Panasonic 35-100mm X lens hands-on at Dpreview.


Dpreview (Click here) posted the 35-100mm X lens hands-on along some image samples. They write: “our first impressions of the Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS are that it’s an excellent little lens – well made, fast-focusing, and optically impressive. A familiar question mark hangs over Panasonic’s pricing, though; the $1500 / £1000 tag is far from insignificant.

Indeed the high price may be the the only real big downside of this lens. Anyway, we can still hope that Panasonic will make some nice discount like they are doing now on the 12-35mm X sister lens (-$200 here at Amazon). That would make it much easier to sell this lens!

  • sickasaids

    Lol high price comments everywhere when DSLR 70-200mm f2.8 easily go for 2k+.

    Smaller lens so it has to be cheaper right?:)

    • Donald Duck

      Sure it has to be cheaper!!!!

    • Bob S.


      Actually 70-200 f/2.8 is f2.8 on fullframe.

      The 2.8 on m4/3 is typically equivalent to f4 or f5 of FF’s DOF approximately. You should compare this panasnic lens to the proven 70-200 f4 L, which is cheapter. That’s why most people still think this pana lens is relatively expensive.

      • Stop this right now, please.

      • Terry

        Yeah, but which lens can get you the shutter speed in low light? Or do you go around saying, “Wow, that’s some shallow DOF on that blurry guy kicking the football!”

        • 9p9[p

          In the worst case scenario the FF camera has two stops better noise performance so simply up the ISO to maintain the same shutter speed so a FF 70-200 F5.6 lens would then have the same DOF , same AOV and same level of noise .This would only be needed if you had to have the same shutter speed . And the FF lenses are far better built and weather sealed . I speak as an owner of the 24-70 Nikon and the 12-35 Panasonic there is simply no comparison .

          • homer

            theoretically. Do you really have the full frame? If you really do and have actually shot in high ISO you know that in practice theyre not even one stop apart in noise. Not with the OM D at least. And not even with the newer models.
            And what if Im with the original 5D? ISO 3200 was the top of it, if I need more I need it in aperture.
            And also, lets say youre at ISO 6400 with that full frame, are you really gonna go to ISO 12800 for the shutter speed? Theres a lot of ultra high ISO talk around the web, but very few actually being put to use.

        • Byran


          If you need speed shutter low light with 70-200/F4L, you just simply adjust the ISO which is a piece of cake for noise in terms of handling with FF sensor.

          I use both FF and M4/3, please see the fact, this 35-200 is overpriced.

          • roger48

            Since there is no mft 70-200 f2.8, f4 or f5.6, comparisons to the new Pana 35-100 f2.8 are both pointless and, frankly, idiotic. I, like many other posters, have no interest whatever in silly DOF comparisons between mft FULL FRAME and 35mm size FULL FRAME.

            • tyyy

              @ roger Canon make an excellent 70-200f4l lens with or without IS the non-IS version costs $679

      • BOB BOB BOB… how disappointed we all are at your comment. Equivalence again?

        Even if DOF is equivalent to f/5.6 in 135 format terms, SPEED is what is important for telephoto lenses since a fast shutter speed is necessary to counter shake (much more effective to have fast shutter speed than IS). And f/2.8 is f/2.8 when it comes to speed.

        • Marck

          Well, but if you can set a higher ISO because the FF sensor allows you to do it while keeping noise low, then you also have high speed together with little DOF. So lens manufacturers must keep in mind that they cannot set their lenses’ prices looking at the FF catalogues: they must be much cheaper to win the race.

          • Again that bogus ISO argument, comparing bodies that costs thee times the price, using sensor from different manufacturers.

            Lenses are good for decades. God knows how significant the difference will be a few years from now…

            • 9p9[p

              @jules you mean like the £1549 GH3 compared to the £1660 D600. With regards to the BS f2.8 is F2.8 then the obvious choice for all of us is the LUMIX FZ200 it is F2.8 all the way up to 600mm . F2.8 is F2.8 ?

              • f2.8 is f2.8

                • rtry

                  Jules you better hop on over to the shop and get that FZ200 a 600mm lens at f2.8 . F2.8 is F2.8 lol what a fool

                  • Gee, thanks for the advise and the over-the-net psychological diagnostic.

