Micro Four Thirds: Panasonic Leica 50-200 / Cheap Medium Telephoto Zoom Comparison
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 сер 2024
- In this video I compare the Panasonic Leica 50-200mm f2.8 - f4 to three cheaper zooms to see if you get better sharpness in a real world test.
Olympus 40-150 f4-5.6
Panasonic 14-140mm mk II
Panasonic 45-150mm f4-5.6
Thanks for checking out the video!
![Panasonic Leica 50-200 f2.8-4 vs 100-400 f4-6.3 vs 200 f2.8 | Sharpness Test and Comparison [EN Sub]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Czc8AQAuw8w/mqdefault.jpg)
Wow, you are doing the best reviews by far (and I've seen zillions over the years}. Clear and correct speech, covering the exact topics/ cameras/ lenses I'm interested in and following a logical, methodical, thorough process without waffle or filler. It shouldn't be rare, but it is. Hugely impressed. Having just recently acquired the Oly 40-150mm because it seemed great bang for buck and worth a try, I'm pleased to see that it did well as my first results with it have greatly exceeded my expectations. Also found your E-M1 C-AF test with f/w 4.6 to be so v. useful as I'm considering changing to that. Keep up the good work and very best wishes.
Hi Adrian, thanks for checking out the videos and for the very kind comment! I’m very flattered! The E-M1.1 is a great value on the used market. Difficult to beat. Thanks again!
Couldn't agree more. After this, the "established" reviewers begin to show their weaknesses, especially in ignoring the cheap gear and thus showing their low attitude against us, the majority of consumers. A minor gripe at Jon here is the inconsistency with the apertures used and the subject position in the frames of the side-by-side comparisons (making it more difficult for the eye to compare). Actually I am shocked with the low performance of the highly expensive 50-200. Too bad you couldn't include the Oly 40-150 f/2.8 PRO for the reference. I compared the Oly plastic fantastic with the Pana "Leica" 100-400 mm at 100 mm and was enraged to see that the Oly won.
@@Emerald_City_ thanks for the very kind comments and I appreciate the feedback on the aperture consistency. It helps me improve. I think we are pretty spoiled with the quality of the cheap glass on the micro four thirds platform. With the more expensive options you’re getting better build quality, weather sealing, improved rendering (contrast/bokeh) and faster apertures. I’ve owned and loved the 40-150 f2.8. One of my favorites. The rendering at 150mm and f2.8 was very nice. I never did a sharpness comparison with that lens but it didn’t disappoint me. Thanks again for checking out the video.
@@jonneave Watched the video one more time. There was a second hand Leica 50-200mm these days but for 10 times more than what second hand Oly 40-150 costs... it's like superstitious adoration of a brand etc. I won't be buying it, I'm giving it up. Your comparison is price-saving for a reasonably man.
Cool tutorial all the way around! Spectacular photos in the intro to boot (as always!)
Glad you liked it! And glad you stayed awake through the intro!
thanks for this! love to see these types of tests and comparisons!
Hi Nick - I’m very glad you like it - and took the time to comment! Much appreciated.
Interesting comparison in a practical situation. Keep posting!
Thanks for checking out the video and taking a moment to comment Dave! I have a few videos in the works but I am v slow at producing them! Stay tuned!
Excellent comparison, well done. Extremely informative
Many thanks Daniel!
Brilliant comparison, very well done
Many thanks! And thanks for checking out the video!
Great video. You pretty much went through every detail that i needed. Recently got myself Lumix 45-150 f/4-5.6 and im very happy with the photos considering the price. That's what i like about MFT lenses that even kit and cheap ones are made well and good optically. Thank you for the review.
Thanks for taking the time to watch the video and for leaving a comment. I’m very pleased you liked the review. I’m sure you’ll enjoy the 45-150!
Very good video. Good to see differences.
Thanks for checking out the video and for the kind comments.
You've helped me make up my mind. I'll be looking for the Oly on KEH or MPB. Thanks!
Thanks for checking out the video. These are are all pretty great m43 lenses for the money. Enjoy!
I have the Olympus 14-150mm f4-5.6 (mark I) which is quite good but not as sharp as the 40-150 f4-5.6 that I sold. I also use a 4/3 Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 with an adapter on my E-M1 with great results, far sharper than the 14-150. Great comparison, I am enjoying your videos.
The 40-150 f4-5.6 was worryingly flimsy (although I never broke one) and criminally sharp for the money! The Oly 50-200mm has a great riparian though sadly I’ve never used one. Thanks for commenting!
