Pany 45-200mm, long end suspect.

My experience with this lens has been generally positive. However, you do need care I think, in low light or low contrast subjects in order to get the focus right on.

M

 

Is this a 100% crop? I saw there's no original size on flickr. It looks reasonably sharp.

Are these OOC JPEGs? They look similar to my GX1 JPEGs which have a little too much NR washing out some details. OR maybe the left flower details are just out of focus.

 

I'd be more impressed with a real sharp pic of a rabbit on your lawn at 200mm from say 30 feet. I always have to MF to get a good shot in those shots with little contrast.

M

 

200mm wide open. Sorry for the harsh flash, but it was the only way to get a decent shutter speed. It was very late afternoon, almost dark.

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

 

This picture was taken inside a church with a Panasonic GH-2 and the 45-200mm.
It was taken handheld, with ISO 2500 at 200mm.
I have not used any noise removing.

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

 

Hmm, quite soft. You should have cranked the ISO up, and do the cleaning afterwards. 1/30th at 400mm is too much to ask to OIS.

 

this lens is a bargain at $200... def a good lense on a nice sunny walkabout.

 

You were at 1/30s. And 200mm. And you're wide open at f/5.6.

Without stabilization, the general rule of thumb to avoid camera shake blur from handholding is that your shutter speed needs to be 1/focal_length.

A lot of folks will also throw in the crop factor. AND this assumes good handholding technique. So, if, say, the OIS is good for two stops, then you should be at 1/100s at least.

I hate to say it, but I think it's a combination of lack of knowledge about handholding technique and minimum shutter speeds with telephoto lenses (and also possibly enforced use of the LCD for composition) that's causing most of the "issues" with the 45-200. If I stick to 1/focal_length or faster, mine's just fine.

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

G3. 45-200. @158mm iso 800, f/8, 1/320s.

 

To me it's sharp enough.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/slorenzi/6360793173/" title="Turdus amaurochalinus por sLorenzi, no Flickr">

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

"1024" height="771" alt="Turdus amaurochalinus"></a>
f/5.6, 200 mm, and ISO 160


<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/slorenzi/6352011652/" title="Moth's Dreams por sLorenzi, no Flickr">

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

"780" height="1024" alt="Moth's Dreams"></a>
f5.6, 200mm and ISO 200

 

I agree - there is nothing wrong with the long end or any part of the 45 - 200. This shot was taken at 180mm at f 5.6 and made a great 16 X 20 print which is hanging in a local bank. I love this lens and have had no problems with its ability to focus.

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