Reading mode: Light Dark

My 40-150 F/4-5.6 R is no more -_-

Go to last post
H

Hitherto

Leading Member
Messages
731
Solutions
1
Reaction score
364
Location
Noosa, AU
Disappointing, my camera came loose off my tripod today. I didn't really like the lens much anyway, but the plastic mount snapped right off the lens. Kaput, lesson learned, be more careful. My E-M5 seemingly survived the impact and is still taking photos although I may need to get the sensor professionally cleaned after this nonsense, I'm not sure what it was exposed to when it fell. Luckily the lens mount stayed attached and protected most of the sensor. Stupid tripod design with a vertical/horizontal lever... The weight of the camera it was bound to do that eventually.

So I am now at a point, I need a new telephoto lens, I never really liked that lens much anyway and I wanted something longer. It seems to me that the lense the is substantially longer is the Panasonic 45-200 while the 45-175 is slightly newer, but I'm not sure about the power zoom business on Olympus bodies. How do these lenses stack up in terms of sharpness? I'm wanting something that is slightly longer and to buy another lens and get over it.

Thoughts, recommendations? Appreciated. I ran into problems with the 40-150 that it lacked total contrast, particularly on the long end. I'm trying to move away from that issue and I don't really want to replace it with something I already had.
 
Last edited:
I am leaning towards getting the 45-175, having read a few reviews on the 40-200 which say its not particularly sharp. It's not a telscopic lens, I am worried about how it will go for manual focusing though. I'm licking my wounds but my camera seems fine, and no worse for where. The lens on the other hand? The plastic lens mount broke clean off. It took some effort to remove it from my camera body once I got home to asses the damage, at least the plastic leans mount protected the actual camera mount on the body.
 
Last edited:
If I were in your situation, I would probably consider the 14-150 II.

The 75-300 is nice, too. It's big, though.

I have the 45-200 and wouldn't recommend it wholeheartedly. It's somewhat soft at the long end and also quite large and heavy.

As far as I know, Olympus will fix your 40-150 for a fixed price that is slightly lower than the cost of a new one.
 
I'm also considering the 75-300. It seems there's nothing much really in the 45-(xxx) range that is decent. I never really liked my 40-150 wholeheartedly anyway. It lacked contrast, particularly on the long end when using it for landscape shots that goes beyond just atmospheric degradation. So far the 45-175 is a contender, as is the 75-300. The 14-150 is interesting, all be it I was hoping to get something slightly longer.

I'm not really interested in having the lens repaired. I could probably find a cheaper lens online anyway. I'm not particularly interested in the Olympus 40-150, its OK, but I've never fully grown comfortable with its shortcomings despite its cheap and cheerful price. This is somewhat of an excuse to get something better and longer. One way or the other.

A new weather sealed 14-150 would go well with my E-M5. Although the price is a bit higher than fishing around in the $100-$200 range, more like $500-$600 it would actually give me a weather sealed lens I don't have.
 
Last edited:
Sad news, Hitherto. I love the 45-200 reach, but it is an older lens and somewhat heavier than the 40-150 0r the Panny 45-150. I had a lot of good results with it though -- and a lot of good results with the 40-150 when I moved to that, too.

The 45-175 is tempting; I was wanting to look at that when I bought the Panny 45-150 but nobody in Melbourne had it in stock at the time and I had only a couple of days open.

I really can't understand why Panny hasn't updated the 45-200 and why Oly hasn't produced a direct competitor. Great focal length range. I now have the 45-150 (very small and light) and 1200-300 (cumbersome) -- but would happily dump them both for the 45-200 again, preferably upgraded to a II version. :(

Great that the plastic mount saved your camera -- in part, that's what it is all about, like the plastic bumpers on your car.

DON'T FORGET -- you now only need a new telezoom, you need a new tripod. The one you have got doesn't work like it should. You said it!!!
 
The 45-175 is a sharp lens and because it is a non-extending design, it is smaller and less inclined to suck in dust as the barrel does not extend and contract. The PZ part of that lens can be completely ignored. Simply turn the barrel and the lens will move out to 175. The 45-175 is a very nice travel lens because it takes up less space and does not weigh much. Good luck with your search.
 
Hen3ry said:
Sad news, Hitherto. I love the 45-200 reach, but it is an older lens and somewhat heavier than the 40-150 0r the Panny 45-150. I had a lot of good results with it though -- and a lot of good results with the 40-150 when I moved to that, too.

