A list of good/bad MFT lens for new owner?

Started Oct 1, 2012 | Discussions
richarddd
Senior MemberPosts: 2,734Gear list
Like?
Re: The general wisdom is...
In reply to shihhan, Feb 27, 2013

shihhan wrote:

richarddd wrote:

Are there detractors for the Oly 12/2?

There are a lot of complaints about the AF noise and speed of the Panasonic 20/1.7.

Hi Richarddd,

The Oly 12 f2 is a great lens.

Personally, I've found it a bit pricey (at 500), where the 12-35 X can be purchased for 700...

Yes, I understand IQ is much better on the 12 f2 (prime > zoom nearly every time), and the aperture is a stop faster (which may or may not make a difference in real life.)

So it depends on what your priorities are!

For me, I'd stick with 12-35 X + something faster / wider than 12 f2 (when it hits the market)... but that suits me, and you may have completely different requirements.

Hi,

You had said "Everything else has its supporters and detractors, but the lenses above are considered good quality and / or value by pretty much everyone."

From what I can tell, the 12/2 and the 12-35/2.8 are considered good quality and/or value by about the same number of people.  If anything, I've seen more complaints about the quality of the 12-35 than the 12.

 richarddd's gear list:richarddd's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shihhan
Regular MemberPosts: 307
Like?
Re: 45-150 or 45-200
In reply to josbiker, Feb 27, 2013

josbiker wrote:

Please can you or some one else inform me about the shutter problems with the 45-175x.

I like the specs. etc and I am on the point to buy this lens in combination with the 12-35/2.8 lens and sell the 20/1.7, the 14-140 and the 100-300 lens.

I have made some test with ETC and I am satisfied with my results.( 175 and above with the 45-175 lens)

The zooming smoothnes is for me important with the elec. zoom lever from the 45-175.

So my nearby future should be: my GH3 with the 12-35/2.8 and the 45-175 that means for me lighter and less swaps and much more quality.

Please help me?

Jos

Jos, I think if you're absolutely scared/worried about the shutter shock issue, then it is best to avoid the 45-175 X lens all together.

If you google around, basically some people have reported image softness when the 45-175 X lens is used on Panasonic bodies. The problem appears most when:

- Zoomed in to 175mm
  - Shutter Speed between 1/60 - 1/150

There has been some explanation online explaining that it may be due to the harsh shutters of Panasonic cameras causing lens vibrations that the OIS is unable to correct. (similar to the issues some people experience with the 14-42 X lens).

Apparently there has been a firmware update, but it may or may not fix this... and not everyone has experienced this issue (so it may only be bad copies of this lens)... there is currently no annoucement from Panasonic regarding this either...

Personally, I've used both the 14-42 X and 45-175 X on the GX1 and I've followed the steps above and have not really experienced the shutter shock problems as described. Other people may agree or disagree with me, but if you're absolutely worried about it, then it's perhaps better to get an alternate lens to save the hassle?
What about the 12-35 X, 35-100 X, 100-300 ultimate lineup? (if budget is not an issue?)
I'm currently on 12-35 X, 45-175X, 100-300 as an interim setup until I can afford a 35-100 X, and I'm pretty happy with my setup so far... oh, and the slowness of the portrait range is sorted by the 45 f1.8 which I bought second hand for £200...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mh2000
Senior MemberPosts: 2,632
Like?
Re: let's stay positive ;-)
In reply to captura, Feb 28, 2013

captura wrote:

.Sam. wrote:

The system has many lenses, some are better than the rest

Solution... buy the best:

  • Keep your kit zoom
  • Oly 12 F/2
  • Pany 25 F/1.4
  • Oly 45 F/1.8
  • Oly 75 F/1.8
  • (if you like macros Oly 60 F/2.8 Macro)

If you want zooms;

  • Pany (older model) 14-45mm
  • Pany 12-35 F/2.8
  • Pany 35-100 F/2.8
-- hide signature --

.Sam.
GF1+20+45 Sigma DP2 & Pentax K20D - ist* DS - ZX-5 - LX
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/shadzee/

Currently the bargain is (or was) the 2 Sigma lens deal for $200. And some stores were selling the Sigma 19/2.8 for just over $100, although the price is now $149. This is a fantastic value for a very good lens.

I paid $150 for my 30 and think it was a good deal... both the 19 and 30 for $200 is a great deal!

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 13,408Gear list
Like?
Re: let's stay positive ;-)
In reply to mh2000, Feb 28, 2013

mh2000 wrote:

captura wrote:


Currently the bargain is (or was) the 2 Sigma lens deal for $200. And some stores were selling the Sigma 19/2.8 for just over $100, although the price is now $149. This is a fantastic value for a very good lens.

