Pana 45-175 vs 100-300 at long end

According to DXO, the 45-175 @ 175 mm even @ f/5.6 is sharper than the 100-300 above 200 mm @ its best f/8. Who can confirm?

DXO resolution tests, left: the 45-175, right: the 100-300

The 45-175 now also supports dual IS, and much lighter than the 100-300. So shooting the 175 @ 175 mm and moderate cropping in theory could get me pretty much close to the output of the 100-300 @ 250 but 1 stop brighter? (my targets are small distant objects, slow movement or none, light may be dim, but no weather extremes)

EDIT: trying to decide b/w the two (ver. II for the 100-300), cost is not a major issue, but are the extra weight and the need for f/8 (if DXO is accurate) above 200 mm for best sharpness worth it?

ikfoto wrote:

According to DXO, the 45-175 @ 175 mm even @ f/5.6 is sharper than the 100-300 above 200 mm @ its best f/8. Who can confirm?

DXO resolution tests, left: the 45-175, right: the 100-300

The 45-175 now also supports dual IS, and much lighter than the 100-300. So shooting the 175 @ 175 mm and moderate cropping in theory could get me pretty much close to the output of the 100-300 @ 250 but 1 stop brighter? (my targets are small distant objects, slow movement or none, light may be dim, but no weather extremes)

EDIT: trying to decide b/w the two (ver. II for the 100-300), cost is not a major issue, but are the extra weight and the need for f/8 (if DXO is accurate) above 200 mm for best sharpness worth it?

Not sure how many lenses DXO uses for its tests. As Roger Cicala from Lensrentals often points out, there can be a big copy to copy variation in prime lenses and it is even more so with zooms.

ikfoto wrote:

According to DXO, the 45-175 @ 175 mm even @ f/5.6 is sharper than the 100-300 above 200 mm @ its best f/8. Who can confirm?

That's definitely true of my copies of those lenses. That said, the superior sharpness of the 45-175mm isn't enough to make up for the longer reach of the 100-300mm through cropping.

Here's how my copies of those lenses compare.

The little fox is roughly a size of a small bird, so should give you an idea if you want to use those lenses for photographing birds.

45-175 @175mm wide open

45-175 @175 at f/8

100-300 II @300mm wide open

100-300 II @300mm f/8

And for completeness, 175mm from 100-300 II.

100-300 II @175mm wide open

100-300 II @175 at f/5.6

100-300 II @175mm at f/8

In my experience (40-150 pro vs 75-300), at 300mm, the 75-300mm is better than a heavily cropped 40-150mm. With the teleconverter that switches around, and the 210mm cropped is better.

I suspect that in general the 100-300 will be a little bit better than the 45-175 at 300mm.

I have owned both of these lenses and I would say that they are both only average. (So much for Panasonic's big splash about the new 'X' series lenses when they came out!?!).

Anyway, you seem to interested in the very small difference between two not very good lenses so I suspect that you will not be happy with either. Perhaps you should look into getting a better lens.

My journey went Panasonic 45-200, then Panasonic 100-300, then Panasonic 45-175, then Olympus 50-200 + EC14, then Olympus 40-150 Pro + MC14 and finally Olympus 300mm Pro. (Now I have written it down it reminds me what a long journey it was! eek!)

Only the last two lenses really satisfied what I was looking for. The three Panasonic lenses gave very similar levels of performance. The 45-175 was better than the 100-300 which was better than the 45-200 but who cares when they are all not sharp?

I used to use the 100-300 at f/7.1 to get the best sharpness but it was splitting hairs really.

YMMV.

I have had the 45-175 for 2 years now and have been very happy with it. I seem to have a decent copy that is pretty sharp at the tele end wide open. I still wanted more reach though and thought I would try the 100-300ii which I just picked up over the weekend. Again my copy seems to be very good wide open at the tele end.

I added a sigma achromatic close up filter and it halves the close focus distance and allows you to have a decent distance from insects at a decent magnification towards the tele end of 300.

As those shots of the fox above show you have a narrower depth of field at the 300mm end then the 175mm end of those 2 lenses which is useful to separate the subject a lil more. Keeping both as they are great considering they are consumer zooms. I love the size of the 45-175 and the fact it does not extend and its perfect when I want some discreet reach while my new lens will be for places like wildlife parks and zoos.

I do not take much notice of what tests show and prefer to try things out for myself in the real world to decide if its good enough for my needs or not because lens variation is a very real thing and have had to send lenses back several times in past before I was happy with copies. Just got lucky this time round.

ikfoto wrote:

I see that at 175 mm, the 100-300 slightly outresolves the 45-175, but I can't see any more detail at 300 mm. Was the distance different? Please note, I won't be able to walk closer to my subjects.

Yeah, those were shot to keep the same framing. Here's a comparison with both shot from the exact same position (from a tripod, no IS).

In short, I think in general people hugely exaggerate how bad the 100-300 is. In fact, it is not bad at all, even at 300mm. At least when it is used with a camera that does not induce shutter shock issues (which means pretty much every recent MFT body is fine).

d3xmeister wrote:

I used both lenses extensively, now I only have the 45-175mm. In the 100-185-ish range, my 100-300mm was a bit sharper. But it was slower to focus, slow at continous shooting, and much bigger and heavier. If fas focus, fas fps and size/weight isn’t an issue, the 100-300mm can be a better choice.

Now with DFD, a faster refresh rate, and if you have a good copy, good sharpness, the 100-300ii is much better. It is still relatively big and heavy of course.

I like the weight, feel and internal focusing of the 45-175. I also have a good copy.

Ron