Would Panny 45-175 be much better than my current Panny 45-150

[phaet2112]

For owners of the 45-175, I've had my 45-150 for a few years now, and I'm not excited about it, but it is good/fine. Closer it works well, longer range when I crop it is OK- that is where I wish it was better. Would the 45-175 work better to justify about $250 to swap these lenses with a used one from KEH? This is higher amateur taking outdoor pics. Is the Power OIS that much better than the Mega OIS when paired with a G85? Frankly I miss my old 4/3 3.5-4.5 Olympus 40-150- the one that I had produced really special pics, but all of this now is on a G85, so I can't really go back to the old 4/3 lenses. I don't want to go all out and get the Panny 2.8-4- that is too much money. I've thought a little about the 2.8 Pro Oly 40-150, but again that would stretch it to way too much even from their refurbished shop.

 

[archaeopteryx]

I'd suggest finding the megapixels typical of your crops and then looking for a lens which provides that angle of view without cropping. There are many calculators available online for this, plus the focal lengths are long enough to use linear approximations. If you're cropping enough for image quality to become an issue, the Panasonic 45-200 II or Panasonic 100-300 II may be better candidates. Going from 150 to 175mm reduces the angle of view from 8.25° to 7.08°, comparable to a 16.5% crop (16 to 11.9MP), and the 6.19° of a 200mm is like a 32% crop (9.2MP). Within my use it'd be cropping to get somewhere between 200 and 300mm (4.13°, 4MP) where the loss of pixels would become problematic. (The Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm is out of budget. The most generous interpretation I can make of Olympus 40-150 2.8 MTF measurements is cropping it would be comparable to operating a lower cost zoom at 165mm.)

From the tests I've looked at Mega OIS to Power OIS seems to give around 0.5 stops in OIS only configurations. I haven't come across comparisons between the two when using Dual IS and don't have any personal observations (the body I have is the non-IBIS G7 and the Mega OIS lens I have is the Panasonic-Leica 45mm, which I use almost exclusively on a tripod for focus bracketing). As you may be aware, neither the 45-150 or 45-175 supports Dual IS II, though it's again my understanding the difference between Dual IS and Dual IS II is minor.

To my knowledge, no one's tested enough copies of the 45-150 and 45-175 to make statements about the range of image quality they provide and the probability of a copy of one being preferable to a copy of the other. The behavior of my 45-175 is consistent with the copy Optical Limits tested but I haven't used a 45-150 and, offhand, am not aware of any site which has tested both lenses at the same pixel density.

Personally, I would say the advantages of the 45-175 over the 45-150 are more that, if one's shooting video, it's a power zoom and, if one's using coupled reversed lenses (for magnifications above 1x), it's a fixed length design. Experience with other Panasonic lenses leads me to suspect the 45-175 may have autofocus advantages in certain niches but, as you don't mention autofocus as a concern, it seems unlikely it would be meaningful if a difference does exist.

 

[Stanga]

The 45-175mm is sharp. I have a couple of objects that I can photograph from my garden to determine lens performance. Like the brick wall, the building built out of bricks about a mile away, and the numerous road signs and notice boards from the trading estate close to me. The 45-175mm can pick up detail that is otherwise only picked up by my prime lenses. I would buy a new one if I ever lost or broke my current one.

 

[ScottinPollock]

@phaet2112

When you say you're less than thrilled with the 45-150, are your shots with it on a sturdy tripod/combination with stabilization off?

I ask cause my results using that method are pretty darn impressive (I shoot raw and develop in DxO PL). My only real gripe with the lens is the crazy busy bokeh.

 

[Z-Shooter]

YES!

 

[tkbslc]

Short answer: no

 

[jimr.pdx]

To attempt to reconcile the last two comments
Copy variation will make the difference more than optical formula. I'm satisfied with my 45-150 & owned a 45-175 in the past and I liked it too. I did not pxpeep at all, still don't - so use grains of sea-salt to sort my comment!

The price difference is rather major right now, with off-kit 45-150s going for very little. If your tests show you have a poor 45-150 you'd probably be just as likely to get better results with a different copy. If you do many videos of course the power zoom is a worthy difference; it wasn't a factor for my types of shooting.

 

[phaet2112]

The 45-150 isn't poor- I haven't done tests with brick walls or patterns or such. It is the main telephoto, and primarily for my kids' soccer games. Outdoor and in the sun it was working well, but pics are usually cropped, and sometimes the focus is slightly off, or more likely that there is a little motion in the shot. Likely the 100-300 II may prove to be a better addition than swapping out the 45-150 if the goal is to get closer to the action and achieve better focus lock. All handheld.

 

[oldracer]

... Closer it works well, longer range when I crop it is OK- that is where I wish it was better. ...

@archaeopteryx is correct. Cropping is a very poor substitute for focal length and 25mm isn't much longer than what you have. How much cropping are you doing? If you are cutting the field of view in half, you are trying to make 150mm into 300mm, an effort that isn't going to go well.

I consider any shot where major cropping is required to be a failure. My cropping is mostly from rectangular to square or trimming a small amount off an edge or two to unclutter a background. I prefer no cropping, like this curious little guy shot in Kenya at 400mm:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

No way would I have tried to crop this image out of an image shot at 150mm.