Replacing Oly 14-42mm and 40-150mm

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

  1. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    862
    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. 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

    862
    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. 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.
     
  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.