Crazy for picking 45-200 over 100-300?

Discussion in 'This or That?' started by davidzvi, Feb 26, 2013.

  1. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    Real Name:
    I picked up a 100-300 at the end of January. Then this week the 45-200 goes on sale for $100 at Best Buy. I went out and picked one up. Yes I get that they're probably just clearing out old stuff, maybe it's now discontinued.

    But so now I have both. I don't need both. Don't even want both. Really I don't.

    The few time I've had a chance to use the 100-300 I've been under 200mm and I've also run into a situation where I had to change back to my 14-42 because the 100mm was just too long. I also kind of like how the 450-200 balances better. I know the extra 200-300 would be nice at times and I have not had a chance to use it at BBall games either, which is the main reason I got a telephoto. We spent enough on the tickets I was sure going to have a lens to use.

    If I keep the 100-300 I'll have ~$150 that I was planning on getting a 14mm with. It I keep the 45-200 I'll have $450 to play with.

    14mm + :hmmm:

    Oly 45 1.8
    Sig 60 2.8

    Maybe even sell off the E-PM1 for an E-PM2/E-PL5.
  2. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    If you search on this site (or Google) for 100-300 vs. 45-200, there are a lot of threads.

    If you don't use the FL, go for the cash, but in general:

    The P100-300 should be sharper than the 45-200 at 200mm. In fact, the 45-200 has a reputation for being very soft at 200mm

    The P100-300 is brighter at 200mm by about 1/3 stop (f/4.9 vs. 5.6)

    The P100-300 IS is better in my experience, and a little less jarring. The 45-200 tends to "clunk" on and jar the image while you look.

    The P100-300 gives you the reach when you need it.

    I find the contrast of the P100-300 to be better/greater.

    But of course the P100-300 is bigger, heavier and more expensive.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. FastCorner

    FastCorner Mu-43 Veteran

    May 28, 2011
    I have the 45-200 and haven't really found the need for anything over 200 for the type of shooting I do. The focal length is very versatile. Not the sharpest or brightest, but a bargain.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    Real Name:
    1. Yes, it's a good thing I have high speed.
    2. Most of my telephoto shooting was more than a few years ago, anything over 200mm FOV anyway. And then for the most part I was happy with Nikon 70-300s. Both the older AF-D ED and newer AF-S VR. On the bodies I was using at the time (6 & 10mp APS-C) that would be 450mm FOV.
      And of course $100 v $400 is no small amount.
    3. I hope to be able to test that if we get a nice day.
    4. I think the bodies were Nikon D200's and earlier. So while I have considered the 1/3 stop the E-PM1 is at least as good as the D200 and better than the Fuji S5 and D70 I use to use.. And if I put the money E-PM2 or E-PL5 the only difference will really be the available light for focus and metering systems.
    5. I'll have to see if I notice it. Any idea what firmware you had? All 3 released seem to have AF improvements. What body?
    6. I know, this and potential softness are really the things I need to check.
    7. More than what RAW allows to adjust? I've almost always found I like to shoot neutral and adjust where needed.
    8. Which kind of runs in the face of the intended use of the setup. I considered the 14-150 and 40-150 but I'm almost sure they would be too short.

    Until I can do some testing right now I'm leaning 45-200. Adding the 14mm as planned. Then.... E-PL5 or E-P5 (especially if it has a viewfinder)?

    Hopefully testing tomorrow.
  5. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    Keep the 45-200 and get the 14. The 100-300 is an equivalent 200-600 lens in FX terms! It's truly a dedicated long lens! The 45-200 is like an 80-400 and makes a better general purpose lens. I'm hoping the 100-300 gets the same make over as the 45-175 X. That lens in my opinion is better optically than either the 45-200 or 100-300. The upcoming Pan 150mm 2.8 should also be a beast!
    • Like Like x 1
  6. tdekany

    tdekany Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 8, 2011
    After a year shooting seriously, I learned not to ask others about what lens I should get. Think about what you shoot on the tele end - that should give you a clear answer. When I hear someone say that he/she never needs anything over 200mm for example, to me that is unhelpful. :biggrin: Examples should be given of the style imho.

    I mean does that person shoot the same way you do????:eek:

    I sold my 200mm awhile back because many times even that length was way too short. BUT, that is "me" and I do mostly landscapes out in rural Oregon.

    To be honest, even 300mm is a little short at times.

    Based on reading your OP, I'd most likely go with the 45-200.

    Here are 2 shots with the 100-300 from tonight, in very low light at 300mm, and 100mm tripod and timer both at f5.6


    Panny 300mm f5.6 IS OFF by savingspaces33, on Flickr


    Panny 100mm f5.6 IS OFF by savingspaces33, on Flickr
    • Like Like x 1