I paid $150 for my 30 and think it was a good deal... both the 19 and 30 for $200 is a great deal!

-- hide signature --

Had a 19 for one year but I just picked up a 30 yesterday, for $130. This was 1/2 of one of the 2-lens $200 bundles so it is brand new. It does not have the binding of the focus-ring problem which had been reported by earlier buyers. Very sharp lens, a must-have!

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
josbiker
Regular MemberPosts: 314Gear list
Like?
Re: 45-150 or 45-200
In reply to shihhan, Feb 28, 2013

shihhan wrote:

josbiker wrote:

Please can you or some one else inform me about the shutter problems with the 45-175x.

I like the specs. etc and I am on the point to buy this lens in combination with the 12-35/2.8 lens and sell the 20/1.7, the 14-140 and the 100-300 lens.

I have made some test with ETC and I am satisfied with my results.( 175 and above with the 45-175 lens)

The zooming smoothnes is for me important with the elec. zoom lever from the 45-175.

So my nearby future should be: my GH3 with the 12-35/2.8 and the 45-175 that means for me lighter and less swaps and much more quality.

Please help me?

Jos

Jos, I think if you're absolutely scared/worried about the shutter shock issue, then it is best to avoid the 45-175 X lens all together.

If you google around, basically some people have reported image softness when the 45-175 X lens is used on Panasonic bodies. The problem appears most when:

- Zoomed in to 175mm
- Shutter Speed between 1/60 - 1/150

There has been some explanation online explaining that it may be due to the harsh shutters of Panasonic cameras causing lens vibrations that the OIS is unable to correct. (similar to the issues some people experience with the 14-42 X lens).

Apparently there has been a firmware update, but it may or may not fix this... and not everyone has experienced this issue (so it may only be bad copies of this lens)... there is currently no annoucement from Panasonic regarding this either...

Personally, I've used both the 14-42 X and 45-175 X on the GX1 and I've followed the steps above and have not really experienced the shutter shock problems as described. Other people may agree or disagree with me, but if you're absolutely worried about it, then it's perhaps better to get an alternate lens to save the hassle?
What about the 12-35 X, 35-100 X, 100-300 ultimate lineup? (if budget is not an issue?)
I'm currently on 12-35 X, 45-175X, 100-300 as an interim setup until I can afford a 35-100 X, and I'm pretty happy with my setup so far... oh, and the slowness of the portrait range is sorted by the 45 f1.8 which I bought second hand for £200...

Thanks very much for your clear answer on the 45-175 lens.

Sure I am on a budget that is why i have tested with my 100-300 lens with the ETC functie and I did that also with my 14-140 lens.

These results made me think that with the ETC functie on the 45-175 I can use the 45-175  in ETC mode  above the 125mm, 150 mm so I get the same range as on my 100-300 lens!?

If this all correct than I buy the 12-35/f2.8 lens and buy the 45-175 lens??

I sell my 100-300 my 14-140 and my 20/f1.7!!!Is the low-light better or worse, the 12-35 have OIS is that enough compensation for the lost os 1 1/4 stop?

If I have done that, I gain a lot of  image quality and less swapping with my stills and I am gaining also my video zooming smoothness

What do you think about this move? I like a lot of reactions  so I can reach my "problems" with different ways too look at it. Other members on this forum are also invited to express their opinions,the more the better .( i am new on this)

Jos

 josbiker's gear list:josbiker's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shihhan
Regular MemberPosts: 307
Like?
Re: 45-150 or 45-200
In reply to josbiker, Feb 28, 2013

Hey Jos,

Thanks very much for your clear answer on the 45-175 lens.

Glad to help!

Sure I am on a budget that is why i have tested with my 100-300 lens with the ETC functie and I did that also with my 14-140 lens.

These results made me think that with the ETC functie on the 45-175 I can use the 45-175 in ETC mode above the 125mm, 150 mm so I get the same range as on my 100-300 lens!?

Yes, you get the *same* range if that's all you're considering...

The caveat is, however, that with ETC you lose a lot of pixels... ETC basically 'extends' the length of lens by cropping down the image (simulating the use of a smaller sensor), so effectively multiplying the crop factor.

It would probably be ok, though if you're really want the FULL 16 Mpx above 150mm, then you can't do it with ETC... (but granted, losing pixels, is a much less of a crime than losing image quality with digital zoom!)

If this all correct than I buy the 12-35/f2.8 lens and buy the 45-175 lens??
I sell my 100-300 my 14-140 and my 20/f1.7!!!Is the low-light better or worse, the 12-35 have OIS is that enough compensation for the lost os 1 1/4 stop?

If I have done that, I gain a lot of image quality and less swapping with my stills and I am gaining also my video zooming smoothness

Well... I think your problem is a bit more complex than this, so it should be be split into 3 really...

Problem 1: Should I exchange the 14-140 for the 45-175 X (or 45-150/200)?

Probably Yes.

The 45-175 X (and 45-150) lens will give you a reasonable boost in image quality, aperture and tele reach.

45-175 X: you gain IQ at 45mm (mainly the centre), and at 175mm (both centre and edges). You also get around a stop faster aperture at 45mm (f4), but the difference is marginal at the tele end. You also get a bit more reach at the tele end (but lose the wide end...)

45-150: you gain IQ at 45mm (mainly centre), but IQ at 150mm is comparable. You gain a stop at 45mm, but tele is marginal. The reach is less, however, as you lose the wide end...

The 45-175 X will also help with video zooming due to PZ.
Both lenses means you'll carry less bulk (350g v. 500g), and you might end up with a profit by trading in the 14-140 (£450?) for the 45-150 (£200) / 45-175 X (£300)

Problem 2: Should I exchange lenses for the 12-35 X?

Maybe Yes, if you have the budget.

The 12-35 X is superior to the 14-140 in IQ and aperture.
The 12-35 X is comparable (but a bit worse) than 20 f1.7 (primes > zooms, usually...)

It's mainly edge performance you lose (but both are still rated good IQ) with the 12-35 X, and you lose a stop in aperture (f2.8 v f1.7). The 12-35 is also a lot bigger/bulkier.

It all depends on whether you value flexibility (of a zoom) vs. aperture/quality (of a prime).. and You can't really gain aperture stops (in terms of background blurring / action shots), but OIS really helps for low light shooting.

An alternative *budget* option, would be to keep the 20 f1.7, and get the Panny 14-45 (£150, using the money you gained by trading the 14-140.)

The 14-45 which for all intents and purposes is a decent lens for IQ, if you don't mind the aperture being a bit small (f3.5-5.6). At 45mm, IQ suffers a bit (but it's still pretty good) and you're limited to f5.6. (why it's called the poor man's 12-35 X).

Problem 3: Should I sell the 100-300 for 45-150/45-175 (in ETC mode)?

Already answered above. But if you already have the 100-300, I think you should keep it for now, unless you definitely wish to liquidate the value of the lens (£300 maybe?)

Personally, my opinion is that the 14-45, 20 f1.7, 45-150/175, 100-300 combo would do you much better than 14-140, 20 f1.7, 100-300 on balance. This is assuming you don't mind changing lenses during shooting / video....

The 14-45 + 45-150/175 might be free if you exchange your 14-140 for a good price (if you don't mind the hassle of ebay!) Whereas the 12-35 X would be a hefty upgrade...

Hope this helps?

-- hide signature --

I'm currently using the GX1 with the 12-35 X, 45-175 X and 100-300 as my main setup (backed up by the 45 f1.8)...
this was after upgrading my trusty 14-45 (given to my gf...), which was itself an upgrade from 14-42 X kit lens (that I keep as a compact travel lens).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
josbiker
Regular MemberPosts: 314Gear list
Like?
Re: 45-150 or 45-200
In reply to shihhan, Feb 28, 2013

shihhan wrote:

Hey Jos,

Thanks very much for your clear answer on the 45-175 lens.

Glad to help!

Sure I am on a budget that is why i have tested with my 100-300 lens with the ETC functie and I did that also with my 14-140 lens.

These results made me think that with the ETC functie on the 45-175 I can use the 45-175 in ETC mode above the 125mm, 150 mm so I get the same range as on my 100-300 lens!?

Yes, you get the *same* range if that's all you're considering...

The caveat is, however, that with ETC you lose a lot of pixels... ETC basically 'extends' the length of lens by cropping down the image (simulating the use of a smaller sensor), so effectively multiplying the crop factor.

It would probably be ok, though if you're really want the FULL 16 Mpx above 150mm, then you can't do it with ETC... (but granted, losing pixels, is a much less of a crime than losing image quality with digital zoom!)

If this all correct than I buy the 12-35/f2.8 lens and buy the 45-175 lens??
I sell my 100-300 my 14-140 and my 20/f1.7!!!Is the low-light better or worse, the 12-35 have OIS is that enough compensation for the lost os 1 1/4 stop?

If I have done that, I gain a lot of image quality and less swapping with my stills and I am gaining also my video zooming smoothness

Well... I think your problem is a bit more complex than this, so it should be be split into 3 really...

Problem 1: Should I exchange the 14-140 for the 45-175 X (or 45-150/200)?

Probably Yes.

The 45-175 X (and 45-150) lens will give you a reasonable boost in image quality, aperture and tele reach.

45-175 X: you gain IQ at 45mm (mainly the centre), and at 175mm (both centre and edges). You also get around a stop faster aperture at 45mm (f4), but the difference is marginal at the tele end. You also get a bit more reach at the tele end (but lose the wide end...)

45-150: you gain IQ at 45mm (mainly centre), but IQ at 150mm is comparable. You gain a stop at 45mm, but tele is marginal. The reach is less, however, as you lose the wide end...

The 45-175 X will also help with video zooming due to PZ.
Both lenses means you'll carry less bulk (350g v. 500g), and you might end up with a profit by trading in the 14-140 (£450?) for the 45-150 (£200) / 45-175 X (£300)

Problem 2: Should I exchange lenses for the 12-35 X?

Maybe Yes, if you have the budget.

The 12-35 X is superior to the 14-140 in IQ and aperture.
The 12-35 X is comparable (but a bit worse) than 20 f1.7 (primes > zooms, usually...)

It's mainly edge performance you lose (but both are still rated good IQ) with the 12-35 X, and you lose a stop in aperture (f2.8 v f1.7). The 12-35 is also a lot bigger/bulkier.

It all depends on whether you value flexibility (of a zoom) vs. aperture/quality (of a prime).. and You can't really gain aperture stops (in terms of background blurring / action shots), but OIS really helps for low light shooting.

An alternative *budget* option, would be to keep the 20 f1.7, and get the Panny 14-45 (£150, using the money you gained by trading the 14-140.)

The 14-45 which for all intents and purposes is a decent lens for IQ, if you don't mind the aperture being a bit small (f3.5-5.6). At 45mm, IQ suffers a bit (but it's still pretty good) and you're limited to f5.6. (why it's called the poor man's 12-35 X).

Problem 3: Should I sell the 100-300 for 45-150/45-175 (in ETC mode)?

Already answered above. But if you already have the 100-300, I think you should keep it for now, unless you definitely wish to liquidate the value of the lens (£300 maybe?)

Personally, my opinion is that the 14-45, 20 f1.7, 45-150/175, 100-300 combo would do you much better than 14-140, 20 f1.7, 100-300 on balance. This is assuming you don't mind changing lenses during shooting / video....

The 14-45 + 45-150/175 might be free if you exchange your 14-140 for a good price (if you don't mind the hassle of ebay!) Whereas the 12-35 X would be a hefty upgrade...

Hope this helps?

-- hide signature --

I'm currently using the GX1 with the 12-35 X, 45-175 X and 100-300 as my main setup (backed up by the 45 f1.8)...
this was after upgrading my trusty 14-45 (given to my gf...), which was itself an upgrade from 14-42 X kit lens (that I keep as a compact travel lens).

Thanks very much, I am very pleased the way you give me the info.

"Yes, you get the *same* range if that's all you're considering...

The caveat is, however, that with ETC you lose a lot of pixels... ETC basically 'extends' the length of lens by cropping down the image (simulating the use of a smaller sensor), so effectively multiplying the crop factor.

It would probably be ok, though if you're really want the FULL 16 Mpx above 150mm, then you can't do it with ETC... (but granted, losing pixels, is a much less of a crime than losing image quality with digital zoom!)"

You are right here, but I have made some tests and I cannot see a difference between a 16 Mpx print on A3 and a 8 Mpx print (and that is my main point). Can you confirm that? I understand that if I go further with cropping I reach the boundery sooner.

The 45-175 in ETC mode gives me at tele end 350 mm x2= 700 mm

The 100-300 in ETC mode 300x2= 600 mm

So i only use the ETC mode starting with 175 with the 45-175 .

The 100-300 becomes soft above the 225 mm and the 45-175 is much sharper at 175 than the 100=300! So I think I gain sharpness with the 45-175. Am I right here?

"Problem 2: Should I exchange lenses for the 12-35 X?

Maybe Yes, if you have the budget.

The 12-35 X is superior to the 14-140 in IQ and aperture.
The 12-35 X is comparable (but a bit worse) than 20 f1.7 (primes > zooms, usually...)

It's mainly edge performance you lose (but both are still rated good IQ) with the 12-35 X, and you lose a stop in aperture (f2.8 v f1.7). The 12-35 is also a lot bigger/bulkier.

It all depends on whether you value flexibility (of a zoom) vs. aperture/quality (of a prime).. and You can't really gain aperture stops (in terms of background blurring / action shots), but OIS really helps for low light shooting."

I have the budget for the 12-35/f 2.8 lens ( if I sell the 100-300 lens and the 20/f1,7 lens!)

