1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

45-200 vs 100-300

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by Oopsydaisy74, Dec 14, 2010.

  1. Oopsydaisy74

    Oopsydaisy74 Mu-43 Regular

    55
    Sep 6, 2010
    Bronx, NY
    Will
    I'm considering a tele-zoom, but need help deciding between the Panasonic 45-200 or the 100-300. My main purpose is for shooting from the seats at Yankee games and such. I usually sit at the first 3 rows of the bleachers, and I want to be able to fill the frame with a single player(infield) from that distance if possible. If I can do it with the 45-200, that would be great because I could save quite a bit considering the price of both. Not sure what the actual distance is, as I'm sure that'll be the first question. I'm guessing 380-450 ft. Thanks in advance
     
  2. BillN

    BillN Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 19, 2010
    SW France
    I'm not too familiar with your game of baseball, (is it?), but have you thought about a MF SLR lens - will the subject be moving or still - a Canon or a Nikon or even a vivitar zoom as they are really good value - or do you need autofocus? - less than US$50 may get you a good SLR (manual focus) zoom
    (I've never really liked my 45 200mm but other are happy with the lens)

    A monopod would help if you have room for it

    Good luck
     
  3. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    I'm guessing you'll be happier with the longer lens. Here are some shots I did with the 45-200 at a Phillies game in May. The first one is a wide angle with the 9-18 to show you where I was sitting - right around the top of the next to highest level, or around the bottom of the highest level. The next are fully zoomed and I wouldn't say I'm filling the screen with a single player. Works well enough for the little bit of this kind of shooting I do, but if I did a lot of this, I'd probably want the longer one. But this should give you a point of reference at least.

    BTW, that ace out on the mound is now our FOURTH starter, thanks the new acquisition. I may have to get the long one and I'll sell you the shorter one, because you won't be looking at Cliff Lee next year and I guess I'll be seeing a lot of him again!!! Heh heh heh! :cool::cool::cool: (sorry - sort of)

    -Ray

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/4593884994/" title="Phillies 056 by ramboorider1, on Flickr">"1024" height="768" alt="Phillies 056" /></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/4593268027/" title="Phillies 058 by ramboorider1, on Flickr">"1024" height="768" alt="Phillies 058" /></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/4593267983/" title="Phillies 057 by ramboorider1, on Flickr">"1024" height="768" alt="Phillies 057" /></a>
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Oopsydaisy74

    Oopsydaisy74 Mu-43 Regular

    55
    Sep 6, 2010
    Bronx, NY
    Will
    Thanks for the suggestion, Bill. Ray, the pictures were very helpful, the Cliff Lee bragging not so much. LMAO. I will admit to being very envious of your rotation. We'll just have to see where we both end up at the end of the year. Good luck and again, thanks for the pics. Very helpful
     
  5. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    Glad the pics helped. As for the Cliff Lee thing, ordinarily I wouldn't gloat. But now that the Phils have been called "the Yankees of the National League" so many times, I feel sort of obligated... :wink:

    -Ray
     
  6. zpierce

    zpierce Super Moderator

    661
    Sep 26, 2010
    Minneapolis, MN
    Zach
    I think you'd have trouble filling the frame on the 45-200. Also, the lens isn't very sharp at 200. I've been very happy with it in the 45-150ish range, but at 200 it always seems quite soft to me. Add to that, if you don't get far enough, you'll want to crop, and that further highlights the softness as you blow up a small part. Also at large apertures at 200mm, it has significant vignetting if that bothers you.

    I'm not sure how the 100-300 will be, I haven't had the pleasure of using it. As for buying a MF old SLR lens, I just bought a vivitar 70-210mm f2.8 manual focus that came highly recommended for $50. I'm looking forward to using it, but the first thing I noticed was the lack of image stabilization, which helps a lot more than I realized. When hand holding at 210mm, it's MUCH more jiggly than my 45-200 was. So that might be a consideration towards the 100-300, getting something with IS. However, like the other poster said, you can get old MF lenses MUCH cheaper, and if you can throw a monopod on it and brace against your seat, you could probably get great results for a great price.

    -ZP
     
  7. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Also, the 100-300 is significantly brighter at 200 than the 45-200, resulting in a faster shutter speed which would be critical since your subjects will likely be moving ... well, hopefully.

    Not sure how the sizes of the parks compare, but I think Ray's seats in the upper deck were quite a bit further away than yours in the bleachers.
     
  8. Narnian

    Narnian Nobody in particular ...

    Aug 6, 2010
    Midlothian, VA
    Richard Elliott
    For the price of the 100-300 you could now get the E-PL2 with IBIS and add a 100-400 adapted zoom. And you get the 17/2.8 as a bonus!

    Although as an old Washington Senators fan I have no idea why anybody would want to shoot the Yankees. With a camera, I mean. :tongue:
     
  9. sparkin

    sparkin Mu-43 Regular

    173
    Nov 18, 2010
    Lexington, KY
    E-PL2 ??

    Ray: The whole stadium shot with the 9-18 is excellent.
     
  10. Narnian

    Narnian Nobody in particular ...

    Aug 6, 2010
    Midlothian, VA
    Richard Elliott
    I meant E-P2! Fat fingered it.
     
  11. john1027

    john1027 Mu-43 Veteran

    305
    Mar 5, 2010
    Alexandria, VA USA
    I used the 45-200 quite a bit this past summer both at MLB games and Little League. My copy was very good, but it seems that there is some deviation in quality on this lens. As already stated, it is definitely strong in the mid-range but can be a hit or miss at 200 especially if the light is less than optimal. I would think from where you are sitting, that the 100-300 might be a better choice if you are only going for one or the other.

    Here are a couple from my files where I was sitting deep in left field at Nationals Park, WDC. They were cropped some also. Both were taken with an EPL1 that I had at that point. BTW, I am a displaced Bostonian, and with the Red Sox new line-up, it should be an interesting summer. I have no doubt that the NYY will spend some more money to help even the playing field before the first regular season pitch is thrown out.

    EPL1; iso/200; f/8; 1/320; 45-200 @ 200mm

    [​IMG]

    EPL1; iso/200; f/5.6; 1/160; 45-200 @ 200mm

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 3
  12. Oopsydaisy74

    Oopsydaisy74 Mu-43 Regular

    55
    Sep 6, 2010
    Bronx, NY
    Will
    Thanks everyone for their suggestions and examples. Ray, that B&W shot is the ish! I've decided to rent the 100-300 when necessary and stick with my 14-140 & 20/1.7. BTW, just sold my G1 and ordered a body only GH2 from Panasonic! Merry X-mas :biggrin: