Thankyou – that was my initial instinct (keep lens OIS turned off), so I’ll stick with for the moment. I’ve not got any other non-Olympus lenses with OIS to try in comparison.

T

I didn’t have enough time with this lens to do any serious testing with OIS and IBIS, but IBIS and OIS should never be enabled both unless Panasonic and Olympus start specifically tuning IBIS and OIS for making that combination. They both try to do the same kind of thing but in different ways, and this will result in worse, not in better results.

From what I saw with other OIS enabled lenses that allow switching OIS on or off on the lens, the E-M5 will disable IBIS when detecting a lens that has OIS enabled.

Didn’t compare the results much, but first impression quite confirms the general rule. OIS is a bit better at dealing with substantial shake at long focal lengths, but only works well for the center of the image. IBIS is a bit less good at dealing with substantial camera shake at longer focal lengths, but doesn’t distort off-center details or bokeh. 100mm isn’t in the ‘longer focal range’ where IBIS starts having difficulties yet, so in most cases it is very likely that IBIS will do better. If we were at 300mm or such, this might well be different, but at 100mm it would take a revolutionary new variation on OIS to change the picture.

Thanks

But eh, I do not agree with what you are saying, even when it is about the E-5 (we’ll have to see about the E-7 price).

Introduction price for the E-5 was $1699, that is $301 short of $2000. Current price is around $1500, and actually at introduction I got a ‘special’ offer to buy one for $1400 (as an attempt to compensate for an earlier mess-up by both Olympus and a local dealer), whereas the D800 is just below $3000. That is almost a factor 2 difference in street prices, and still a $1300 difference in introduction price. Rounding prices somewhat for easier calculations is fine, but $1700 really isn’t $2000, especially not when real prices are actually below $1700.

Additionally, I do not buy lenses for a single camera, those rather tend to last a few generations of cameras, and the cost of lenses can consequently be distributed over at least 2 or 3 bodies. I have yet to hear a serious photographer who replaces all his lenses and camera at the same time (except for the usually rare case of changing systems).

So, even in your comparison, the difference would be between $4200 and $5500. which is almost 30%. When spreading out the cost of lenses over 2 or 3 generations, the difference gets much bigger.

And I use the E-M5 with the 50-200 quite a bit. This lens is a bit smaller and lighter then the 35-100, but is still very close. I also used the 35-100/2.0 with the E-M5 once, and it is not much different in ‘balance’.

Using such a combination requires proper handling technique, something I learned decades ago when using cameras like the Minolta XD with lenses like the Rokkor 135/2.0 and 200/2.8. The one issue for certain applications with lenses like the 50-200 and 35-100 is AF performance, the handling itself however is a non-issue with proper 2 handed shooting techniques. No, I don’t need the grip either for that, but it does help somewhat.

Would a bigger body make things nicer? Yes, but this isn’t a case of absolutes really.

Oh, and obviously, you are right when suggesting that an E-5 with 35-100 isn’t much lighter or smaller then a D800 with the ‘high-end’ 70-200. The 35-100 is a good lens but implemented in a strange and needlessly big way. But lets take a look at some other lenses in the SHG line.. there is this big and expensive 300/2.8. An equivalent ‘full frame’ lens would be a 600/5.6. I wish you a lot of luck finding a 600/5.6 that is of similar optical quality and is AF capable on your ‘full frame’ system of choice. Does it take a 2x teleconverter and still support AF? How about price, weight and size?

I was not comparing m43 with FF. I was comparing 43 with FF. And in particular E5 (or E7) vs. D800. Difference: roughly 2000 dollars vs. 3000 dollars. Plus the lenses we are talking about: 2500 dollars each. Total: 4.500 vs. 5.500. NOT that much difference, sorry. I repeat it: NOT that much difference.

As for em5: do you really think that camera is balanced with the 35-100 f.2 we are talking about? I saw (and used) the camera, and I saw (and weighted) the lens. We are really near the definition of “unusable”. Or at least unusable without tripod. Which, sure, spoils the “m” (= portability) part of m43 concept.