Let go of 45-150mm?

I am wondering about letting go of my 45-150 mm Panasonic M43 lens.

I have the Panasonic G7 with these lenses:

• kit 14-42mm
• 25mm 1.7
• 100-300 mm

The telephoto lens covers the 100-150 range of the 45-150mm lens and more.

When travelling, I find I have been leaving the 45-150mm home to save space in my bag.

Your thoughts?

Personally, I would keep it.

I take a lot of photos between 43-99mms.

Having overlapping lenses is a good thing IMO.

Maybe get another slightly bigger bag? I have bags and hard cases for every situation, accumulated over 60 years of photography. From tiny (Thinktank Traveler 10) up to small suitcase size aluminium cases. Most get used at least annually ...

I find the 45-150 range more useful than my 75-300 when traveling.  In fact the 75-300 only for air show(e.g. Blue Angels) or national/state parks (bear-, elk-spotting...)

It also helps that the 45-150 is incredibly sharp for its class.

stargawker wrote:

I am wondering about letting go of my 45-150 mm Panasonic M43 lens.

Your thoughts?

If you let go, make sure it isn't attached to a body and doesn't have far to fall..... otherwise it will break and need repair.

I sold my 14-42 and my 45-150 to acquire the 14-140 f/3.5-5.6 v.i, and I think that was a great move. I don't know if you have the original 14-42 (52mm filter size) which kinda sucks in my opinion, or the later one (46mm filter size) which is smaller and better, but the image quality of the 14-140 equals the latter and the 45-150, and it's great to basically have both in one lens.

With the 14-140, you might find that you're leaving the 100-300 home on a lot of outings.

If you're not interested in the 14-140, then it's just a question of whether you use the 45-150. For my shooting style, I'd rather carry the 14-42 and the 45-150 than carry the 14-42 and the 100-300, but YMMV.

How much do expect to get for it?

stargawker wrote:

I am wondering about letting go of my 45-150 mm Panasonic M43 lens.

I have the Panasonic G7 with these lenses:

• kit 14-42mm
• 25mm 1.7
• 100-300 mm

The telephoto lens covers the 100-150 range of the 45-150mm lens and more.

When travelling, I find I have been leaving the 45-150mm home to save space in my bag.

Your thoughts?

If you need that >150 longer reaching, 100~300 is of course the better option than 45~150.

In my case I use 45~150 to replace my 45~200 for a few reasons:

1) I don't shoot >150 too much (7~14 and 14~45 accounts for 90% of my travelling shots), so the 200g 45~150 sounds to be more advisable for me as my standby lens than to carry a 300g 45~200. I00~300 is even larger and heavier.

2) 45~150 can produce very sharp image on wide open. 45~200 (should be the same for 100~300) has to stop down to f/7.1~8 for the same result. So, 45~150 has much higher shooting envelop than 45~200.

3) I used to shoot with the ergonomically less good bodies (the soap like GX1, GX7 and GX85). The smaller 45~150 is easier to handle for good result than 45~200.

YMMV.

too cheap to let go of, I would keep it for portraits and when you have a need for it.

JaKing wrote:

Personally, I would keep it.

I take a lot of photos between 43-99mms.

Having overlapping lenses is a good thing IMO.

Maybe get another slightly bigger bag? I have bags and hard cases for every situation, accumulated over 60 years of photography. From tiny (Thinktank Traveler 10) up to small suitcase size aluminium cases. Most get used at least annually ...

I have bigger bags - actually, like many photographers, I may have a "bag" problem. My wife calls it "purse envy."

But the reason for shooting M43 for me is to make my carry as light as possible.

addlightness wrote:

I find the 45-150 range more useful than my 75-300 when traveling. In fact the 75-300 only for air show(e.g. Blue Angels) or national/state parks (bear-, elk-spotting...)

It also helps that the 45-150 is incredibly sharp for its class.

Thanks for the feedback. I used to use the 45-150 for telephoto, but stopped once I got the 100-300 zoom. It seems I am either shooting wide (landscapes) or trying to catch wildlife and birds where the bigger zooms lets me get closer.

brentbrent wrote:

I sold my 14-42 and my 45-150 to acquire the 14-140 f/3.5-5.6 v.i, and I think that was a great move. I don't know if you have the original 14-42 (52mm filter size) which kinda sucks in my opinion, or the later one (46mm filter size) which is smaller and better, but the image quality of the 14-140 equals the latter and the 45-150, and it's great to basically have both in one lens.

