Oly 40-150 or Pany 45-175?

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by letsgofishing, Sep 15, 2014.

  1. letsgofishing

    letsgofishing Mu-43 Veteran

    352
    Nov 21, 2012
    South Africa
    Mike Kaplan
    Looking at getting a moderately priced tele for shooting game here in South Africa.
    From the reviews I've read, there doesn't seem to be a huge difference between these 2. The long end is much more important to me that the short end, and from what I've read, the Pany seems better in this respect.
    I also like the fact that the Pany doesn't extend when zooming (possibly less dust being sucked in) and it seems to be better built witha meatl mount.
    I know the Pany is more expensive...any experiences/opinions of these 2 lenses would be appreciated.
     
  2. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    In a dusty envoronment I would plump for the Lumix, although I've never owned it.
    The M.Zuiko is cheaper and lighter and I love mine, but I wouldn't take it through any dodgy conditions.
     
  3. flamingfish

    flamingfish Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    968
    Nov 16, 2012
    Emily
    I agree that the Pany has a much more solid feel. The Oly feels very plasticky (which, of course, it is), particularly when extended.

    I wish I could say that I have images from which you could do an IQ comparison, but I haven't been disciplined enough to take pics with both lenses in similar conditions.
     
  4. Ramsey

    Ramsey Mu-43 Top Veteran

    745
    Jan 9, 2013
    Zagreb, Croatia
    If you have the money, i don't see a reason to go for oly. The extra reach will definitely come in handy when shooting game, less dust due to nonextending lens and ois (if you have a panny body). Also, my copy of the 40-150 is sharp up until 135 but degrades a bit after that fl. I think 45-175 will be sharper at 150.

    sent from my Xperia Z
     
  5. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Oct 1, 2010
    USA
    I'm surprised you're not looking at the 100-300mm. I spent 3 weeks in your neck of the woods (Timbavati, Zimbabwe various, Etosha, and other places) a couple of years ago and I'm sure that half my photos were shot at over 175mm. I carried the 14-140mm on one body and the 100-300 on a second body. The combination worked great!

    Here's one I've posted here before, shot at 300mm, and uncropped:
    Leopard_In_Tree.
    If I had only 175mm it would have taken a lot of cropping to get this framing. Probably too much.
     
  6. kwalsh

    kwalsh Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    827
    Mar 3, 2012
    Baltimore, MD
    In general I'd take the 45-175 over the 40-150 for your application. But I'd also look at the 75-300 or 100-300 though I expect those could be out of the range of "moderately priced". But check, I don't know what prices are like in SA and perhaps the 45-175 and the 300 choices aren't that different in price.

    Also I'd read up on the 45-175 on the E-M5 to see if there are shutter shock issues. When first released the 45-175 had a bad shutter shock problem which a firmware release partly fixed. Depending on the particular camera it could be better or worse, at the time it was still a problem with the G3 but not the GH2 for example. While I have the E-M5 and the 45-175 I've actually never shot them together so I can't offer you any specific advice in that department!
     
  7. letsgofishing

    letsgofishing Mu-43 Veteran

    352
    Nov 21, 2012
    South Africa
    Mike Kaplan
    Thanks to all who replied.
    I did "look" at the 100-300, but tele shooting isn't what I do most of. Just looking for an affordable, pretty good quality tele for a few wildlife excursions.
    So it seems that the Pany 45-175 is the one to go for....
     
  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.