Going for a long native M4/3 lens, which one?

LisaO · #1 March 8th, 2011, 08:40 PM

I'm traveling to Italy late April for 3 weeks. I want to lighten my load and try to leave the 70-200 for my Canon DSLR at home. I am pretty much a wide angle shooter but I know I want to capture architectural details and some long Tuscan landscapes. Which long lens would you get and why? Off the top of my head the Panasonic 14-140, 45-200, 100-300 Olympus 14-150 are what I'm considering.

Thanks in advance.

shoturtle · #2 March 8th, 2011, 08:46 PM

14-150 would be the AF speed leader of the bunch. Give you a nice compact long zoom.

I like the 45-200 for the almost 400mm of reach, it seems to work really well on the olympus bodies. Good color and sharpness.

the 100-300 looks pretty nice, just a bit on the large size.

Have you consider the 75-300 from oly, having the msc lens would give it quick af. But at 600mm eq if you do not have a ibis body, it would be tough to handhold steady.

arpoador · #3 March 8th, 2011, 11:09 PM

I have both the 45-250 and the 100-300. They're quite different lenses.

The 45-250 is quite light and easy to add to the gadget bag when walking around. On the other hand, I don't think it's a particularly great lens at any of its zoom range. I have manual focus lenses at 45, 85, 100, 135, 200, and a couple more between those, and I don't think the 45-250 comes close to any of them in terms of image quality. On the other hand it's very convenient, so I still take it with me at times.

The 100-300 is a total surprise. At 135 or 200, I've gotten really amazing pictures from it from the start, and having 300mm f/5.6 (600mm equivalent) in your hands, with OIS and autofocus is a great experience. On the other hand, it's significantly bigger, significantly heavier, and unless I'm pretty confident I'll be wanting a telephoto, I don't just "throw it in the bag".

I originally bought the 100-300 for a trip to Rio over Christmas, but chickened out and took the 45-200 instead. (I had barely even tried out the new one when I left.) When I got back, I started using the 100-300 seriously, and totally regretted my decision.

awade · #4 March 9th, 2011, 05:21 AM

I am taking my first longer trip with my GH1 setup next week. Fitting the GH1, 14-140, 20mm 1,7 and 100-300 in a Tamrac Velocity 6 bag. It is quite a tight fit but really portable. Only had the 100-300 for about a week and the weather in Sweden (where I live) now does not really scream for taking pictures. But a two week trip to Canary Island hopefully will gime me more chance to try the lens out.

Ray Sachs · #5 March 9th, 2011, 07:09 AM

Lisa,

Just depends on how long you want to go. I traveled for about a month in Europe last summer (with most of it in Italy). I took two m43 bodies with a 14-150, 9-18, 20, and 17. During the day when I was just "tourist shooting" I had the 14-150 mounted on my main camera on a strap and did a LOT of shooting with this. Its a wonderful tourist lens, very good for a lot of different types of shots. I had the 9-18 on the other body in a very handy spot in my bag so I could be ready to shoot ultra wide angle very quickly. When I went indoors, or in the evening, I'd switch the 14-150 out for the 20 for low light. And sometimes, I'd stash everything but one body and the 17 and just do a couple of hours of street shooting (although I got some street type shots with every one of the four lenses I had along - they can all shoot in that general range).

I've had the 45-200 and now have the 100-300. The 45-200 doesn't give you that much more reach than the 14-150 and isn't any better at the long end (although might be marginally sharper at 150, but I was always quite satisfied with the 14-150 throughout the range). The 100-300 is a much larger lens and not one I'd want to carry around all day (in fact, even the Pany 14-140 was more than I wanted to haul around - its much bulkier and heavier than the Olympus version).

There are specific events I like to shoot sometimes where I want all the reach I can get. But I never felt like 150mm wasn't enough reach while I was traveling. I got some great close-up details of architecture and other things and the lens is just so versatile. So my recommendation would be to go with the 14-150 as the primary lens. When I'm walking around all day, I don't want to change lenses often (which is why I had two bodies with my most of the time - cut the lens swaps down to just a few per day, if that). If you have a higher tolerance for changing lenses, want a LOT of reach, and don't mind the weight, take a 100-300. For me, that's a specialty lens, not a travel lens, but your priorities may be different...

Have fun!

-Ray

LisaO · #6 March 9th, 2011, 09:12 AM

I definitely like the size and weight of the Olympus 14-150. I would be less likely to use it on the wide end as I prefer wider like the 9-18 or just a 14 or 20 pancake. I will also have my 5DMKII and often shoot with 2 bodies and will probably bring 2 m4/3 bodies on my trip. If I feel like going light I'll just go M4/3. I don't like changing lenses much so I'll just choose by day what I want to carry.

The other day I attended a talk at B&H Photo given by travel photographer David H. Wells and sponsored by Olympus. He travels with 3 M4/3 bodies but takes just one camera with 9-18 a manfrotto table top tripod and ball head. In a small belt pouch he carries the 14-150, EVF-2, lensbaby and maybe a 20 pancake and a polaroid printer and he is extremely unencumbered, agile and mobile in the field.

LDraper · #7 March 9th, 2011, 09:35 AM

I'm heading down to Chile for a couple of weeks and I'm taking the Oly 14-42 and the 40-150. I'm also hoping to take the 20mm 1.7 if it arrives in time - I'm still building my kit. I find the 40-150 to be a fast focusing and sharp lens, and it gives me adequate reach for most scenic needs - handholding it at it's full extension takes some persistence, I would think anything longer would call out for some support! it's also a good portrait lens - if not too fast.

When I'm traveling I like to keep things as simple and compact as possible, and I'm thinking the three lenses should give me pretty good coverage without too much bulk. The 14-150 is probably a good choice (not much need to swap lenses) but I got my 40-150 for 200.00 from Staples - the price was right! :-)

Have fun!

Ray Sachs · #8 March 9th, 2011, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LisaO

I definitely like the size and weight of the Olympus 14-150. I would be less likely to use it on the wide end as I prefer wider like the 9-18 or just a 14 or 20 pancake. I will also have my 5DMKII and often shoot with 2 bodies and will probably bring 2 m4/3 bodies on my trip. If I feel like going light I'll just go M4/3. I don't like changing lenses much so I'll just choose by day what I want to carry.

If you wouldn't use the wide end, maybe a 40-150 or the 45-200. To me, the 100-300 is just a bit much for travel and a big heavy lens (by m43 standards). Then again, if you're also gonna be carrying DSLR gear, it might be a drop in the bucket? I believe the 40-150 is the smallest and lightest of the bunch and, again, I found 150 to be long enough for travel applications.

-Ray

LisaO · #9 March 9th, 2011, 11:43 AM

The 100-300 is 520g while my Canon 70-200 F4 L IS is 760g so I'm not saving that much there. Seems like the 14-150 at only 280g is the best weight/range option.

drpump · #10 March 9th, 2011, 05:29 PM

There's another thread here discussing the new Olympus 40-150mm against the Panasonic 45-200 which comes out largely in favour of the Olympus. If you don't want/need the wide end, then I think the Olympus 40-150 would be the best option (especially if you can get the Staples deal).

That said, I have an Olympus 14-150mm lens and I'm very happy with the results.