If not the 100-300, than what?

[Egregius V]

There are loads of comparisons, as well as published tests that can be compared. The optical results can vary. Plus there are factors such as AF performance, video performance, filter size, ease of use...

Sharpness winner between 45-175, 45-200, & 40-150 assuming current firmware today?
Oly 40-150 vs Pana 45-175 vs Pana 45-200?: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
45-200/45-175/40-150 the winner is...: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
ephotozine.com

I looked at a lot of these in the past and went with the 40-150 R. It's a decent lens, but actual results do vary quite a bit. Now, I mostly use and prefer the Oly. 14-150 II.

 

[MarylandUSA]

Maybe a 200mm f/4 prime would serve? ... Many 200/4 brands are quite compact and f/4 is relatively fast.

Funny you should mention it. I bought a Konica Hexanon AR 200/4 on eBay just 5 hours ago, inspired by the photos of forum member @dbuckle . I use a Hexanon AR 100/2.8 for my medium-telephoto needs, again because of the images he shot.

Bear in mind that a 5- or 6-element prime will probably deliver twice as much light as a 13-element at a given f/stop.

 

[SVQuant]

Bear in mind that a 5- or 6-element prime will probably deliver twice as much light as a 13-element at a given f/stop.

I am certain this statement is incorrect, but maybe I misunderstood what you are saying. Could you please explain?

 

[davidzvi]

.... I assume that you would want it for wildlife,....

Lite wildlife, sports, etc. But not real heavy use. It's one of the issues I have trying to justify the price. One of the reasons I considered switching back over to an E-M5 mkII, IBIS and the much cheaper O75-300 II.

Oh, I also have the P35-100 f3.5-5.6 and think it's a great value, too. The catch on that one is that it works ok for general stuff, and I actually really like it for landscapes. However, it's not fast enough to replace the traditional 70-200 2.8 for portraits, and it's not long enough for wildlife. But, for what it does, it does it well. And it is TINY.

I considered selling off my P14-140 and replacing the range with the P35-100, it would give me some extra $$. I've owned the P35-100 before (actually owned both versions before).

Hi, does anywhere have a comparison of the
45-150
45-175
And 45-200?

Inclusion of the Oly 40-150R would be great too.

There are loads of comparisons, as well as published tests that can be compared. The optical results can vary. Plus there are factors such as AF performance, video performance, filter size, ease of use...

Sharpness winner between 45-175, 45-200, & 40-150 assuming current firmware today?
Oly 40-150 vs Pana 45-175 vs Pana 45-200?: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
45-200/45-175/40-150 the winner is...: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
ephotozine.com

I looked at a lot of these in the past and went with the 40-150 R. It's a decent lens, but actual results do vary quite a bit. Now, I mostly use and prefer the Oly. 14-150 II.

Sadly the P45-175 doesn't have Dual IS support yet and the P45-200 really doesn't seem it have gained much with the refresh. Some like it, but many don't. It's surprising neither Panasonic or Olympus have released a good option that ends in between the 140/150mm and 300mm range.

 

[MarylandUSA]

I am certain this statement is incorrect, but maybe I misunderstood what you are saying. Could you please explain?

I'm saying that a prime will be more transmissive. If a zoom lens requires an exposure of 1/50 second at 200mm f/5.6, a 200mm prime lens can be equally exposed at just 1/100 second at f/5.6. Run a search on lens transmissivity T stop.

 

[SVQuant]

I'm saying that a prime will be more transmissive. If a zoom lens requires an exposure of 1/50 second at 200mm f/5.6, a 200mm prime lens can be equally exposed at just 1/100 second at f/5.6. Run a search on lens transmissivity T stop.

That's what I thought you were saying. And your statement about 6 element vs 12 element lenses is still most likely incorrect (though there may be lenses for which it holds).

If the transmission coefficient (transmittance) of a single element in the lens is t, then the transmission of the entire lens is (t)^n, where n is the number of elements. The number t is less than 1, but is desired to be as high as one can get. Transmittance is less than 1 because of losses due to absorption, reflection and scattering. Modern lenses have much better anti-reflection coatings on their elements and it is completely possible for a modern 12 element zoom to have better transmittance than a 6 element prime from 30 years ago.

Just to verify, I tested my 12-60SWD(14 elements) vs O17(9 elements) at f/4 on the same scene and found the camera picked the same shutter speed most of the time. When there was a difference, the prime had a slightly higher shutter speed, but the factor was not 14/9.

Just saying that statements like this casually tossed off become folklore. Care should be taken when making them.

 

[MarylandUSA]

You may be right. Here's what prompted me to make my statement: Several hours ago, while reading a review or discussion thread about 200/4 lens, I read a comment that went something like, "At f/5.6, I'm getting about 1.5 stops more brightness than I get on my zoom." Unfortunately, I can't recall the exact words or where I read them.
One of two of the lens review sites routinely reports T ratings. Typically, an f/4 prime is reported to have a T rating between f/4.2 and f/4.5. So there are losses. If a simple prime can have a T rating that's 1/3 stop less bright, I would guess that a complex, 15-element zoom could easily lose 2/3 stop.
I used to own two copies of the Vivitar Series One 135/2.3: single-coated and multicoated. With the single-coated lens, I could consistently expose about 1/2 stop faster.

 

[barry]

There are loads of comparisons, as well as published tests that can be compared. The optical results can vary. Plus there are factors such as AF performance, video performance, filter size, ease of use...

Sharpness winner between 45-175, 45-200, & 40-150 assuming current firmware today?
Oly 40-150 vs Pana 45-175 vs Pana 45-200?: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
45-200/45-175/40-150 the winner is...: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
ephotozine.com

I looked at a lot of these in the past and went with the 40-150 R. It's a decent lens, but actual results do vary quite a bit. Now, I mostly use and prefer the Oly. 14-150 II.

Thanks, I've read those now...

Any major differences in S-AF or DFD C-AF performance between the three Panasonic lenses?
I'm trying to make a recommendation for a friend shooting his kids' soccer game, etc. (In daylight)

 

[davidzvi]

@MarylandUSA, @SVQuant While I do appreciate the discussion about F-stops and T-stops, it really has little to do with I'm looking for. I don't have and am in no way considering getting an E-M1 mkI/II and do require AF on my lenses. So I'm mainly looking at the options in my first post. I am open to other suggestion, But I think they are limited being based around my GX85, an E-M5 mkII, or maybe an E-M10 mkII. I did briefly consider the G85 and E-M1 mkI, but they have flash limitations I'm not willing to accept.

 

[SVQuant]

@MarylandUSA, @SVQuant While I do appreciate the discussion about F-stops and T-stops, it really has little to do with I'm looking for. I don't have and am in no way considering getting an E-M1 mkI/II and do require AF on my lenses. So I'm mainly looking at the options in my first post. I am open to other suggestion, But I think they are limited being based around my GX85, an E-M5 mkII, or maybe an E-M10 mkII. I did briefly consider the G85 and E-M1 mkI, but they have flash limitations I'm not willing to accept.

David, apologies for taking your thread off topic. My recommendation for your OP is the O75-300II. For a casual long lens, it has very good IQ and is lighter and cheaper. I used it for wildlife, sports and sundry other stuff on my E-M10 with great results. My recommendation would be for you to get it and try it on your GX85 looking at ergonomics and IS. For wildlife and sports, you are looking at high shutter speeds in any case, so the IS may well be good enough. On my E-M10, I found that using the grip really improved handling for that lens.

Thanks, I've read those now...

Any major differences in S-AF or DFD C-AF performance between the three Panasonic lenses?
I'm trying to make a recommendation for a friend shooting his kids' soccer game, etc. (In daylight)

Barry, I think that 150mm is too short unless they are shooting young kids (<10y). FWIW, I have shot my son's lacrosse games with the O40-150R and the O14-150II and found both of them lacking on the long end. No issues with S-AF or burst performance on my E-M10, though.

You may be right. Here's what prompted me to make my statement: Several hours ago, while reading a review or discussion thread about 200/4 lens, I read a comment that went something like, "At f/5.6, I'm getting about 1.5 stops more brightness than I get on my zoom." Unfortunately, I can't recall the exact words or where I read them.
One of two of the lens review sites routinely reports T ratings. Typically, an f/4 prime is reported to have a T rating between f/4.2 and f/4.5. So there are losses. If a simple prime can have a T rating that's 1/3 stop less bright, I would guess that a complex, 15-element zoom could easily lose 2/3 stop.
I used to own two copies of the Vivitar Series One 135/2.3: single-coated and multicoated. With the single-coated lens, I could consistently expose about 1/2 stop faster.

I will keep it brief to not derail this thread. The first thing is that it really depends on the lens(es). My tiny O17/1.8 has 9 elements while the kit O14-42IIR has 8. So, not every zoom has less elements than every prime. Certainly, all lenses have losses. Just to take your example, if a 6 element prime (btw, the smallest number in any native m43 prime is 7) has a T rating of f/4.3 at f/4, then each element has a transmittance above 97%. A 12-element zoom made out of similar glass will register a T value of 4.6. That's one-third of a stop from the nominal f/4. Not saying that 1.5 stops can't happen, but it sounds unlikely. Even a full stop as you originally suggested is pretty doubtful. If I get some time, I'll do some detailed testing with the primes and zooms I have and post the numbers in a separate thread.

 

[rkris]

I have done more or less what op is considering. I sold the 40-150 f2.8 two weeks ago because I never brought it along. Late last year I sold a Nikon 200-500 for the same reason. If I am bringing the big lenses, I take my Nikon DX or FX with the f2.8 trinity lenses depending on what I intend to shoot, mostly landscape, soccer (outdoor and indoor), handball (indoor) and equestrian. My low weight or vaction kit now consists of a Fujifilm X100F, which serves my focal need between 35-70, and an EM5ii with 9-18, 40-150R and 100-300 II. Another reason I picked up the X100F is the leaf shutter. I was debating whether to get the 100-300 or 100-400, but I know that the 100-400 will be used way less than the smaller 100-300. And I probably end up selling it as I did with the 40-150 f2.8, which btw is a great lense. But for my use the 40-150R suffices and I expect the 100-300 will do as well.

