I've owned them both, at different times with different bodies, but my memory, as it is, tells me the Oly was the better lens in terms of overall IQ.

Wondering what others think.

Or maybe the 14-140 instead? Worth the $?

Thanks.

If I remember my tests, the 45-200 is as good as, or maybe even better than, the Oly up to 150. Also, the 45-200 has OIS and it's aperture stayed wider open longer up the focal length. Not by much, but every bit helps. ;)

BUT from 150-200mm the Panny softens up. So 200 on the Panny is noticeably softer than the Oly at 150. My reasoning for keeping the Oly and selling the panny was size and weight, and the fact that I didn't want to deal with remembering to stop at 150 on the Panny. I just prefer to extend to the full range of the zoom, and I figured a little cropping with the Oly, and I was at the same place as the Panny.

__________________
EM5; 9-18, PL25, 100-300 and some others.
(also, 6D + RX100)

I tried the 4/3 version of the 40-150 against the 45-200 and the 40-150 was definitely ahead. The m4/3 version has identical optics, so I would expect it to be as well.

The 14-140 wins on convenience, but it's not as sharp as either one in the shared range.

DH

SLR Gear's tests shows the Panny center sharpness slightly ahead of the 40-150 with both at 150, which is what my tests showed, too. SLRGears tests, though, showed the 40-150 more even across the frame, with the 45-200 softening greatly in the corners at 150. I only looked at center sharpness, so I couldn't comment on my own tests.

__________________
EM5; 9-18, PL25, 100-300 and some others.
(also, 6D + RX100)

Is the R version of the 40-150 just an update on cosmetics, or is there something new optically as well?

This thread is validating my shaky memory, that the 40-150 is a little better. Thanks.

Cosmetic and firmware. But firmware can be updated on the 40-150 non R.

Edited, you can't upgrade the firmware on the 40-150 non R, must be the same then.