45-200mm or 100-300mm?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by elandel, Sep 13, 2011.

  1. elandel

    elandel Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 16, 2010
    Milan, Italy
    Hi all,

    I own the 45-200mm and I'm quite pleased with it, but now i have the chance to buy the 100-300mm used for a good price (not a bargain, but a good price).

    Ti buy it I have to sell the 45-200. Is it worth it?
  2. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Real Name:
    I think the single most important lens spec is the focal length (range) and the difference between them is very significant IMHO. I'd even consider buying a 45-100mm if there would be a good one available!

    Before you decide I'd check on the focal lengths you actually have used so far in your pics taken with the 45-200mm. If a lot of them are in the range below 100mm I'd be very hesitant to sell it, especially while you're happy with the IQ.
  3. harry_s

    harry_s Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 19, 2011
    Wiltshire, UK
    100mm is pretty long as a starting point for a telephoto, I'm hoping to pick up a 45-200 to compliment my 100-300 soon as I've noticed I'm taking a lot of photos at 100mm and still needing to take a few steps back.
  4. rpress

    rpress Mu-43 Regular

    Jun 11, 2010
    I own both. The focal length of the 45-200 is much more useful than the 100-300. I am too pleased with the 45-200 but the 100-300 does indeed have much sharper images.

    If you find yourself at 200 a lot, I would say go for the 100-300. Birding or other nature photography lends itself to the longer focal length. If you want a lightweight and versatile lens, stick with the 45-200.
  5. elandel

    elandel Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 16, 2010
    Milan, Italy
    Effectivy its not a good idea to sell the 45-200mm. That's why this forum is invaluable: it makes you think and see things under a wider perspective.

    But I'm lusting for the 100-300.:biggrin:
  6. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    The 45-200mm at 200mm is soft. the 100-300mm is a much better telephoto lens. You'll find yourself wanting to go longer and the 100-300 provides that extra focal length.
  7. Shield

    Shield Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 11, 2011
    Worthington Ohio
    I say get both. I find myself wanting to step back quite a bit with the 100-300. I have primes that cover 14, 25, 45 and a 14-50 zoom. I have nothing from 50-100 (100-200mm 35mm equivalent). I'm torn on waiting though for the 45-175 to come out, but I'm seeing quite a few 200mm lenses pop up on ebay.
    The 100-300 is a fantastic sharp lens though, especially on a tripod shooting video. It's flat out amazing.
  8. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    You have to decide which focal length is more useful for you. There is no "correct" answer; otherwise the other lens wouldn't exist! While it may seem that they're similar focal length, the 45-200 goes twice as wide, and the 100-300 goes 50% more telephoto, while providing better performance. If you're a heavy safari shooter, taking long pictures of wildlife, the 100-300 will do you better. However, throw that 45-200 lens on your camera, and zoom it to 100mm. Can you live with a lens that is that much telephoto, even when zoomed out all the way?

    Edit: Or, as I mention in the thread where you ask about a viewfinder, consider selling one of your cameras? It's a much better idea to have 1 camera body and many lenses than many camera bodies and few lenses. Since you mentioned you needed a viewfinder, I think it makes your choice easy . . .
  9. elandel

    elandel Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 16, 2010
    Milan, Italy
    I'm not a safari shooter nor wildlife. But I like zooming on the particulars or taking photos of things that are far away. So I would not use this lens everytime, but would love to have it. Problem is I can't afford both otherwise there would not have been any problem.

    Maybe thinking with logic it's better to keep the 45-200.
  10. ssgreenley

    ssgreenley Mu-43 Top Veteran

    May 12, 2011
    You could try the 75-300. That extra 25mm makes it great with the kit lenses. It's a bit more expensive though.
  11. PSimmons

    PSimmons Mu-43 Veteran

    Mar 24, 2010
    Central Florida
    I'm a pretty avid bird photographer (with my DSLRs) and I'm blown away by the quality of the 100-300 examples I've seen in this forum. Must put credit card away!!
  12. goldenlight

    goldenlight Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 30, 2010
    Real Name:
    You could pair the 100-300mm with the Oly 40-150mm. No IS but good quality, small, light, not too much overlap of focal range and not too expensive. Easier said than done, though, if you're on a limited budget. I know! :smile:
  13. elandel

    elandel Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 16, 2010
    Milan, Italy
    Went to get it and it has just been sold.:mad:

    Look at the positive side: I don't have to make decision anymore.:frown: