Lumix 45-200 vs 45-175

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by rusty2012, Jan 19, 2012.

  1. rusty2012

    rusty2012 New to Mu-43

    Jan 19, 2012
    Hi all,

    Fairly new to this- so hope it's posted in the right place!

    I have currently got a Lumix G3 with 14-42mm kit lens, which is great so far, but looking for something with a bit more zoom.

    Having looked at reviews/ prices, etc I have narrowed it down to the 45-200 and the 45-175. Price wise, there is only about £30 difference (45-175 more expensive), as I have some vouchers to use, and also the current Lumix cash back.

    However- I really can't chose between the 2. I like the extra zoom on the 45-200, yet I like the 'compactness' of the 45-175, as it doesn't extend when zooming. I've read about some problems with the OIS on the 14-175, which i'm unsure about.

    Basically, does anyone have both of these and can recommend the 'better' of the two, or can anyone provide some useful advice in this situation.

    Thanks in advance!
  2. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    It depends on what you value more, I guess.

    45-175 X:
    - Internal zoom
    - Less "girth"
    - Optimized for video

    - Can be had for cheaper
    - Apparently more reliable OIS

    One thing to note as well is that you do not have the focal length on the barrel of the 45-175 X. Some people prefer having it.

    If I didn't have my 45-200, I'd try out the 45-175 X and resolve the OIS hearsay myself.
  3. FetterSteve

    FetterSteve New to Mu-43

    Oct 10, 2011
    I'm just about to put my 45-200 up for sale.

    I's "As New" never been out of the house and only been on the camera 4-5 times.

    Drop me a PM if you want pics

  4. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    I'd be hesitant to buy the X lens until I was sure there weren't any issues with the OIS. Right now I don't think you can be sure of that. If you were going to buy from a local vendor, and could try the lens out before purchase (or return it easily) maybe it's worth trying. But if you're ordering direct from Panasonic or a web vendor with less than great return policies, then I wouldn't take a chance.

    There have beer many very good photos taken with the 45-200.
  5. pxpaulx

    pxpaulx Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 19, 2010
    Real Name:
    I don't see much point in being an early adopter of what is, essentially, a kit lens. The price of it will come down, and if it turns out to not be a very good lens, the price will drop significantly. The 45-200mm is a pretty solid, established choice...and the used market might turn up a very good deal!
  6. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    [offtopic]You seem to be using the term "zoom" for both zoom and reach. Zoom is the difference between the shortest and longest focal length. For example, the 45-200 is 4.4x zoom, while the 45-175x is only 3.9x. Reach or field of view (FOV) is used to describe the magnification or how much area fills up the sensor. A lower focal length number will result in a wider FOV and less reach, while a higher focal length will be narrower and be better for small subjects at long distances.[/offtopic]

    I have a 45-200 and it seems to always be at either 45 or 200, and usually when it's at 200, I wish I had more reach. I don't know if I could live with "only" 175.
  7. sin77

    sin77 Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 9, 2011
    I bought 45-175x eventually because it's smaller n lighter and has internal zoom. The OIS issue on my lens was rectified by the firmware update.
  8. rusty2012

    rusty2012 New to Mu-43

    Jan 19, 2012
    Thanks for all the replies everyone, some useful information.

    And with regards to the comment by "~tc~", I am fairly new to all this, and automatically wrote zoom- so thanks for the information. It is slightly confusing when you come from compacts which advertise their 'zoom', so thanks for that:smile: