bobbytan wrote:
Interesting. Has anyone done the research or compared the Panny 45-175 to the Oly 50-150? I believe they are the same price but the Panny's range is much nicer of course. Does the Oly have any significant advantage over the Panny in terms of IQ and AF speed, etc?
I've got them both and they seem pretty equal as far as AF speed, optics etc go. The 45-175 is about 1 oz heavier and its also f4.0 on the short end instead of f4.5 like the Olympus but I don't think I could tell them apart in an A/B test.
One other nice feature about the Panasonic being an internal zoom by the way is that you can add a screw on tele conversion lens to it easily to double the reach. (or 1.7x the reach etc depending on what your using)
The 40-150 works for this as well, however, since its lens barrel extends so far out, I really would want to hang anything heavier than a filter off it.
The 45-175 though being internal zoom has a solid front filter ring thats built into the lens body itself, making it rather worry free with a TC.
Now obviously if you really want to be shooting 600mm equiv or so on a regular basis the 100-300 would make more sense and probably perform a little better. I had one with my GH2 and wasn't that impressed with it though.
At any rate, its a $500 lens, and for me, I just don't have $500 worth of use for shooting in the 200-600mm range. If I can add on a $5 conversion lens though and get decent performance thats money well spent.
I've decided not to wait for Canon's announcement of their mirrorless ILC. I've gone ahead and pre-ordered with Adorama the OM-D Silver body with 12-50 kit lens + battery grip + MF-2 adaptor + 45/1.8 lens. Wonder how long it will take. Thanks guys for all the useful info and tips on this thread. Jordon - your pictures convinced me that I should at least give it a try ... and I will probably not regret this move.
bobbytan wrote:
I've decided not to wait for Canon's announcement of their mirrorless ILC. I've gone ahead and pre-ordered with Adorama the OM-D Silver body with 12-50 kit lens + battery grip + MF-2 adaptor + 45/1.8 lens. Wonder how long it will take. Thanks guys for all the useful info and tips on this thread. Jordon - your pictures convinced me that I should at least give it a try ... and I will probably not regret this move.
Henry's of Canada had the silver kit in stock today (I ordered one and it shipped the same day). The USD/CAD exchange rate is presently $1.04 so you get a 4% discount over US pricing, minus whatever foreign exchange fee your CC charges (Amex charges 1%, so net 3% discount). I believe the warranty for USA/Canada is interchangeable for Olympus. The kit shows no longer in stock but they indicate 7-14 business day availability and that seems to be accurate based on the out-of-stock to in-stock transitions I've observed on their site for the OM-D.
Alanu wrote:
I look at the E-m5 as a supplement to what I already own.
For me I'd rather put $$ on a new Canon 24-70Lmk2 instead of investing on a 12-35 panny. This is more of a personal workflow decision.
As far at the m43 lenses are concerned I'll go with a 12mm f/2, 25 f/1.4, 45 f/1.8 and an undecided zoom for ultimate versatility of a small camera. Currently my 14mm f/2.5 and 25 f/1.4 is providing amazing IQ on this little format.
I can vouch the 45 f/1.8 is a little gem. Tack sharp wide open. Get it on ebay for a substantial saving over B&H and the likes. I'm not sure I'll pay the big dollars for lenses like the 12-35, it's more than a Tamron 24-70 VC and I didn't buy into the E-M5 to replace a DSLR.
btw is there much difference optically between the oly 40-150; pany 45-175 and pany 50-200 (bit confused why panasonic has two lenses so close to either other). I realize that the oly is smaller; the 45-175 is internal focus and the pany lenses include ois; mostly interested in optical performance (ca, resolution, contrast, rendering) at the long end.
you2 wrote:
btw is there much difference optically between the oly 40-150; pany 45-175 and pany 50-200 (bit confused why panasonic has two lenses so close to either other). I realize that the oly is smaller; the 45-175 is internal focus and the pany lenses include ois; mostly interested in optical performance (ca, resolution, contrast, rendering) at the long end.
No there isn't and the reason Panasonic has two lens is that the 45-200 is rather old, being one of the two original lenses produced for m4/3. I had one with the original G1.
