Let go of 45-150mm?

stargawker wrote:

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.

You don't have to carry every lens you own everywhere you go.  When you get bored it can be fun to go walkabout with just one lens, a different one each time, just for the challenge.  Also, it covers a useful focal length range that you won't have otherwise.  I'd keep 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?

.. When traveling I'd go 14-140 instead.

I would let both 14-42 and 45-150 go. 100-300 id the least useful, when traveling, in my experience. I'd keep a faster prime (25/1.7) in my bag,  for the dimly lit times...

others' mileage will vary.

Eric Nepean wrote:

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.

it is fine for both settings, perhaps you want to use a  strobe or flash indoors, but it should be ok with enough light.

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.

The OP had other lenses for those subjects, but having a good zoom is nice, I could've use longer than 50mm for a couple shots last hour.

Tim Reidy Productions wrote:

Eric Nepean wrote:

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.

it is fine for both settings, perhaps you want to use a strobe or flash indoors, but it should be ok with enough light.

I've used the 45-150mm at a few concerts successfully (Carnegie Hall, Metropolitan Opera, random choral concerts in churches), by bumping the ISO a bit. It wasn't perfect, but, surprisingly, quite serviceable.

I did not say you could use this a lens for performances. but neither did the OP.

Tim Reidy Productions wrote:

I did not say you could use this a lens for performances. but neither did the OP.

I just said that it performed much better than I ever expected. I was quite shocked, actually.

The thing is, you never know until you try it. It's all about experimenting and stumbling across things. Y'know, the creativity thing. 😜

I think you need to decide for yourself.

I think I had this lens as part of a kit. It wasn't a lens that I wanted so I sold it. Yea, I didn't get much but it helped clear some room in my gear cabinet.

I'm not a fan of the cheap telezooms (like the $99 Oly) They're OK f you're starting out or if it's all you can afford, but quickly outgrown.

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?

I would say it depends a lot on what you like to shoot while on vacation and where you take it. For example, if doing mostly exotic cities, the 45-150 will be MUCH lighter / smaller thus much more luggable than the 100-300 and will do for most architectural details and street shots you might take. On the other hand, if you plan on shooting exotic critters in no less exotic scenery, then you will appreciate the 100-300.

I would personnaly keep the 45-150 since you won't be able to get more than 100$US for it anyway and it is still an excellent travel lens, preferable to the 100-300 IMHO.

AM77 wrote:

Eric Nepean wrote:

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

Hi Eric, how is the 45-150 for portrait compared with the 42.5 ?

Try it and find out?

AM77 wrote:

Eric Nepean wrote:

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

Hi Eric, how is the 45-150 for portrait compared with the 42.5 ?

The ceneter sharpness of the two lenses is about the same when the lens is wide open.

For the 42.5, this is F1.7, and for the 40-150, this is F3.5. You can get better background blur with the 42.5 than the 40-150.

Also depends where you want to take your portraits.

If you take your portraits in a studio environment, you can always crank up the lighting and put in some blurred backdrop, and the 40-150 will do, just as well as the 42.5.

But if you take your portraits ouside the studio, then one has very limited control of lighting and background. And the lighting is often poor. In this case the 42.5/1.7 is more useable than the 45-150.

Actually, any of the F1.7 or F1.8 primes beat the heck out of an F3.5 zoom in indoor lighting.

IMO an F1.6-F2.0 prime is the sweet spot for $$$ vs low light capability.

To take advantage of an F1.2 prime's wide aperture means using it wide open, and then the depth of field becomes very narrow. Found this when using a 50/1.4 and 0.71x Speedbooster combo. And you basically have to pay an extra $700USD over and above an F1.7 lens for an F1.2 lens.

AM77 wrote:

Quite frankly the zoom choice would.be:

35-100 Vs 45-150

From what I have understood, at the Focal length standard for portraits (42.5-45 = 85-90 in FF) the second one has wider aperture.

I have the 35-100 F2.8, if I was going to use a zoom for portraiture that would be my choice.

Letting go of a lens this sharp (at the long end)? Are you sure?