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

Pana 45-200mm vs Oly 14-150mm

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by manju69, Nov 13, 2011.

  1. manju69

    manju69 Mu-43 Veteran

    493
    Jul 1, 2011
    Stroud, UK
    Pete
    Hi. Does anyone know how the Panasonic 45-200mm and the Oly 14-150mm compare in terms of sharpness and IQ. How does the Oly do at the long end? With the 45-200 i try not to use the last 35 as it gets softer and harder to get sharp. I'll be using it on an E-PL3.
    Thanks in advance.
     
  2. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    They are two completely different lenses. One, the 45-200mm, is a dedicated telephoto. The Olympus is a superzoom, which is a midrange (walkaround focal length lens) with a telephoto bit tacked on to the end for convenience. If you're planning on doing dedicated telephoto work, a superzoom will never compare to a telephoto. If you're unhappy with the 45-200 towards the last 35mm of its range, you'll be livid when seeing what the Olympus produces.

    I'd say to sell your Panasonic and buy the Olympus 40-150mm, if you're unhappy with the Panasonic's performance. No point in carrying around the increased size if you don't use the features. Or, buy a 45-175X from a store with a liberal return policy.
     
  3. manju69

    manju69 Mu-43 Veteran

    493
    Jul 1, 2011
    Stroud, UK
    Pete
    Thanks. I was wondering about sacrificing those last 50mm- for the compact form of the Oly superzoom and having to change lenses less often- although I am happy enough with the 45-200 as a long as i take time with it. I not willing to lose more of the long end of the Oly 14-150 though and have even less usable reach. May as well keep the panasonic. I have read that there are stabilisation issues with the new Panasonic 45-175 x zoom, so will wait to see what happens with that, it's more
    compact form and the fact that is zooms internally are attractive.
     
  4. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    I've owned the 45-200, the 14-150 and the 40-150.

    The 40-150 is reputed to be a better lens in sharpness than the 14-150 (according to the review sites), but it wasn't in my tests, and the 40-150 is built like the $100 lens it is. That is, really cheap. The zoom ring is not smooth, like the 140-150. I've got the 14-150, so I determined the 40-150 was a non-starter for me and returned it.

    The 45-200 again should be sharper than the 14-150, but I wasn't impressed with the 45-200 sharpness that much at the long end. The build quality, though, is good and it has lens IS which is very good for video (I don't do that much video though, so I don't care that much). It does, however, seem heavier and larger than the 14-150. It is slightly cheaper. I think comparing these two is worth it, as they have strengths and weaknesses (14-150 being a walk-around, and lightweight, but more $$$, the 45-200 having IBIS and running a few hundred cheaper).

    Schnitz -- have you actually owned all three lenses? I've seen a number of folks (over at DPR mainly) really insist that the 14-150 can't hold up to the "dedicated" 45-140/200 zooms, but I've not found that's the case at all. It holds up quite well, but it's also in a different price class, too..
     
    • Like Like x 1