The 45-175 is one of their X lenses, along with the 14-42. They were designed to be compact and also have the electronic zoom switches for doing video. The 45-175 actually has an electronic zoom ring as well, which acts no differently than a normal zoom ring, but turning it makes a motor zoom the lens, rather than a physical direct linkage.
The 45-200 isn't a bad lens, and they can be had for sub $200 these days as I think its at the end of its product life. Its simply a bit bigger in size, and extends in length.
The 45-175 just looks better on the camera, is more compact and is better suited for video, all things Panasonic currently seems to favor in terms of their design and marketing
The Olympus 40-150 is weak when focused to infinity, not very sharp and particularly soft in the corners. On closer subjects it is nice and sharp in the center and typically the extreme edges would be out of focus anyway. So, for sports and what not a pretty good choice, not a good choice at all for landscape though. No IS of course on a Panasonic body, but this is an EM-5 thread so no issue there.
The Panasonic 45-200 is by far the heaviest and bulkiest of the three. Its OIS was recently upgraded with a firmware update and is quite effective, but again on an E-M5 you would just use the camera IBIS in all likelihood. At least early on there was significant variation in quality with this lens. Enough people complained about softness that it wasn't likely to be user error (often a problem with telephotos) or anything like that - I think there were genuinely bad lenses out there. Many (myself included) got excellent lenses and since it can now be found for as little as $199 from reputable sellers is is quite a bargain. While it does go out to 200 the optical performance begins to suffer. I'd treat it as a 175 with 200 only used for emergencies. In fact, shooting at 175 and cropping produces similar performance to optically zooming to 200. My copy at least is almost corner to corner sharp at infinity focus from 45 to 175 at F/6.3. The best of the three for landscape in my opinion.
The 45-175 is significantly lighter and more compact (diameter especially) than the 45-200 while still being a bit larger than the 40-150. Optically it is an excellent lens. I found my copy to be a bit less sharp in the corners than the 45-200 at infinity. Again, I was testing for landscape use which is probably not the normal use case for this lens. At closer focus points and considering the center I suspect the 45-175 is the match of, or perhaps superior to the 45-200. Some tests show the 45-175 handling contra-light and flare a little better than the 45-200 (the 45-175 is suppose to have better coatings). The big issue with the 45-175 is the OIS system in many lenses does not work properly, it causes double images at around 1/160th shutter speed, right where you want it to do its job. Panasonic issued a FW update which only slightly mitigated the problem. Some lens/camera combinations seem fine, others it is a disaster. Bottom line I'd suggest you consider the lens to not have an OIS system at all. Again, for an E-M5 shouldn't be an issue. Importantly it appears this OIS bug only affects the lens when OIS is turned on, unlike the 14-42X which suffers double imaging even with OIS turned off (and so useless on all cameras, even Olympus cameras).
I tested all three lenses against a distant target with lots of detail all the way into the corners (hence the diagonal horizon) and posted the images to a gallery end of last year. Full size originals available for all images, and EXIF included as well. Examine to your hearts content, but remember the Olympus does the worst at infinity focus and so it will look pretty bad compared to the competition in this particular test.
Is your 40-150 the older version or the new R version of the lens ? I've often read that the update is merely cosmetic but at the same time, I don't find issues with the softness at infinity focus on mine, which is the new R one.
I must have had one of the bad copies of the 45-200mm. After I tested mine against the 45-175mm, I just put the 45-200mm on a bookshelf as an objet d'art. There's no way I'd even try to sell a bad copy of a lens to someone else, and it's not worth the money or hassle to try to get it fixed (I purchased it from someone else but didn't test it right away).
In addition to being much sharper than (my copy of) the 45-200mm, the 45mm-175mm does have better coatings. It's easy to see the difference in color and tonality when you shoot the two lenses side-by-side. The colors look better; not sure how else to describe it. (I could say that they look "purer" but I'm not sure what that means.)
