GF1 + 45-200 - does that pairing make sense?

[demiro]

Looking for some feedback for those of you who've used the Panny 45-200 on a GF1. I'm looking for one lens beyond the 20/1.7. I don't think the 14-42 or 14-45 makes much sense, but while I like the range of the 45-200 it seems like it might just be too big for an all-purpose walk around type lens.

The Oly 40-150 would be better, but I'd like stablization in this lens.

What are your thoughts? Is the 45-200 just too big for the GF1? (when I say too big I suppose I mean "Should I just carry my DSLR instead?")

Thanks.

 

[turbodieselvw]

If you're walking around, the 20 and 14-45 make a great match. The 45-200 may be a little long but then again, it all depends on what you're trying to capture.

 

[cvcabran]

My experience

I've used the GF1 + 45-200. I read some reports that the combination felt 'unbalanced', but I didn't understand what that meant until I held it in my hands. Steadying the body with your right hand while you zoom in/out with your left is difficult because there isn't enough counter-weight or grip to the body.

Furthermore, camera-shake becomes an issue at those focal lengths. Since the GF1 body doesn't have an eye-level viewfinder, you won't be holding the camera up to your face and thus steadying it. A tripod is necessary.

In the end I sold the 45-200. I still have the 14-140, but I also got a G1 body to use with that lens. Hope that helps, good luck!

 

[hillwalkinggirl]

I've used the GF1 + 45-200. I read some reports that the combination felt 'unbalanced', but I didn't understand what that meant until I held it in my hands. Steadying the body with your right hand while you zoom in/out with your left is difficult because there isn't enough counter-weight or grip to the body.

Furthermore, camera-shake becomes an issue at those focal lengths. Since the GF1 body doesn't have an eye-level viewfinder, you won't be holding the camera up to your face and thus steadying it. A tripod is necessary.

In the end I sold the 45-200. I still have the 14-140, but I also got a G1 body to use with that lens. Hope that helps, good luck!

I agree. I find my 45-200 very difficult to use on GF1 but it's OK on the G1.

 

[Warren T.]

Maybe it's just me, but I've had no problems using the 45-200mm with or without a viewfinder on my GF1. I do prefer to use it with the EVF, though.

--Warren

 

[hillwalkinggirl]

Maybe it's just me, but I've had no problems using the 45-200mm with or without a viewfinder on my GF1. I do prefer to use it with the EVF, though.

--Warren

I think it's easier to get sharp shots though (without a tripod) on the G1 as it doesn't overbalance the camera as much as on the GF1.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

I own this lens and a GF1, both of which are relatively new. I usually use only wide angle lenses so I bought the lens just to have some reach when I need it. I seriously doubt that I will be using the lens that much. However, the few times I have used it, the lens felt weird being on such a small body. After a while though, it seemed to be okay. I agree that a better grip on the GF1 would be nice and would make the camera and lens balance more in the hand.

 

[hillwalkinggirl]

I own this lens and a GF1, both of which are relatively new. I usually use only wide angle lenses so I bought the lens just to have some reach when I need it. I seriously doubt that I will be using the lens that much. However, the few times I have used it, the lens felt weird being on such a small body. After a while though, it seemed to be okay. I agree that a better grip on the GF1 would be nice and would make the camera and lens balance more in the hand.

Like you I mainly use wide angle lenses or a prime macro on my Nikon for macro shots. I bought the 45-200 so that I could try to get some bird shots but I have failed miserably so far. I know it's not ideal but due to the cold weather I have been trying to get shots of the bird table through double glazed windows so I think that it's my fault and not the lens. When the weather improves I am going to give it a fair trial outside.

 

[nseika]

I used the 45-200 with GF1, albeit not that often compared to other lenses. Neutral about the weight balance, it’s something you could get used to.

But seconding the comments in DPReview, when there’s enough light, it’s actually a good lens. With enough light, getting sharp pictures handheld is not that difficult.
Used it mostly for tele street portrait and shooting close up objects. Tried with birds, but still failed misserably by distance. Old Sovyet 400mm bazooka might be more helpful ^^;;

Weight and size is often more a problem in my bag than when having the camera attached to it.
As soon as using the lens, it feels like a great burden is relieved from your shoulder (and camera bag)

 

[hillwalkinggirl]

I used the 45-200 with GF1, albeit not that often compared to other lenses. Neutral about the weight balance, it’s something you could get used to.

But seconding the comments in DPReview, when there’s enough light, it’s actually a good lens. With enough light, getting sharp pictures handheld is not that difficult.
Used it mostly for tele street portrait and shooting close up objects. Tried with birds, but still failed misserably by distance. Old Sovyet 400mm bazooka might be more helpful ^^;;

Weight and size is often more a problem in my bag than when having the camera attached to it.
As soon as using the lens, it feels like a great burden is relieved from your shoulder (and camera bag)

I'm waiting for good light to give it a fair try, but I agree that the weight seems more in your bag, especially when out trekking. I'm looking forward to trying it out for tele street portraits and I love getting shots of people when they don't know I'm taking them.

 

[DHart]

I don't have the 45-200, but judging from my use of the 7-14, 14-45, 20, and 14-140, I think I'd much prefer the 14-140 vs. the 45-200.

The 14-140 is an astounding lens with OIS that boggles my mind. I can easily hand hold the lens at full telephoto 140mm (280 equiv.) at 1/15th sec and get crisp results. Here's an example of just that I recently snapped at a party. GH2, 14-140 @ 140 (280 equiv.), ISO 2500, HAND HELD @ 1/15 sec... no NR applied.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[hillwalkinggirl]

I don't have the 45-200, but judging from my use of the 7-14, 14-45, 20, and 14-140, I think I'd much prefer the 14-140 vs. the 45-200.

The 14-140 is an astounding lens with OIS that boggles my mind. I can easily hand hold the lens at full telephoto 140mm (280 equiv.) at 1/15th sec and get crisp results. Here's an example of just that I recently snapped at a party. GH2, 14-140 @ 140 (280 equiv.), ISO 2500, HAND HELD @ 1/15 sec... no NR applied.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I would prefer it too, but rather expensive I'm afraid, for the money I'd have to settle for the 45-200.

 

[demiro]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. You've pretty much convinced me to skip the 45-200 for now. I'll take a wait and see approach with the GF1 and how often I feel I really need something beyond the 20/1.7. It's a pretty nice 40mm fixed lens camera...

 

[Narnian]

I originally bought my GF1 with the 45-200 and had little problem using it. But I also had the add-on viewfinder which helped.

Since then I added a G1 and I use it for all of my longer lenses now as it is a bit easier to use due to the superior viewfinder.

 

[MichaelShea]

The 45-200mm lens is the only one I've regretted buying for my micro four thirds cameras. It's slow and not particularly sharp at the long end. For me, the stabilisation just hasn't been enough in anything other than good sunlight. I've used a G1, GF1 and E-P1 and the former, with its reassuring grip, is the only one that's suitable for it. A dead weight for the great outdoors in my opinion, although other forum members have evidently achieved some pleasing results. I'm sure you would too, if you were inclined to persevere with it. I'm not, unfortunately.

 

[Warren T.]

For budget minded photographers, and other reasons (range, speed, etc.), the 45-200mm is a very practical alternative to the 14-140mm ($260 vs. $754). They both weigh the same according to Amazon.com, incidentally. I already have the 14-45mm, so the 45-200mm was a natural option for the tele-zoom range for me.

I'm not trying to convince you guys who have already made up your mind about it, but in case someone is still on the fence, I'm just offering a different opinion.

Here are a couple of bird shots that I made recently.

GF1/45-200mm:

http://fototime.com/45967EAB68AEB98/orig.jpg" border=0 alt="Hosting provided by FotoTime">

G1/45-200mm:

[img]http://fototime.com/A6A6469C6C18602/orig.jpg" border=0 alt="Hosting provided by FotoTime">

--Warren

 

[hillwalkinggirl]

How close were you into the birds Warren? Were these pictures full size or have they been cropped? I've been trying at about 4m away but cant get any detail.

 

[Warren T.]

How close were you into the birds Warren? Were these pictures full size or have they been cropped? I've been trying at about 4m away but cant get any detail.

I'm not good at estimating distance, but I think the Great Egret was about 15 to 25 feet away (it's a large bird). The image was minimally cropped to eliminate distractions.

The black bird was about 6 to 10 feet away. I don't think I was at full zoom for this shot. I took it of the entire bird, but when I saw that one of it's legs was deformed, I decided to crop closer and only show the bird's head and body.

--Warren

 

[hillwalkinggirl]

Thanks Warren

 

[~tc~]

I have the 20 and the 45-200 for my gf1 and I like it. ANY 400mm equiv lens is going to be hard to hand hold - this one is no different. I rarely, if ever, "miss" having coverage in the 20-45 gap. That said, I DO miss some shots because 45 isn't wide enough - for my travel photography, the super zoom probably makes more sense.

The only complaint I have is the dim aperture. After the 20/1.7 I've gotten spoiled by bright lenses quick!

Search through my threads, there's some airshow pictures that were pretty much all with the 45-200