Both of these can be found now for $199 new or refurb/demo ($159). So, which is better optically? Is the AF of the 40-150 better on the OM-D (I'm sure it is)? I previously owned the 40-150, but AF was so slow on my EP-2 so I sent it back. Optically it seemed fine, but it felt cheap (plastic lens mount, etc ...) Obviously the 45-200 has the additional reach, and OIS which is moot since I have an OM-D. But, having never seen one in person, I can only guess, like the other Panasonic lenses, that construction is good. What say you? (Ultimately I want to get the 100-300, but for now, these will do considering the prices).