                  • Bart

                    Here, go educate yourself:



                    “In optics, the f-number (sometimes called focal ratio, f-ratio, f-stop, or relative aperture[1]) of an optical system is the ratio of the lens’s focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil[2]. It is a dimensionless number that is a quantitative measure of lens speed, an important concept in photography.”

                    Since focal length and entrance pupil are physical dimensions of a lens, they do not change with format, so yes, f2.8 is f2.8, regardless of format or lens.

                    Oh, yes, with a smaller medium (such as 135 format instead of large format), a specific field of view and f-stop combination give you a different (wider) DOF then on a larger medium. That is because DOF and f-stop are not the same thing.

              • homer

                yes, f2.8 is f2.8 no matter how grim you wanna paint it

      • dau

        I just think its expensive because, well, its expensive. I guess im not the target market. I think that in order to justify buying one of these you either need to be a pro (in which case youre probably not using micro 4/3 unless its for video on a gh 2/3) or a very rich enthusiast!

        • The other Mike H

          Bingo. This lens seems geared way more for us video folks. As such, I totally get why photo only people think this is expensive. Personally, I can’t wait to get my hands on it.

      • Supachai


        Agree with you. I would choose this f4L any day if this 35-100 is still expensive like this.

      • Es

        Uggghh, if you need higher shutter speeds on FF, you just set ISO higher. You’re not really arguing that m4/3 gets better image quality than FF, are you, seriously?

        The advantage of m4/3 is size, and we make compromises on image quality for it.

        Another advantage used to be price, but that somehow went missing somewhere along the road.

      • Ragnarok

        In fact, it should be compared to a FF 70-200 f/5.6 lens (there is none), but people here will come with the f/2.8 is f/2.8 mantra (I guess the f/2.8 lens in my phone is equivalent to a medium format f/2.8 lens then).

        • Arkersaint

          F/2.8 means I can use 1/125 speed where F/5.6 would have implied 1/30 and that is enough for me…

          Not a mantra at all : fed up with that trolling machine !!!

          • Martin

            > F/2.8 means I can use 1/125 speed where F/5.6 would have implied 1/30 and that is enough for me…

            I suspect that by “F/5.6 would have implied 1/30” you mean getting the same exposure… But exposure is NOT a good means for cross-system comparisons. You could use the same shutterspeed with a FF camera + F/5.6 lens combo while maintaining comparable image quality (assuming output normalization of course…)
            So yes, a 35-100m f/2.8 + FT sensor combination is perfectly comparable to a 700-200 f/5.6 + FF sensor one, provided that we want to talk about the IQ groundwork, not about technicalities like sensor illumination (which is useless anyway without stating the sensor size).

        • Just because you read something on the web does not mean its not questionable. Even if its long winded.

        • homer

          YES ragnarok YES IT IS. f2.8 on your phone is f2.8 on your medium format!! DOF has never been a part of any calculation in lens making, its just a consequence of sensor size. If you got 1/100 of a sec on your phone, what? you think youll get 1/2000 of a second in medium format?
          By that logic, Is a medium format f2.8 lens suddenly f1.2 if I adapt it to m4/3s?

      • mooboy

        Ok, since this has come up again, I have a question – maybe more about DOF calculators.

        I take a Nikon 50mm f/1.8, attacted it to a D700, focus on my subject 2 meters away, but make sure they’re only taking up quarter center of the frame. My DOF calculator tells me I’ve got DOF of 1.92 to 2.09 meters.

        Now, I take same lens, attach via an adaptor to an GH2/OM-D etc.. and now DOF calculator tells me my DOF is 1.96 to 2.04. If using exact same lens, why is something at 2.05 now suddenly out of focus?

        Am I missing something?

        • Es

          The field of view of a m4/3 50mm lens increases to 100mm when compared to full frame. If you want to compare a 50mm lens on full frame, you have to pick a 25mm one in m4/3.

