Couple shots with my G3 and 45-200, not bad.....

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by arg245, May 26, 2012.

  1. arg245

    arg245 Mu-43 Rookie

    24
    Apr 25, 2012
    South Florida
    I was kind of worried, having taken some test shots with my pany 45-200mm, and not having good results. I started to think that those that malign this lens at 200mm were right, until I came home from a recent shoot, and saw these.....


    Yep, really glad I bought it! More in my gallery here.
     
    • Like Like x 14
  2. dagaleaa

    dagaleaa Mu-43 Veteran

    252
    Jun 4, 2011
    Naples, Fl
    Dawn
    I own this lens, and I really like it too! Great photos by the way....
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Uwharrie

    Uwharrie Mu-43 Veteran

    239
    May 10, 2012
    North Carolina
    Lynne Ezzell
    Love the photos. That is a burrowing owl right?
     
  4. arg245

    arg245 Mu-43 Rookie

    24
    Apr 25, 2012
    South Florida
    Yes, burrowing owl. Thanks!
     
  5. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Most underrated lens in m43-dom
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. mono55

    mono55 Mu-43 Regular

    61
    Jan 13, 2012
    Very nice shots. I've been very happy with the results from my 45-200 lens.

    Kat
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. zpierce

    zpierce Super Moderator

    661
    Sep 26, 2010
    Minneapolis, MN
    Zach
    Love the one legged shot.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. micz87

    micz87 Mu-43 Regular

    103
    May 8, 2012
    EU
    Nice shots! I'm humting for used 45-200 in good price :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    Those are marvelous...and I agree the 45-200 is a very underrated lens. I really don't see what folks bash it. I've had both the 4/3 and m43 version of the 40-150 and I think the the 45-200 is just as good (with a nicer build quality to boot).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Oct 15, 2010
    When you get shots like these, then any results less than that with the 45-200 is due to photographer error, in my opinion. A great lens.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. troll

    troll Mu-43 Veteran

    224
    Jan 25, 2012
    Don't mean to sound like a jerk after a solid wall of praising, and your photos are lovely indeed, but one doesn't judge the sharpness of a lens by looking at the images from 16MP sensor downscaled to 0.25 MP. Pretty much any lens that isn't defected would produce similar results when the photos are downscaled so much. Most modern lenses are good enough for web galleries, it's when you print large or crop heavily that the differences between "good" and "average" lenses become noticeable.

    Has anyone seen a decent comparison of 45-200 vs 40-150, with full-size examples? 45-200 is nice but it's 380g vs 190g in a hiking bag...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. arg245

    arg245 Mu-43 Rookie

    24
    Apr 25, 2012
    South Florida
    If I was to pixel peep at 100%, of course I would immediately see the "actual" performance of this lens is at 200mm. I did, and obviously, it's not going to compare to my 7D mated with my 300mm prime. I don't expect it to.

    But the images presented here look just fine on a computer screen, and they print beautifully at 11x14. In the end, that's all that matters to me.

    I had bought this lens on a whim, along with my G3. It was afterward that I began to see some complaints regarding this lens's performance at the long end. My point was that I didn't expect to see great results such as this, as presented here. I was pleasantly surprised.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Bif

    Bif Mu-43 Veteran

    380
    May 28, 2012
    San Angelo TX
    Bruce Foreman
    It's a great lens, especially at the price it's going for now. Someone on one of the other sites described it as "Stupid cheap" at $199 at B&H. Mine ran me $245 from B&H (before their price dropped) and I don't regret a penny of that.

    Those are nice owl pictures, BTW.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    I'm definitely going to have this lens, period.
     
  15. weeowee

    weeowee Mu-43 Regular

    146
    May 6, 2012
    is yje extra weight of this lens worth it over the oly 40-150?
     
  16. MarcoC

    MarcoC New to Mu-43

    9
    May 21, 2012
    It's a nice lens but my copy is definitely a little soft at 200mm. This shows mostly in dull, flat light, at infinity focus, and with low contrast subjects over 30 metres away. May I ask how far away the owl was, out of interest? It does irk me when some people chime in and say words to the effect that anyone who thinks this lens isn't stellar must say this due to user error. My response to this is twofold: (1) lens variation and duff/lemon samples do occur, meaning that while some can get a terrific, stellar copy of a lens, someone else could get a "Friday afternoon" lemon copy; and (2) just because YOU like your lens and think its great doesn't mean you're right - judgments of quality are relative anyways. I have achieved the sort of sharpness the OP shows with this lens at 100-120mm but not at 200mm in non-contrasty conditions. I've been using telephotos for 30 years so I think I have had enough practice.
     
  17. greyelm

    greyelm Mu-43 Veteran

    363
    Aug 28, 2010
    London
    Malcolm
    Great shots, I too think the 45-200 is underated. I've been using mine for a couple of months and the only issue with using it at 200 is my occasional age induced camera shake. :smile:

    I snapped this with my G3 the other day in the garden though it's not as good as your owl.



    G314-45blackbird2.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. arg245

    arg245 Mu-43 Rookie

    24
    Apr 25, 2012
    South Florida
    I couldn't agree more. And as I had said previously, my intent was not to say this lens' performance is stellar - only that in my limited use and trial, it surprised me somewhat because I wasn't sure what I would get at 200mm, given the comments I read from others.

    The distance to the owl was no more than 20 feet. These guys are used to seeing people around them, since they've taken up residence, for many of their generations, in a fairly active sports park. My technique was to approach slowly, then, while lying on my stomach, I crawled to them as slowly as possible to avoid spooking them.
     
  19. arg245

    arg245 Mu-43 Rookie

    24
    Apr 25, 2012
    South Florida
    Not sure since I don't have a 40-150 to compare it to, but the weight of the 45-200 is not an issue with me. It is a little bulky, but then again, I'm used to shooting with a gripped, full sized DSLR.
     
  20. MarcoC

    MarcoC New to Mu-43

    9
    May 21, 2012
    p.s. - your images are very, very nice and if I had shot them I would be very pleased with them, so kudos to you !


     
    • Like Like x 1