I loved my Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 on my Olympus E-5 back in the day. However I have the feeling that, using it nowadays with an adaptor on my Olympus E-M1 affects the focus-speed.
Its a really interesting comparison, amazing what that Olympus 40-150 f4-5.6 can produce in fairness - bang for buck a lovely bit of kit, the panasonic 50-200 is obviously better in every way realistically as you said - stop it down slightly and its out doing the oly, go beyond 150 and its game over. I like these videos, keep them coming!
Thanks very much for checking out the video and taking the time to comment. It’s been a busy summer so I need to pull my finger out and make some more videos. The cheap telezooms (excluding the 45-200) are amazing for the price. I do like the PL 50-200 as I am a bit of a sucker for build quality but I wouldnt be upset if I only got to use the Oly 40-150 or Panny 45-150. Great to have such choices!
I have the Panny Lumix 45-150 and seldom use it, only when my Panny Lumix 100-300 feels too big to take with me. Thanks for your comparison work in this video!
Thanks for checking out the video Joe. We are very lucky to have so have so many options!
Olympus 40-150 f4-5.6 is the first lens that I use to attach with my Olympus OMD EM5 mark I. Until now I'm still using it because of its sharp image.
Hey Cheiko - there's no doubt it's a great performer for the money. If you can get some separation of your subject from the background, the 150mm focal length gives very nice subject isolation too at f5.6. Happy shooting!
I have the Olympus 40-150 zoom lens that I picked up for $60 USD on MPB. II wasn’t expecting to be impressed, but I was blown over by how well it performs. Of course it’s slower and not likely as sharp edge to edge as a PRO lens, but the bang for the buck is phenomenal. I agree with you regarding pixel peeping. If you’re getting shots that you find are creatively satisfying then what more do you need out of a lens. I recently read a great suggestion, pixel peep less and print more. The sense of the quote was more about megapixels, suggesting that the pixel count doesn’t appear to be so critical when you print your images. Relating that to your lens tests, perhaps the same could be said. It would be interesting to run the same lens test and compare the images as prints versus on a computer screen.
I’m a sucker for portraits with sharp eye lashes - and the 40-150 can do that very handily. I sometime double take on pics i took a decade or more ago on a 12MP or 16MP sensor and realize it was the cheapo 40-150 that produced such nice images! An insane bargain for $60!
whats mpb
Nice job. For me, the main reason to use MFT is the weight savings of lenses. The 50-200 is so bulky and heavy that I would not want it. It’s nice to see that going with the smaller choices results in little loss of image quality. My favorite in this range in the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 that I use on my LUMIX G9. It’s more expensive than the cheaper lenses in your video but much cheaper than the 50-200. Thanks for your work!
Thanks for the kind words! One of the great things about micro four thirds is you can choose small and sharp or larger, sharper, faster and more expensive. And none are bad options. There’s an option for most proclivities. I’ve used the 35-100mm f2.8 quite a bit. I loved the size, sharpness and speed though I’m generally at longer focal lengths so it didn’t quite tick all my boxes. Thanks again for taking the time to comment.
I kind of like the idea of the 35-100mm f/2.8 or the Oly 40-150mm f2.8. There's not that much difference in price here in the UK for that extra 50mm on the long end. I've held off because of cost but also because it's partially covered by the gorgeous 75mm f/1.8, though it's fixed focal length of course. The 40-150mm fast version is heavy for me, though Robin Wong has a load of comments from people on his video insisting it's their favourite M43 lens.
Hi Dave, I have owned all the lenses you mentioned. My least used was the 35-100 f2.8 as it wasn’t really fast enough for indoor sports or long enough for my uses for the outdoor activities I photographed. The 40-150 f2.8 certainly checked the second criteria and its a stellar lens even at the long end of the zoom where I spent most of my time with it. It’s on the beefier side but I was happy with the trade-off. The 75mm is a classic and along with the 45mm f1.8 it got good use indoors where space allowed. Naturally, peoples’ use-cases vary so your choice may well differ from mine. Lots of great options! Thanks for checking out the video!
@@davebellamy4867 Many years ago I shot with an E-M1 mk ii and had the 40-150/2.8. It's one of my favorite lenses ever. That said, it's not only bigger than the Pan/Leica 50-200, but nearly as large as the P/L 100-400. It's a large lens, 6.3"/16 cm long, and for me was never quite as long as I wanted it to be.
