1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

I am a bit puzzled

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Recercare, Oct 11, 2012.

  1. Recercare

    Recercare Mu-43 Rookie

    19
    Aug 21, 2012
    Hi guys!

    I am considering the lumix 45-175 and 100-300.
    The 45-175 is a more versatile focal range and the lens is small and convenient.
    However, when comparing pictures it seems to me like the 100-300 has much better IQ. For example: go to google image search and type lumix 45-175mm, watch the photos and then do the same with lumix 100-300mm. The difference is significant with regards to colors, bokeh and perceived sharpness.

    The question is: Do you think it's because more experienced photographers buy the 100-300? After all it is a more special-purpose lens while the 45-175 is sometimes sold as kit lens (14-42 pz + 45-175 pz). Do you think you'll notice a difference between the two lenses at 150mm using the same camera and a skilled photographer ?

    Kind regards
    .lars
     
  2. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Those are two very different lenses. The images from the 100-300mm are going to be a lot different simply because it's a super-telephoto while the 45-175mm is a mid-telephoto, all other factors aside.

    What other lenses do you have to work with alongside this one you are considering?

    Personally... in most cases (without further details) I would probably go for the 100-300mm over the 45-175mm. Most people have other lenses up to if not past the 45mm range (wide to standard), whether prime or zoom. It does me little good to add a lens so close in focal range when I could just walk a little closer to my subject instead. The 100-300mm on the other hand, expands my capabilities and changes my field of view drastically from the large number of lenses in the 12mm to 45mm ranges.

    However, your personal needs are just as personal as you are. If I had only one lens I would obviously pick the 45-175mm over the 100-300mm, but when would I ever be in a situation like that? If I only have one lens on me, it's gonna be something in the standard range.

    In short, you have a few different fields that can be covered... ultra-wide (like 7mm or 9mm), wide (like 12mm or 14mm), standard (like 20mm, 25mm, and 45mm), mid-telephoto (like 75mm to 175mm), and super-telephoto (like 200mm and up). Unless you have a huge collection of lenses you don't need to fill all those categories, just the ones you use most or you could spread them out enough to cover the "extremes". You are comparing two completely different classes of lens (mid-tele and super-tele), so only you can decide which is best for you.
     
  3. yekimrd

    yekimrd Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 14, 2012
    Cincinnati, OH
    Mikey
    I purchased this lens for my wife who is good but not really an experienced photographer and looking through her pictures, I'd say the 45-175 is an outstanding performer. It's sharp from end to end and I like the colors it produces. I have never owned the 100-300 but have owned the 75-300. I loved that lens as it was quite compact albeit a bit slow. My experience with it (which as per reviews also applies to the other) is that it gets softer upwards of 200-250. So unless you really need the reach, the 45-175 is more than just a compromise.

    At 150-175mm, I think you'll be happy with either. I've attached a couple of her FB pics.

    Facebook

    Facebook

     
  4. Recercare

    Recercare Mu-43 Rookie

    19
    Aug 21, 2012
    Thanks Ned,

    I have the Panny 14mm, Sigma 30mm and an adapted manual focus 55mm F1.8.

    I am aware that they are two different lenses and the 45-175mm is perhaps more useful for what I shoot....but there's a limit for how much I am willing to sacrifice regarding IQ. I mean, most likely I will seldom go longer than 175mm but I still find it reasonable to get the 100-300 if it will give better IQ in the 100-175mm range.

    The question still remains, at equal focal length (somewhere between 100-175mm), will the 100-300 give much better results?

    Kind regards
    .lars
     
  5. yekimrd

    yekimrd Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 14, 2012
    Cincinnati, OH
    Mikey
    Also, if you hurry, someone on eBay is selling this NEW for 235usd (free shipping), only 1 left. Hurry, because I myself am tempted to get it. :wink:
     
  6. Recercare

    Recercare Mu-43 Rookie

    19
    Aug 21, 2012
    Thanks! The pictures don't show for some reason but it's nice to know that you (or your wife) is happy with it.

    Kind regards
    .lars
     
  7. Recercare

    Recercare Mu-43 Rookie

    19
    Aug 21, 2012
    That's a good deal! I am currently watching a brand new 45-175 in a local auction here in Sweden (where I live). It expires in two days so I will wait and see. We have all kinds of taxes and fees for imports here so buying outside EU can be expensive.

    Kind regards
    .lars
     
  8. Grinch

    Grinch Mu-43 Top Veteran

    813
    Jan 9, 2011
    Canada
    Are you aware that the 45-175 suffers from blur at certain shutter speeds, and that this lense rates from great by some to pure crap by others due to the blur. I personally tried 5 copies and all blurred, in the end I kept my 45-200 as its a lot more reliable. If it was me I'd get the 100-300 as it is much more likely to have no issues. The pz14-42 suffers the same blur issue which the 45-175 is the pair mate. If you are going to buy the 45-175, I'd purchase in person or be prepared to send it back( possibly multiple times).
     
  9. yekimrd

    yekimrd Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 14, 2012
    Cincinnati, OH
    Mikey
    Grinch is right. Forgive me for forgetting to mention this but it is a non-issue for OM-D users (both me and my wife) as the IBIS turns off the lens OIS. The 45-200 though also suffers (allegedly) from poor quality control between copies. I forgot to ask what the OP's camera is (I assume a Panny). I'd still say that as long as you can easily return it, go for the 45-175mm.
     
  10. Recercare

    Recercare Mu-43 Rookie

    19
    Aug 21, 2012
    I thought the problem occurred only at 175mm and at shutter speeds between 1/90s-1/160s? I also read that you can solve the problem by using 20fps burst mode?

    Kind regards
    .lars
     
  11. Grinch

    Grinch Mu-43 Top Veteran

    813
    Jan 9, 2011
    Canada
    Might want to do some more research...could be the reason the one your watching is being sold. It seems that eBay and similar places are where people sell their bad copies.
     
  12. twalker294

    twalker294 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    543
    Aug 18, 2010
    Aha! That explains why I've never seen the issues that others mention with the 45-175. I think it's a stellar lens on my OM-D and honestly I have been very pleasantly surprised by the results.
     
  13. Recercare

    Recercare Mu-43 Rookie

    19
    Aug 21, 2012
    Yes, but the item I'm watching (not Ebay) is an unopened box, unless the seller is lying.

    Kind regards
    .lars
     
  14. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Actually, you can't enable OIS at all with that lens on the E-M5 or previous Olympuses - that's true whether IBIS is on or off.

    I've seen bad samples shot with and without OIS. There seems to be a lot of variation between different lenses. One theory is that the vibration from the shutter is what's causing the blur (this is supported by the fact that on the Panasonic G5, switching to electronic shutter seems to reduce the frequency of the problem).