Which mid-tele?

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by Geos, Jan 15, 2013.

  1. Geos

    Geos Mu-43 Rookie

    Jan 12, 2013
    I'm not keen on spending $1000.+ for the 35-100 f2.8 so short of that I'm wondering what's a decent mid tele for my G3. The 45-200 looks pretty mediocre from the few reviews I've seen. Is there anything a little better in the under $500. price range. Thanks.
  2. brlowe

    brlowe Mu-43 Regular

    Feb 2, 2011
    Boise, ID
    I have the 45-175 and like it. I have only had it a short time and really have no sample shots for you but maybe I will get out this weekend and get some.
  3. elavon

    elavon Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 1, 2012
    Tel Aviv Israel
    Real Name:
    I have the P45-200 which is good up to the 150mm and mediocre above, but it is the cheapest option for 150-200mm with OIS option in the :43:.
    If you do not need the above 150mm you can get the P45-150 it is cheap and gets good reviews. I do not know if it is better then the P45-200 in the same range but it is much smaller.
  4. Geos

    Geos Mu-43 Rookie

    Jan 12, 2013
  5. tanngrisnir3

    tanngrisnir3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 18, 2011
    The best bang for the buck ratio I've seen and used so far is the Oly 40-150, with a bias heavily towards the bang.

    SHARP until about 120 or so, and then just above average.

    I find the results from slrgear match my own observations.

    Got mine on an occasional sale for 150, and I have never regretted it.

    Olympus Lens: Zooms - Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 ED M.Zuiko Digital (Tested) - SLRgear.com!
  6. Geos

    Geos Mu-43 Rookie

    Jan 12, 2013
    Oly ED adapter?

    The Oly 40-150 ED f3.5 older version gets good reviews. Is there a third party ED>m4/3 adapter?
  7. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    Real Name:
    If you don't mind a fixed prime, and it's long enough for your needs, I'd recommend the Olympus 60mm f/2.8 macro. It's super sharp, reasonably fast, and will also add macro capabilities if you want them. It's also considerably cheaper than the 35-100mm or 75mm.

    For the traditional zooms, I was very happy with my Panasonic 45-200mm personally. It gets a bad rap but I thought it was quite capable. IMO many of the bad comments regarding it are due to the firmware issues it had early in the release which resulted in blurry photos (I believe due to an OIS issue). The Panasonic 100-300 and 14-140 lenses also got a firmware update and I found them both very good after the updates as well. No experience with the Oly telephotos myself but I can recommend the Panasonic 14-140, 45-200, and 100-300. They're not in the realm of the 35-100 certainly, but they're all decent lenses in their own right and obviously much cheaper.
  8. robertro

    robertro Mu-43 Veteran

    Apr 22, 2010
    I have had the 40-150, 45-200, and 45-175. I would not say that any were particularly different in image quality, the differences were more...

    40-150 is very compact and inexpensive.
    [45-150 is internal focus, compact, and has OIS.]
    45-175 has 175mm reach, is internal focus, and has OIS. Some camera shake issues reported, I have not run into them as I tend to shoot at 1/300th sec and beyond.
    45-200 has a 200mm reach, is faster than the others by about 1/3-1/2 stop at 100mm etc..., and has OIS.

    If I didn't have the 100-300, I'd choose the 45-200 for its speed and range and OIS. Having the 100-300, I prefer to have the more compact 45-175. If budget were paramount, I'd choose the 40-150.
  9. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    I like my P45-200 and found it acceptably sharp across the entire range:

    OM-D w/ P45-200 @ 56mm, 1/125, f/4.1, ISO 3200

    OM-D w/ P45-200 @ 132mm, 1/180, f/5.1, ISO 3200

    OM-D w/ P45-200 @ 200mm, 1/500, f/5.6, ISO 3200

    • Like Like x 1