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

    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
    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

    Nov 16, 2012
    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

    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
    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:
    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

    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

    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....