1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

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
    Ad
    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

    181
    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

    76
    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, USA
    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

    133
    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 All-Pro

    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

    509
    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

    218
    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
    Essex
    John
    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:
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.