My copy of the 45-200 was noticably soft at the long end. I don't find the 100-300 nearly as annoying.

I have a good copy of the 45-200. Been happy with the results with it. From a friend, the 45-200 actually works better on the oly then his panny. As strange as it may sound.

I have the Panasonic 45-200 and I find the autofocus misses focus too much for my liking on the Olympus E-P1. I cannot comment about the longer lens as I have no interest in it.

I have the 100-300. Good for the money. IS is effective once you've learned how to get the best from it. Past 275mm it resolves no more detail, but hey, that's quite a reach. It's sharp at f5.6 to11 and focuses quickly. Mine back-focusses slightly at 300mm though.

Was looking at legacy telephotos but the IS, AF, good contrast and price swung it.

Oh yes if you use it with the GF1 get the EVF.

Examples here...
http://www.mu-43.com/gallery/data/11...3_PMxzC-XL.jpg

and here

http://100porcupines.smugmug.com/Hon...9_n9roB-XL.jpg

__________________
__________________________
http://100porcupines.smugmug.com

Thanks - your reply plus a bit of reading has convinced me to try the 45-200 again. I had the early version with my G1 well over a year ago, and there were apparently some firmware fixes that came after I sold mine.

With the 100-300 in my bag and a whole kit of Canon gear for wildlife shooting, I really only need it to cover easy shooting at 45-100. I really thought about a legacy lens in the 75mm range (hello Leica!), but it is nice having AF and the lighter weight of the Pana lenses.

I don't mean to hijack the thread but thought below is a valid question that the OP might find useful for his/her decision, I know it would help me.

Been reading this thread with interest, I see some folk mention when the 100-300 is at the 300 end it can be a tad soft. Do any of you 100-300 users find that a little USM on PP'ing solves that problem without affecting the photo too much.

That large af box of the ep1 is most likely the reason for all your miss focus. Not much you can do about it with with the ep1.

I think it's a bit soft... It especially shows on fur and feather detail as the lighting falls and conditions become more challenging.

If you have glass that is razor sharp at that focal length (like my 500L, zowie), you will know the 100-300 is not razor sharp at 300mm. However, I find the lens is acceptable most of the time and many people would look at the photos and still think they look great because of attention to lighting, exposure, and all the other things that make a photo... So I think the answer depends on how much of a pixel peeper you are (I always peep) and it depends on what you are comparing against. I am tending to use the 300 for wildlife for capturing scenes and interaction more than individual portraits, so seeing every hair becomes unimportant...

I don't know if that helps any, but it's my answer and I'm sticking to it.

I guess I'd like to weigh in on this thread, since I use both lenses.

By the time I bought the 45-200mm, I already had a half-dozen legacy lenses in that range, but I wanted something that was convenient to carry in my camera bag and to use either while walking longer distances and/or while accompanied with other people (who might not want to wait while I set up a manual focus lens). I bought it just before a trip to Los Angeles & Las Vegas, and it served its purpose. I was never particularly impressed with the images, though, and never put it on the camera when I was at home.

By last month, I already had a fairly large number of telephoto lenses, among them my favorite night / tripod lenses (Nikon 105, 135, and 180mm) and my favorite day telephoto lenses (a Contax 135mm Sonnar and a 200mm Tele-tessar). Nonetheless, I really liked the convenience of the 45-200mm, so before leaving for a trip to Rio de Janeiro, I bought the 100-300mm.

It arrived as I was packing, and in the end I balked. (Rio is just now emerging from a high-crime cycle that has lasted a few decades). In the end I took the 45-200mm instead.

I got back this weekend, and immediately took out the 100-300mm to try it out. I'd agree with the folks above that it's not particularly sharp at 300mm (certainly not compared with the shorter legacy tele lenses I mention above). On the other hand, my only 300mm is a Zuiko OM, and it's such a hassle to use that I never take it out.

Here is a photo I took the morning after I got back, as the moon sets behind a hill in San Francisco:



And here are a couple I took that night, the first one at 300mm, the second at around 180mm:





I'll post some of the pix I took with the 45-200mm in Rio later, but for now I'm regretting leaving the 100-300mm behind. It's clearly a far superior lens, not only deeper and brighter, but also in the way that it renders the images. It's still not up there with the Contax lenses (especially the German-built 135mm), but it's much more convenient.

So here's my take: if weight (and size) is your primary consideration, go with the 45-200mm. If you're willing to carry the extra weight, the 100-300mm is the way to go.

Hi

Thanks for your photos and input. I have been seriously considering the 100-300, but the jury is still out. I know I'm not going to get what I can usually get with Canon 50D+300L IS f/4. But I can't afford or carry anything longer or heavier. (Except maybe the Canon 400f/4 non-is...a mere $1200 +?_). Anyway, two questions for you:

In the moon shot, where did you focus? Looks like on the far building? Should you expect the moon to be soft, in that case?

And, how much heavier is the 100-300, than the 45-200 (which I have)?
My experience with the 45-200, by the way, is that it is fairly good for birds , but pretty slow. I'm surprised how long it takes to process a raw image.

Shooting raw, however, gives more flexibility in post-processing, I think.

Interesting thread- I hope more people weight in.

Thanks!

Cynthia