 

[moccaman]

I was debating whether to get the 100-300 or 100-400, but I know that the 100-400 will be used way less than the smaller 100-300. And I probably end up selling it as I did with the 40-150 f2.8, which btw is a great lense. But for my use the 40-150R suffices and I expect the 100-300 will do as well.

This is something i have been pondering too, i think while the 400 fills every GAS nook n cranny possible it is a kilo in weight and quite large. The 100-300 with the new ois and sealing is the sensible choice for my GX8. Now i have to figure out whether i can justify the PL12-60 over my 14-45 & 14-140!

 

[davidzvi]

David, apologies for taking your thread off topic. My recommendation for your OP is the O75-300II. For a casual long lens, it has very good IQ and is lighter and cheaper. I used it for wildlife, sports and sundry other stuff on my E-M10 with great results. My recommendation would be for you to get it and try it on your GX85 looking at ergonomics and IS. For wildlife and sports, you are looking at high shutter speeds in any case, so the IS may well be good enough. On my E-M10, I found that using the grip really improved handling for that lens.....

No need to apologize, it's just equivalency debates can often take on a life of there own.

I really think if I were to go down the 75-300 road I should swap the body. I'd probably look at the E-M10 mkII if I do. The Oly grip for then is great, I prefer tilting screens, and having owned an E-P5/E-M1 mkI/E-M5 mkII they all have more features than I really use.

This is something i have been pondering too, i think while the 400 fills every GAS nook n cranny possible it is a kilo in weight and quite large. The 100-300 with the new ois and sealing is the sensible choice for my GX8. Now i have to figure out whether i can justify the PL12-60 over my 14-45 & 14-140!

I would love to get the PL12-60 and PL50-200 f/2.8-4.0. I might someday.

.....Barry, I think that 150mm is too short unless they are shooting young kids (<10y). FWIW, I have shot my son's lacrosse games with the O40-150R and the O14-150II and found both of them lacking on the long end. No issues with S-AF or burst performance on my E-M10, though.

I have to agree 140/150 is just not enough. It's the issue I have with my 14-140, it's "just" not long enough. The 45-200 probably would be, the 45-175? Not sure.

I have done more or less what op is considering. I sold the 40-150 f2.8 two weeks ago because I never brought it along. Late last year I sold a Nikon 200-500 for the same reason. If I am bringing the big lenses, I take my Nikon DX or FX with the f2.8 trinity lenses depending on what I intend to shoot, mostly landscape, soccer (outdoor and indoor), handball (indoor) and equestrian. My low weight or vaction kit now consists of a Fujifilm X100F, which serves my focal need between 35-70, and an EM5ii with 9-18, 40-150R and 100-300 II. Another reason I picked up the X100F is the leaf shutter. I was debating whether to get the 100-300 or 100-400, but I know that the 100-400 will be used way less than the smaller 100-300. And I probably end up selling it as I did with the 40-150 f2.8, which btw is a great lense. But for my use the 40-150R suffices and I expect the 100-300 will do as well.

Yes, very similar. With the X70 I have a 28 / 35 / 50 thanks to the built in TC. I've been reasonably happy with the TC results from the 35 so far. I could also add the WCL-X70 Wide Converter for a 21mm. So my X70 paired with the GX85 & P7-14 or GX85 & P35-100 f/4-5.6 would cover a lot of situations. The thought of that has me considering selling the P14-140 and getting both the P35-100 and P45-175 along with the P20mm I was already planning on.

What I have now GX85 & X70:
P7-14mm
P12-32mm
P14-140mm (f/3.5-5.6)
O17mm (f/1.8) - just sold
O25mm (f/1.8) - for sale
P42.5mm (f/1.7
O9mm BCL

So my kit would be GX85 & X70:
P7-14mm
P12-32mm
P35-100mm (f/4.0-5.6)
P45-175mm
P20mm (f/1.7)
P42.5mm (f/1.7)
O9mm BCL

Have to decide it that's enough reach for now.

 

[rkris]

I got my Panasonic 100-300 II yesterday. Here are a few heavliy cropped shots I took today. I am still learning how to best use this lense, but so far I am happy.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

20170401-Flickr-1 by r.kris, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

20170401-Flickr-2 by r.kris, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

20170401-Flickr-1 by r.kris, on Flickr

 

[Hypilein]

Nice pictures. I especially like the last one.

 

[Paintguru]

Must.....resist.....

 

[MacBook]

I got my Panasonic 100-300 II yesterday. Here are a few heavliy cropped shots I took today. I am still learning how to best use this lense, but so far I am happy.

The new lens looks good. Congratulations.

 

[rkris]

Here is an image of a woodpecker from today.

Edit: uploaded a larger file size for more details.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[davidzvi]

@rkris, these are from an E-M5 mkII? What OIS/IBIS settings are you using?

 

[rkris]

Yes, E-M5ii. I used the OIS on the lense. Camera IS was turned off.