Olympus 40-150 vs Panasonic 45-200: I use my Olympus em10 mark ii primarily for travel photography. The Olympus 40-150 is lighter. The Panasonic 45-200 has greater range. Since I don't...

drbilly

I use my Olympus em10 mark ii primarily for travel photography. The Olympus 40-150 is lighter. The Panasonic 45-200 has greater range. Since I don't need both lenses, I'm trying to decide which to keep. Any thoughts?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

drbilly wrote:

I use my Olympus em10 mark ii primarily for travel photography. The Olympus 40-150 is lighter. The Panasonic 45-200 has greater range. Since I don't need both lenses, I'm trying to decide which to keep. Any thoughts?

Some comparison sites.

(Reviews) https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCameraStoreTV/videos
http://www.cameradecision.com/
http://cameras.reviewed.com/
http://camerasize.com/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://snapsort.com/compare
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

EdU239 Loc: The Northeast

drbilly wrote:

I use my Olympus em10 mark ii primarily for travel photography. The Olympus 40-150 is lighter. The Panasonic 45-200 has greater range. Since I don't need both lenses, I'm trying to decide which to keep. Any thoughts?

I don't mean this to be snarky, but it sounds like you currently own both lenses--which one do you prefer? Assuming both are optically and ergonomically acceptable, my preference in that situation would be for the lighter of the two. I recently bought the same camera for travel, although I have the 14-150 lens. I know from my experience that both my enjoyment in taking pictures and my willingness to carry a particular lens on any given day are strongly affected by the weight. But that's me.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

drbilly wrote:

I use my Olympus em10 mark ii primarily for travel photography. The Olympus 40-150 is lighter. The Panasonic 45-200 has greater range. Since I don't need both lenses, I'm trying to decide which to keep. Any thoughts?

(For non-MFT photographers, a reminder that we are talking 2x crop).
I know the 45-200 well, and have captured good photos with mine. I recently swapped it for the Panny 45-150, which is much smaller and lighter and a better all round performer. I have now bought the later Panny collapsible 35-100 on a great offer. (Wonderful walk about lens). My line up is 14-45, 35-100, 45-150, which for me is happiness.
Unless you really need the reach to 200mm, I would keep the Olly. If you do need the reach - keep both and give the 45-200 an outing when you think you will need it.

Tigger1 Loc: Surrey, BC Canada

drbilly wrote:

I use my Olympus em10 mark ii primarily for travel photography. The Olympus 40-150 is lighter. The Panasonic 45-200 has greater range. Since I don't need both lenses, I'm trying to decide which to keep. Any thoughts?

Interesting question you pose. Is the Oly 40-150mm the kit lens (f4-5.6) or the Pro version with a constant f2.8? If the Pro version then IMHO it is a no brainer, keep the Oly 40-15mm. If it is the Oly kit lens then probably the Panasonic is a better choice as it is reputed to be a sharper lens. However, if you shoot jpegs only and do no post processing, then the Oly kit lens may suit you better because the em10 mark ii will automatically correct for lens aberations whereas the em10 mark ii will not correct for lens aberations when the Panasonic is mounted.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Tigger1 wrote:

Interesting question you pose. Is the Oly 40-150mm... (show quote)

Hi Tigger - you also raise an interesting point. I always imagined that the Olly (and Panny) firmware would correct for lens aberrations regardless of whether capturing RAW or JPG. This has nothing to do with the exposure triangle, but might adjust with focal length. Or do you know different?

Bill P

I own both the Panasonic and the cheaper Olympus, which is on sale a lot for $99. The panasonic is a real surprise, as it isn't all that much either, but the build quality is much better than expected, and it's plenty sharp. I've taken shots made with it up to 17x25 with no complaints. The Olympus is of a lower build quality, all is plastic, mount included, but it surprises with image quality that is quite good at the short end, and decent at the long end. It seems that contrast takes a hit at the long end.

The Olympus is very light and compact, and if handled with care it should give good service. Since the Panasonic is quite a bit bigger and heavier, I'm keeping both.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

If you sold the 40-150, you'd be hard pressed to get more than $75 for it, especially since they regularly go on sale for $99, and I've seen refurbs from the olympus site for $79 just recently.

Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia

drbilly wrote:

I use my Olympus em10 mark ii primarily for travel photography. The Olympus 40-150 is lighter. The Panasonic 45-200 has greater range. Since I don't need both lenses, I'm trying to decide which to keep. Any thoughts?

No opinion, but I had the best reason of all for buying the Oly 40-150. They cut the price to 99 bucks. It's the II series too, and yields surprisingly good results.