The 35-100 got a run today along side my 40-150 on an EM1 mk2 at an all schools equestrian event.
Focussing was a nice surprise on the whole. It was smooth and responsive and seemed to be pretty much as accurate as the Oly lens. This was better than expected.
At 100mm it is sharp and contrasty, but not as contrasty as the Oly lens. Bokeh on the other hand is smoother and more natural.
At the short end, it is much the same.
There were misses, but there were a few with the Oly lens also, so aside from yet un-foreseen behaviours, I am confident to use this lens for work on either brand of camera.
The Oly lens sometimes has a weird look to just out of focus areas, almost a fringe-like glow. The Pana lens seems to do much the same with near misses, a bit CA like, but I am also aware this may be a silent/electronic shutter issue.
Busy and slightly disturbing, but simply out of focus areas, just out of salvageable range, or something worse?
The stunnig sharpness of the Oly lens, but notice the nervous Bokeh in the trees.
The reason for the added question mark above is some less than confidence inspiring results from a lecture shoot in poor indoor lighting. Even with dual stabilising, I failed to get as many keepers as I thought I would using the G9 in continuous focus. More testing needed. I think that in single shot focus it may be more reliable, or maybe even continuous on the EM1. If it fails to impress after a day or two more, I will possibly return it, but I know how some lenses need a settling period.
I am due a dud, but it looks like apart from some early jitters and learning each lenses character, all is well across the board (a lens is as good as the best images it takes, but also how often it produces them). Incidentally, I have spent $3500au on a pro Leica standard, kit standard, pro short tele, Sigma super fast portrait and fast Leica semi wide. None of these lenses were mandatory buys, but they add options and depth, which is also part of the MFT advantage.
I took a bunch of images on the way to work, all within a few minutes and the same location roughly. In each, at longer distances and close inspection, there is no discernible point of focus down the right hand side, the near pole being closest. This did not seem to show up at shorter distances, but when I focussed specifically on the right side, the rest was quite out, much more than DOF would suggest.
ed. This has been returned as it looks like there is a decentering issue. It can produce nice files especially close up, but interestingly, most of the horse jumping files I shot on the weekend were able to disguise the issue because they were mostly shot left to right and on an angle. Brick wall and other field tests have shown it to be “twitchy” to say the least. The other effect seems to be the lens offers effectively shallower depth of field than the same settings on the 40-150 Oly. Not sure what to go for in exchange, but the Oly 40-150 f4 is appealing.