|
Author
|
|
DownUnderDog
Member
Registered: February 2010
Location: Drouin, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 33
|
|
Review Date: Sun March 14, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: $330.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight and compact
|
|
Cons:
|
small f stops
|
|
I brought the MTF for its size and weight. Therefore its brilliant given its restrictions of maximum apeture. If I wanted speed in the lenses I should have stayed with Canon. But no, I wanted this camera and I'm still very happy after 3 months. I'll report more after more shooting.
|
|
|
|
steve
Member
Registered: January 2010
Location: Friendswood, Texas
Posts: 141
|
|
Review Date: Sun March 14, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: $260.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, lightweight, relatively cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow AF, soft images
|
|
I purchased this lens on a whim and sold it a week later. I was not satisfied with the image quality when zoomed out to 200mm. From 45-100mm was very good, especially at f/8. But anything beyond that was not very good in my opinion. Also, the images from the 45-200 were underexposed, showed some CA and vignetting. The autofocus hunted and was often too slow to get sharp images. In all fairness, I put this lens through one rigorous day of shooting birds, taking comparison shots with my Canon 5D with a 300 f/4 and 1.4 extender. So my GF1 was at 400mm and my Canon was at 420mm. The image quality from the Canon kit was excellent, while the IQ from the 45-200 was mediocre. However, I recognize that it's not fair for me to compare a $4000 kit to a $1000 kit. But for me, I'll stick to the Canon when I want to do telephoto. So, if you don't happen to have a dSLR and L series telephoto lens sitting around the house, the 45-200 will probably be adequate and I recommend it only because its the sole AF option currently available for mu43. I am anxiously waiting for the release of the upcoming Panasonic 100-300.
------------------------------
http://www.margulisphotography.com
|
|
|
|
|
Christilou
Member
Registered: February 2010
Location: Camberley, Surrey
Posts: 217
|
|
Review Date: Sat March 27, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 0
|
|
Pros:
|
Size, balances very well on the EP2
|
|
Cons:
|
IQ at long end disappointing. Often hunts for focus.
|
|
I bought this lens after careful consideration mainly because it was the only viable offering for the EP2 at the time. I also considered the Olympus 4/3 70-300 and wish that I had chosen that instead. If I have to struggle with the focus anyway I may as well have struggled on the larger lens and eventually obtained a better image. However, having said that, it does balance very nicely on the EP2 and takes a reasonable picture at the mid range and in the best light. I will be looking to buy a replacement as soon as something better comes along though.
|
|
|
|
ccmsosse
Member
Registered: February 2010
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 46
|
|
Review Date: Sat March 27, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 0
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing lens with image stabilization
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
I spent a few hours the last few nights watching school plays - poor light, far away, high seats in the auditorium - you get the idea....
The 45-200 on the GF1 was amazing and saved the "night".
I was stunned how many of the images were usable without a tripod
Handheld at 100-200mm (equivalent to 200-400mm) with a low shutter speed.
Against all odds the images worked.
I am stunned - great lens
Great addition to my Leica (the Leica would have failed - even with the Noctilux - I was too far away from the action)
http://msossenheimer.zenfolio.com/p7...7552#h2ff17552
http://msossenheimer.zenfolio.com/p7...7552#h120bf52f
I did not regret the lens and keeping it...
------------------------------
Michael
http://msossenheimer.zenfolio.com/
EPL1, GF1, M7, MP, M9
|
|
|
|
|
nTo
Member
Registered: December 2009
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 55
|
|
Review Date: Sun April 11, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 0
|
|
Pros:
|
suitable for portraits and human interests genre
|
|
Cons:
|
less flexibility due to 45mm as minimal focal length
|
|
I am new to photography so i dont have much exprience with other zoom lenses. GF1 is my first 'non-pocket' camera. The 45-200 gives me much help making pictures i couldn't take with teh 20mm. I used it mostly to document music gigs of my friends and brother. I am happy with the image quality and the OIS feature. Although with a viewfinder i am sure i can get a more steady grip with the camera attached with the 45-200. Bottom line, i think the 45-200 is a versatile gear to complete your MFT kit.
