and Nikon. Of course, it is also about $1000 less. At the same time, this lens *is* the best option in terms of image quality for a telephoto on the micro-4/3rds mount. It will produce sharp, high contrast images across the range, and do so in a compact and well built package.
In their review of the OM-D E-M5, dpreview.com made a statement similar to the following: "In the past, there was a significant gap between micro-4/3rds cameras and their APS-C counterparts. This camera closes that gap significantly, enough that for most purposes, it is not important. If you are *really* unwilling to sacrifice *any* image quality, then you'll need to spend significantly more and get a full-frame system. But for the difference in size and weight, most people would be served better with this."
I think in many ways, that statement applies to the Panasonic 35-100. In the past, there have not been any mirrorless lens options that came anywhere close to providing the quality and convenience of a high-end zoom lens. Solutions revolved around taking real APS-C or full-frame lenses and using adapters to mount them to mirrorless bodies, with the inevitable compromises resulting. The 35-100 is a lens that, for all practical purposes, eliminates the gap between the micro-4/3rds system and an APS-C system in terms of a high-speed telephoto zoom.
If you are absolutely unwilling to compromise on image quality, you'll need to step up to the newest, most expensive designs from Canon and Nikon, and carry around a significantly bulkier, heavier system. If, on the other hand, you are someone who wants to maintain very good quality, but size and weight are now more important to you than having the absolute best image you possibly can, this lens will not disappoint.
Click Here For Most Helpful Customer Reviews >>
