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

45-200 vs 40-150

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by gardengirl13, Jul 30, 2012.

  1. gardengirl13

    gardengirl13 Mu-43 Veteran

    200
    Jun 26, 2012
    US
    OK I know this has been beaten to death on forums, but I have to ask again. I got my 45-200 on friday afternoon. I like the FL a lot. I like when I shoot somewhat close. When I shoot farther away it's hit or miss with sharpness, while that's workable since this won't be my main use lens. It do have to use S-AF+MF since AF alone won't cut it. I knew that going into it. I bought it over the 100-300 based on weight. I really want that lens but it's too much.

    Now today my arms and hands hurt from lugging it around the yard all weekend. :mad: It's the same weight as my 55-250 but the camera is 10ozs less. I thought I'd be ok. But my darn health has been getting worse over the last month. Now I just can't do it. Even this slight lens is too much and it's killing me to admit this.

    Is the 40-150 a good lens? I wasn't looking at more then in passing as I wanted more reach. How is it at distances? Are birds do-able with it? I know it's range is NOT a bird lens. But my darn birds get so friendly I can shoot them with a normal to wide some days! It'll be more frustrating with the birds on our walks, but I'm going to have to make do. I just don't know how much longer I'm going to be able to do that kind of shooting. Which depresses me. I wish they would come out with some magical 8ozs 300mm lens!
     
  2. Art

    Art Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2011
    San Francisco, CA
  3. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Vin
    The new Panny 45-150 is smaller and lighter for sure, and I think is exactly what you are looking for.

    Here is a preview with some comparison shots next to a 45-200, you can see the dramatic difference in size. And if the specs are correct it only weighs 200g, thats about 7oz!

    Link: Panasonic Lumix Vario 45-150mm Sample Photos
     
  4. Ritualnet

    Ritualnet Mu-43 Regular

    78
    Jun 21, 2012
    UK - West Midlands
    Seem
    I am curious to know about these two lenses too. Rather than make a new post, I'll tag on to this one, if that's ok!

    My DSLR set up was a D40 with the 18-55mm kit and 55-200mm VR zoom. This was a decent system for me, allowing me 'wide' to reach, perfect for holidays and nature shots. Now that is up for sale, I have an E-P2 and 20mm pancake as my main camera equipment. (There is a GF1 and the olympus original kit lens, but I'm going to sell the GF1, and not sure about the kit lens.)

    So for me I'd like the reach I had with my D40, as it allowed me to get close to various subjects. I was thinking of adding the pany 45-200, as it can be got reasonably cheap with the rebate, (£150) but then I hear it's a little weak past 150mm, while most people seem to love the oly 40-150, (~£200) with the odd negative comment here and there. The oly would give me the same zoom equivalent as the 55-200mm (1.5x crop vs 2x crop), while the pany should give me an extra 100mm. (To ensure I have a full range, if I do sell the oly kit lens, I'll pick up the original 14-45mm pany one, as it seems to have better optics)

    My subjects are nature, wildlife, architecture (especially gargoyles) and street (which I use the 20mm for).
     
  5. gardengirl13

    gardengirl13 Mu-43 Veteran

    200
    Jun 26, 2012
    US
    Well I returned the 45-200 due to lack of focus accuracy past 20' or so. I could get good shots maybe 1-2 out of 20-25 shots. And no it's not user error, it really just wouldn't focus right. I used S-AF+MF and still couldn't get it right. But if the subject was less then 20' away to focus nailed every single shot. It's great for closer stuff. If that was my main use for it I would just keep it (my copy was defective and would have had to have been exchanged anyway) if it was lighter too. I could have learned to deal with the AF issues if it was lighter.

    I do admit I will miss the FL. I tried it at 150 for a while and wished it could have gone longer, but it's just not in the cards for me I guess.

    Depends on the wildlife if 150 will be enough for you. Was the 200 on your nikon enough? If so you can make do, if not you may want to look at the 100-300. It's more money and a lot heavier, but if you really want to shoot wildlife it's probably the better choice. If not for the weight it's what I'd get.
     
  6. Ritualnet

    Ritualnet Mu-43 Regular

    78
    Jun 21, 2012
    UK - West Midlands
    Seem
    There are some defective units in the 45-200 range, from other forums people have compared experiences and it seems that if it doesn't work well, replace it as it could very well be the lens. I never heard of lenses being faulty like this, but when you hear from one person who says it is soft or doesn't AF, and another who shows it does, it makes sense that the units are at fault.
     
  7. Fmrvette

    Fmrvette This Space For Rent

    May 26, 2012
    Detroit, Michigan
    Jim
    Concur - I've got a 45-200 and it seems fine, but other owners have seemingly had problems with the lens. (Maybe I'm just not picky enough???).

    Sorry the lens didn't work out for GardenGirl.

    Jim