        • Tom B

          You have a stricter definition of ‘in focus’ for micro four thirds than for full frame because the pixels on the sensor are closer together. (which is equivelent to saying you have to enlarge the image more from sensor to print so are more likley to notice blur)

          • mooboy

            Thanks for the answer Tom, but it doesn’t feel satisfying to me. Let’s say the cameras were now a D800 and an a GF-1. So, I take photo of an object in centre of frame on the D800.. the object is 17 cm deep. Great.. my DOF calculator tells me all is fine. I don’t care for the rest of the image so I crop by a factor of 2 on both dimensions and end up with a 9mp pic.

            I then take exact same lens and focus point and attach to a GF1, take photo of same object. But, DOF calculator tells me only 8cm of the object will now be in focus, even though using same lens and effectively same size of sensor (ableit 12mp instead of 9).

            So again, I respectfully ask, what am I missing?

            (An Es, from my example here, hopefully can see taking sensor size into account via cropping).

      • bert


        For DOF : Don´t you think there are many situation when more DOF at 2,8 is a useful thing ?

        For comparing with other lenses: If you compare with Canon 4/70-200, you should compare with the

        4/70-200 IS, which is in the same price region, only bigger, more weight, and with f4 not that fast….

      • Camaman

        WOW that is NO weather sealing! Bad Panasonic! :-)
        But hasn’t Panasonic said themselves that there is only an o-ring on the mount?

        I guess that sort of weather sealing can be done at home by applying some sanitary silicone on the mount! lol!

      • Esa Tuunanen

        Focal ratio tells brightness of image projected by lens and f/2.8 is f/2.8 on any format.
        DOF isn’t and has never been part of that equation, but only secondary consequence when combined with focal length. (leading to what aperture really is)

        Wide angle landscapes and such rarely need shallow DOF and again when going to narrow angle tele photography focal lengths are anyway such that even with APS-C stopping down can be easily in order to get enough DOF.
        For portrait use m4/3 already has lenses basically capable to shallower than from tip of nose to eye DOF which is more than enough for that use.

        Funny how there didn’t seem to be anyone arguing medium format films over 35mm with shallower DOF but now flat Earth thin DOF is suddenly second coming of Jesus when digital tech’s higher than film resolution and sensitivity has made 35mm film age format as irrelevant for most uses as medium format was in film era.

        • kenny

          @esa that is absolute nonsense think about it is F2.8 on a P&S the same as F2.8 on mFT answer no it isn’t just as F2.8 on mFT is not the same as F2.8 on FF . DOF is only one of the differences .It is funny how all the mFT fans seem to be able to work out the two x crop factor of the Effective AOV of the lens while forgetting the effect this has on aperture. The aperture of a lens is a ratio i strongly suggest reading this article it is as simple as they come and explains things very well.

        • Kyle

          By your logics, all devices with f2.8 will have the same DOF includeing crappy compact camera, mobile phone, iphone, whatever.

          • Bart

            I think Esa is not saying DOF is the same, but brightness is the same. You know those are 2 different things, don’t you? You also know that brightness is total amount of light divided by area, and hence is in no way whatsoever depending on sensor size?

            Since relative aperture is defined as entrence pupil diameter divided by focal length, it is a given, does not depend on sensor size, and means the exact same thing on every format.

            It is people who are totally stuck on DOF (you nicely confirm later on that you are one of those by claiming f2.8 on m4/3 is really only suitable for landscapes.. go get a clue) who do not understand that DOF and f-stop are not the same thing at all.

    • It’s not a 70-200 f/2.8, so why should it cost as much?

      • Martin

        It would actually be a good compromise if the 35-100mm f/2.8 cost the same as a 70-200 f/4. It wouldn’t still be comparable in DOF (nor in total light gathering) but I would sacrifice that for the smaller size without feeling have been cheated. But $1500 is really way too much for a 70-200 f/5.6 equivalent.

        • I have two 35-105 f/2.8 Tamron 35 mm lenses, one MF and one AF. Back in the mid-’90s, these were uniquely fast zooms in this focal range. I think each lens cost around $600.

  • Luke

    I’ll buy it in 2 years when it’s $899. Let the early adopters pay the R & D.

    • Anonymous

      Agree, but won’t have to wait two years to get sub $1000

    • Sunny Valentine

      yes I dont need to be in rush buying this lens and will wait until the price seems to be more okay

    • Digifan

      Well it’s a Pro grade lens, the pro’s who’ll use it won’t complain. They’ll be happy it’s much cheaper than 35mmFF equiv.
      Let’s face it, shallower DOF would be a bonus but there’s no alternative if you need high shutter speeds.