I actually tested two copies of the 45mm-175mm. One was good, but unfortunately slightly decentered (which I couldn't tell until I tested it against the other one). The other one is fantastic across the image frame. When I tested it, I seem to recall that the image quality did degrade slightly in the corners at infinity in the longer focal lengths, but I've not noticed it since I did my initial lens tests, which means that in real world day-to-day use, the slightly softer corners at the 45mm-175mm are not significant.
Ergonomically the 45mm-175mm is heads and shoulders above the 45-200mm. It's much lighter, and doesn't extend. It's a joy to put in your bag.
kwalsh wrote:
The Olympus 40-150 is weak when focused to infinity, not very sharp and particularly soft in the corners. On closer subjects it is nice and sharp in the center and typically the extreme edges would be out of focus anyway. So, for sports and what not a pretty good choice, not a good choice at all for landscape though. No IS of course on a Panasonic body, but this is an EM-5 thread so no issue there.
The Panasonic 45-200 is by far the heaviest and bulkiest of the three. Its OIS was recently upgraded with a firmware update and is quite effective, but again on an E-M5 you would just use the camera IBIS in all likelihood. At least early on there was significant variation in quality with this lens. Enough people complained about softness that it wasn't likely to be user error (often a problem with telephotos) or anything like that - I think there were genuinely bad lenses out there. Many (myself included) got excellent lenses and since it can now be found for as little as $199 from reputable sellers is is quite a bargain. While it does go out to 200 the optical performance begins to suffer. I'd treat it as a 175 with 200 only used for emergencies. In fact, shooting at 175 and cropping produces similar performance to optically zooming to 200. My copy at least is almost corner to corner sharp at infinity focus from 45 to 175 at F/6.3. The best of the three for landscape in my opinion.
The 45-175 is significantly lighter and more compact (diameter especially) than the 45-200 while still being a bit larger than the 40-150. Optically it is an excellent lens. I found my copy to be a bit less sharp in the corners than the 45-200 at infinity. Again, I was testing for landscape use which is probably not the normal use case for this lens. At closer focus points and considering the center I suspect the 45-175 is the match of, or perhaps superior to the 45-200. Some tests show the 45-175 handling contra-light and flare a little better than the 45-200 (the 45-175 is suppose to have better coatings). The big issue with the 45-175 is the OIS system in many lenses does not work properly, it causes double images at around 1/160th shutter speed, right where you want it to do its job. Panasonic issued a FW update which only slightly mitigated the problem. Some lens/camera combinations seem fine, others it is a disaster. Bottom line I'd suggest you consider the lens to not have an OIS system at all. Again, for an E-M5 shouldn't be an issue. Importantly it appears this OIS bug only affects the lens when OIS is turned on, unlike the 14-42X which suffers double imaging even with OIS turned off (and so useless on all cameras, even Olympus cameras).
I tested all three lenses against a distant target with lots of detail all the way into the corners (hence the diagonal horizon) and posted the images to a gallery end of last year. Full size originals available for all images, and EXIF included as well. Examine to your hearts content, but remember the Olympus does the worst at infinity focus and so it will look pretty bad compared to the competition in this particular test.
millsart wrote:
Is your 40-150 the older version or the new R version of the lens ? I've often read that the update is merely cosmetic but at the same time, I don't find issues with the softness at infinity focus on mine, which is the new R one.
It is the older one. And of course in a lens as inexpensive as that it is possible there is copy to copy variation as well, but a few other people have noted poor infinity performance so it may be a common if not universal defect.
@httivals: Your experience with the 45-200 matches many peoples I think. If someone were to purchase a 45-200 I'd strongly recommend buying from a vendor with a good return policy and testing the lens as soon as they get it. I think you have a good summary of the 45-175 as well, ergonomically it is much nicer than the 45-200. And the differences at infinity in my tests were not large and only in the extreme corners. The main issue on the 45-175 is the OIS, otherwise it is definitely a better all around package than the 45-200. At its current price of $299 it is much more attractive than usual.
