New lens - a keeper?

[Liz]

I just tried out the Panasonic 45 - 200mm lens on my E-P1 and can't decide if I should keep it. I normally don't use a longer zoom very often; however at the price ($254 on sale) I thought it might be worth it. OTOH it's a bit soft at 200mm - at least in my hands. I have to work hard to get a decent pic at 200. I didn't post this in critique because I'm not looking for any critique on the images - just some friendly advice. I didn't have much time today after work so these are just snapshots straight out of camera with no post-processing, taken in Ridgewood NJ where I test most of my equipment.

Any thoughts, input, comments?

Thanks!
Liz

45mm


140mm


200mm



45mm


140mm


200mm

[Greg McCary]

The pics look great to me. What about the speed of the lens and how well does it focus?

[Liz]

The pics look great to me. What about the speed of the lens and how well does it focus?

Thanks Greg. Aperture is f/4 - 5.6 - This lens is a bit slow - you can't whip it out for a quick shot from my (short) experience. For the most part I didn't have a problem focusing; However I tried it indoors and it hunted a bit - plus the images were soft and a bit dark for the most part. Maybe fixable with post-processing, but it's definitely an outdoor and/or bright light lens IMO.


Liz

[Charles Hess]

Hi Liz...I see you've moved to the EP...really small compared to your Canons, I'll bet. The images you posted look fine, including the ones stretched to 200mm. Nearly all tele-zooms at the long end will be a little less sharp than at the other focal lengths. It is a slow lens, yes, but the image quality looks great. Good luck with it! Regards.

[Photo-John]

Am I wrong? I think I can see softness on the edges and corners of some of those photos - especially the 200mm and 45mm.

I question the strategy of buying a Panasonic lens, since it has optical image stabilization. That means you've got two IS systems working. It also makes the Panasonic lens bigger than an equivalent Olympus lens, which doesn't have to have the extra size and weight of the IS mechanics in the lens.

[Liz]

Am I wrong? I think I can see softness on the edges and corners of some of those photos - especially the 200mm and 45mm.

I question the strategy of buying a Panasonic lens, since it has optical image stabilization. That means you've got two IS systems working. It also makes the Panasonic lens bigger than an equivalent Olympus lens, which doesn't have to have the extra size and weight of the IS mechanics in the lens.

John,

You may be right. I don't see it in the 45mm, but I had to work at getting sharp images at the 200 end of the lens due to the fact that I have a slight camera shake problem that shows up at times at long zooms if I'm not careful.

As far as I know there are no comparable Olympus 4/3 or M4/3 zoom lenses. There are a few that are over $1,000 and heavier. This lens is not too heavy - much lighter than any Canon IS zoom - and I only paid $254 on sale at B&H last week. I just turn the lens IS off. I used both for a few pics just to compare - couldn't see any difference in the image.

I am interested in seeing other lenses! There may be other Olympus lenses (not 4/3) that I didn't look at that would need an adaptor. Let me know which lenses you are referring to. I'd like to check them out before my return period expires.

If you'd like to check the original, here is the link.

http://mariaimage.smugmug.com/galler...0_xkNRj#P-2-15

Thanks
Liz

[Liz]

Hi Liz...I see you've moved to the EP...really small compared to your Canons, I'll bet. The images you posted look fine, including the ones stretched to 200mm. Nearly all tele-zooms at the long end will be a little less sharp than at the other focal lengths. It is a slow lens, yes, but the image quality looks great. Good luck with it! Regards.

Hi Charles - it's so good to see you around PR!

I love the E-P1. It is very much like a Rangefinder - I love the feel and the weight - everything is good for me at this time. I had to sell my Canon equipment, but couldn't do it for a long time. Reality set in and when I found I wasn't doing much shooting because I couldn't carry the weight around for long periods of time anymore, I started looking for another option. The M4/3 system is wonderful - just what I needed. IQ is No. 1 priority for me when considering a camera and/or lens, and the E-P1 is comparable to my XTi with good glass. So I'm happy with it.

Thanks for your comments, Charles.

Liz

[SmartWombat]

I think I'm getting similar results, but I may be pixel peeping.
Remembering to shoot at 1/focal_length x2 is a pain.
200mm I want to shoot at 1/200 not 1/400

I feel that both Panasonic lenses are not as good as the Olympus.
But that's only gut feel.
I'm going to have to shoot same scene with lens/body and IS combinations to be sure.
Since I mainly shoot hand held I'm not sure if using a tripod will matter.

[Sushigaijin]

the 4/3 mount has a 40-150 and a 70-300 that are both really good, for the price ($120 used and $250 new, respectively).

You'd lose AF and they aren't super top pro lenses, but at that price does it really matter? The 40-150 weighs next to nothing, also.

FWIW, I get the gut feeling that the pany lenses aren't as good as the oly lenses too, at least in the standard 4/3 mount.

To be honest, the lens selection for m4/3 is holding me back from buying one. I'll wait a couple of years until they have the line-up I'm looking for. Why buy an 8 oz body when you're gunna strap on the 2+ lb 50-200 swd?

[Liz]

Softness and/or smearing.

I just want to ask a question about the softness and/or smearing in some of the photos here.

Am I correct in assuming that softness and/or smearing as seen in the corners and tiles of the photos are caused by the lens - and not the camera? Is this correct?

I only have 2 days left until my return time expires on the camera, so just want to be sure. I haven't had a problem with the camera - and this problem only showed since using the 45-200.

Thanks.
Liz

[Dave6223]

I don't think you need to worry, Liz. If there were a problem with the camera I think you would have spotted it with the other lenses too. Don't you?

Edit: I love the pictures. I would class that as a keeper myself.

