Going for a long native M4/3 lens, which one?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by LisaO, Mar 8, 2011.

  1. LisaO

    LisaO Mu-43 Top Veteran

    798
    Mar 18, 2010
    New York Metro Area
    Lisa
    I'm traveling to Italy late April for 3 weeks. I want to lighten my load and try to leave the 70-200 for my Canon DSLR at home. I am pretty much a wide angle shooter but I know I want to capture architectural details and some long Tuscan landscapes. Which long lens would you get and why? Off the top of my head the Panasonic 14-140, 45-200, 100-300 Olympus 14-150 are what I'm considering.

    Thanks in advance.
     
  2. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    14-150 would be the AF speed leader of the bunch. Give you a nice compact long zoom.

    I like the 45-200 for the almost 400mm of reach, it seems to work really well on the olympus bodies. Good color and sharpness.

    the 100-300 looks pretty nice, just a bit on the large size.

    Have you consider the 75-300 from oly, having the msc lens would give it quick af. But at 600mm eq if you do not have a ibis body, it would be tough to handhold steady.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. I have both the 45-250 and the 100-300. They're quite different lenses.

    The 45-250 is quite light and easy to add to the gadget bag when walking around. On the other hand, I don't think it's a particularly great lens at any of its zoom range. I have manual focus lenses at 45, 85, 100, 135, 200, and a couple more between those, and I don't think the 45-250 comes close to any of them in terms of image quality. On the other hand it's very convenient, so I still take it with me at times.

    The 100-300 is a total surprise. At 135 or 200, I've gotten really amazing pictures from it from the start, and having 300mm f/5.6 (600mm equivalent) in your hands, with OIS and autofocus is a great experience. On the other hand, it's significantly bigger, significantly heavier, and unless I'm pretty confident I'll be wanting a telephoto, I don't just "throw it in the bag".

    I originally bought the 100-300 for a trip to Rio over Christmas, but chickened out and took the 45-200 instead. (I had barely even tried out the new one when I left.) When I got back, I started using the 100-300 seriously, and totally regretted my decision.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. awade

    awade New to Mu-43

    1
    Mar 9, 2011
    I am taking my first longer trip with my GH1 setup next week. Fitting the GH1, 14-140, 20mm 1,7 and 100-300 in a Tamrac Velocity 6 bag. It is quite a tight fit but really portable. Only had the 100-300 for about a week and the weather in Sweden (where I live) now does not really scream for taking pictures. But a two week trip to Canary Island hopefully will gime me more chance to try the lens out.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    Lisa,

    Just depends on how long you want to go. I traveled for about a month in Europe last summer (with most of it in Italy). I took two m43 bodies with a 14-150, 9-18, 20, and 17. During the day when I was just "tourist shooting" I had the 14-150 mounted on my main camera on a strap and did a LOT of shooting with this. Its a wonderful tourist lens, very good for a lot of different types of shots. I had the 9-18 on the other body in a very handy spot in my bag so I could be ready to shoot ultra wide angle very quickly. When I went indoors, or in the evening, I'd switch the 14-150 out for the 20 for low light. And sometimes, I'd stash everything but one body and the 17 and just do a couple of hours of street shooting (although I got some street type shots with every one of the four lenses I had along - they can all shoot in that general range).

    I've had the 45-200 and now have the 100-300. The 45-200 doesn't give you that much more reach than the 14-150 and isn't any better at the long end (although might be marginally sharper at 150, but I was always quite satisfied with the 14-150 throughout the range). The 100-300 is a much larger lens and not one I'd want to carry around all day (in fact, even the Pany 14-140 was more than I wanted to haul around - its much bulkier and heavier than the Olympus version).

