Oly 40-150 or Pany 45-175?

letsgofishing

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2012
Messages
352
Location
South Africa
Real Name
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.
 

Ulfric M Douglas

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
3,711
Location
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.
 

flamingfish

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
1,255
Real Name
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.
 

Ramsey

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
750
Location
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
 

oldracer

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
2,650
Location
USA
...The long end is much more important to me that the short end ...
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.
 

kwalsh

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2012
Messages
847
Location
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!
 

letsgofishing

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2012
Messages
352
Location
South Africa
Real Name
Mike Kaplan
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
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....
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom