Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by tdekany, Oct 1, 2013.
Picture removed due to ILLEGAL activity.
I never had any complaints about mine when I had it (except the size).
this is a fantastic lens, sure its not a 2.8 or weather sealed, etc. etc...but in the right hands, this lens can produce excellent images.
never had a problem with mine
Great photo! I'm with you on that one—my 45-200mm served me incredibly well in my travels this past year, and even as it ages and begins to zoom-creep more it's got a reserved spot in my bag for photo walks. Flexible, affordable, great quality, and entirely underserving of the flak it gets from all the nay-sayers!
I had the 45-200 and sold it for the 45-175, but the reason was size, not capabilities.
I have found the image quality similar between the two lenses.
The 45-200 is probably one of the best bargains out there. I think people forget the range is comparable to a full frame at 90-400 and even with stabilization it can be a challenge at the long end.
Beautiful colors and excellent detail. I have no complaints about my 45-200 either.
If one is a photographer, one can get excellent photos with any of the current crop of m43 lenses (excepting maybe the lens cap lens). If, OTOH, you prefer to take pictures of brick walls or test charts, and blow them up to 100% or larger on a computer monitor, you might not be happy with this lens.
That is clearly the worst shot I have ever seen, and to think, I just bought this lens....I am posting some of my shots below...oh, damn, I deleted them by accident
I don't think anyone said that this lens was terrible, just that it was unduly large and heavy compared to the other telephoto options that were available. If you don't mind carrying around a lens that is twice the bulk of the 45-175, then the 45-200 lens should be fine for you.
Hmmm - try taking a shot at 200mm, print it at a decent size and then do the same with, say, the Oly 50-200mm SWD and compare. That's where the difference is. If all you ever look at are small web-size images, then you might not see the difference.
OTOH - if the photographer is clueless, then the sharpest lens on the planet won't deliver anything but mediocrity at best. The 45-200 can produce some great shots - but it's not a great lens!
But there is a big gap between calling a lens "terrible" as the OP references, vs saying it is "not great". I think it makes perfect sense to point out strengths and weaknesses vs other lenses, I just don't think it makes sense to call lenses "junk", for example, which I saw with regard to the 12-50 the other day, unless they truly are that bad.
Do you think it's fair to compare the Panny lens with a lens that is priced nearly four times the price of the Panasonic lens?
Well, yes, because the reason that the lens costs 4X as much is because it is nearly 1 and a half stops faster.
No, it's not fair, I agree. For me, I'd prefer to wait until I could afford something that delivered the quality. I had a 45-200 and really couldn't accept the lack of contrast and sharpness at the long end. YMMV of course.
In fact, the new E-M1 now offers u43 users access to high quality longer zooms - that's a nice choice for us to have.
probably some sample variation out there. The 45-200 I had was surprisingly good, even at 200mm. Better than the 70-300 4/3 Zuiko, 100-300 Panny and the 75-300mZuiko (which I still have) at 200mm. It was no 70-200LII but I was happy to make big prints off my copy. After all the mixed reports I was expecting something to "use when I was desparate". Instead I got a fine lens that I really enjoyed pulling out.
Thanks for such a wonderful pic . I used to have this lens and my copy was razor sharp . I regret selling it as it was too heavy and big for that camera . Now with OMD EM5 it should be great .
Agreed. I've never heard this lens being put down either.
Now the M. Zuiko 17mm ƒ2.8, that lens has had its share of nay-sayers....
I have had two copies of the 45-200mm at different times which were both fine but no sharper than my 14-140mm. Given the usefulness of the superzoom versus how often I might be inclined to use 200mm, the 14-140mm has been my Micro 4/3 telephoto lens for over two years now.
We all miss posts.
I have seen it many times about this lens - In another thread, someone said the same about the 17mm 1.8 today.