With the 14-140, you might find that you're leaving the 100-300 home on a lot of outings.

If you're not interested in the 14-140, then it's just a question of whether you use the 45-150. For my shooting style, I'd rather carry the 14-42 and the 45-150 than carry the 14-42 and the 100-300, but YMMV.

I have the smaller 14-42mm and like the size. I would love the 14-150mm but a little beyond my budget at the moment.

Bassam Guy wrote:

How much do expect to get for it?

Not sure at the moment. I would research what they are selling for locally on Kijiji and Facebook.

B&H Photo sells them used for around $110.

Tim Reidy Productions wrote:

too cheap to let go of, I would keep it for portraits and when you have a need for it.

I don't shoot a lot of portraits, but why would the 45-150mm be superior to my other lenses for portraits?

stargawker wrote:

brentbrent wrote:

I sold my 14-42 and my 45-150 to acquire the 14-140 f/3.5-5.6 v.i, and I think that was a great move. I don't know if you have the original 14-42 (52mm filter size) which kinda sucks in my opinion, or the later one (46mm filter size) which is smaller and better, but the image quality of the 14-140 equals the latter and the 45-150, and it's great to basically have both in one lens.

With the 14-140, you might find that you're leaving the 100-300 home on a lot of outings.

If you're not interested in the 14-140, then it's just a question of whether you use the 45-150. For my shooting style, I'd rather carry the 14-42 and the 45-150 than carry the 14-42 and the 100-300, but YMMV.

I have the smaller 14-42mm and like the size. I would love the 14-150mm but a little beyond my budget at the moment.

because of OIS (it is DUAL IS 2 compatible such that could provide better stabilization if you move onto newer Panny bodies in future) as well as DFD. The Olympus 14-150 is non IS lens on G7...

Brentbrent is correct, a 14-140 can be a perfect replacement of 14-42 + 45-150. I don;t have 14-42 mk-II, but when comparing to 12-32, 14-140 has marginally better IQ and vs 45-150, 14-140 has more observable improved IQ (although must look hard for the difference)...

stargawker wrote:

Bassam Guy wrote:

How much do expect to get for it?

Not sure at the moment. I would research what they are selling for locally on Kijiji and Facebook.

B&H Photo sells them used for around $110.

You're not buying one, you're considering selling one. How much do you think B&H pays?

Lacking, I presume, B&H's outstanding reputation, cleaning & inspection, and return policy, you'll get what, $90 if you're lucky? Pay shipping on top of that? Add the time & trouble & costs to post. What will be your profit? A mediocre 37mm polarizing filter? A cheapo 64GB SD card?

And, right after you sell it, Murphy's law mandates that someone will offer you a high paying job taking portraits of beautiful models - but you won't have an appropriate lens.

Think it through. Keep the lens unless you need the money to eat.

your standard portrait lens in this format is between 42-45mm so having the 45mm is good to have for portraits, due to not having a lot of distortion.

stargawker wrote:

I am wondering about letting go of my 45-150 mm Panasonic M43 lens.

I have the Panasonic G7 with these lenses:

• kit 14-42mm
• 25mm 1.7
• 100-300 mm

The telephoto lens covers the 100-150 range of the 45-150mm lens and more.

When travelling, I find I have been leaving the 45-150mm home to save space in my bag.

Save space? The 45-150mm is SMALL!

Your thoughts?

Why get rid of it? It's small, light, with good range and image quality. PLUS, you won't get much for it. Why bother?

I have one, rarely use it, but sometimes it's perfect. I might get $100 for it. Definitely NOT worth the effort to sell it.

I have a small camera bag and severeal larger ones.

For the small camera bag, I find the 45-150 a very useful component.

• Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 20
• GM5 or PEN-F
• 7.5/2
• 12-32
• Choice of 45-150 (outdoor) or 42.5/1.7 (indoor)
• Choice of 15/1.7,  20/1.7, 25/1.8

Tim Reidy Productions wrote:

too cheap to let go of, I would keep it for portraits and when you have a need for it.

The 45-150 is OK for outdoor portraits but rather slow for indoor portraits.

I use it for landscapes more than portraits; for portraits I have the the 42.5/1.7 which is capable of some baclground blur, and fast enough for indoor work.