@BrentODell I pretty much agree with your entire comment. 40-150 f2.8 has a lovely rendering even at 150mm f2.8. Great lens.
Great video!!!
Thanks Steve Skor!
Thanks for the test, can tell a lot of work and thought went into this video.
The softness at 100mm on the 50-200 is bizarre, especially considering how much it sharpens up when minimally stopped down - it almost looks like there was some shake or shutter shock on the 100mm 3.6 photo! Though you said you've repeated the 100mm wide open test a few times and got similar results?
While the 14-140ii might lose out in ultimate sharpness, I definitely think it makes up for it in versatility - wide to telephoto with less need to faff with lens swaps. It functions very well as a sunny summer holiday lens, where one can stop down to f 7.1 - 8 for maximum IQ.
Hi Eric, thanks very much for checking out the video and for taking the time to leave a thoughtful comment.
It is an odd outcome that the PL50-200 is noticeably more soft at 100mm when wide open versus stopped down to F4. Over the three tests I did I took around 15 photos at each aperture/focal length combo. The shutter speeds were 1/1000 to 1/2000 and the shutter was set to electronic. I'm going to repeat the test over the next few days to see if the 4th time is the charm. I'll try fiddling with stabilizations settings as well and see what I find.
And as for the 14-140 II its a remarkable performer by any reasonable measure!
Thanks again.
Great comparison, thanks. I think you would have been surprised & impressed with the Panasonic 45-175 f/4-5.6, which is small, light, and less than $500. I've owned two of them, and I love their sharpness. The crispness is present from 45 to 150mm, after that (i.e., from 150-175mm) the results are okay-ish but not great. BTW I'm using the Pana 45-175 f/4-5.6 on an Olympus EM5 iii.
Hey John, thanks for watching the video and for your thoughts on the 45-175. It’s one of the few mid range telephotos I’ve not used. I might keep my eye open in case one turns up cheap on a used retail site…! Thanks again.
Great video, but would’ve been nice to see comparisons at the same aperture on the PL v the Olympus (such as 5.6).
Thanks for the comments! Definitely my first time doing a YT lens compare. I’ll look to get a little more exact on the next one! Thanks again.
I’m surprised you didn’t include the Oly 14_150 MK II in your testing especially against the Panny 14-140mm, a surprising versatile,lightweight and sharpish lens that I believe matches the Oly 40-150mm in performance. Thanks for the video, a good topic to bring to the table.
Hey Michael - thanks for checking out the video. I just tested lenses I have to hand. I’ve never actually owned the Oly 14-150mm. If its roughly as sharp as the Oly 40-150 then that sounds like a very compelling lens! Thanks for taking the time to comment.
I believe the mark ii is also weather sealed.
Hi Jon,
You mentioned using the OIS in the Panny lens while shooting with your EM5, for your action shots. I know that the OIS and the IBIS cannot work together, but do they work against one another?
In your test shots, did you have OIS and IBIS turned on? Perhaps you could repeat a small subset of the tests with various combinations of OIS and IBIS stabe? And since you were on a tripod, your could try all stabe off?
Thanks for the video, Cheers, Martin
Hey Martin,
Thanks very much for checking out the video and taking the time to comment. I have been mulling doing a test along the lines you suggest. Back when IBIS was originally implemented, the lore was that it can not be used on a tripod. And another assertion was that in-lens stabilization was more effective than IBIS for telephoto lenses. I think things have moved on over the last decade or so, so I would like to perform a test as you describe to see how the Panny performs on the Mk iii in the scenarios you mention. It may take me a while as I am amazingly slow at producing these videos….!
Thanks again for your thoughts and contribution.
Hi. I liked the video, and the plastic fantastic does it again!
I got that lens early (2012) but it never really worked for me. I rather took the 75-300, for its longer reach. I think there are two reasons: the slow speed and long closest focusing distance. When the 40-150 pro came out it quickly became my favourite, due to the 'fake macro' ability. That seems to be my kind of shots ...🤷
Those cheap lenses are remarkable. There’s a quality lens for all budgets! Thanks for checking out the video.
Well done with your tests, I must admit that have put some of these lenses to one side for a while for irrational suspicions that they were a little soft. Only to re-assess the order later. Confusingly I believe there are 3 different revisions of the 14-140mm Panasonic, although two of them are supposed to be identical other than cosmetics.
Thanks for checking out the video! The cheap telezooms do have limitations as they’re certainly built to a price. But the sharpness is remarkable for what you pay. Thanks again.
Well, you have the initial "HD" version with bluish glossy finish, then the "black" version (both have the same SKU) and finally the weather sealed version. Optically they are all the same.
Nice comparison. Would like to see this done for other lenses such as the Lumix 25 1.7, Leica 25 1.4, Sigma 30 1.4 and Zuiko 25 1.8
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I don’t much shoot with that focal length so don’t have much experience with those lenses. Thanks for checking out the video.
Olympus 40-150 F28 has a buttery sharp lens that it is what pushed me towards it vs the Panasonic 50-200 mnm. The Panasonice was the origi nal intent. Excellent review!
Difficult to fault the 40-150 f2.8. I had it for many years and it produced lovely results across the frame even when shot wide open. Thanks for checking out the video!
@@jonneave I came close recently to buying a Pana-Leica 200mm. However, because its been discontinued (ridiclous) it has actually increased the cost. I wonder if they are rethinking that in regards to the new G9ii soon to be available?
It does look a lovely lens. I guess demand was too low to warrant any further production. A bit of a shame.
@@jonneave Had I know Panasonic was going to cut bait and run with the 200mm, I would have definitely purchased it. Now I am at the mercy of carpet baggers to get one :(
Very interesting video. Thank you. I am amazed the Olympus 40-150 performed so well. I have one but have never used it, although mine is the older ED MSC non "R" version (not sure what difference the "R" makes?). I guess I'll have to take it out for a spin and see how it performs.
Thanks for checking out the video. I think the R designation is simply a cosmetic change. Try it out, it’s an amazing lens for the money!
Interesting findings about the Lumix Leica 50-200mm.
Thanks for checking out the video! In my experience, the real world difference between the telephoto zooms isnt that dramatic. All great choices depending on your budget and priorities. Thanks again.
Great reviews. I have been looking for such reviews for long. I am a Olympus shoot with mainly Panasonic lenses. I am looking for a high end telephoto zoom lens, namely either the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 and the Panasonic 50-200. The Olympus one has slightly shorter reach. Also, from many review sites, I can see that the performance with the 1.4x teleconverter is weaker than the Panasonic at the long end. In addition, the weight and size benefits are really attractive for the Panny. However, the weather sealing on the Panasonic lens is worrying. All my panasonic zoom lens with weather sealing cannot prevent water from getting into the lens barrel. Just a simple test. Put a little bit of water on the lens barrel when the lens is zoomed out. Then zoom in. To my testing, all the Panny lenses pushes the water into the lenses and it stays. One Olympus lens that I tested, 100-400mm lens, can almost perfectly wipe out all the water. This gets me very upset and wants to fully move to Olympus for all my lenses.
Thanks for the kind comment. Olympus is a leader in weather proofing their gear. It’s quite remarkable. I am not surprised that Panasonic are worse than Olympus but you’d hope it would be in the same ZIP code. I will take care not to drench my 50-200….! Thanks for the warning.
@@jonneaveThanks for your reply. Indeed, Olympus has impressive weather sealing. I think there are some rain cover that only costs 40 pounds that allows you to shoot in heavy rains. No matter how reliable the weather sealing is (including Olympus), a cheap rain cover can be more effective.
That makes sense. Though, if its that wet, I’ll likely be cozily indoors with a cup of tea!
5:54 The panny picture is a bit brighter on the lighter tones. May be a little more contrasty? At 150mm.
Could be Dave. I see what you are seeing. Could be a change in cloud cover impacting the scene or maybe that lens is more contrasty. Can’t go wrong either way. Thanks again for commenting.
If you ever decide to update this review, please include the Olympus/OMS 14-150mm f4-5.6. It has exceptional sharpness from end to end, much better then the Olympus/OMS 40-150mm f4-5.6 that you tested, but the same size.
That’s a lens I’ve never used. I understand it’s comparable to the 14-140 Panasonic f/3.5-5.6 which is a solid lens for a 10x zoom. But the long end isn’t as sharp as the 40-150s unsurprisingly. If the Oly 14-150 is exceptionally sharp I’ve been missing out! Thanks for the comment and for checking out the video.
nice review. how about for video? i am interest to buy oly 40-150 for my gx85 b
Hi - thanks for the kind comment! Are you interested in the autofocus performance? I think the Panasonic lens would be the better option as it would use DFD focusing which is an improvement over regular CDAF that would come with the Oly. Also, I believe the Panny 45-150 and GX85 combo would support dual IS which would be beneficial for video.
