A better IQ tele lens than the 14-150

Kiwi Paul · #1 July 4th, 2012, 04:45 PM

I have the Oly 14-150 and for what it is its a great lens, it actually performs very well from 14 to about 70mm and after that the softness and lack of resolution compromises it, especially if you try to take crops.

I was wondering if the the Oly m40-150 or the Lumix 45-175 are much better IQ wise? I imagine they will be an improvement but if it's only marginal then it doesn't seem worth it. Has anyone been able to compare them?
I know the 35-100 is forecast and that focal length and speed would be ideal, but since it's likely to be expensive I'm finding hard to justify spending that kind of money on a lens.

I'm keeping the 14-150 as it's a truly excellent walkabout lens but just want a better lens when I want to take more discerning pics.

Paul

tomas · #2 July 4th, 2012, 08:59 PM

I sold my 14-150 and my 40-150 for the same reasons that you cited. In May I bought the Pany 45-175. I use it on my em5 with very satisfactory results. It's not the 4/3 50-200, mind you, but overall it's quite good and IMHO much better than the lenses I sold with respect to IQ. I've not had any problems with the lens IS fighting the body IS.

strang · #3 July 4th, 2012, 09:21 PM

Judging from what I've seen the 75-300 is the sharpest telephoto for micro four thirds. But you already have the 100-300, wouldn't that solve your telephoto needs?

tomas · #4 July 4th, 2012, 11:00 PM

I also had and sold the 75-300. I didn't find it to be particularly sharp. Also I didn't use it very much. It's not fast enough for good early morning and late evening wildlife shots.

Kiwi Paul · #5 July 5th, 2012, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strang

Judging from what I've seen the 75-300 is the sharpest telephoto for micro four thirds. But you already have the 100-300, wouldn't that solve your telephoto needs?

Thanks Strang, I've updated my signature, I sold the 100-300 a while ago as I never used it, I'm looking for a lens to cover 40-150ish.

Paul

dhazeghi · #6 July 5th, 2012, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiwi Paul

I have the Oly 14-150 and for what it is its a great lens, it actually performs very well from 14 to about 70mm and after that the softness and lack of resolution compromises it, especially if you try to take crops.

I was wondering if the the Oly m40-150 or the Lumix 45-175 are much better IQ wise? I imagine they will be an improvement but if it's only marginal then it doesn't seem worth it. Has anyone been able to compare them?
I know the 35-100 is forecast and that focal length and speed would be ideal, but since it's likely to be expensive I'm finding hard to justify spending that kind of money on a lens.

I'd vote for the 40-150. The 45-175 is smaller, but from what I've seen it's not quite as sharp. Plus if you find one refurbished, the 40-150 is literally half the price of the 45-175. However, both options are a good amount better than the 14-150 at the long end, which is probably the weakest native m4/3 lens at 150mm.

DH

bongestrella · #7 July 5th, 2012, 08:44 AM

Very timely, this is a copy and paste of my message to a user here about my oly 14-150 vs 40-150..

Quote:

Based on my copies, at 40-80mm, the 40-150 is slightly but noticeably sharper, but definitely not a deal breaker. At 80-120mm, it's almost unfair to the 14-150, my 40-150 completely obliterates it. Seriously, it's almost like comparing a kitlens vs a high grade lens. This is my first superzoom (both on m43 and Canon) so I don't know if this is to be expected, or if I have a bad copy of 14-150 or just an extremely good copy of 40-150, it's got to be one of those three. At 120-150mm, the 40-150 goes back to earth, it's still noticeably sharper but again, not a deal breaker.

I mean to redo these tests sometime soon just to make sure I have consistent results.