Pana 45-175 vs 100-300 at long end

Tony Rogers wrote:

ikfoto wrote:

Tony Rogers wrote:

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.

Yeah, I got the same feeling by just reading reviews. And now there is Pana-Leica 200/2.8 + TC (Lenstip: "sensational").

Your journey is impressive. For now I'll try to be 'moderately happy' with a consumer grade, since I'm not yet sure how often I'll need this range of FL.

My journey was somewhat enforced. When I bought my first m43 camera (Pany G2) the only long lens available was the 45-200. I was very excited when the 100-300 was announced but it took forever to arrive. It was disappointing but, as others have pointed out, part of that was probably due to shutter shock.

I moved to a G3 with the 45-175 and that had appalling shutter shock! Some of my old test shots trying to figure out what was going on are still on dpr.

So, basically, I kept moving to each new option as it became available.

The elimination of shutter shock with new shutter designs and electronic first curtain shutters have certainly helped. However, a few months agao, I did dig out my old 45-175 (which nobody seemed to want to buy when I put it up for sale) to try on my E-M1 MkII with electronic shutter and the result was pretty much as I remembered.

As a mostly wildlife photographer, I am probably on the extereme end of the sharpness requirement as there is always cropping involved and I want to see the barbs on the bird's feathers or the scales on the butterfly's wings. Other applications probably don't need it.

This is about the best shot I ever got of a robin with the 100-300.

And this is one of my favourite robin shots with the 300mm f/4 Pro. (And I have just noticed that I had the MC-14 teleconverter attached!).

Good luck and remember, you will value the quality long after you have forgotten the price!

I see you were so careful with the 100-300 (at 286 mm!), and trying not to oversharpen. It's the composition, light and background that make it stand out. The 2nd one obviously shines with great detail.

I'm completely with you on quality and payoff. Let me just briefly walk a small fraction of your journey, 600 bucks is not a huge loss, and then straight to whatever fancy brings in the future.

Thank you for sharing your story and insight, I'll definitely remember.