The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Panasonic G1 45-200mm

cap'n bill

New member
There seems little comment on this lens and I haven't seen many examples of it. I didn't get one when I bought the camera and am wondering whether to get one now. Advice and pictures please.
 

Diane B

New member
Well, since no one has stepped in here, I'll take a stab at it. I bought the lens shortly after I got my G1. I'm not much of a tele shooter but did want something longer than 45mm. I find it a very nice lens--I like faster lens across the board so did buy the FD 135 f/2.8, but the 45-200 is usually in my bag. IF--you don't shoot tele much, you might consider an MF longer lens, but that would depend upon how and for what you use it. I've seen wildlife, architecture, landscapes, flora, portraits--all done with the 45-200.

I have a number of 45-200 shots in my G1 gallery--here are a few that may give you an idea of various uses.







I wouldn't presume to advise whether to get it or not, but I do like it and am not sorry I bought it.

Diane
 

f6cvalkyrie

Well-known member
Very nice shots, Diane ! I like your dog portret specially, because my parents had one toy poodle that looked very much the same ....

To avoid having 45-200 pics in 2 threads, could the mods merge this thread with mine ???

C U
Rafael
 

f6cvalkyrie

Well-known member
I forgot to mention my opinion about the lens :eek:

I like it a lot as long as the focal length stay under or around 100mm. Then it is well possible to shoot handheld, and go home with reasonably sharp pictures. Little or no motion blur.

However, if you use this lens at the long end of the focal range, I find it mandatory to use a tripod. The lens is not very fast and motion blur occurs more often than I would prefer. I find that motion blur happens more often than with a "old 35mm" lens of 400mm, probably because the kit lens is very light , and easily set in motion. Putting the lens on a tripod slows down the process tremendously, and adds a lot of weight to the package you have to carry around. Thus, taking away a major advantage of the µFT system, being its light weight.

Just my appreciation, of course, and I'm also interested in reading yours !!

C U,
Rafael
 

sangio

New member
I've had the 45-200 for about a month now, and I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about it.

Good glass is expensive, so for the price, it's a decent lens, with IS; but, it's noticeably softer than the 14-45 lens in the corners, and softens more past about 125 mm.

I decided to keep it, but I consider it to be a 45 - 125 lens, with use at 150 to 200 mm only if I really need the extra reach. If I did a lot of telephoto work, I'd probably replace it with one of the Olympus teles.

I've attached a couple of samples. Nothing artistic, I just stepped outside my back door a took a few snapshots of the doves at the bird feeder. The first is the full image downsized to 800 x 600. The next is a 100% crop from the center. This was taken as a RAW file and processed in Silkpix.

regards
Santo
 
B

bg2b

Guest
I've got one. I'd agree that it's fine for the money, but it's not going to knock your socks off optically compared to something like the Olympus 50-200mm. Of course, it's not going to break your back like the Olympus either...
 

cap'n bill

New member
I've got one. I'd agree that it's fine for the money, but it's not going to knock your socks off optically compared to something like the Olympus 50-200mm. Of course, it's not going to break your back like the Olympus either...
Well there's my problem. I have the Oly 50-200. Optically it's great but the manual focus is awful, no feel to it, no distance scale or stops and very difficult to use when things are moving quickly. The 12-60 is much better because it has real mechanical focusing. I really miss AF on the tele for wildlife and motor sport to the extent that I'm thinking of buying either the Panasonic lens or, for about the same or rather less money, an e420 body just for tele work.

Comments above lead me down the e420 route.
 

Diane B

New member
Its interesting that there are so many fewer 45-200 photos than for the 14-45 thread. It leads one to a conclusion that this lens is used a lot less than the kit lens--I wonder?!?!? I do know that I carry it less--use it less also. For my part, its primarily because I tend to shoot under 45mm primarily. Is it the same for others or are they using other long lenses??

Diane
 

scho

Well-known member
Its interesting that there are so many fewer 45-200 photos than for the 14-45 thread. It leads one to a conclusion that this lens is used a lot less than the kit lens--I wonder?!?!? I do know that I carry it less--use it less also. For my part, its primarily because I tend to shoot under 45mm primarily. Is it the same for others or are they using other long lenses??

Diane
Same with me Diane. It is a good lens, but at least so far I haven't used the 45-200 very often. Other long lenses I do use occasionally with the G1 are the CV 75mm f/2.5 Heliar and the Canon FD 85mm f/1.8.

Carl
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Its interesting that there are so many fewer 45-200 photos than for the 14-45 thread. It leads one to a conclusion that this lens is used a lot less than the kit lens--I wonder?!?!? I do know that I carry it less--use it less also. For my part, its primarily because I tend to shoot under 45mm primarily. Is it the same for others or are they using other long lenses?
I would guess it's simply because it's almost impossible to buy a new G1 without the 14-45 lens, but the 45-200 is an optional purchase... and a fairly costly one at that. So, the universe of 14-45 users is much larger, meaning the pool of post-worthy 14-45 pictures is proportionally larger as well.

Personally, I get very little use out of the 14-45 and have almost no incentive to buy the 45-200, because I'm primarily an indoor picture-taker and both of them are so dratted slooooooow.
 

f6cvalkyrie

Well-known member
Hi,

I use the 45-200 much less often than the 14-45mm
Maybe only 20% of my pics is made with that lens.

It's certainly not a bad lens, but once over 100mm of focal length, I find it very hard to make crisp and sharp pics. That means that for me, 66% of the focal bandwith is not very useful. Or I need to take a tripod.

Further, the 14-45mm performs so well in close-ups. And, it's spring time, so many flowers etc to take ....

C U,
Rafael
 

MikeScecina

Workshop Member
Terry,

Where have you been hiding that shot of the Golden Gate? If you've posted it before I surely missed it, but it's a wowzer. Among its other attributes, the framing of the Transamerica Tower in the top tier of the bridge tower is something I've never seen before. Just beautiful.

Mike
 
Top