I understand what you mean by blackground blurring. But I think that OIS will help for action shots and low light, I guess more or less 3 or more stops. So the nett profit will be 1-2 stops. Am I right here?

I hope that you will give it a good thought.

Jos

 josbiker's gear list:josbiker's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
IrishhAndy
Contributing MemberPosts: 868
Like?
Re: A list of good/bad MFT lens for new owner?
In reply to Jefftan, Feb 28, 2013

Jefftan wrote:

Is there a list of what is generally consider to be good or bad lens for new owner

lots of different lens with price from low to high

must be confusing

at least to me

75mm 45mm and thats about it really.

-- hide signature --

A solution looking for a problem !

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Droogie45
Regular MemberPosts: 150Gear list
Like?
Re: A list of good/bad MFT lens for new owner?
In reply to IrishhAndy, Feb 28, 2013

I need to chime in on the side of the Sigma 19 and 30.  Mounted on my G3 and my EPL2 these are soooo sweet. And the price is great. Plus, where else do you get a fabulous case with each lens and a hood with the 19.

 Droogie45's gear list:Droogie45's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN Sigma 19mm F2.8 EX DN +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shihhan
Regular MemberPosts: 307
Like?
Re: 45-150 or 45-200
In reply to josbiker, Feb 28, 2013

josbiker wrote:

You are right here, but I have made some tests and I cannot see a difference between a 16 Mpx print on A3 and a 8 Mpx print (and that is my main point). Can you confirm that? I understand that if I go further with cropping I reach the boundery sooner.

It depends... but you're right that there will be barely any difference at A3 (people used to print A3 at 3Mpx in the old days!)

The 45-175 in ETC mode gives me at tele end 350 mm x2= 700 mm

The 100-300 in ETC mode 300x2= 600 mm

I think you might have got your numbers wrong here...

45-175 gives 175 x2 (crop factor) x2 (ETC) = 700mm (equiv.)
100-300 gives 300 x2 (crop factor) x2 (ETC) = 1200mm (equiv.)

So i only use the ETC mode starting with 175 with the 45-175 .

The 100-300 becomes soft above the 225 mm and the 45-175 is much sharper at 175 than the 100=300! So I think I gain sharpness with the 45-175. Am I right here?

Yes. With ETC since you're only using the centre pixels, the sharpness at the centre matter more than the edge.

45-175 is excellent at 175mm (but... limited to f5.6)
100-300 is good/excellent at 200mm (but the data is for f4.7?)

Stopping down the 100-300 to f5.6 gives nearly the same (a tiny bit less) IQ at the centre than the 45-175... and at f8 there is no difference.

I have the budget for the 12-35/f 2.8 lens ( if I sell the 100-300 lens and the 20/f1,7 lens!)

I understand what you mean by blackground blurring. But I think that OIS will help for action shots and low light, I guess more or less 3 or more stops. So the nett profit will be 1-2 stops. Am I right here?

Not exactly right...

For low light shots, OIS will help, but you just can't *steal* apertures using OIS... as the percentage of acceptable shots drop with the number of stops you steal.

Say, 90% at +1 EV, 70% at +2 EV, 50% at +3 EV etc... and there is no uniform formula, as it depends how much inherent hand shake you have + lens weight + other factors

ISO performance and aperture will help more for action shots, as you might want to turn off OIS for faster focusing / lower shutter delay +/- panning (which is interfered by the OIS).

So 12-35 X f2.8 v 20 f1.7, you net *lose* one stop, but you gain versatility and AF speed.

Another lens you can consider, is the upcoming panasonic 150 prime, but for all intents and purposes consider it to be nothing but £1000+...

So 100-300 is the *only* native 200mm+ lens at the moment (yes, it's not stellar... but it is still the *only* lens that will give you native 600mm reach).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 13,408Gear list
Like?
Re: A list of good/bad MFT lens for new owner?
In reply to Droogie45, Feb 28, 2013

Droogie45 wrote:

I need to chime in on the side of the Sigma 19 and 30. Mounted on my G3 and my EPL2 these are soooo sweet. And the price is great. Plus, where else do you get a fabulous case with each lens and a hood with the 19.

I've got them on my NEXes. Great; supposed to be even better on m43, especially the 30. There's a 2 for $200 deal on. A no-brainer.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RichRMA
Contributing MemberPosts: 766Gear list
Like?
Re: A list of good/bad MFT lens for new owner?
In reply to Jefftan, Mar 1, 2013

The 17mm has some disconcerting red/blue fringing the 14mm does not have.  I'd get the Panasonic.

