1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

opinions on the 45-200 at up to 175

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by pcake, May 24, 2013.

  1. pcake

    pcake Mu-43 Regular

    187
    May 3, 2010
    i'd like some other opinions on the 45-200 when used at up to 150 or 175. pretty much everyone says it's soft when zoomed out, but what do you think of the pics you get with it compared to other native m4/3 zooms when the 45-200 is not zoomed to its max?
     
  2. elavon

    elavon Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 1, 2012
    Tel Aviv Israel
    Ehud
    The lens is very good, and if you need the reach and do not have the funds I highly recommend it.

    This one at 200

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ehudlavon/8478822457/" title="Top of the stick by Ehud Lavon, on Flickr"> 8478822457_3a2d1f4fe5_b. "1024" height="832" alt="Top of the stick"></a>

    At 175

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ehudlavon/8478830261/" title="I am not perfect, but by Ehud Lavon, on Flickr"> 8478830261_1d7fc2e224_b. "1024" height="768" alt="I am not perfect, but"></a>
     
  3. pcake

    pcake Mu-43 Regular

    187
    May 3, 2010
    well, that's what i thought about it, but mostly when people talk about this lens, the word that is used the most is "soft". the way i see it, it's pretty good till at least 150, so if you consider 150-200 as a bonus, you get a good budget telephoto zoom with 50 extra mm when you really need them.
     
  4. JohnF

    JohnF Mu-43 Regular

    183
    Apr 1, 2010
    Oberursel, Germany
    I also have the 45-200. I'm not sure if soft is the right description: I think rather the lens has some contrast problems at 200. In bright sunlight the results are excellent, but the moment it turns seriously gray, things go downhill. I use it as largely a fair-weather lens, moving to legacy primes when I need reach when conditions are lousy, needing a tripod.
     
  5. arbutusq

    arbutusq Mu-43 Regular

    34
    Aug 10, 2011
    This lens is pretty good for what it is. Compared to similar optics from other companies (Pentax 50-300, Nikon 75-300, Tamron 75-300) that I have used it is very good. It does lose a bit of contrast at the extreme tele end but it is actually reasonably sharp. For the price, at least what I paid for it) it is very good and exceeds expectations even at 200 mm

    [​IMG]
     
  6. madogvelkor

    madogvelkor Mu-43 Top Veteran

    937
    Feb 22, 2013
    Connecticut
    It's a good lens, but not perfect. I think if you are going to have one telephoto, that's the one to have. I ended up getting two lenses though -- the 45-150 and 100-300. The 45-150 is a better lens all around, but I think if I didn't have the 100-300 I'd really miss the extra reach.
     
  7. inkista

    inkista Mu-43 Veteran

    332
    Jan 13, 2012
    San Diego, CA
    This is just my opinion, but given the pricetag on this puppy? It's a superb lens. And I think the majority of the complaints about the softness at the long end are that a lot of folks misuse it and don't understand supertelephotos. f/5.6 @200mm will still get you out-of-focus blur; you need to use the 1/focal_length rule even with stabilization and you may want to throw in the crop factor since on a camera without an EVF, you bobble it about at arms' length to compose via the LCD, possibly with the left hand holding the left edge of the camera, rather than underneath the lens, supporting its weight (basically, plain bad handholding technique); and newbs don't know that stopping down from wide open increases sharpness on nearly any lens. Also, they pixel-peep and don't sharpen in post.

    I use it on a G3. The EVF lets me use proper telephoto handholding technique with the camera braced against my face, and since I regularly mess about with a 400mm lens on my Canon 50D, I do have decent handholding technique and I don't have to have glossy 0-noise pics (given that I shot film for decades), so I fear not the high ISO settings.

    7612305768_c9dce01896_b.
    G3. 45-200 OIS. @200mm. iso 3200, f/5.6, 1/200s. handheld.

    Personally, I think the lens is misused far more than it's soft.
     
  8. absolutic

    absolutic Mu-43 Veteran

    416
    Jan 21, 2011
    love Anthony Bourdain!

    P.S. Just picked up the 45-200 lens. I used it before with GF1 and GF2 and I remember using it at a concert in challenging light conditions and it was not a problem.
     
  9. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    Steve
    Yup. When I first got into :43: I had the original G1 with the 14-45 and 45-200. The combo worked just fine. But, after I got the 100-300, I gave my 45-200 to my neice and picked up the 45-150 instead. I just wish the 45-150 had the OIS switch on the outside of the barrel like the other lenses.
     
  10. mh2000

    mh2000 Mu-43 Veteran

    254
    Jul 3, 2010
    In my oppinion, and based on limited use of the 45-200, I found the cheap Oly 40-150 to be be sharper at 150 than the 45-200 at 150-175.
     
  11. Fmrvette

    Fmrvette This Space For Rent

    May 26, 2012
    Detroit, Michigan
    Jim
    Hi PCake!

    P5290019 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

    Taken today. Hand held, 155mm, jpg straight out of the OM-D, no post processing. Right click on the image, "View all sizes" "Original Size" to get an idea of how sharp it shows the dog's eyes; you can see the reflection of me taking the photo in the dog's right eye. It's a pure snapshot, no bracing against a wall, etc. Bright sunlight with light cloud cover in dog park; the background is a fence, suitably out of focus.

    As others have noted, at 200mm it appears 'soft' to me, although it could be loss of contrast.

    Whichever - for the price I consider it a bargain. I have the Olympus 45-150mm and I generally reach for the Panasonic to get the extra reach.

    HTH

    Jim

    *Edit: No, it's not my dog - I have no idea who's it is, there were a number of pups in the park today. Yes, I should have dialed back a smidgeon to get the dog's left ear tip into the frame.
     
  12. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    It's acceptable in the 45-150 range IMHO. Nothing to write home about, but OK. At 200 though, it's just mush and low contrast. Personally, I'd go for something else. There's nothing worse than shooting with stuff that disappoints!
     
  13. Fmrvette

    Fmrvette This Space For Rent

    May 26, 2012
    Detroit, Michigan
    Jim
    Hi dk42!

    Any recommendations?

    I'm still looking for the"zoo lens" that can replace my 45-200 without breaking the bank...

    Regards,

    Jim



    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Mu-43 mobile app
     
  14. fdifulco

    fdifulco Mu-43 Veteran

    251
    Nov 28, 2011
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Frank
    the only thing close at the moment is the 4/3 mount 50-200 non-SWD. it is a tad heavy and you may want to utilize manual focus and not SAF. we are all waiting for the ideal zoom in that range.
     
  15. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    45-200 @ 155mm f/5.2 (wide open) on a G2 iso800
    Default Aperture conversion from raw with exposure adjustment and some dodging. No additional sharpening.

    Faith.


    45-200 @ 200mm f/5.6 on a G2 iso 800
    Default Aperture conversion from raw. No adjustments.
    Lorretta.



    45-200 @ 200mm f/8 on a G2 iso200
    Aperture conversion from raw adjusted exposure, curves, color and some dodging. No sharpening.
    Water_Lily.


    It's a pretty good lens.
    Fred
     
  16. ogremage

    ogremage New to Mu-43

    2
    Jun 1, 2013
    I had it, couldn't really get any good pictures out of it. Bought a 40-150mm to use on a hiking trip, really liked the 40-150mm (despite using it on a GF1 at that time so no stabilization).

    Sold the 45-200mm; no regrets whatsoever.

    Just my experience with it.
     
  17. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Well Jim, I replaced mine with the 100-300. I think it would make an excellent zoo lens. It's twice the price though...

    I took some test shots with the 45-175 and thought that was better than the 45-200, but I've not done extensive testing. Reviews look good though. Price-wise, it a little cheaper than the 100-300.

    Paul
     
  18. Fmrvette

    Fmrvette This Space For Rent

    May 26, 2012
    Detroit, Michigan
    Jim
    Thanks Paul.

    The 100- 300 is on my list of GAS items.

    :D

    Regards

    Jim

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Mu-43 mobile app
     
  19. jimr.pdx

    jimr.pdx Mu-43 Veteran

    342
    Dec 5, 2010
    near Longview ~1hr from PDX
    Jim R
    I had never heard of it as soft until now. I felt it was as good as any handheld lens at 300mm+ equivalent imaging: if light isn't strong motion blur will cause problems. That applies to OIS, SSS, SR or any stabilization - it will help greatly but cannot do miracles.
     
  20. inkista

    inkista Mu-43 Veteran

    332
    Jan 13, 2012
    San Diego, CA
    For me, the 45-200 is my zoo lens. I'm sure a better option will eventually arrive, but for now, it's good enough for me.

    8893688486_990637b974_c.
    G3. 45-200 @189mm. iso 640, f/7.1, 1/400s.

    8893068007_7c90a69f4a_c.
    G3. 45-200. @200mm, iso 160, f/8, 1/500s.

    I still think a lot of the complaints about this lens have to do with lack of technique more than the lens itself. Compared to a $1000 L lens, yeah, I could complain; it's not a patch on my EF 400/5.6L USM for AF speed/accuracy or contrast. But for a $250 consumer grade? This thing whomps the hell out of my EF 75-300 f/4.-5.6 III.