Olympus 40-150mm pro or Panasonic 100-300 Lumix

[aztec]

Need to purchase lens for wildlife photography for my Olympus OMD 10 mk2 wondering if anyone has experience using these lenses. Cost wise the Panasonic is much cheaper with extra focal distance, l presume the trade off is quality of picture, loss of sharpness at the long end. Any advice greatly accepted.

 

[mikew]

The 40-150 will be sharper even if you added the 1.4 TC, the 100-300 will have more reach.I have the 40-150 and TC but i think I would say to you go for the 100-300 as reach can be king in wildlife.

 

[gad-westy]

I think these two lenses are very different and difficult to compare in all honesty. The 100-300 will be much cheaper but is an f/5.6 lens and will focus slower too. It's all about reach.

The 40-150 is a pro built, internal zoom, weather sealed, all bells and whistles fast telephoto. It's a really great lens but bigger, heavier and much more expensive than the 100-300. Personally I'd opt for the 40-150 but it depends entirely on whether that is enough reach for you (maybe with a TC it would be?).

 

[mark.roper]

Not sure how helpful this is, but I have the 40-150 Pro and despite being an astonishing lens that suits my needs perfectly (motorsports) whenever I've tried to take pictures of birds or whatever, even with the 1.4 TC, I'm disappointed with the results. I don't think there's any substitute for reach, and if wildlife was my thing, and I could afford it, I'd go for a longer lens, and the 100-300 is twice the reach for half the price.

 

[gad-westy]

Would assume the 100-400 would be more natural competition in terms of pricing, construction and performance. Maybe another one to look at if reach is the priority.

 

[Kiwi Paul]

I had both these lenses back in my m43 days, I never gelled with the 40-150, it was just too big and heavy, a great lens and I had the 1.4 TC too and IQ was excellent but even so it wasn't a lens that I ever got to lke, I had the Pany 35-100 prior to the 40-150 and the Pany was so small and light with the same IQ, although not the same reach.
I liked the 100-300 Pany, it made a great partner to the 35-100. The 100-300 IQ was fine, not as crisp as the 40-150 or the 35-100 but a good lens never the less and I always thought it was great value for money.

 

[the black fox]

I have the 100-400 and the results speak for themselves ,but I'm on the verge of getting a 100-300 so the wife can use the olympus 10 mk2 just dont know whether to go for a panasonic mk1 or mk2 or the olympus 75-300 any thoughts

 

[srhmoto]

The 40-150 is pretty much the best lens that I have ever owned. However, for wildlife I'd be looking at the PL 100-400 which you should be able to get used in pristine condition for the price of the 40-150 new. As others have said, you're really not comparing apples to apples.

 

[aztec]

Thanks for all the advice so far.
Makes me think the 100-400 May be the best option, l have not used Panasonic lenses on my Olympus, some people on the web say you can have problems with soft pictures, l believe most things can be sorted by using different settings with the image stabilisation switch on/off. It was more if their are conflicts with regards diff lenses or am l talking rubbish.

 

[Cagey75]

I have the 100-400 and the results speak for themselves ,but I'm on the verge of getting a 100-300 so the wife can use the olympus 10 mk2 just dont know whether to go for a panasonic mk1 or mk2 or the olympus 75-300 any thoughts

Get the mkII - it's weather sealed, focuses much quicker then the mk1 and works in tandem with dual IS

OP - I would get the 100-400 if you have the readies, otherwise I'd go with the 100-300 mkII - the 40-150 pro is a beauty but you're going to end up cropping a lot taking away the IQ advantage. This is with mainly wildlife in mind. If you will also use the lens a lot for other purposes, like portraiture, landscape, wider scenics or indoor sports, then the 40-150 would be the easy pick

 

[maarten.dhaese]

Thanks for all the advice so far.
Makes me think the 100-400 May be the best option, l have not used Panasonic lenses on my Olympus, some people on the web say you can have problems with soft pictures, l believe most things can be sorted by using different settings with the image stabilisation switch on/off. It was more if their are conflicts with regards diff lenses or am l talking rubbish.

The 100-400 is definitely the best option if it falls within budget.

If not, personally I would go for the Oly 75-300 MkII over the Panasonic 100-300 MkII. I've had the Panasonic 100-300 MkI but found it very disappointing at the long end - maybe I got a bad copy. Sold it and got the Olympus 75-300 MkII, which I'm much happier with. I also have the 100-400 which is better still but it's bulky and heavy (for m4/3 standards) and as such it's liable to be left at home whereas the 75-300 is pretty portable.

I use Olympus bodies primarily and haven't noticed significantly worse AF performance when I use Panasonic lenses instead of Olympus lenses. Having said that I prefer to buy Olympus glass because there are question marks over Panasonic's ability to repair lenses that are out of warranty.

 

[HarveyM]

I have the Panasonic 100-300mm Mk1 lens and as it happens also have the Panasonic 14-140mm Mk1 lens. I'm happy with the image quality from both but the build quality leaves a little to be desired. The !00-300 lens doesn't zoom smoothly and the 14-140 has loosed up to such a extent that the lens extends when pointed downwards. Both were purchased secondhand, but these issues have arisen during my careful ownership. I think Olympus lenses have a better build quality on their zoom lenses and the Company does have a proper repair facility. Maartens point about Panasonic's repairs is pertinent. It seems they simply replace a lens if within warranty, but can't offer any repairs to out of warranty lenses. I wouldn't buy an expensive lens like the 100-400mm until such time as repairs are feasible after the warranty period.