Help with telephoto lens for my g2

Started Jul 31, 2011 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
flantastic
New MemberPosts: 7
Like?
Help with telephoto lens for my g2
Jul 31, 2011

I'm trying to decide which telephoto lens would best suit me and my new g2. I won't be using it for birding, or airplanes, or anything particularly specific. It will likely be a lens that I'd carry with me on a special outing or vacation just to have the versatility. I dont think that i need an extreme telephoto, so I've ruled our the 300s. Right now I think I've narrowed it down to:

Pan 14-140
Pan 45-200
Oly 40-150

First things first.. There seems to be two of the oly 40-15s, one with the letter "r" at the end. I couln't find any difference in the specs of the lens. Anyone else have any insight on what the difference is?

Other than that, I like the idea of the oly's because of their weight and the "MSC" system...supposedly they are super quiet and wouldn't be picked up in video. The thing that I'm worried about is lack of image stabilization. Camera shake is always way worse at longer lengths, and this lens is probably not one that I'd be using for any kind of set up.... I'm more likely to be using it on the fly rather than with a tripod. Has anyone had any experience using a tele oly on a panasonic body? Im wondering if it's useable handheld and longer lengths - both for stills and video. I figure I could probably get some decent photos if I had something to lean up against, but video might not be useable at all. Though I guess it isn't all that likely that I'll want to take video of something so far in the distance that it needs a tele lens... Hmz. ?

The thing that I like about the pan 14-140 is that the minimum focus distance is the shortest of them all, and the magnification is the largest. I do some product shots and would really like a macro lens, but can't afford it right now... I thought this might be a compromise in the meantime since I'm planning on getting the tele anyway. Any thoughts on this? I'm not technical when it comes to photography, so maybe the differences are so small that they might not even be noticeable. If it isn't really noticeable and I decide I need the IS, then I'd just go for the 45-200 since it's lighter and (much) cheaper.

Thanks in advance for any advice!

ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow