Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by jederick, Aug 11, 2017.
the 45-175 for overall performance and photo quality?
They are close, but I would favor the 45-150
Check DXOMark, Photozone and other review sites.
DXO scores them close, but when you look at the field maps, the 45-150 pulls ahead (slightly), and the 45-175 shows greater CA in general.
Photozone also notes the high level of CA on the 175.
The 175 is an older design and, IIRC, when it first came out, it's IS didn't test as well as claimed. I've never heard a complaint about the 150. (edit -- this problem looks to have been solved on the 175)
For me, the 175 is also overly long for packing. I prefer as small as I can get
The one thing the 175 gives you is power zoom in video. I'm a stills shooter, so I don't care, YMMV.
Unless you must have power zoom, I don't see any reason to select the 175. If you need power zoom, then it's reversed, and if you are running a Panny body, you won't have CA issues. If you are running an Oly body, you might (depends on which Oly)
One thing to consider is that the 45-175 does not extend when zooming.
This makes it more robust and less intrusive in use.
I also am less concerned about using it in the rain.
It's my favorite long lens to bring when traveling.
I think the image quality is really quite good.
Have a look at the dedicated image thread on this forum.
Reviews are all good and fine, but at the end of the days I'm looking at pictures not charts...
Ah, didn't realize it didn't extend. That's a plus. Is it at least lightly WR? That would be enough to be a reason to buy it.
But, there was some kind of shutter/IS issue with this lens.
See Panasonic 45-175, GM1 and OIS shutter shock: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
and you can Google for more.
Perhaps later shutters have corrected this, or firmware updates, or it was a non-issue, but it was prevalently discussed when the lens first came out.
edit -- I did some digging and found some threads that indicate this IS issue (which was really a shutter shock issue) seems to be sorted out, so it sounds like this is an old issue.
I don't think I would call it weather resistant, but with fewer things moving (on the outside) it's less likely for water to make it in.
I definitely would not submerge the lens, but mine has made it through a few showers without ill effect.
You could even tape a plastic bag around the entire lens and use the power zoom switch (through the bag) if you were so inclined.
With noting extending this should give you a fairly weatherproof setup, but I used mine just as is...
I've owned both, and FAR preferred the 45-175, for a few reasons:
It has a 46mm filter thread, which allows you to share filters with 14-42 II kit lens (I owned that at the same time)
The PZ functionality enabled it to display the current focal length on the LCD & EVF. So if you knew you wanted a specific focal length, you could easily achieve that
The PZ feature didn't behave like a traditional PZ. When turning the zoom ring, it was VERY fast to respond, not lethargic like your typical PZ on a compact or bridge camera
It doesn't extend while zooming.
It's part of Panasonic's "X" series of lenses, which supposedly had better coatings than the typical lenses. I've never found definitive evidence to corroborate that, but that's what I'd read
Thank You everyone for taking the time to respond...appreciate your your efforts and ideas. Is there another lens in this focal I should be considering?
45-175: If you shoot JPGs, CA is a none issue since it's removed in the JPG processing (Just about all the Oly bodies sine the E-M5). Most RAW processors can also be configured to automatically remove it. I've had one for years and like it very much. Since I primarily use Olympus bodies, I don't care about the in lens IS.
I can't find a link that documents this. Do you have a source?
Edit: Found it, but its the em1, not the em5. Dont know about the omd or em5 ii
Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review
I guess ca correction is part of trupic vii
Olympus OM-D E-M10 Review
Please consider disabling your ad blocker for our website.
We rely on ad revenue to pay for image hosting and to keep the site speedy.
Or subscribe for $5 per year to remove all ads and support our efforts.