I decided I want a Tele for my E-PM2

Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
620
Location
Alabamastan
I'm going to be crazy and try the E-PM2 at my son's next soccer game v. the D300+70-300VR combo. Can't decide between the 45-150 and the 40-150. The Olympus is cheaper and gets lots of compliments on it's image quality, and is much maligned about it's cheap plasticky build. The 45-150 is physically smaller although a little heavier, better build, a little more expensive, and has OIS. What has me leaning towards the Panasonic is the E-PM2's ability to use the OIS. I'm thinking the OIS will out perform the E-PM2's IBIS, though I have no evidence beyond my personal belief. Anyone who has used both (or either one for that matter) that can give me their opinion between the two?
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,427
Location
Los Angeles, USA
For longer focal lengths OIS does work better than standard IBIS. 5 axis IBIS is better than both though. I'd get the Panasonic personally. I'd also consider the 45-200 which is cheaper and the 45-175 for it's fixed barrel length.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
The Olympus is cheaper and gets lots of compliments on it's image quality, and is much maligned about it's cheap plasticky build.
What's your goal... good feels or good pics? :rolleyes: :tongue:

Actually, I like the weight and construction of the 40-150. It's a nice size for my ep4 ep3. And I really like its reach and renderings.

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


Too bad you missed the August $50 off sale, though. It's back to selling for $199.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,756
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
The 45-200 is cheap, but also a little on the soft side. I actually just sold mine in favor of a 14-140. But of the ones mentioned so far it's the only one that will come close to the 450mm eq your 70-300 on a D300 will give you.

If I need that reach again I will probably look at the Panasonic 100-300. But I also found shooting at those ranges uncomfortable with such a small camera.
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
6,505
Location
Wolfe City, Texas
The 45-200 is cheap, but also a little on the soft side. I actually just sold mine in favor of a 14-140. But of the ones mentioned so far it's the only one that will come close to the 450mm eq your 70-300 on a D300 will give you.

If I need that reach again I will probably look at the Panasonic 100-300. But I also found shooting at those ranges uncomfortable with such a small camera.
I decided to get the 100-300 for the extra reach and what i think to be a little better lens - I did get the 45-200 and my experience with it matches your statement, it's not bad, but not as good as some others. I've used it on the E-PL5 but not likely to again, I really need the viewfinder up to my face with a longer lens. Still got the 45-200, plan on getting rid of it.

One of the few shots I took with the 45-200

P3309653_ by Michael Presley, on Flickr


P3057800_ by Michael Presley, on Flickr
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom