1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Whats the next lens to get for my G2?

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by hipertec, Jan 8, 2012.

  1. hipertec

    hipertec Mu-43 Rookie

    20
    Jan 8, 2012
    Got a G2 with the 14-42mm lens and a newbie. Thinking about getting a used 45-200mm or 20mm 1.7 as a second lens but can't decide.
    Reading the reviews the 20mm is a great lens but I think the 45-200mm would be more useful.
    What should I get and anything I should look into for a used lens to make sure its I good working condition?
     
  2. sin77

    sin77 Mu-43 Veteran

    243
    Dec 9, 2011
    Singapore
    Same dilemma here between 20/1.7 vs 45-175, except that I already have PL45.

    In any case, let's wait until 10 Jan to see whether Panasonic will launch new fast lenses. This surely changes the whole game.
     
  3. hipertec

    hipertec Mu-43 Rookie

    20
    Jan 8, 2012
    What is the PL45? Is it the 45-200mm lens? If so, how do you like it and do you recommend it?
     
  4. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    Dave
    PL45 is Panasonic Leica 45mm 2.8, it's a macro lens.
     
  5. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Vin
    PL45 is the Panny/Leica 45mm macro lens. Hipertec you seem pretty keen on getting the 45-200. If you do a lot of telephoto then go for it, but for general purpose shooting I would look at the Panny 20mm 1.7, the PL 25mm 1.4, and the Oly 45mm 1.8.
     
  6. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    Two completely different lenses, for two completely different purposes. You have to decide, do you want a long telephoto zoom or do you want a lens fixed at 20mm, but with a wider aperture and better optical performance? Zoom your 14-42 lens to 20mm, and walk around taking photos. If that appeals to you more than having a telephoto, then get the 20mm. If you have a burning need to shoot more objects far away, such as pets, wildlife, etc. then get the 45-200mm. There is no "right" answer, you need to buy yourself lenses that will be useful to you.
     
  7. speltrong

    speltrong Mu-43 Veteran

    338
    May 8, 2011
    Northern California
    There's actually a lot more to the 20mm than just the focal length. It opens up the world of shooting indoors without a flash, and allows for experimentation with very narrow depths of field. It also has the added bonus of making your whole rig a lot more portable and inconspicuous - moreso than any other lens except maybe the slower 14mm pancake.

    Making the jump from relying on zoom to being ok with a fixed focal length lens changes how you see the world and how you compose your shots. It can be really frustrating at first, but I at least found it's for the best. It's hard to know when it's time to make the jump... it took me 10 years to even try a prime lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is what convinced me), but once I did I really started to understand and appreciate the concept and my photos got a whole lot better.
     
  8. NZUnicorn

    NZUnicorn New to Mu-43

    9
    Oct 15, 2010
    20mm if you want to shoot in low light or want a small, light weight option.
    45-200mm if you want more reach, and don't mind the extra size and weight.

    In time you will probably want both, as each is a very good solution to a different requirement.
     
  9. RDM

    RDM Mu-43 All-Pro

    I think 1st you need to decide (and tell us of course) what type of photography you want to, or like to do. DO you tend to lean towards telephoto work, or indoor shots and family pictures. Do you carry your camera with you all the time , or just take it with you when you have an event to photograph. Take a little while and think about things, as it will determine which lens you will use more.
     
  10. moccaman

    moccaman Mu-43 Veteran

    281
    Jan 4, 2012
    Australia
    I have a question for the more experienced, how would you rate the 14-45 lens, the original zoom that is no longer in the kit? It seems to be rated pretty highly, but how does it compare directly to a 14mm pancake or say an Olympus 45mm F1.8? And what about the 7-14mm lens?

    I too am making the list of things to get, the 20mm and 45mm is on my short list, but am wondering if I should get a 14-45 while they are still floating around at a reasonable price, or do readers think there will be superior options to this coming out this year?

    The new 14-42PZ lens would have suited me if not for its poor reviews, love the size but not willing to compromise that much.
     
  11. zerotiu

    zerotiu Mu-43 Veteran

    222
    Sep 13, 2011
    Indonesia-Singapore
    those are 2 lenses with different purposes.

    20 f1.7 is for low light, 40mm equiv. Has perspective like human's eyes perspective. Definitely sharper than 45-200.