------------------------------
_____________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/syawalianto
|
|
|
|
|
Bokeh Diem
Member
Registered: March 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 496
|
|
Review Date: Sat April 17, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: $300.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Adequate product for only a few hundred dollars, light with good reach
|
|
Cons:
|
Some viggnetting, needs a prop beyond 150mm, and a fast shutter
|
|
This is no 300mm Canon IS 2.8.... and to compare it to that is to do yourself, and your wallet, a disservice. However, people do compare the two, which in a way is kudos to Panasonic to have put something this good in such a small and lightweight package for so little money.
The trick is in the software, not the optics, according to reviews over at DPRev.
It vignettes lightly on the reach, with some CA.
I have shot it under low light conditions, fully extended, and found it to be a usable performer. Use a fast shutter under good light if you want to shoot sports activities that freeze the image. The lens itself is not quite long or bright enough for decent birding. For streetshooting pedestrian activity, it is a good choice... small(ish), discreeet, capable.
------------------------------
Seize the Light!
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian43
Member
Registered: July 2010
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Mon July 19, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? No |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 0
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, small, fast focusing on my G1.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not sharp at the long end and awful CA behind the subject on busy backgrounds.
|
|
I really want to love the Mu43 system, as I do believe it is the future. But I will need a good quality auto focusing long lens for it to be a useful system for my needs.
Having recently purchased the Panasonic G1, I then bought the Panny 45-200 for more reach - obviously expecting it would of the same quality as the 14-45 that came with the camera.
Those that have never owned a even half decent lens before, might be quite pleased with it. But as I have had many cameras/lenses and telescopes of all qualities, I can report that this really is a very nasty piece of glass.
Can I take SOME good images with it ?- Yes.
Are ALL 'types' of images taken with it good ? - NO!
It was having purchased a very cheap telescope many years ago that showed me what to look for:
When shooting a test chart the lens performs quite well, - because test charts are 2 dimensional. But when shooting for instance a bird in the trees, all the branches behind it have terrible CA (Chromatic aberation) - red / green shift.
This is normally caused (in a telescope) by using cheap glass in the main objective lens - the front glass element. Possibly in a lens as complex as the 45-200 it may be caused by not having proper CA corrected elements anywhere along the chain.
In fact this 45-200 is the only camera lens I have ever owned that produces these terrible front / rear colour shifts, in out of focus areas. - and I have bought some very cheap lenses in my time.
Shame on you Panasonic.
As this is the best quality long lens (only lens) that Panasonic offer, I am gutted. No wonder so many people go and buy 'other' brand lenses to use, even if they can only be used as manual focus only!
I write this as a warning to any serious photographers. Be warned, this is not a good quality lens and is of very limited use.
I wondered if I had a bad copy, but after reading the above reviews I think probably not.
Lets hope Sigma or Tamron will bring out some decent quality long zooms for this little gem of a camera system soon.
|
|
|
|
|
addieleman
Member
Registered: August 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 28
|
|
Review Date: Sat August 28, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice handling, effective OIS
|
|
Cons:
|
Mediocre image quality, too much focus hunting
|
|
I have this lens and will keep it until a better telezoom option comes along. At f/8 it performs well enough, but that is quite limiting even when using OIS on a G1, which I normally use at ISO 400 or less if I can . My sample has an unsharp region in the left lower corner at 45mm, it shifts out of the image when zooming to 75mm or beyond. At f/5.6 some nasty blue fringing can occur in high-contrast areas and the pictures are generally a bit flat, even at 45mm. It's a shame this lens doesn't perform well wide-open. Optically this is easily the worst lens of the Panasonic MFT line-up.
Mechanically speaking, the lens handles quite well, it doesn't "wobble" when zoomed out and the zooming action is smooth.
------------------------------
Best regards, Ad.
My pictures
Panasonic G1, 7-14, 14-45, 20, 45-200, FL-50R; Nikon D300s, AF-Nikkors 16-85 VR, 35, 50, 70-300 VR, Tokina 11-16, 2 x SB-24, Metz 45CL-3, LowePro bags
|
|
|
|
|
Micro Four Thirds User Forum
