$100 45-150mm w/ G5 kit @ B&H! - Page 2

LDBecker · #11 December 12th, 2012, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoadTraveler

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, I'm sure you are correct, just not sure I want/need the 45-200 size and reach. Guess B&H/Panasonic got my attention with that $200 discount, a good tactic.

Maybe I should just buy a G5 and 35-100 that I know I want and forget the complexity of adding the 45-150. Possibly less money out-of-pocket in the long run and I'll have the complete three lens m4/3 kit I want/need [with nothing extra]. Only negative is that I will have paid full retail for the new 35-100, which looking to the past seems will drop a few hundred or more in coming months.

I have the G5 and 14-140 for a walk-around lens - the 35-100 wasn't out yet. The 14-140 is great for reach but sometimes too slow - good thing the G5 is pretty good with higher iso shots. If I were just starting now and needed a walk-around lens, the 35-100 2.8, while really pricey, would be a great, great lens to get. I had the Canon 70-200 2.8 and loved it, except for the weight and bulk.

Larry

RoadTraveler · #12 December 12th, 2012, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDBecker

I have the G5 and 14-140 for a walk-around lens - the 35-100 wasn't out yet. The 14-140 is great for reach but sometimes too slow - good thing the G5 is pretty good with higher iso shots. If I were just starting now and needed a walk-around lens, the 35-100 2.8, while really pricey, would be a great, great lens to get. I had the Canon 70-200 2.8 and loved it, except for the weight and bulk.

Larry

Surely the field of view of the 14-140 is fantastic and appealing, though I've never owned or used such a wide range zoom lens. I still own a first gen. 70-200L f/2.8 Canon, but I hate hauling it around. In fact a motorcycle assignment I took the 70-200 on a couple months ago really made the size and weight stand out. Just the Canon 5D2 and 24-70L f/2.8 is plenty large and heavy on a motorcycle. This moto trip probably unconsciously started me down this m4/3 path. I've started to use my 70-200 Canon a bit more recently, seeing what it can do for me and the images I can make with it, but I just don't like lugging it around, or even pulling it out to put on a body. I'm hoping that I might get much more use out of the Panasonic 35-100 just because it's not so large and heavy.

If it wasn't for this crazy offer/rebate to have the 45-150 for $100 above the kit price from B&H I would simply buy the G5 body and not entertain a tele lens other than the 35-100; but for only $100 extra? Even though it's slow, I can foresee times when shooting outside in good light that the added tele on the long end might be helpful. Of course I could also make an argument for waiting and just buying the 100-300 later if I needed a really long m4/3 lens.

Anyone want to help push me over the edge on the G5 kit and 45-100 by offering to buy the G5's kit lens for $70 plus shipping?

BAXTING · #13 December 13th, 2012, 01:48 AM

Hmmm I have a gx1 and just received my new G5. I also have the new 45-150 and it serves as my only zoom/tele lens.

The 45-150 is super light and pretty small considering. I do wish it had an ext OIS button, but soon I will be used to it not having one. As far as appearances go it looks great since its metal vs plastic. Im happy I got one, but I don't need more than 150mm.

I got the G5 because ive found that Ive been using the EVF on the gx1 most of the time and when using any heavier manual lenses the gx1 is not so easy for me to hold because of the weight. The G5 fixed that. Oddly enough the 45-150 was great on the gx1 because it is so light and small.

zapatista · #14 December 13th, 2012, 01:59 AM

Seems to me the 45-175mm is the best of the "consumer" Panasonic mid level zooms. I've used the 45-200mm and at the long end the 45-175mm is the only one of the 3 tested as sharp as at 45mm. I've got a decent copy. It only weighs 10 grams more than the 45-150mm and uses internal focus.

zapatista · #15 December 13th, 2012, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfj197

No, sorry, I'd have to disagree here. The 45-150 can in no way be called a watered down consumer zoom compared to the old 45-200 (which got pretty soft past 150mm anyway). It is sharper, focuses faster, is also much smaller and half the weight. I saw one review which even went so far as to say the only reason you'd look at the 35-100 over the 45-150 was if you specifically needed the extra 2 stops light gathering capability. Now that might be pushing it a bit (35-100 is weather sealed, for example) but it shows how things have come on from an IQ perspective.

Michael

The 45-150mm isn't even close to the IQ of the 35-100mm from every review I've seen and just looking at Panasonic's mtf charts (plus posted photos). There's good reason beyond the constant aperture f2.8 why the 35-100mm is ~$1100 more. The 45-150mm is just ok: light and not very good @ 150mm.

dre_tech · #16 December 13th, 2012, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zapatista

Seems to me the 45-175mm is the best of the "consumer" Panasonic mid level zooms. I've used the 45-200mm and at the long end the 45-175mm is the only one of the 3 tested as sharp as at 45mm. I've got a decent copy. It only weighs 10 grams more than the 45-150mm and uses internal focus.

You probably meant internal zooming. Both the 45-175 & 35-100 have that. At $100 extra for the 45-150 I think it's worth buying.

I'll say that I'm quite happy with the 45-175, mine doesn't get much use just because I usually use wide-angle when I travel. The 7-14 & 12-35 are my favorites.

RoadTraveler · #17 December 13th, 2012, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dre_tech

snip... At $100 extra for the 45-150 I think it's worth buying.
snip....

I think you're correct...

However, I've started to think critically about the final/total cost. Needing to buy the kit for an extra $100 to get the 45-150 lens for $100 is starting to look less appealing.

RoadTraveler · #18 December 13th, 2012, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zapatista

snip...There's good reason beyond the constant aperture f2.8 why the 35-100mm is ~$1100 more. The 45-150mm is just ok: light and not very good @ 150mm.

I found your post helpful, redirecting me to what's important for my m4/3 kit. While the 35-100 is still expensive (full retail) it's the one remaining lens I need to complete a simple three lens kit, and the perfect compliment to the 7-14 & 12-35. Those lenses and two bodies should do almost everything I need to do, until it's time for much longer telephoto.

RoadTraveler · #19 December 13th, 2012, 04:42 PM

Thanks for the input guys.

I decided against the G5 kit and 'extra' 45-150 lens. Purchased a G5 body only from Amazon.

musicmaster · #20 December 13th, 2012, 08:34 PM

Dangit! I would have bought the 45-150 from you!!!