    There are specific events I like to shoot sometimes where I want all the reach I can get. But I never felt like 150mm wasn't enough reach while I was traveling. I got some great close-up details of architecture and other things and the lens is just so versatile. So my recommendation would be to go with the 14-150 as the primary lens. When I'm walking around all day, I don't want to change lenses often (which is why I had two bodies with my most of the time - cut the lens swaps down to just a few per day, if that). If you have a higher tolerance for changing lenses, want a LOT of reach, and don't mind the weight, take a 100-300. For me, that's a specialty lens, not a travel lens, but your priorities may be different...

    Have fun!

    -Ray
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. LisaO

    LisaO Mu-43 Top Veteran

    798
    Mar 18, 2010
    New York Metro Area
    Lisa
    I definitely like the size and weight of the Olympus 14-150. I would be less likely to use it on the wide end as I prefer wider like the 9-18 or just a 14 or 20 pancake. I will also have my 5DMKII and often shoot with 2 bodies and will probably bring 2 m4/3 bodies on my trip. If I feel like going light I'll just go M4/3. I don't like changing lenses much so I'll just choose by day what I want to carry.

    The other day I attended a talk at B&H Photo given by travel photographer David H. Wells and sponsored by Olympus. He travels with 3 M4/3 bodies but takes just one camera with 9-18 a manfrotto table top tripod and ball head. In a small belt pouch he carries the 14-150, EVF-2, lensbaby and maybe a 20 pancake and a polaroid printer and he is extremely unencumbered, agile and mobile in the field.
     
  7. LDraper

    LDraper Mu-43 Regular

    84
    Feb 4, 2011
    Albuquerque, NM
    I'm heading down to Chile for a couple of weeks and I'm taking the Oly 14-42 and the 40-150. I'm also hoping to take the 20mm 1.7 if it arrives in time - I'm still building my kit. I find the 40-150 to be a fast focusing and sharp lens, and it gives me adequate reach for most scenic needs - handholding it at it's full extension takes some persistence, I would think anything longer would call out for some support! it's also a good portrait lens - if not too fast.

    When I'm traveling I like to keep things as simple and compact as possible, and I'm thinking the three lenses should give me pretty good coverage without too much bulk. The 14-150 is probably a good choice (not much need to swap lenses) but I got my 40-150 for 200.00 from Staples - the price was right! :)

    Have fun!
     
  8. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    If you wouldn't use the wide end, maybe a 40-150 or the 45-200. To me, the 100-300 is just a bit much for travel and a big heavy lens (by m43 standards). Then again, if you're also gonna be carrying DSLR gear, it might be a drop in the bucket? I believe the 40-150 is the smallest and lightest of the bunch and, again, I found 150 to be long enough for travel applications.

    -Ray
     
  9. LisaO

    LisaO Mu-43 Top Veteran

    798
    Mar 18, 2010
    New York Metro Area
    Lisa
    The 100-300 is 520g while my Canon 70-200 F4 L IS is 760g so I'm not saving that much there. Seems like the 14-150 at only 280g is the best weight/range option.
     
  10. drpump

    drpump Mu-43 Regular

    154
    Oct 28, 2010
    There's another thread here discussing the new Olympus 40-150mm against the Panasonic 45-200 which comes out largely in favour of the Olympus. If you don't want/need the wide end, then I think the Olympus 40-150 would be the best option (especially if you can get the Staples deal).

    That said, I have an Olympus 14-150mm lens and I'm very happy with the results.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    The olympus is the AF faster lens, And it has better close up(handheld macro) shooting ability then the panny 45-200. If you have a panny body. You will want a IS lens as it really helps out when zoomed out.

    Th3 45-200 is 290 dollars new.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. MajorMagee

    MajorMagee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 24, 2011
    Dayton, OH
    Olympus 40-150mm is $299 at Staples...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. That's true, and I'm sure the Canon L is a much better lens optically. On the other hand, you've got a 5DII, so the reach of the 100-300 is three times as far as that of the Canon. In fact the wide end of the Panasonic (100mm f/4.0) has the same reach as the long end of the Canon. They're really not comparable, in that respect.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. LisaO

    LisaO Mu-43 Top Veteran

    798
    Mar 18, 2010
    New York Metro Area
    Lisa
    Yes, but I also have a 60D which makes the 70-200 a 112-320 and 1.4 TC which then becomes 157-448 with that set up. I'm looking for a way to cut down on the size and weight of gear but have a similar reach. I'll definitely bringing the 5DMKII and likely 2 M4/3 bodies on my Italy trip and quite a few lenses. I'm looking to replace the functionality of the 60D, I am going for a photography workshop.

     
  15. Chris Knapton

    Chris Knapton Mu-43 Rookie

    15
    Nov 17, 2010
    Nottinghamshire, UK
    I'm intrigued by your huge amount of equipment and I would respectfully suggest that you ruthlessly cut it down to a single large camera and 2 lenses or 2 smaller cameras and 3 lenses. As a travel photographer for some time I have found that equipment only works well if it's easy to get to, uncomplicated and with limited choices - that way great photographs are made. Too much and your aesthetic choices, and your reaction time, become overwhelmed by your equipment - and the equipment should be very secondary to your vision.
    Less is generally more.
     
  16. LisaO

    LisaO Mu-43 Top Veteran

    798
    Mar 18, 2010
    New York Metro Area
    Lisa
    While I appreciate your concern, I don't find your comment about "huge" amount of equipment very respectful. While I do have a good amount of gear a actually use it depending on my subject, mood, time of day, lighting conditions, and many other variables.

    I don't intend to carry it all with me on each outing. I enjoy doing street photography and I also like to do a abstracts and details. I need two very different setups for these. While I enjoy using M4/3 gear and in good light I am happy with the images I have taken in the past year I know that the quality I get for my DSLR is superior especially in low light conditions using high ISOs.

    I have a good system which I have used many times of traveling with a rolling Think Tank bag (as many photographers do) of camera gear and a quite small 2700 cubic inch clothing bag that attaches to the handle of the roller. I can handle this on a train and carry it up a flight of stairs if need be on my own. I have been doing photography for almost 40 years and as it was once my career, it is now my passion. I asked this question because I wanted to replace the weight and bulk of the 70-200 (which is actually the lighter and smaller version of that lens).

    I am quite comfortable walking around with a camera on each shoulder for several hours and have done this with both DSLRs and M4/3s. I know the gear list of the leaders of my workshop and I'm not over doing it. Often I am quite happy with a 35mm or equivalent alone, I'm not one to drag a huge bag with me when I am photographing. I know that slows things down and tires me out but knowing I have my best choice of gear locked away in my hotel ready for my next decision.

     
  17. Chris Knapton

    Chris Knapton Mu-43 Rookie

    15
    Nov 17, 2010
    Nottinghamshire, UK
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. LisaO

    LisaO Mu-43 Top Veteran

    798
    Mar 18, 2010
    New York Metro Area
    Lisa
    Well, thanks sort of. Being that you are new here with only 14 posts I will be understanding but you will soon see that this forum is no DPReview where people bash and judge. It's a pretty friendly place where people are supportive and positive.
     
  19. Chris Knapton

    Chris Knapton Mu-43 Rookie

    15
    Nov 17, 2010
    Nottinghamshire, UK
    I had thought my comments were positive but I do understand that the internet is a place where it's easy to offend - so I apologise for any misunderstanding.
     
  20. Armanius

    Armanius Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 23, 2010
    Houston
    Muttley
    Great discussion on this thread!

    I'll pitch in my 2 cents.

    How about a 9-18 + 20 + 40-150 combo? You get the superwide end covered for those sweeping architecture/landscape shots, you got the medium zoom for the details, and a standard lens for everything else, including low light?

    And this combo is SUPER light too! I got the 14-150 yesterday (maybe two days ago), and I really like it. But I think you said you wouldn't use the wide end of the 14-150 anyway. So the 40-150 makes total sense then. And it's a whole lot cheaper too! :)
     
  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.