What software are you using to compare the photos?
Hi, I used OM Workspace and the images I compared were JPEG. Thanks for checking out the video.
You repeatedly mention image stabilization, but as far as I know, with an Oly camera you have to decide to use either lens or in-body stabilization with Panasonic lenses. How do you deal with that?
I generally switch off the lens stabilization and let the E-M1 iii handle it. I’ve done some rudimentary testing and for most of the pictures I take, it doesn’t make a lot of difference as I amusing the stabilization to keep the viewfinder steady and use a fast shutter speed to freeze the action. I have a sense lens stabilization might cause soft pics when the camera shakes more than the stabilization can compensate for but this is not backed up by rigorous testing. Thanks for checking out the video.
I own the PL 50-200, and love it. Most of the images I take just seem to make sense with that lens.
It’s definitely one of my favourites in the µ4/3 system. A get compromise between focal length, aperture, build and image quality. We have some great choices. Thanks for checking out the video.
I would be very interested in adding the Olympus (OM-system) 40-150mm F4 Pro to this test; it is a lot more compact and should be very sharp...
Hey Michiel, that would be an interesting comparison. It could be a Goldilocks option…. Thanks for checking out the video and taking the time to comment.
great work. however, I think that the distance is playing its part in the test results. The longer the distance the larger the risk of getting unsharp images due to the air inbetween having (slightly) different temperatures dependent on what the surface beneath consists of (water, stone, wood, etc. and shadow and sunny areas). This will somehow "bend" the light beams ever so slightly and will give you not the sharpness that you would probably get in a lab controlled environment. Of course, this affects every lens. But one can argue that from a budget lens one doesn't expect it to be tack sharp while one finds a premium lens rather "soft" in these situations. I would say that (probably due to the distance) the best possible image quality one could get in these circumstances is worse than what a top lens could produce in top conditions. Hence, the difference between the lenses is still visable (because of different qualities of the lenses) yet much less than one might expect.
Probably you should repeat the tests with subjects much closer and / or when its cloudy, so when the air between you and the subject is evenly "heated". Just my thoughts. But good work, anyway!
Hey there, thanks very much for the thoughtful comment. I did the test a couple of times and with multiple photos on each lens/aperture/focal length in short order to control for the impact of atmospherics. Plus it was very cold which does somewhat limit those impacts. But I think you’re right that a shorter distance would be informative and better control for atmospherics. Maybe I’ll grab the 50-200 and one of the other telephotos are see how they perform at a 20-40m range. Stay tuned and thanks again for the feedback!
I'd be curious to see a comparison at closer ranges, for example wildlife at 20-30m, such that atmospheric distortions could be minimized. That said, it's impressive how well the cheaper lenses do.
Hey Brent, thanks for checking out the video. It’s a fair point you make. I believe that atmospherics were pretty limited on that day given it was a cold clear winters day. And the consistency of shots with a given lens was high (ie sharpness was similar for each of the group of shots I took with a given lens) and I changed the test lenses pretty rapidly. That’s not to say atmospherics couldn’t have played a part but I think it was a small element. But I agree, it could be eliminated with subjects at 20-30m. Maybe I’ll go bother some ducks in Central Park sometime….!
Nice lens but I'd spend a bit more and get the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 which is a superior lens because of it's speed and weather sealing and that's before you throw in the Olympus x2 tele converter which makes ir a 300m mm lens
Thanks for checking out the video Keith. I’ve used the 40-150mm f2.8 extensively for 6 years. It’s a great lens.
Definitely bigger than the PL 50-200mm, no OIS stabilization which might be a factor on some sync IS Panny bodies and less reach. It’s obviously faster than the PL at 150mm and cheaper in a number of markets. The focus speed difference isn’t something I’ve noticed - they’re both very fast.
Very much a question of picking your priorities.
Why did you not consider the LUMIX 45-175mm zoom in this test. I have just bought a 2nd hand version to replace a pristine version of the 45-150mm zoom and find the longer reach power zoom quality and the fact that the length doent change make for a superior lens!
Hi. Thanks for checking out the video. I don’t have that lens but don’t doubt it’s a nice performer! They all are. Enjoy!
should compare panny 50-200 vs Oly 40-150 f2.8 pro +mc14, that will be a better comparison, but of course the Oly pro lens are lot more heavy and also with a heavier plus the extensor weight too.
