Sharpness winner between 45-175, 45-200, & 40-150 assuming current firmware today?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Curtox, Aug 4, 2013.

  1. Curtox

    Curtox Mu-43 Rookie

    18
    Jun 11, 2013
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Hi all, I'm a G3 owner and I currently have an Oly 40-150 but I've been considering a switch to one of the two Pany lenses mentioned in the title, primarily for two reasons, 1) OIS, 2) a little bit of bonus reach. And maybe a touch of 3) GAS ;)

    So I'm wondering if any current owners can chime in on how these all stand up to one another given current firmware, since it can be tough to use 1-2 year old reviews, when for example the 45-200 has been updated since then, I believe.

    All input is welcome!
    Cheers,
     
  2. gugarci

    gugarci Mu-43 Veteran

    304
    Jul 8, 2012
    Lyndhurst, NJ
    Bill
    None of these are lenses are a dud. Sharpness is irrelevant unless you don't plan to do any post processing. Buy whichever lens give you the range you most likely need and worry about sharpness in post processing. When looking at lenses I would worry about CA's before sharpness. And CA's can also be easily be fixed in post processing.

    This is just my opinion, and opinion are like ass h*les, every one has one. :biggrin:
     
  3. Curtox

    Curtox Mu-43 Rookie

    18
    Jun 11, 2013
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Haha too true. I use Lightroom so I'm not too concerned about CA either. I'm just more so looking for some current real world takes on how these lenses handle throughout their focal range. Such as, can the 45-175 and the 45-200 avoid going particularly soft at their respective maximum focal lengths?
    I get generally decent results with my 40-150, but it is a little soft toward 150, but only slightly.
     
  4. gugarci

    gugarci Mu-43 Veteran

    304
    Jul 8, 2012
    Lyndhurst, NJ
    Bill
    I would also look at AF performance before sharpness. Look around for reviews on Photozone or SLR Gear. I have the 40-150 lens and for the price I paid it's a no brainer. Good luck.
     
  5. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    I tested the 45-150 and the 45-175 together. I had already bought the 45-150 for $159 when the great Amazon deal on the 45-175 for $210 came around, so I bought it as well, figuring that I could sell it used for that much if I preferred the shorter one.

    My testing concluded that they are dead even in optical quality, IMHO. I also felt that there was no discernible difference in build quality either.

    I did actually feel that the OIS in the 45-175 was slightly more effective. I do prefer the power zoom feature and the internal zoom and focusing feature of the longer lens, as well as it's slightly longer reach. As a result of these features, I kept the longer lens and sold the 45-150, but the optical and build quality were not the reason, the added features were. And even then, it was an extremely close call. To my mind, those features were worth the small difference that I personally paid for the longer zoom - but not worth the more typical $125 or so price difference that the longer lens gets - at least for still photography. Perhaps videographers can justify a bigger differential.

    Since then, I have seen reviews from both DxOmark and Photozone that both seem to indicate that the lenses are equal, or, if anything, the shorter one has a very slight edge, and a clear edge in price-performance. I generally agree with that conclusion at the typical prices one sees for these lenses. The biggest surprise of my comparison was that there was no advantage to the 45-175 in build quality - something that Panasonic's marketing suggests one would find.
     
  6. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    I'll subscribe to this thread because I also have your combination ... plus a TON of other bodies. :redface:
    Do I WANT the 45-175 for more than it's design excellence?
    The other two don't interest me at all.
    The mZuiko 40-150 is pretty good!
     
  7. huai

    huai Mu-43 Regular

    77
    May 24, 2013
    I had 45-200, 45-175, and tried 45-150 in store. I think given their similar IQ, 45-200 with its extra 33% reach is the best bang for the buck.
     
  8. gcogger

    gcogger Mu-43 Veteran

    343
    May 25, 2010
    UK
    Graeme
    I briefly owned the 45-150mm and the 45-200mm at the same time - the 45-150 is just a tad sharper at 45mm and they're pretty much the same at 150mm. I found it harder to get a sharp shot hand-held at the long end with the 45-150, however, presumably because of the lighter weight.
     
  9. Curtox

    Curtox Mu-43 Rookie

    18
    Jun 11, 2013
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Awesome feedback so far folks! Exactly the kind I was looking for.