The 45-175 is tempting; I was wanting to look at that when I bought the Panny 45-150 but nobody in Melbourne had it in stock at the time and I had only a couple of days open.

I really can't understand why Panny hasn't updated the 45-200 and why Oly hasn't produced a direct competitor. Great focal length range. I now have the 45-150 (very small and light) and 1200-300 (cumbersome) -- but would happily dump them both for the 45-200 again, preferably upgraded to a II version. :(

Great that the plastic mount saved your camera -- in part, that's what it is all about, like the plastic bumpers on your car.

DON'T FORGET -- you now only need a new telezoom, you need a new tripod. The one you have got doesn't work like it should. You said it!!!
Click to expand...
 
LMNCT said:
The 45-175 is a sharp lens and because it is a non-extending design, it is smaller and less inclined to suck in dust as the barrel does not extend and contract. The PZ part of that lens can be completely ignored. Simply turn the barrel and the lens will move out to 175. The 45-175 is a very nice travel lens because it takes up less space and does not weigh much. Good luck with your search.
Click to expand...
Thanks this is the type of thing that I like to here, I think the 45-175 is at the top of my list of lenses to play with, the fact that it doesn't extend actually makes it smaller than the 40-150 particularly when its extended to 300mm.

I can for most purposes just ignore the power zoom and its functions except one issue. My one complaint with it would be that from what I have seen the 45-175 does not retain its aperture settings once you turn the lens off. That's annoying, but I guess with my powered battery grip its not the biggest issue in the world to deal with. Unless you're trying to conserve battery power after a long day I don't see this as being too problematic.

The 45-200 is completely off the list, from what I gather its neither a sharp lens, nor has it been updated since 2008. I can't understand why when it provides a usefully greater focal length than the 45-150. That makes you and me both perplexed Geoffery.
 
Last edited:
This sucks. Good thing the camera survived this. With a heavier lens with more sturdy mount area, this might have ended with damage to the mount on the camera side. That would be the end of your E-M5.

Getting another 40-150 would probably be the cheapest way out, I think.

But Panasonic 45-175 seems like an interesting option. From what I remember when I was researching telephoto lenses, its biggest advantage in terms of IQ is that it seems to be optimised for longer focal lengths. So up to around 100mm the cheap Oly might perform similarly or even better, but near the end, the difference is supposedly pretty big in favour of Panasonic. All internal action is a nice bonus as well.

And have you thought about Oly 75-300? In the 75-200mm range, it's supposed to be on par or even better than those other zooms, and only falls apart beyond 200mm. Unfortunately, it's no longer so compact and lightweight.
 
The mount and ribbon cable are available from Lutron, only need a small screwdriver to do the transplant as long as there is no additional damage.
 
Look at the MeFoto Backpacker to replace your tripod.
 
Art_P said:
The mount and ribbon cable are available from Lutron, only need a small screwdriver to do the transplant as long as there is no additional damage.

--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the rear lens element was also destroyed in the impact.
Astrotripper said:
This sucks. Good thing the camera survived this. With a heavier lens with more sturdy mount area, this might have ended with damage to the mount on the camera side. That would be the end of your E-M5.

Getting another 40-150 would probably be the cheapest way out, I think.

But Panasonic 45-175 seems like an interesting option. From what I remember when I was researching telephoto lenses, its biggest advantage in terms of IQ is that it seems to be optimised for longer focal lengths. So up to around 100mm the cheap Oly might perform similarly or even better, but near the end, the difference is supposedly pretty big in favour of Panasonic. All internal action is a nice bonus as well.

And have you thought about Oly 75-300? In the 75-200mm range, it's supposed to be on par or even better than those other zooms, and only falls apart beyond 200mm. Unfortunately, it's no longer so compact and lightweight.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the commiserations, I felt a little sick in my stomach earlier today. A new tripod is in order without a swivel head for vertical shots. That was half the issue waiting to happen. I am considering the 75-300 as I want a lens with a little more reach. It is high on the order of lenses I must find a copy of to try out.

I'm trying not to look at the 40-150 as its reminding me of what happened today at the moment. I will consider it, it is a useful lens when you need it for the cheap price, my biggest concern is not the lack of sharpness even at 150mm my issue of concern was the lack of contrast in the shots it produced particularly on the long end.