 RichRMA's gear list:RichRMA's gear list
Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Pentax K-01 Olympus OM-D E-M5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
josbiker
Regular MemberPosts: 314Gear list
Like?
Re: 45-150 or 45-200
In reply to shihhan, Mar 1, 2013

shihhan wrote:

josbiker wrote:

You are right here, but I have made some tests and I cannot see a difference between a 16 Mpx print on A3 and a 8 Mpx print (and that is my main point). Can you confirm that? I understand that if I go further with cropping I reach the boundery sooner.

It depends... but you're right that there will be barely any difference at A3 (people used to print A3 at 3Mpx in the old days!)

The 45-175 in ETC mode gives me at tele end 350 mm x2= 700 mm

The 100-300 in ETC mode 300x2= 600 mm

I think you might have got your numbers wrong here...

45-175 gives 175 x2 (crop factor) x2 (ETC) = 700mm (equiv.)
100-300 gives 300 x2 (crop factor) x2 (ETC) = 1200mm (equiv.)

So i only use the ETC mode starting with 175 with the 45-175 .

The 100-300 becomes soft above the 225 mm and the 45-175 is much sharper at 175 than the 100=300! So I think I gain sharpness with the 45-175. Am I right here?

Yes. With ETC since you're only using the centre pixels, the sharpness at the centre matter more than the edge.

45-175 is excellent at 175mm (but... limited to f5.6)
100-300 is good/excellent at 200mm (but the data is for f4.7?)

Stopping down the 100-300 to f5.6 gives nearly the same (a tiny bit less) IQ at the centre than the 45-175... and at f8 there is no difference.

I have the budget for the 12-35/f 2.8 lens ( if I sell the 100-300 lens and the 20/f1,7 lens!)

I understand what you mean by blackground blurring. But I think that OIS will help for action shots and low light, I guess more or less 3 or more stops. So the nett profit will be 1-2 stops. Am I right here?

Not exactly right...

For low light shots, OIS will help, but you just can't *steal* apertures using OIS... as the percentage of acceptable shots drop with the number of stops you steal.

Say, 90% at +1 EV, 70% at +2 EV, 50% at +3 EV etc... and there is no uniform formula, as it depends how much inherent hand shake you have + lens weight + other factors

ISO performance and aperture will help more for action shots, as you might want to turn off OIS for faster focusing / lower shutter delay +/- panning (which is interfered by the OIS).

So 12-35 X f2.8 v 20 f1.7, you net *lose* one stop, but you gain versatility and AF speed.

Another lens you can consider, is the upcoming panasonic 150 prime, but for all intents and purposes consider it to be nothing but £1000+...

So 100-300 is the *only* native 200mm+ lens at the moment (yes, it's not stellar... but it is still the *only* lens that will give you native 600mm reach).

Again many ,many thanks you are more than helpfull!!

"I think you might have got your numbers wrong here...

45-175 gives 175 x2 (crop factor) x2 (ETC) = 700mm (equiv.)
100-300 gives 300 x2 (crop factor) x2 (ETC) = 1200mm (equiv.)"

When I swapp the 100-300 lens for the 45-175 lens than I miss the range above the 175 mm, right?

The 45-175 lens is sharper at 175 as the 100-300 lens at 175, right?

If I use the ETC on the 45-175 I only need the 100 mm (400 mm),125 (500 mm), and the 150 mm (600mm),right? So the limations is not f5,6 but a lower f number?, so I have compensated the "lost", right?

You told me that there is almost no difference at a A3 print,so I think I can "safely" use the ETC function, right?

The center pixels which I use at 100 mm, 125 mm, and 150 mm on the 45-175 lens are much sharper than "soft" pixels at 175 mm till 300 mm at the 100-300 lens, right?

I only need a  little switch on the GH3 to get more quality with the 45-175 lens, right?

The 45-175 lens is less heavier than the 100-300 lens and much smaller, right?

I can use the total range from (90 mm - 1400 mm) with the 45-175 lens, right?

With the 100-300 lens I can only use a range from 200 mm-1200 mm, right?

Above 300 mm (KBE 1200 mm) is for me more than enough.

The 12-35/f2.8 lens fills the need and more below the 45 mm!

"ISO performance and aperture will help more for action shots, as you might want to turn off OIS for faster focusing / lower shutter delay +/- panning (which is interfered by the OIS)."

I do not understand this , please explain what you mean by turn off and than gain faster  focusing/ lower shutter delay and +/- panning?

My thoughts for this moment:

So I have only 2 lenses with more quality and less weight and less size, than with the other 3 lenses ,the 20 mm/f1.7,+ 14-140/f4-5,8, + 100-300/f4-5.6 and less swapping, right? And smoother zooming for video,right?

What do you think?

