Panasonic 45-200 vs. Olympus 40-150 (Micr Four Thirds)

<p>Amazon currently has the Panasonic 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 Lumix G Vario MEGA OIS Zoom for $199. The Olympus M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 R Micro ED and the Olympus ED M40-150mm f4.0-5.6 are selling for $299 and $289, respectively.</p>

<p>Aside from the Olympus lenses being a bit smaller and a bit lighter, is there any compelling reason to spend the extra hundred dollars, rather than get the Panasonic? Or to put it another way: how do these lenses compare, in terms of optical performance? </p>

<p>That is a good price for the 45-200. I have the lens and use it on a GH2. And I have the Olympus 40-150 on order in a package with the E-M5. I had read a few reviews of both, and optical quality seems similar. The Panasonic does lose a bit of sharpness at 200.</p>

<p>On a Panasonic body, the OIS is a necessity to me.</p>

<p>How does the optical quality compare when both lenses are at 150mm?</p>

<p>I'd be using it with an E-PL1, and possibly an E-M5 at some point down the road, therefore the OIS isn't something I need per se... but I don't see the harm in having it, especially at a $100 discount!</p>

I find the 45-200 to be reasonably sharp at 200 and significantly sharper at 150. There appears to be some sample

variation, but I'd be surprised if it was softer than the 40-150 at 150. It's only drawbacks are weight and eventual zoom

creep. It's obvious advantage is OIS, which with updated firmware is quite amazing.

<p>I have the Oly 40-150 m4/3 lens. Small, light and very decent at the long end. One thing to keep in mind about these cameras is that they have very accurate AF, because AF is determined from the image capture sensor. Accurate focus usually trumps inherent optical quality. (The Oly on my E-PL2 gives much better IQ than the Nikon 55-200VR on my D7000).</p>

<p>The Oly lens can usually be had for prices like this: http://www.cameta.com/Olympus-M-Zuiko-40-150mm-f-4-0-5-6-Micro-ED-Digital-Zoom-Lens-Black-Factory-Demo-60254.cfm</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here's the SLRGear review of the Olympus. At the end, they compare it to the Panasonic.</p>

<p>http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1374/cat/15</p>

<p>There is a big difference in size and weight between the lenses, not that the Panasonic is big.</p>

<p>Thanks, guys!</p>

<p>The 45-200mm is on a very big price reduction right now, because Panasonic is offering the lens at $199, so the other retailers are having to match it. I don't understand the mentality of the micro 4/3 companies (Panasonic and Olympus) to act in direct competition with their resellers, but I'm not a business guy, and I say we might as well take full advantage of it! I bought the 40-150mm when they were clearing them out for $100-$150 a while ago, but had this lens been available on sale instead, I would have gone for this one. I'd say pick up the 45-200mm and don't look back, but Bruce offers a compelling alternative, as that "old version" 40-150mm m.Zuiko lens is actually mechanically identical to the new version; they just rebranded it because the lens met their criteria for being an R lens. Both are just fine, although I don't think they're really worth the $300 MSRP. At $200 or less, it starts to be more realistic, especially when you compare it price-wise to the competition. I'd say that right now, even with me having the G2 and therefore no built-in image stabilization, I'd still probably go for the Olympus, not only to save 20% but also because it's smaller. Although, an extra 100mm equivalent reach (400mm vs 300mm) is nothing to sneeze at.</p>

<p>One issue to keep in mind is, if you believe the online tests, that because of the smaller sensor, you are already seeing diffraction effects at f/5.6!</p>

<p>I have read similar, and at least posted test results seem to show that. That is that at f/5.6 you start seeing the impact of diffraction because of the smaller sensor. That said, the impact seems pretty minor on most MTF charts I have eye balled. It seems to be around 10% per stop starting at f/5.6 and a few lenses do still get a little sharper as their optical quality improves when stopped further down, even if diffraction is starting to take a bite.<br>

Most lenses I have seen tested, at least for 4/3rds and micro 4/3rds are generally at their overall sharpest stopped 2 stops down (so most f/1.4 lenses are sharpest at f/2.8, f/2.8 lenses at f/5.6, etc).<br>

Anyway, again most charts, not speaking to real world, most lenses seem to be at least as good at f/8 or even f/11 as they are wide open because even though diffraction has reduced the sharpness of the image, the optical quality of the lenses is much better at those smaller aperatures than it was wide open. Most 4/3rds and micro 4/3rds lenses seem to step in to "unacceptably soft" starting at f/16 though and f/22 tends to be really bad (f/16 if you need to maximize DoF and don't mind a slightly softer overall image, f/22 only for things like macro where you HAVE to have maximum DoF, but overall image sharpness is going to suffer).<br>

My limited use of micro 4/3rds seems to back that up with my wife's E-PL1 and 14-42 kit lens. At f/16 things seem a little softer than at larger aperatures, but at anything at and before f/11 I don't really notice any softening.</p>

<p>At f/16 you will get diffraction effects. While online calculators say that you will start seeing it at f/8.4 for 12MP cameras and f/7.3 for 16MP cameras, you have some leeway before it becomes too objectionable. The Cambridge in Colour tutorial has a calculator for diffraction: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm</p>

<p>The price on this lens is back up to $280, so I guess I won't have to make a decision just yet. ;-) That's probably for the best, since I keep going back and forth between wanting an E-M5 and wanting a D7000... and the NEX cameras are looking more and more compelling. Argh!</p>