      • perat

        Considering how crap the C-AF and tracking is on mFT bodies I wouldn’t yet buy a high grade lens for it. I am a keen birder and the 2x crop factor is incredibly helpful unfortunately the tracking is disappointing even on my new E-M5 it sucks on what in every other way is an amazing camera.

        Considering Nikon came out the gate with an excellent and fast C-AF in their first mirrorless camera I had hoped that Olympus or Panasonic would have moved forward.This is especially disappointing as it carries on from FT where they had superb lenses yet never got their AF up to par with the big boys.If Sony come out with a better sensor in the next generation of Nikon 1 cameras I may just consider it.

        • The verdict is already out on the GH3’s AF, the body for which this lens is probably best suited…?

  • ulli

    it is a lot of money, but i dont think its overpriced.

  • MAFAv8r

    Hopefully by then Olympus will produce a non stabilized version of the same or better quality.

  • brudney

    Nice lens, very expensive.

    I think it’s small and fast primes where m4/3 shines and that’s what manufacturers should focus on. Good and relatively fast m4/3 zooms will probably always be a bit too slow for pros and definitely too expensive for enthusiasts.

  • Agrivar

    Demand and supply.. wait until the retailers get stuck with inventory after the initial batch and early adopters and the price will drop.. we’ve seen the 12-35 drop by USD200 in 2 months…

  • Anonymous


  • Salty

    You could beat someone to death with a 70-200mm 2.8 L MKII and still use it to take razor sharp images of their corpse afterwards.

    I’m sure I could beat someone to death with this lens, but it would take longer, my arm would be tired and I’m not convinced it would still work.

    If panasonic are prepared to send me a sample I’m prepared to give it a go though.

    A lot of OM-D owners will buy this lens, disable the OIS, try to ignore the soft corners and quietly curse Olympus for not releasing any decent weathersealed MFT lenses for their weathersealed camera.

    • Hard2Xplain

      looking forward to see it….

  • Irresistable lens

    In comparison with high-quality lens availble for APS-C and FF in market nowadays, this 35-100 is absolutely expensive, and I don’t see any other better benefits (except weight – of course).

    • roger48

      The great advantage is that you can use the lens on an mft camera, whereas you cannot use APC or similar lenses without an adaptor. Err that is what it is made for I thought.

      Anyway, if you cannot afford it that is your problem, not the manufacturer’s, who would quite like to make a profit.

  • Camaman

    There was a recent comparison of this lens to Canon f2.8 70-200mm and the real worlds showed they are about the same practical sharpness in real world.
    But the Canon’s had visibly smaller DOF and the details like grass around the subjects (buffaloes) were very smeared.
    That is bad for a field/landscape shot.

    Again YMMV on a given look you are after and light available to take the shot, but still…

  • sickasaids

    lol trolls everywhere

  • Kyle

    With the coming of Fuji X-series and the awfully higher and higher price of M4/3 lens for X2 crop-factor sensor, I really hesitate to invest in this 35-100. Budget is not an issue but, to me, it doesn’t make sense. Just as many said above, I also feel that f2.8 of m4/3 is too thick and seems to be proper only for specific shooting such as landscape. Fuji X is being improved all the times, and their X-lens line-up is really interesting.

    • Bart

      I suggest you go shoot lots of landscapes with m4/3 at 300mm and f2.8 and see how well that works for you. Please stop bothering others with this rubbish

      • rtry

        Only thing with that Bart is that the only native 300mm lenses in mFT are the F5.6 {F11.2 FF } Panasonic and the even slower F6.7 Olympus { FF 13.4}.

        • Bart

          But there is a totally fine (and expensive) Olympus 300/2.8 for 4/3. Yes, it needs an adapter, but focus speed shouldn’t be an issue for landscapes, so that will work totally fine :-)

          I suppose that there was a point to my post. I’d also think that you sortof missed the point.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website,, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps:
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: Addthis cookies:
Disqus cookies:
Vimeo cookies:
Youtube cookies:

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.