Background: I have the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens as my 'city' long zoom and I got rid of my Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 and my 300mm f/4 to get the 50-200mm f/2.8 as my 'travel' and 'car' long zoom. I used to own the 12-100mm f/4, but never really liked the fact that it started at f/4 and that it was so large as a carry-all-day lens, despite its great quality. I also have the Panasonic 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 but hardly ever use it because I prefer my f/2.8 lenses or primes most of the time.
We're now thinking of spending two months traveling in Japan next year and I can't help myself, so I'm starting to think which lenses I would take. We would go from one end to the other, so the range is anything from cities to potentially wildlife in the north. If there would be no wildlife in the mix, I'd take the 35-100mm as my long lens and that'll be it. The 50-200mm would be the perfect lens for wildlife (barring the 150-400mm which will stay at home), but I don't really like the idea of carrying it around for two months.
Hence, I'm thinking about the 40-150mm f/4. But I can't find much reliable information about it in terms of how it compares with the other lenses, how fast it focuses, how it renders, whether f/4 is doable and whether that lens could realistically do double duty as a short wildlife lens AND a useful city long zoom.
So, I'm looking for insights from any and all of you who have used that lens and other lenses or know of places where they're discussed in terms of usability etc, instead of as mostly test scores.
I have it and highly recommend it. Chose it over the 40-150 f/2.8 and 50-200 f/2.8 due to size and weight, and not needing a faster lens for landscape and architecture. It is very sharp allover and study. With steady hands, I can get away with 5-6 stops, although the lens does not have IS. With IS lenses, I can get away with 7-8 stops. I have not compared it to similiar lenses, but I am very satisfied with it. I pair it with the 8-25 f/4. For wildlife, I use the 300 f/4, and I will eventually replace it with the 150-400 f/4.5 when I have the funds.
johnvanr wrote:
Background: I have the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens as my 'city' long zoom and I got rid of my Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 and my 300mm f/4 to get the 50-200mm f/2.8 as my 'travel' and 'car' long zoom. I used to own the 12-100mm f/4, but never really liked the fact that it started at f/4 and that it was so large as a carry-all-day lens, despite its great quality. I also have the Panasonic 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 but hardly ever use it because I prefer my f/2.8 lenses or primes most of the time.
We're now thinking of spending two months traveling in Japan next year and I can't help myself, so I'm starting to think which lenses I would take. We would go from one end to the other, so the range is anything from cities to potentially wildlife in the north. If there would be no wildlife in the mix, I'd take the 35-100mm as my long lens and that'll be it. The 50-200mm would be the perfect lens for wildlife (barring the 150-400mm which will stay at home), but I don't really like the idea of carrying it around for two months.
Hence, I'm thinking about the 40-150mm f/4. But I can't find much reliable information about it in terms of how it compares with the other lenses, how fast it focuses, how it renders, whether f/4 is doable and whether that lens could realistically do double duty as a short wildlife lens AND a useful city long zoom.
So, I'm looking for insights from any and all of you who have used that lens and other lenses or know of places where they're discussed in terms of usability etc, instead of as mostly test scores. ...Show more →
John,
If you are concerned about low light shooting, the Pany 35-100mm f/2.8 is a 'shoo-in' in my opinion. If really low light situations are not that big a consideration, I would highly recommend considering the Panasonic PZ 45-175mm f/4-5.6. These are available used from MPB in 'Like new' to 'Excellent' condition for about $300.
It's an internal zoom and uses electronic zoom either by zoom ring, or by zoom lever. It weighs a paltry 7.4oz.
Mine is ridiculously sharp for a lens of this size and price, focuses fast, and is my 'long' travel lens where wildlife is not the object. The attached shots were done with mine -- I would not part with it.
Greg
E-M1X LUMIX G VARIO PZ 45-175/F4.0-5.6 lens45mmf/5.61/30s400 ISO-0.3 EV
E-M1X LUMIX G VARIO PZ 45-175/F4.0-5.6 lens175mmf/6.31/320s200 ISO0.0 EV
E-M1X LUMIX G VARIO PZ 45-175/F4.0-5.6 lens163mmf/8.01/640s200 ISO-1.3 EV
johnvanr wrote:
If there would be no wildlife in the mix, I'd take the 35-100mm as my long lens and that'll be it. The 50-200mm would be the perfect lens for wildlife (barring the 150-400mm which will stay at home), but I don't really like the idea of carrying it around for two months.
Personally, because the major cities in JPN are jammed tight everywhere, I'd just take the 35-100 f2.8. But, it's your trip and your decision.
I've been to JPN many times. I often do this. Send what I need to my known hotel in advance. When I'm done, send it to my final hotel (or to the airport, via the luggage delivery service). No need to lug something around the entire time.
A caveat with luggage delivery service. Of course, it'll only be delivered to your local airport. So, if you're up north, it won't be delivered to Narita. Holding it at the airport is free (and at hotels, too. I've never been charged.) but there may be a time limit.
I had the 35-100 f2.8 and loved it, but the 40-150 is even sharper and of course has a longer reach. It's an outstanding lens and not very heavy. Highly recommend.
I pair it with the 12-45 f4 pro and 20 mm f1.4, for a very versatile setup. Frankly, sometimes the latter are the only two I bring, asI'm not really a telefoto guy.
