1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

45-200 vs. 100-300 Anyone have both?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by meyerweb, Jul 14, 2012.

  1. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    Anyone have both these lenses, and could take a couple of pics of them side by side?

    I've currently got the 45-200. I can't remember the last time I used it, largely because I've got the 14-140 on the camera so often, and the 200 just doesn't seem that much longer. I'm considering selling it, and if I do I'm trying to decide whether to buy a 100-300.

    I've compared the measurements for the lenses, but I'm a visual kind of guy so being able to compare them side by side would be very helpful.

    Thanks!
     
  2. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    Fun with Panasonic 100-300 - Page 2 - The GetDPI Photography Forums

    Scroll down a little and there's a shot of several bits of glass, including the 45-200 and the 100-300. Do you ever find yourself wanting significantly more reach than the 14-140? Also remember that the 100-300 starts at 100, which is pretty darn long. Good for outside, for wildlife, but will even be long for that under certain circumstances.
     
  3. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    Thanks Mattia. That's a fair bit bigger than the 45-200. Although I used to carry around that Canon 100-400 that's on the right side of the picture. Funny how one's perspective changes.

    The answer to your question is that, yes, sometimes I want something longer than the 140, but not a lot. For now, I'll probably hang onto the 45-200 and see how it goes. I probably wouldn't want to drag the 100-300 around with me, either. If I run across a good deal on a used 100-300 I'll give it a try.
     
  4. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Not to derail the discussion too much, but do you have any comments on how the Panasonic 14-140 and the 45-200 compare around 140mm or so? Going by Photozone there should be a sizable difference, but things aren't always as they first appear! Thanks,

    DH
     
  5. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    In all honesty, I haven't used the 45-200 enough to be able to say. But I just looked at the PZ tests, and would say that in the center there doesn't seem to be a large difference, but at the edges there certainly is.

    BUT, I don't take pictures of test charts, and I find that in the vast majority of my images the content and composition is a lot more important than measured line pairs. I find the 14-140, even at the long end, capable of producing images with sharpness that is more than good enough, especially with some judicious sharpening in post.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    Jay
    I currently have the 14-140, 45-200, and the 100-300 - the 45-200 was supposed to be sold off to be replaced by the 100-300 but it didn't sell in the classifieds and I haven't ebay listed it yet.

    Anyway, my experience is that the 100-300 is substantially larger than the 45-200 in size, but also substantially longer reach. I completely agree that 140 and 200 just don't feel that far apart from each other, which is why I didn't see much point in keeping the 45-200 when I got the 14-140.

    On the other hand, 140mm to 300mm is definitely a noticeable increase. I also realized that when I really want a telephoto, longer is better. For me, the 14-140 is the 'do everything' lens and if I'm expecting wildlife or long shots, the 100-300 gets carried along. Heck, with wildlife shots even 300mm doesn't feel long enough sometimes! :smile:
     
  7. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    Luke
    I don't have any side by sides for comparison's sake, but since I got my 100-300, I almost never use my 45-200.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    I see, good to know. Thanks - it's good to have real-world comments to balance out the reviews!

    DH
     
  9. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    See attachment. Should give you an idea of size.
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 2
  10. TDP

    TDP Guest

    So all of them are much smaller than that crazy Klingon/Highlander dagger hanging in the background? :2thumbs:
     
  11. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    lol..

    Hibben Knives

    ALong with his production knives, he makes limited runs of "art" knives that look cool, made with high quality materials, sharp, but not really useful for anything other than display (or to inflict damage to an idiot friend who decided to play with it). That one in particular is a limited run Hibben Hornet Dagger. I used to have a small collection of art and historical knives I would find around in garage sales and such. That dagger,a few throwing knives, and the railroad tie turned into a knife (also in the picture next to the hornet) are what's left over from an obsession from my younger years. For more practical use, I just carry a machete (and Leatherman tool) now.... you know.. for those darn zombie attacks that happen once in a while.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. foxtail1

    foxtail1 Science geek & photo nut

    Dec 30, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Kristi
    +1
     
  13. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    For the record, I have the 100-300; coming from DSLR land (and owning the 100-400L), it's an absolutely dinky lens for the reach it provides. I also don't find the size an issue with an ungripped E-M5, as with glass this size you tend to be holding the lens rather than the camera body, no big change from the DSLR in that respect.

    Well, except for the fact the whole setup provides 200 mm more equivalent field of view and weights significantly less than the 100-400 alone :)