Review of Olympus Zuiko Digital Top-Pro Lenses

35-100mm (70-200mm equiv.) - largest aperture: F2.0 - weight:1650g - construction: 21 elements in 18 groups - original datasheet: here

If I was to buy a Top-Pro lens, my pick would be the 35-100 as its field of view matches my style of photography very well. This is the second mandatory reportage-lens of modern times - it offers the same field of view as the 70-200 lenses in the 35mm world (probably targeted on the same PJ audience). I know only the smaller of the 70-200 lenses made by Canon (the f4 L), but that was so well built and sharp, that it set a high standard for the 35-100. Based on the public information however, it is very difficult to judge this lens, as there were quite a number of controversial images shared on the web after its release, especially those taken with wide-open aperture. Many, if not all, of these images were clearly taken in a hurry, which does not lend a lot of credibility to the results. The blurred images might be a result of genuine unsharpness of the lens, a badly taken image (= one with avoidable camera shake) or the fact that the lens is impossible to handle and hence produces blurred images when hand-held, even if it is tack sharp on a tripod.

Grabbing the 35-100 for the first time sends a shiver down the spine. Yes, this is the same "military-grade" equipment we know from other manufacturers, if not better. Good! Handling and overal physical experience with the lens is perfect. Out of the three lenses we looked at, this has the most pleasing ergonomics. Although it weights more than one and a half kilos, the very well shaped body makes it easy to handle. Actually, because of the non-changing size, I felt it is easier to hold steady than the 50-200, its "budget" alternative!

Workings of the autofocus system is a results of both electronic and mechanical elements. We all know Olympus AF as a precise but slow one. I am not sure why it is precise, but surely slowness is at least partially caused by the lack of ultrasonic motors in the lenses. The 35-100 is not entirely different from this experience. It focuses precisely and slightly quicker than the 50-200 did. There is the usual whirring noise of the micro-motor, but focus seems to be tack on. This is a mixed bag for users of other brands, something Olympus should really improve upon (keeping the precision, of course), but also something you can learn to live with, especially using the focus limiter. A somewhat strange experience is that the E-1 - 35-100 was not able to lock focus in some backlit scenes. This is a replicable experience, and being so, it would be nice to know if it is a general issue, or just peculiar to this combination, or even to the sample we had. But who knows what the future brings with new bodies and possibly updated lenses?

Uhm, have I already said that the 35-100 sits perfectly in one's hand? Although my bony wrist ached by the end of the shootout, handling the lens was a real joy. An unfair comparison, but working at 35mm I could not help thinking about the tiny 35mm 1:3.5 macro! If you look at the sample images, you might be wondering why there only a few 100% crops available, with a lot more images on the end of this section. Well, this is a result of our decision to represent our hit rate fairly accurately. It is quite hard to keep the lens steady set at f2.0, but is one succeeds, the result is superb image quality. Actually we received some comments from early readers pushing us to admit that the 100% crops are actually downsampled originals! Although it is very hard to make out the difference on the real-life images, the synthetic tests make it clear, that there is a definite sharpness difference between f2.0 and narrower apertures (and the quality of the 150mm at f2.0, see later). Sharpness catches up however quite rapidly as we reach f2.8 and I do not really see much improvement from than on. Considering the performance of other zooms, I regard this as quite impressive.

Nevertheless, sharpness is not everything a lens can and has to offer. Brightness results in a bright viewfinder, which puts the E-1 in direct comparison with top full-frame cameras (although my comparison is merely the memory of my OM2n with the 50mm f1.4). The other benefit of the large aperture is shallow DOF, which in the case of the 35-100mm was perfect: creamy with saturated and true colour rendition. A DOF offered by the 4/3 system at f2.0 is clearly not up to the razor-thin one possible with a full Leica-frame camera plus f1.4 (or faster) lens combination (such as the Canon 5D and the new 50mm f1.2). However, given the aims of the system (mobility) and the difficulty focusing poses even at f2.0, I do not miss this possibility at all. My personal favourite is image number 19, which is a "miss" (the farther eye is in focus), but has a mood which I like very much and exhibits the wonderful bokeh of the lens very well.

This lens is quite comparable to product of other companies with 70-200mm focal lengths and 2.8 brightness. Ergonomics is excellent. The lens' size does not change during operation as both zooming and focussing is internal. The zoom ring turns smoothly, more so than it does on the Zuiko Digital 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5. On the one hand, this is expected as the 50-200mm extends during zooming, but non-trivial on the other as in this case the mechanism has to move a substantial bulk. Such high level of mechnical precision is quite reassuring. Focussing is of course implemented as "focus by wire" here too, meaning that there is no mechanical connection between the focus ring and the lenses. Similarly to the mice used for computers, the signals sent by an optical sensor are processed by electronics and then executed by an actuator - the experience given by the ring is determined solely by lubrication and sealing. I shoot mostly macros, and I have to tell that I find this type of focussing very comfortable. The often heard worry that this solution produces an experience very different from mechanical coupling is completely unfounded. Focussing is a one-finger job even on the biggest lenses! Materials used for building the lens are all excellent. Everything is in its place, without a hint of looseness. The lens shade supplied is quite substantial and offers an interesting solution for using a polarizing filter. There is a small cover near the front lens element which can be pulled to the side, making the rotator of the filter accessible for rotation.

Despite of the relatively large depth of field of the 4/3 system, handling this lens demands a master of the craft. Already a small movement parallel to the optical axis between setting focus and exposing the image renders the image noticably unsharp. This is of course old news for those using 70-200mm 1:2.8 or 1:4.0 lenses on APS-H / full Leica frame cameras. Consequently, in the beginning of our trials, we were able to get only few accaptable images, but this improved over time. The 3-way AF-limiter makes it less noticable that it is a micro-motor that sets the focus. I myself concentrated more on the 150mm 1:2.0 lens, but I have an interest in the 35-100mm 1:2.0 too. Using this lens professionally would clearly benefit from some means of lens stabilisation. We probably do not have to wait for this too long, as there is already a stabilised 4/3 lens available and Olympus is offering a compact camera with CCD-shift stabilisation. Which version we shall see in future E-system cameras, I do not know.

I have read about image quality in a few tests. My experience is similar to other, precisely executed tests' results. The lens offers outstanding image quality already at f2.0. There is a small drop at 100mm, but as image number 03 shows, there is no need to worry at all. Vignetting is invisible at the lower end of the focal-length range, even at the largest aperture. It is getting visible as we approach the long end, peaking at 100mm. Stopping down to f2.2, vignetting becomes unnoticable and practically disappears at f2.8! Possibly thanks to the incorporation of 4 ED and one Super ED lens elements, chromatic aberration seems to be absent. Contrast drops in heavily backlit scenes when using the lens wide-open, but this is noticable only if back-lighting is so hars that the background burns out completely. There is no visible distortion at any focal length.

Contemporary high resolution lenses are often criticised for not rendering out-of-focus elements of the scene particularly beautifully - many call this an indecent bokeh. Highlights in these cases appear as sharp polygons instead of following the shape of the actual light-patch. There is nothing to critisice on 35-100mm 1:2.0 in this respect. As it is apparent on the images, the blurred background is quite "creamy". It looks like that a good bokeh was a consideration already when designing the lens. Anoter interesting detail is that while focal-lengths are divided to sections in the case of the Zuiko Digital 14-54mm and the ED 50-200mm lenses, producing discrete jumps in the EXIF data, this lens gives a feedback with millimetre precision (an example: we show images with 50mm and 51mm focal lenghts!)

This content, including all text and images is provided for personal use only. Replication by any means is not permitted without explicit written consent.