January 10th, 2012, 02:57 PM
Tele choice for E-PM1
I'm looking for a tele zoom that auto-focuses with the E-PM1. My mini shows inconsistent IBIS so I'm thinking the Pan 45-200 OIS looks like a better choice than the Oly 40-150.
Are there any other considerations? Any peculiarities with the Panasonic lens and Oly bodies?
Forgot to add, I don't want to spend the extra for the 100-300.
Last edited by mnhoj; January 10th, 2012 at 03:07 PM.
January 10th, 2012, 03:08 PM
I much prefer the reach of 200 over 150, my 45-200 had no problems on e-p1
oly e-pm1 with 14-150 (wife's now)
GX1, 14/2.5,14-45,45/1.8 ,45-175 & 7.5/3.5 soon
25/1.4 1" Pentax CCTV (for sale)
OM adapter, 50/1.8 & OM 135mm prime
The following member thanks dannat for this post:
January 10th, 2012, 03:19 PM
I personally find the Olympus 40-150mm sharper than the Panasonic 45-200mm on my E-PM1.
It's also a lot smaller and lighter.
Also I have had no IBIS issues using either lens (I had OIS off on the Panny).
The following 2 members thank robertmwilliams for this post:
January 10th, 2012, 03:29 PM
I think either lens works.
When I'm shooting a long tele, I'm usually shooting in daylight, and shutter speeds are not an issue for me, so I chose the 40-150 for size.
I tested the 150 vs. the 200. I found the 200 as sharp if not sharper than the 40-150 at most focal lengths BUT the 200 softens at 200. If you shoot automatically at the end of the range, then you'll be shooting at 200, and it will be softer than the 150. If you shoot purposely at 150, you'll have just as good a lens. Also, the 45-200 stops down at a slower right, so it had a slightly brighter aperture at equivalent focal lengths than the 40-150. I think the 45-200 also had slightly better color and contrast, though neither lenses will win prizes here.
For me, I test the IBIS on the 40-150 and the OIS on the 45-200 in good light. Oddly, the BOTH showed issues with IS at good shutter speeds, but the 45-200 has a handy external IS switch, so you can turn it on only when needed. If IS is really important to you, then the 45-200 is really the choice. For compactness and if IS is not important, then I prefer the 40-150. Some of the other factors above may or may not sway you one way or the other.
The following member thanks WT21 for this post:
January 10th, 2012, 03:36 PM
The 40-150 is sharper,smaller, lighter and less expensive than the 45-200
The following member thanks Sammyboy for this post:
January 10th, 2012, 03:41 PM
Thanks all for your time.
Is there a difference in AF speed?
January 10th, 2012, 04:10 PM
I had the 45-200, it's a sharp lens as long as it's used in good light. It focuses pretty quick on the E-PM1 and it's not that big if you're used to Nikkor zooms. This was all shot with the E-PL2. Personally I prefer the 100-300. Which is still pretty sharp at 300mm!
The following member thanks Jonathan F/2 for this post:
January 10th, 2012, 04:50 PM
I really like the 45-200. I found that I really needed to get the hang of it but I think it is a bit nicer than the 40-150. I prefer the greater reach. I think the 40-150 is better size-wise than the 45-200.
The following member thanks dixeyk for this post:
January 10th, 2012, 05:07 PM
The following member thanks robertmwilliams for this post:
January 10th, 2012, 05:15 PM
The thing that I like about the 45-200 is that the OIS does make looking through the EVF a lot more stable without camera shake and the lens has a metal mount.
This site uses affiliate programs and referral links for monetization.