Hi James. I used to the own the 40-150 f2.8 pro lens. It’s a really nice lens. It bigger than the PL 50-200 and obviously shorter in reach, but has a fixed aperture across the focal range. I liked it a lot and was very happy to shoot it wide open at any focal length.
I’m not a fan of teleconverters. I’ve had three 1.4x converters (EF, Olympus, Z Mount) and never found them useful. They decrease resolution and light gathering for little tangible benefit. Cropping the image is a cheaper way of getting to the same place while retaining a stop of light. YMMV.
Thanks for checking out the video.
Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 45-175mm f/4-5.6
I don’t have one to hand but I don’t doubt its a capable performer.
Olympus 12-200 ??
It looks an interesting lens but unfortunately I’ve never shot with it. Thanks for checking out the video.
Hm. Think I'll buy a little (less than 4") Olympus 40-150 f4 Pro ;-)
It’s an interesting choice Hank. I haven’t tested it though it looks compelling. Great to have so many choices!
Although the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 is the better one because of it's compact design and sheer focusing speed.
The 40-150 f2.8 is a super lens from an acuity perspective as well as focusing speed and accuracy. It’s certainly not large when considered next to full frame offerings but its on the larger side for a µ4/3 lens. I had one for many years and it was my go-to lens. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
I would always strongly suggest to shoot a test chart - NO "real world" things. And especially not 1000 m away - as you cannot make sure that the air inbetween does not infect the sharpness. Like pollution, water etc.
Yeah, I don’t fully subscribe to that view point. I think test charts and real world testing are useful data points and collectively inform a user. I like both types of analyses. In my test, it was a cold bright winters day and I took a handful of images at each focal length/aperture in rapid succession so I am comfortable that atmospherics were not a significant variable. Thanks for checking out the video and I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
I think that both scenarios are useful. Especially since the real world tests can be affected by handling issues that are a real problem or asset.
Tests charts are definitive I would say but real world tests are more ... realstic.😂
I broadly agree with that comment Dave. My caveat would be that test charts will be definitive for a given focal length/aperture combination at a given distance. If the distance to the test chart were to change (perhaps a different size test chart?) the field curvature characteristics of the lens will play a role as field curvature effects vary by distance to the subject. Said a different way, the sharpness of the lens will vary depending on how far the subject is to the lens. So test charts are a useful data point. And to your your point about handling issues, I totally agree they play a part. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
@@jonneave The test how it is done is like:
2 cars against each other on fuel consumption: Driving 3 hours behind each other. At the end car 1 consumes 3l less.
= Car 1 is better on fuel consumption.
- But you have NO absolut value on fuel.
- You cannot repeat the SAME test with the same cars AGAIN, because you will never have the same traffic, road, temp, moisture, whatever.
- you have no comparison to ANY other car.
Same her.
On a test chart you can.
On a fuel test on a specific track and always on liter/100km you can.
This is why one uses standards. IF a standard is something worth for YOU is a different topic.
As we know 10mpg is no biggie in the US (= 30l/100km). 20l/100km = This car would be IMPOSSIBLE to sell in Europe!
All I can say is that rather cheap Panasonic 45-150 makes 12 years old 45-200 completely obsolete in every way: it's like two times lighter, smaller and 45-200 is sharp up to 100 or 120mm or so. From that point further zooming does not bring any extra resolution. Also my comparison between 12-35 f2.8 and 12-60 f3.5-5.6 were not decisive in terms of sharpness, I guess they are more or less equal and not perfect at 16MPix resolution (not far from being perfect neither and no one sees photos in the full resolution anyways)
The 45-150 is a very solid performer. Very nicely sharp for the size and cost. The chief compromise is light gathering but that is totally understandable. I bought the 45-200 a long time ago heavily discounted. The long end was so soft, I didnt keep it very long. And I think with fast modern zooms, you’re largely paying for a solidly sharp image wide open which was very difficult historically. The slower zooms are essentially stopped down compared to the maximum aperture of their faster cousins which helps somewhat with overall sharpness. Thanks for checking out the video!
Conclusion - buy Olympus :)
Ha! Can’t go wrong with many of the offerings. Wonderful cheap glass if you can work with the slower maximum apertures.
Not apples to apples with differing apertures? Not a good comparrison at all. What a shame, could have been great if done right. Same for Same values to compare.
Thanks for checking out the video and taking the time to comment. I mentioned in the video it wasn’t a perfect test but i think it tells a story of how well $100 lenses stack up to more expensive options from a sharpness perspective. YMMV. Thanks again.