    So here's where I am now... Like I've said, I'm very intrigued by the extra reach of the 45-200, and frankly, if it's an equal to the 45-175 in IQ, then my mind might be made. I do enjoy the build quality of the 45-175, and the non-extending zoom is nice, but for me personally I think I can handle the extra heft of the 45-200 in exchange for it's reach, assuming equal IQ...

    More feedback is certainly welcome!
     
  10. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    By reputation, the 45-200mm is not the equal of the 45-175 at the long end. It's reputed to soften up noticeably from 150 to 200mm. I can't verify that personally, since I never bought the 45-200 given it's bulk and size, but all the reviews I've read cite that issue.
     
  11. Dan Ka

    Dan Ka Mu-43 Regular

    128
    Jan 11, 2011
    Northeastern Ohio
    I own the P45-200 and the O40-150, and, find both lacking at the long end as someone mentioned earlier. I usually shoot both of them about 10% - 20% less at the long end even then they are a bit soft for my liking. Acceptable results, but, not necessarily keepers for posting - more for post processing practice. Both lenses are excellent at the shorter to mid range though. I'm waiting for some 150-300mm primes, and, saving my money in case they ever show up. They will be expensive IMO.
     
  12. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    505
    Jul 2, 2010
    Arizona
    I once owned the 45-200 and despite its negative reputation, my copy at least, was very good.

    I'm returning to m43 and am looking again at these and the Pany 45-150 looks like a winner, although if I can find the 45-175 I may go for that. The internal zoom and focus is a nice feature.

    I briefly owned the Oly 40-150 and was pleasantly surprised by the image quality from such a cheap feeling lens. I may give it another try based on cost.
     
  13. bg2b

    bg2b Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Dec 22, 2009
    Berkeley Heights, NJ
    I've got the 45-175 and 45-200. I never found any significant IQ difference between them (both were fine), but I definitely far prefer the 45-175 for the much smaller size, much lower weight, and the internal zoom. It also has a 46mm filter thread, which matches the other lenses that I sometimes carry along with it (14 or 25). The 45-200mm has a 52mm thread.
     
  14. Darren Bonner

    Darren Bonner Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 1, 2013
    Poole UK
    My wife has the 45-200 lens and I tried it for the first time this weekend. I was surprised by the results because I too have read negative reviews.
    I have not tried the P45-175 or the P45-150, but if they're are as good in IQ as our 45-200, any of those are a winner.
    The below pictures speak for themselves were taken at 200m and at the end of the day this is a £200 zoom lens. It does well for what it is.

    9432047162_ca469d8ec5_b.
    Sea dog by Darren Bonner, on Flickr

    9434783255_2c8a24618c_b.
    Turnstone by Darren Bonner, on Flickr

    Anyone with the other lenses mentioned taken at the long end please do post so we can see and compare.
     
  15. Curtox

    Curtox Mu-43 Rookie

    18
    Jun 11, 2013
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Couldn't agree more! I'm sure there are plenty of others out there who are looking at these lenses again (or for the first time) now that they have come down in price.:drinks:
     
  16. htc

    htc Mu-43 Top Veteran

    579
    Jan 11, 2011
    Finland
    Harry
    Oly 40-150 r at 150 mm
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 2
  17. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    Darren this looks poor to me : is it because ISO was restricted to 100 and the bird is moving? (I looked at original on Flickr)
     
  18. Rob917

    Rob917 Mu-43 Regular

    128
    Jul 18, 2011
    jacksonville, florida usa
    Robert
    45-150mm is Sharper Read Further

    The 45-150mm is the sharper/better lens because it is the one I own.:wink:
     
  19. Narnian

    Narnian Nobody in particular ...

    Aug 6, 2010
    Midlothian, VA
    Richard Elliott
    My experience is the same. Plus I would add the internal focusing/zoom is really nice because it will mean less air going into and out of the lens and over time I would expect less internal dust.

    Also, strangely, the 45-150 has a 52mm filter size :confused:
     
  20. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    The 45-200 is soft at the long end, but it also looks and feels like a telephoto. It's big and telescoping and has an enormous hood. The amazing thing about the 45-175 is it's discreet; identically sized to the 12-50 in fact and internal zoom. People can't tell you're carrying a telephoto, which is really nice.