pellicle
New member
hey, it saves you applying any 'nostalgic' filters in post
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!
New 'X' Panasonic lenses
- Thread starter henningw
- Start date
rgeorge911
Member
I am starting to see some nice example images from the 45-175mm f4-5.6 X lens. - previous reference removed - I had the 45-200 and enjoyed it very much before switching to the 14-140, 100-300 combination.
I am having trouble seeing how the new positive features of the X lens are a good tradeoff for any loss of IQ:
DMC-365 - My Year with Lumix Camera Equipment: Results From New Lumix 45-175mm f4-5.6 Starting to Appear
Now, I know it's more about how the lens works for a person than specifications. But, I have trouble believing it could be better, at least for me, than the 45-200.
To those who've used it - am I missing something?
Reed
DMC-365.blogspot.com
I am having trouble seeing how the new positive features of the X lens are a good tradeoff for any loss of IQ:
DMC-365 - My Year with Lumix Camera Equipment: Results From New Lumix 45-175mm f4-5.6 Starting to Appear
Now, I know it's more about how the lens works for a person than specifications. But, I have trouble believing it could be better, at least for me, than the 45-200.
To those who've used it - am I missing something?
Reed
DMC-365.blogspot.com
Last edited:
kwalsh
New member
Hi Reed,
I couldn't find the link in your article about the 45-175 being a bit softer. Just OdzBodkinz's post with his flowers.
I did post a comparison at DPR a few weeks back:
45-200/45-175/40-150 the winner is...: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
And someone else around that time was doing some blog entries with comparisons as well.
I did not find the 45-175 to be a big optical improvement over my 45-200. More of a trade. The 45-175 does appear to handle flare better, and in normal shooting this appears as slightly better micro-contrast. On the other hand, at least at infinity focus, the 45-200 appears to be sharper in the corners and edges than the 45-175. I'm not sure one would evaluate one or the other to be better - just a different balance of optical parameters.
Now, what certainly is different is the size and weight. The 45-175 is more compact and lighter for sure. And of course the cost is different as well, but not huge in my book.
I found the 45-175 IS to be ineffective at typical shutter speeds. Does well at very low shutter speeds where you don't expect perfectly sharp results, but in the 1 to 2 stops below hand holding range it doesn't help at all - same success rate turning it off.
So, the 45-175 was a bit of a let down for me. I stuck with the 45-200. It still is a good lens if you realize it doesn't have very good IS and consider the slightly improved micro-contrast to be a benefit compared to the slightly reduced edge sharpness. If size and weight matter (and for many of us in m43 land it does) then it brings a lot to the table (or rather it doesn't and that's a good thing). Still, in the end, I stayed with the heavier 45-200. It seems the QC on the 45-200 might be poor, and so for anyone that had a lemon of a 45-200 I'm sure the 45-175 is a vast improvement.
Link in my DPR post above to a giant gallery of comparison shots between the 45-200, 45-175 and 40-150 all at infinity if you are interested in obsessing over 100% views!
Ken
I couldn't find the link in your article about the 45-175 being a bit softer. Just OdzBodkinz's post with his flowers.
I did post a comparison at DPR a few weeks back:
45-200/45-175/40-150 the winner is...: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
And someone else around that time was doing some blog entries with comparisons as well.
I did not find the 45-175 to be a big optical improvement over my 45-200. More of a trade. The 45-175 does appear to handle flare better, and in normal shooting this appears as slightly better micro-contrast. On the other hand, at least at infinity focus, the 45-200 appears to be sharper in the corners and edges than the 45-175. I'm not sure one would evaluate one or the other to be better - just a different balance of optical parameters.
Now, what certainly is different is the size and weight. The 45-175 is more compact and lighter for sure. And of course the cost is different as well, but not huge in my book.
I found the 45-175 IS to be ineffective at typical shutter speeds. Does well at very low shutter speeds where you don't expect perfectly sharp results, but in the 1 to 2 stops below hand holding range it doesn't help at all - same success rate turning it off.
So, the 45-175 was a bit of a let down for me. I stuck with the 45-200. It still is a good lens if you realize it doesn't have very good IS and consider the slightly improved micro-contrast to be a benefit compared to the slightly reduced edge sharpness. If size and weight matter (and for many of us in m43 land it does) then it brings a lot to the table (or rather it doesn't and that's a good thing). Still, in the end, I stayed with the heavier 45-200. It seems the QC on the 45-200 might be poor, and so for anyone that had a lemon of a 45-200 I'm sure the 45-175 is a vast improvement.
Link in my DPR post above to a giant gallery of comparison shots between the 45-200, 45-175 and 40-150 all at infinity if you are interested in obsessing over 100% views!
Ken
rgeorge911
Member
Hi Ken,
I am embarrassed to say that I indeed didn't link to that report, and now cannot find it. Therefore, I simply must retract my earlier reference to it. Sorry about that.
I really appreciate your experience with these lenses. It seems to reinforce my thought that there's no big reason for me to reconsider my current lens choices.
Reed
DMC-365.blogspot.com
I am embarrassed to say that I indeed didn't link to that report, and now cannot find it. Therefore, I simply must retract my earlier reference to it. Sorry about that.
I really appreciate your experience with these lenses. It seems to reinforce my thought that there's no big reason for me to reconsider my current lens choices.
Reed
DMC-365.blogspot.com