I raced home this evening at 7pm to quickly test another lens and look for any signs of sensor damage, or damage to the mount, I do not think that there is signs of either. The plastic lens mount did its job in both protecting the mount on the camera and the sensor.

I would think if it were one of my heavier metal primes such as the Olympus 12/2 my E-M5 would have been a lot worse for wear. So far its showing no signs of focusing issues, and there is barely a scuff mark on the body.

I think I crossed myself earlier this evening and said a prayer to the camera gods that at worst its probably just a $100 dent in the bank account and not an entirely new camera body also. That would have been harder to stomach.
 
Last edited:
How about Panny 14-140? It is excellent across the range, bit shorter on the long end but then you are covered from 14mm. Most of the time I have no desire to use 35-100 or 70-300 - only when I really need 2,8 or 200mm+.
 
That Plastic mount Probably saved your EM5, if it had been a tough well made lens with a metal mount , you`d likely be looking at a bent lens mount on the camera, possibly distorted body shell or mount box .

as someone posted, the bits to fix it ought not be too expensive
 
Sorry to hear about your loss. I purchased the Panasonic 45--175 and used in Quebec at a balloon festival a couple of years ago. I was very pleased with this lens, but sold it and purchased the Olympus 50-200 SWD. Anyway here is picture that I took with the lens. Hope this helps.



0102afebf2044334ba4781fa43c1628c.jpg
 
Hope the camera is safe.

Now, regarding replacements, I agree with others that a new 40-150mm II will be a far cheaper option than anything else, but if you definitively don't want to go back to it, I recommend the 45-175 over the 45-200. I didn't have the 45-175, but all I've read and heard from it are praises to its sharpness and build quality. The 45-200 is a nice, and somewhat sharp lens, when stopped down a bit, but is very heavy and large for m43 standards. Is a great reach, though. Sadly mine have fungus, and whilst I can still use it with no sharpness loss, I truly don't want to lug it around, so it remains on the dry box most of the time. Can't sell it either, since who will buy a lens with fungus?

Happy lens hunting.
 
I kind of feel like getting a new lens anyway. This is a good excuse. Others are right, if this was one of my solid lenses, my whole camera system could have been kaput. Instead, the lens took the brunt of the fall and its only cost me about $100.

I have two options that are really interesting me at the moment, and they are the 45-175, and the other being the 75-300 really over and above everything else. I'm leaning towards the Panasonic 45-175 still and that is for its small size and that it is not a telescopic lens.

What I like is being able to not worry about having that extra length in my bag when I need it, the extra 50mm would come in handy also. 300mm is often just a bit shorter than what you want and you feel the need for just a tiny bit more zoom, this may cure that at least temporarily. I think the 75-300 would really be a lens I'd get sick of carrying everywhere with me eventually, likewise the 14-150 might fall into that trap also.

The 45-175 is not that expensive of a lens, usually you find copies for about $100 more than the 40-150 R, it will give me a different perspective and something to compare to. If it isn't good I can always just move it on to someone else.
 
Last edited:
I've currently got the 75-300mm. I've had the 45-200 and the 40-150, and the 75-300 is by far the best of that trio, IMO. From 75-200, it's very good. Above 200, it depends on how picky you are, but for me very usable, but certainly not as sharp. The 45-200 is almost as heavy as the 75-300, and I think the 75-300 is better up to 200mm and the 45-200 doesn't do 300.

Like you, I was never thrilled with the 40-150, but it's cheap and light. I still have a non-r version in my closet if you're interested.
 
The 45-150 (Pana) is a great lens and if you are a little patient can be had very cheap. Mine was €125. It is much more reliable then the 40-150 I had. The 25mm extra with the 45-175mm are not really worth it I think.

I also found a very cheap 100-300mm. Which is a great lens too. It is sharp and easy to use from 100-200mm. Above that it is still very sharp but not easy to use, holding a 300mm lens steady (effective 600mm) is not an easy task, but if I manage results are very good.
 
secretworld said:
The 45-150 (Pana) is a great lens and if you are a little patient can be had very cheap. Mine was €125. It is much more reliable then the 40-150 I had. The 25mm extra with the 45-175mm are not really worth it I think.

I also found a very cheap 100-300mm. Which is a great lens too. It is sharp and easy to use from 100-200mm. Above that it is still very sharp but not easy to use, holding a 300mm lens steady (effective 600mm) is not an easy task, but if I manage results are very good.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top