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

Replacing Oly 14-42mm and 40-150mm

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by tjdean01, Nov 21, 2013.

  1. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    842
    Feb 20, 2013
    These are sharp, economical lenses but both are soft on the long end. Of course I want the 12-35 or 12-40 but they're too expensive. Plus for speed I have 14/2.5 (with the 11mm converter), Sigma 2.8, and soon the 20/1.7.

    Olympus 14-42mm - I was thinking of buying the Pan 14-45 used for under $200 which also works with my 11mm converter (and I'd sell my mint 14-42 for $80). But now I'm thinking I'll be able to get the new 12-32 for $400 (would only cost me $220 if I also sold the 11mm for $100). I'm confident the 12-32 will match the 14-45 in sharpness. But, similar to how I'd have to throw the 11mm in the bag for the 14-45, with the 12-32 I'd need to throw a longer prime with me (which would be more useful than the pain in the butt 11mm converter). Do you guys think the 12-32 would be the best option? The silver does look badass on the black PM2 :thumbup:

    Olympus 40-150mm - I paid $99 for this new. I like the lens, but it's soft over 100mm and I heard that the Panasonic offerings are better. I'm not looking to spend too much. How good are the Panasonic offerings in comparison (45-150, 45-175, 45-200)? I haven't read too much about them. The 45-175's offerings seem nice.

    Thanks for any input!



    [​IMG]
     
  2. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    When I asked around about a light telezoom, the general consensus was that they are all rather similar and all go soft, except maybe the 45-175 was a tad sharper at the long end, and that the extra reach of the 45-200 was offset by it being bigger and heavier, while going softer beyond 100 mm anyway. You won't get a big jump in IQ unless you go to something like the 35-100 f/2.8. I eventually bought a mint-used O40-150 at a cheap price since I don't use telephotos that much and I wanted something light for travel.

    The 12-32 seems like a good one - it's small size and weight is an advantage for a lens that will be on most of the time, and 12 mm is really handy to have. The gap between it and the telezoom shouldn't be that big a deal IMO, and the only prime I know of that fits in there is the 30 mm Sigma anyway.
     
  3. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    If you buy the 12-32 it'd give you a good excuse to buy the mZuiko 45mmF1.8 which is a really good lens.
    Keep the mZuiko 40-150 because it isn't really soft over 100 ... compared to everything else. Mine's sharp enough.
    If I bought another longish zoom it'd be the Lumix 45-175 but not for IQ, just for the compact form.
     
  4. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    842
    Feb 20, 2013
    You mentioned the 35-100 but to me that lens is a waste of money because I'm already satisfied with the 40-150's performance in the ~100mm range (and like you I don't use a long zoom enough to warrant the extra money). So, you like the 40-150 and really don't think the 45-175 is any better?

    So, although the O40-150 *is* soft at the longer end (vs its very good performance at the wider end) you're saying I should just keep it because even the 45-175 is no better? Makes sense, of course. I was just under the impression that the Panny's performed better. I guess if they don't it will save me some money :)
     
  5. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    Point me to some good info regarding this? ;
     
  6. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    The 45-175 goes soft from maybe slightly further out, and might be a bit sharper at its best. It also doesn't extend which is quite nice. But in general no, the difference is not really worth swapping for unless you can get a bargain price.