Jos

 josbiker's gear list:josbiker's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shihhan
Regular MemberPosts: 307
Like?
Re: 45-150 or 45-200
In reply to josbiker, Mar 1, 2013

josbiker wrote:

When I swapp the 100-300 lens for the 45-175 lens than I miss the range above the 175 mm, right?

Yes. You will lose native 175mm+ (at 16 Mpx), but you can get it back by cropping down with ETC. So effectively you're trading pixel count for reach when using ETC


The 45-175 lens is sharper at 175 as the 100-300 lens at 175, right?

Probably yes.

See:
- http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-g-vario-pz-45-175mm-f-4-5-6-m43-lens-review-18030#Performance  and
- http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-g-vario-100-300mm-f-4-0-5-6-zoom-lens-review-17763#Performance

If you compare performance of the 45-175 at 175mm (f5.6) and 100-300 at 200mm (f5.6), the 45-175 is sharper in the centre, but not by much. (Both are pretty sharp)

The advantage of the 45-175 is that it would give you a much uniform performance throughout the 45-175 range. The 100-300 peaks at around 200, and suffers a bit at 100 and 300.

If I use the ETC on the 45-175 I only need the 100 mm (400 mm),125 (500 mm), and the 150 mm (600mm),right? So the limations is not f5,6 but a lower f number?, so I have compensated the "lost", right?

You told me that there is almost no difference at a A3 print,so I think I can "safely" use the ETC function, right?

Yes.
But remember you're only using 8MPx. But how much difference in real life, it would all depend on what you shoot. Do some test shoots and have a look?

The center pixels which I use at 100 mm, 125 mm, and 150 mm on the 45-175 lens are much sharper than "soft" pixels at 175 mm till 300 mm at the 100-300 lens, right?

Answered above, yes, but its very small differences.

I only need a little switch on the GH3 to get more quality with the 45-175 lens, right?

The 45-175 lens is less heavier than the 100-300 lens and much smaller, right?

Yes.

I can use the total range from (90 mm - 1400 mm) with the 45-175 lens, right?

With the 100-300 lens I can only use a range from 200 mm-1200 mm, right?

Your numbers are wrong here.

45-175 = 90-350 (FF equiv), + 2x ETC = up to 700mm

100-300 = 200-600 (FF equiv), + 2x ETC = up to 1200mm

Above 300 mm (KBE 1200 mm) is for me more than enough.

The 12-35/f2.8 lens fills the need and more below the 45 mm!

"ISO performance and aperture will help more for action shots, as you might want to turn off OIS for faster focusing / lower shutter delay +/- panning (which is interfered by the OIS)."

I do not understand this , please explain what you mean by turn off and than gain faster focusing/ lower shutter delay and +/- panning?

OIS takes time to adjust, and in many cases when you're trying to pan, will try to *correct* movement giving you blurred shots.

My thoughts for this moment:

So I have only 2 lenses with more quality and less weight and less size, than with the other 3 lenses ,the 20 mm/f1.7,+ 14-140/f4-5,8, + 100-300/f4-5.6 and less swapping, right? And smoother zooming for video,right?

What do you think?

Yes. lighter and less lenses is good.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
revio
Senior MemberPosts: 1,281Gear list
Like?
Re: A list of good/bad MFT lens for new owner?
In reply to teamrican1, Mar 1, 2013

(a 14-45 is not a prime, it´s a zoom)

Cheers,

-- hide signature --

Aim & Frame

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
josbiker
Regular MemberPosts: 314Gear list
Like?
Re: 45-150 or 45-200
In reply to shihhan, Mar 1, 2013

shihhan wrote:

josbiker wrote:

When I swapp the 100-300 lens for the 45-175 lens than I miss the range above the 175 mm, right?

Yes. You will lose native 175mm+ (at 16 Mpx), but you can get it back by cropping down with ETC. So effectively you're trading pixel count for reach when using ETC.


The 45-175 lens is sharper at 175 as the 100-300 lens at 175, right?

Probably yes.

See:
- http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-g-vario-pz-45-175mm-f-4-5-6-m43-lens-review-18030#Performance and
- http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-g-vario-100-300mm-f-4-0-5-6-zoom-lens-review-17763#Performance

If you compare performance of the 45-175 at 175mm (f5.6) and 100-300 at 200mm (f5.6), the 45-175 is sharper in the centre, but not by much. (Both are pretty sharp)

The advantage of the 45-175 is that it would give you a much uniform performance throughout the 45-175 range. The 100-300 peaks at around 200, and suffers a bit at 100 and 300.

