Panny 45-200 alternatives please?

[NickLeon]

Since changing over to my G1 i have been very pleased with the performance of the 14-45 kit lens, but now I'd like to get something with more reach. The obvious choice is the 45-200 but are there any alternatives in a similar price range that I should be considering?

 

[everythingsablur]

The 45-200 has long been a very good value for the money. Your only other options really are going to be the new 100-300 (which will likely cost a fair bit more, but give you even farther reach), or the existing 14-140 HD that has shipped with the GH1 since release (expensive but gives you a wider angle near end).

Olympus lenses are generally not a good option for Panasonic body owners at the longer focal lengths as they lack OIS.

 

[BillN]

you can usually pick a good 45 200mm used as some people like them and some don't

At the price with AF it is not bad and at the price if you want AF M43 there is little alternative

I'd give one a go used and if you don't like it you can always sell it

When the light is good the lens is reasonable and you (should) be pleased

I have mixed feelings, but have kept mine and usually take it with me "in the bag"

 

[texascbx]

45-200 I worth the money. And it's really pretty cheap compared to some other lenses.

 

[BillN]

I'll try to post a few shots with the lens 200mm, (cropped to 16 x 9) - 200mm 90mm 45mm and 45mm

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

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

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

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

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

The light wasn't that great on the day the above were shot - the usual sea mist type weather in Southampton Water
The tele shots are ISO400 - and the wide was at ISO100 - not sure why?

all hand held from the Ferry

 

[NickLeon]

Many thanks guys - such a prompt response; what a forum.

 

[shoturtle]

The 45-200 is a very good lens, works well on my olympus. And for the price it is a great value. Also you do get image stabilization. It might not be the fast AF lens out there, but it does produce excellent images.

 

[Narnian]

I have been quite happy with the 45-200. For the price it is the best buy in a lens for m4/3. I have seen them offered under $200 used.

Any other new native m4/3 tele zoom lens will cost you $500 and up off of the top of my head.

 

[drpump]

Any other new native m4/3 tele zoom lens will cost you $500 and up off of the top of my head.

Olympus have a new 40-150mm M.Zuiko for around $200. I expect that it will have similar quality to the Panasonic (no in-depth reviews yet) but it doesn't have image stabilisation in the lens and is 50mm shorter. It is extremely light and compact though (190g).

You could also consider replacing the kit lens with one of the super-zooms (Olympus 14-150 or Panasonic 14-140). Both of these are good quality for a super-zoom and match the kit lenses in most respects (the Olympus is supposedly a bit soft at the wide end). Both should be better for video than the kit lenses because they have smooth autofocus. They are more expensive though, particularly the Panasonic. The Olympus lacks image stabilisation so you will need a higher shutter speed to avoid camera shake.

 

[Narnian]

Thanks! I forgot about the Olympus 40-150. Though Amazon has it for $300. I would say that is the best (actually only) alternative in the same price range. But with no IS and a shorter focal length it has its own drawbacks.

There is a full 4/3 Olympus 40-150 with a micro 4/3 adapter for $200.

 

[shoturtle]

but you get a faster AF then the panny, there is pros and cons to both lenses.

 

[drpump]

Though Amazon has it for $300.

Yes, my memory is failing . The Panasonic is on B&H for $259 so they're comparable in pricing.

 

[playak47]

I saw this lens for $189 today at one of the online stores. But I can not find it now. Maybe I was mistaken or the search engine was not updated.

 

[shoturtle]

It sells from 259-289. Never saw it new for that little though.

 

[oldracer]

i have been very pleased with the performance of the 14-45 kit lens, but now I'd like to get something with more reach.

I sold both my 14-45 and my 45-200, bought a 14-140 and have never looked back. It is noticeably heavier to be sure, but it eliminates a lot of lens-changing when shooting outdoors.

You should be able to do much the same; take the cash you're budgeting for the 45-200, sell your 14-45, and you should have the dough for a 14-140. I actually came out a little ahead; got more money for the two than I paid for the one.

 

[Narnian]

I saw this lens for $189 today at one of the online stores. But I can not find it now. Maybe I was mistaken or the search engine was not updated.

Make sure it was not for the 4/3 Olympus 40-150 with a micro 4/3 adapter. On Amazon I thought that was the m4/3 version until I looked closer.

 

[~tc~]

I plan on holding on to my 45-200 until the promised "bright zoom" comes out

 

[BillN]

don't you need an adapter for the non M43 stuff, (i.e. Oly 43) - if so factor in the cost of that