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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

Olympus 40-150mm is $299 at Staples...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!