I've not had problems with the OIS on the 45-175mm, but I am conscious of using it only when necessary. I prefer to use a higher shutter speed, monopod, or tripod. In my experience, any OIS risks degrading an image, though it's often hard to see unless you're looking closely. It sounds like the Oly's IBIS comes the closest to matching the effect of solid support (i.e. a tripod).
sounds like the 45-175 is the best option for under $300. I once had the 50-200 and thought it was a nice lens though I'm not sure I'd like using it on an em-5 (slow focus) and of course it is a different price category (i only mention it because I keep crossing my fingers that oly/panny will introduce a similar lens for m4/3.
A few people on mu-43.com have used them without any issues. I'm going to try and hold out for official Olympus availability. It bothers me a little that the generics won't charge in the standard Olympus charger, which makes me nervous about hidden other compatibilities in the long run, but I'm probably just being paranoid.
However, if I still can't find a spare battery in a month or two, I may just bite the bullet and get a generic.
Jman13 wrote:
A few people on mu-43.com have used them without any issues. I'm going to try and hold out for official Olympus availability. It bothers me a little that the generics won't charge in the standard Olympus charger, which makes me nervous about hidden other compatibilities in the long run, but I'm probably just being paranoid.
However, if I still can't find a spare battery in a month or two, I may just bite the bullet and get a generic.
- They have a different open circuit voltage when fully charged, indicating they probably have a different lithium chemistry than the Olympus batteries. This is why the Olympus charger won't charge them, the cells are not compatible with the charging profile Olympus uses on their own batteries. (For the curious, Olympus 8.6V open circuit, Generic 8.35V open circuit)
- You can charge the Olympus battery in the generic charger, but as the generic charger is going to a lower OC voltage you won't get full capacity doing this. No idea as to any long term effects on the cells from doing this.
- They work just fine in the camera. Testing of the generics outside the camera shows them to have a capacity just above 1000mAh and a tear down of the DTSE batteries showed the cells labeled as 1020mAh. In camera testing seems to verify this in practice, a bit less capacity than the Olympus (~1200mAh).
- In camera battery status does display, but because of the different discharge profile appears to act a bit differently (sometimes intermediate level indications don't appear and the last indications comes rather quickly before full discharge).
- The DTSE batteries at least appeared to contain all the usual necessary safety circuits within them (namely sharing circuitry as there is more than one cell).
- Remember, battery capacity depends on what discharge voltage you test to - "cheating" on this is how many generics claim unusually high capacities. In this case it appears the generics are about 20% less capacity than the Olympus battery when choosing a proper and consistent discharge voltage.
- All lithium cells can catch on fire from manufacturing defects. As demonstrated a few years ago this can be true of even OEM batteries. That said, presumably a generic manufacturer may be going for the cheapest cells available. In the case of the DTSE batteries the original listings claimed Sanyo to be the cell manufacturer, but in the tear down it was a Chinese source.
I ended up getting three batteries and a charger for less than the cost of one Olympus battery. I don't like the Olympus charger to begin with, it is stupidly large and the generic charger is more compact. I'll just leave the Olympus charger and battery at home when I travel. Obviously I'm accepting the risk that a battery might ignite and destroy my camera or perhaps my house along with it. I'm accepting that risk with the OEM battery as well, but presumably the risk is higher with the generic.
kwalsh wrote:
I ended up getting three batteries and a charger for less than the cost of one Olympus battery. I don't like the Olympus charger to begin with, it is stupidly large and the generic charger is more compact. I'll just leave the Olympus charger and battery at home when I travel. Obviously I'm accepting the risk that a battery might ignite and destroy my camera or perhaps my house along with it. I'm accepting that risk with the OEM battery as well, but presumably the risk is higher with the generic.
There was a whole slew of batteries manufactured by Sony a few years ago that could catch fire and explode - giant recall ensued. And many more recalls after that:
My point was tongue-in-cheek - bring electronics into your home and bad things can happen. Put electricity in your home, bad things can happen. Use natural gas in your home, bad things can happen. Drive down the street, bad things can happen. Lie in your bedroom and do nothing, bad things can happen. In each case we make a risk/reward trade off when we decide to take an action or not take an action. Same applies to generic vs. OEM batteries...
Have a look at this thread, it's thick with images, and I'm sure there's an OM among them: 