    45-200 is a tele zomm lens. Doesn't have a constant aperture.

    However, they are not comparable one another. they're apple and orange :D
     
  12. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    Dave
    the 14-45 is said to be one of the best performing kit lenses. i don't have direct experience on this but i think it's difficult to compare the zooms to the primes, each has is own advantage over the other. for me, i'll take the primes.

    for the 7-14, i think it's the best UWA for m43 to date i must say. :biggrin:
     
  13. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    It is a $300 midrange f/3.5-5.6 kit lens, and it doesn't compare at all to the prime lenses you mention, or the $1,200 ultrawide 7-14mm. It is a decent midrange lens, but don't go selling your current 14-42mm to pick one up. However, if you don't have a midrange lens yet, then consider trying to find one for $200, if you're willing to pay the premium, since you can often get an unused 14-42mm lens for $120-160. The 20mm has dropped in price as much as it's going to, unless a new version of it or the Olympus 17mm is released. Don't sit and wait, just watch the classifieds if you don't want to pay full price. Many people are unloading them and making the move to the Panasonic 25mm, which is similar enough view that it is fairly redundant to have both. Although, many have talked themselves into keeping both, as one is a pancake.
     
  14. Vripper

    Vripper Mu-43 Rookie

    17
    Aug 3, 2011
    I have the 14-45mm, but don't have the 14mm, the 45mm, or the 7-14mm, so I can't give you a direct comparison. That said, since you already have the 14-42mm, there's no compelling reason to go out and get the 14-45mm, if that's what you were thinking. I did a direct comparison with friend who has the 14-42 on the G2, and it made me wish I got the 14-42mm, since it's $100 cheaper.
     
  15. Markb

    Markb Mu-43 Top Veteran

    532
    Jun 9, 2011
    Kent, UK
    Mark
    Dear hipertec,

    Shoot lots with the 14-42. I mean lots! Then work out what you lack. Not enough light / blurry shots? Buy the 20/1.7. Have to crop a lot at the long end? Buy a telezoom like the 45-200. Always backed against a wall? Buy a wider lens like the 12/2 or one of the ultra wide zooms. In the end only you know what you need and even you won't know that until you try.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  16. Both!

    The 20mm most of the time is attached to the "2nd" body (GF-1). Fast f1.7, relatively compact package makes it useful for a variety of subjects and situations. If you fell into mu43 for the compact size, need a faster lens. Go for the 20mm. For being a fixed focal lens it seems to be relatively flexible.

    Also own the 14-45mm & 45-200mm. If having to choose only one lens it would be the 14-45mm. At 20mm it's close enough to the 20mm. Just a bit on the slow side. Found with the 45-200mm most images are at the longer end. My wildlife lens. More times needing a lens longer than 200mm. Very few images in the 45-100mm range. Why I'm thinking 100-300mm as a replacement for the 45-200mm or a fixed 300mm. Bottomline is what most have noted. What is your routine or normal subject material?
     
  17. hipertec

    hipertec Mu-43 Rookie

    20
    Jan 8, 2012
    Thats for all the feedback and input. I mostly will be taking pictures of family, group shots, indoors pictures, so it sounds like the 20mm is best for me.
    I will be looking at one today (used) so hopefully this is a great dicision for the 20mm.
     
  18. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    What do you want to shoot? The 20/1.7 and 45-200 couldn't be more different in terms of what you use them for. I have a 20 now and it's a great lens and when I had the 45-200 it was a very fun lens. In the end I just found that I rarely used the 45-200 and used the 20 all the time.
     
  19. hipertec

    hipertec Mu-43 Rookie

    20
    Jan 8, 2012
    Just picked up the 20mm lens and this little baby is amazing. Even my 12yr old son is impressed with the blur of the background. That's to everyone for the recommendation.

    Now another question....can someone recommend an affordable filter/protective lens for the 20mm? Was looking into the Tiffen uv ($10) or the Hoyo HMC (O) for $17 on ebay.
    Must be affordable and hopefully a perfect combo with the 20mm.
     
  20. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    No crappy $10 piece of glass is going to be a "perfect combo" when placed in front of your $350 lens. Pay money for a good filter, or just live without one, since the lens is more robust than you give it credit for.