Dave

[opus]

Personally I adore a long lens, but that's just my style. I only recently learned what the f4-5.6 means, basically you're losing light the longer you go out, but to keep the light the price goes waaay up. My first zoom telephoto was (off the top of my head from memory) a 70-300 f4-5.6, and I loved it. I rarely noticed the softness, but I wasn't trying to sell any of my pix either. IMO the softness never detracted from an otherwise excellent composition.

May I suggest a monopod? It really doesn't get in the way too much, and is easily unscrewed if it does. It's just a little added assurance against camera shake.

[SmartWombat]

Am I correct in assuming that softness and/or smearing as seen in the corners and tiles of the photos are caused by the lens

Yes, this is almost always from the lens.
It's also caused by peering at the image at 1:1 on your screen and expecting it to be perfect
Maybe with a Leica adapter to micro 4/3 and much more expensive lenses ...

I tried lens swapping close range testing indoors, need to do some outdoors too.
Not a lot of difference between the 14-42 and 14-140, on the E-P1 or the GH-1.
Both show almost identical chromatic aberration at the edges at 14mm, easily corrected.
Most noticeable difference was the Olympus lens on the GH-1 that has no stabilisation, I am now totally sold on the sensor-shift technology

I know, I haven't supplied anything controlled with the 45-200 yet, sorry.
But one thing I noticed playing about yesterday evening, with the 45-200 on the E-P1 switching on the OIS made it possible to manual focus at 10x magnification and keep the subject in the frame. Turning off the OIS I had an almost impossible job to keep the butterfly in the frame while focussing.

I think my 45-200 is soft and has more chromatic aberration than I'd expect, even at f/6.3.
Also it doesn't seem to AF properly on my E-P1 but I need to test it on the GH-1 too.
Seems that focus at or near infinity (50m or so) is soft, but close is OK.

[SmartWombat]

You can relate these crops to the photo of the logs and see what it's like uncorrected.

[SmartWombat]

I only have 2 days left until my return time expires on the camera, so just want to be sure. I haven't had a problem with the camera - and this problem only showed since using the 45-200.

Your lens looks better than mine (samples posted at last) and I'm pretty sure it's not the camera.

[Liz]

Your lens looks better than mine (samples posted at last) and I'm pretty sure it's not the camera.

Paul,

Thank you for posting the images and the run down on your experience and your copy of the 45-200. I think the lens is a nice one, but not without it's problems as we both see now. I see what you mean looking at the uncorrected logs close up. I really appreciate the detail and the work you did to help answer my questions. I don't know if I mentioned it previously, but I did have problems with the AF - and quite a few times it locked and I had to refocus.

Are you going to keep the 45-200? At this point I'm thinking I might return mine for a few reasons.

The first reason is the fact that I'm not really satisfied with the lens. Part of the reason is because it was bought a bit impulsively. I had decided I needed a longer lens to go with the 14-42 for my vacation at Lake George in about 10 days. I bought this one because it was the least expensive longer zoom I could find. Another reason is the fact that I probably won't use it very much. And for me it is quite a bit of work to get a sharp photo on the long end and I want to do all handheld shots for vacation.

I had seen the Olympus 40-150 lens, but didn't bother to look at it because I "assumed" that the IQ probably wouldn't be good at $144. However, today I did some research on this lens and read some user reviews and saw a few pics which seemed to indicate that the lens does a decent job in good light - like outdoors. The reviewers said it is faster than the 45-200 and people seemed to think it's a good partner with the 14-42 so I thought I'd give it a shot for the price. I then looked at the specs at B&H and found a refurbished one for $119. So I ordered an adaptor and the refurbished lens.

I still have a week to make a decision about the 45-200 so I have this weekend to compare the two. I'll let you know how it goes and post some pics when I get it.

Thanks again for your help.

Liz

[Liz]

I don't think you need to worry, Liz. If there were a problem with the camera I think you would have spotted it with the other lenses too. Don't you?

Edit: I love the pictures. I would class that as a keeper myself.

Dave

Thanks Dave........I'm going to compare it with the Olympus 40-150 this weekend - I just found a refurbished one for $119 - and user reviews say it's a decent lens - whatever that means!

I appreciate your comments - and I still might keep it.

Liz

[Liz]

Personally I adore a long lens, but that's just my style. I only recently learned what the f4-5.6 means, basically you're losing light the longer you go out, but to keep the light the price goes waaay up. My first zoom telephoto was (off the top of my head from memory) a 70-300 f4-5.6, and I loved it. I rarely noticed the softness, but I wasn't trying to sell any of my pix either. IMO the softness never detracted from an otherwise excellent composition.

May I suggest a monopod? It really doesn't get in the way too much, and is easily unscrewed if it does. It's just a little added assurance against camera shake.

Thanks for your input - and I know what you mean about the "price of light" when it comes to photography!

I have a monopod. The problem is I'm going on vacation with some friends in about 10 days and I'll want to do mostly handheld shots at that time. However, it will be daylight (hopefully sunny) so I may not have too much of a problem.

As I mentioned in the post above, I'm going to try out the Oly 40-150 this weekend and compare the two. I found a refurbished one for $119. Can't beat the price at any rate!

Liz

[SmartWombat]

I'm just adding the Lightroom processed images.
I need to have another nice sunny evening, and then shoot at varying apertures.
See when the lens sharpens up.
I've been spoiled with the Canon L f/2.8 300mm
This is more like the 100-400 L in quality, except worse at 400mm
But at less than half the price, that's to be expected

[SmartWombat]

Here are crops after correction in Lightroom.
I can't guarantee to have got the same crops as list time, I should have made virtual copies and edited them - but wasn't thinking straight.