If I use the ETC on the 45-175 I only need the 100 mm (400 mm),125 (500 mm), and the 150 mm (600mm),right? So the limations is not f5,6 but a lower f number?, so I have compensated the "lost", right?

You told me that there is almost no difference at a A3 print,so I think I can "safely" use the ETC function, right?

Yes.
But remember you're only using 8MPx. But how much difference in real life, it would all depend on what you shoot. Do some test shoots and have a look?

The center pixels which I use at 100 mm, 125 mm, and 150 mm on the 45-175 lens are much sharper than "soft" pixels at 175 mm till 300 mm at the 100-300 lens, right?

Answered above, yes, but its very small differences.

I only need a little switch on the GH3 to get more quality with the 45-175 lens, right?

The 45-175 lens is less heavier than the 100-300 lens and much smaller, right?

Yes.

I can use the total range from (90 mm - 1400 mm) with the 45-175 lens, right?

With the 100-300 lens I can only use a range from 200 mm-1200 mm, right?

Your numbers are wrong here.

45-175 = 90-350 (FF equiv), + 2x ETC = up to 700mm

100-300 = 200-600 (FF equiv), + 2x ETC = up to 1200mm

Above 300 mm (KBE 1200 mm) is for me more than enough.

The 12-35/f2.8 lens fills the need and more below the 45 mm!

"ISO performance and aperture will help more for action shots, as you might want to turn off OIS for faster focusing / lower shutter delay +/- panning (which is interfered by the OIS)."

I do not understand this , please explain what you mean by turn off and than gain faster focusing/ lower shutter delay and +/- panning?

OIS takes time to adjust, and in many cases when you're trying to pan, will try to *correct* movement giving you blurred shots.

My thoughts for this moment:

So I have only 2 lenses with more quality and less weight and less size, than with the other 3 lenses ,the 20 mm/f1.7,+ 14-140/f4-5,8, + 100-300/f4-5.6 and less swapping, right? And smoother zooming for video,right?

What do you think?

Yes. lighter and less lenses is good.

Thanks you are so helpfull and i am learning every time you answered my questions.

"OIS takes time to adjust, and in many cases when you're trying to pan, will try to *correct* movement giving you blurred shots.an you give me an idea "

Can you give me an idea what the difference could be? If it is possible in a not subjective way but concreet?

"I can use the total range from (90 mm - 1400 mm) with the 45-175 lens, right?

With the 100-300 lens I can only use a range from 200 mm-1200 mm, right?

Your numbers are wrong here.

45-175 = 90-350 (FF equiv), + 2x ETC = up to 700mm

100-300 = 200-600 (FF equiv), + 2x ETC = up to 1200mm

Above 300 mm (KBE 1200) is for me more than enough.

You are very right here I have made a mistake, what I really meant is:

Total range 45-175   = (90) 175 x2 x2= 700 mm

Total range 100-300 = (100)300x2x2= 1200 mm

300 mm (K.B.E.= 600) is more than enough for me.

"Yes.
But remember you're only using 8MPx. But how much difference in real life, it would all depend on what you shoot. Do some test shoots and have a look?"

I told you before I have done that and you have already give an answer on that, right?

I am glad to hear from you, Jos

 josbiker's gear list:josbiker's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedandtricia
Senior MemberPosts: 1,088Gear list
Like?
Re: A list of good/bad MFT lens for new owner?
In reply to captura, Mar 1, 2013

captura wrote:

Droogie45 wrote:

I need to chime in on the side of the Sigma 19 and 30. Mounted on my G3 and my EPL2 these are soooo sweet. And the price is great. Plus, where else do you get a fabulous case with each lens and a hood with the 19.

I've got them on my NEXes. Great; supposed to be even better on m43, especially the 30. There's a 2 for $200 deal on. A no-brainer.

Don't think this is still on. Wish it was.

 tedandtricia's gear list:tedandtricia's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gary payne
Contributing MemberPosts: 587
Like?
The very worst M4/3 lens: the Panasonic f4 300mm prime.
In reply to tedandtricia, Mar 1, 2013

Because it doesn't exist.  Therefore, M4/3 cannot be considered a great wildlife format.  A pity since the format is so compact and lightweight, perfect for transport into the bushes.

gp

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Aleo Veuliah
Forum ProPosts: 14,466Gear list
Like?
Re: let's stay positive ;-)
In reply to .Sam., Mar 1, 2013

.Sam. wrote:

The system has many lenses, some are better than the rest

Solution... buy the best:

  • Keep your kit zoom
  • Oly 12 F/2
  • Pany 25 F/1.4
  • Oly 45 F/1.8
  • Oly 75 F/1.8
  • (if you like macros Oly 60 F/2.8 Macro)

If you want zooms;

  • Pany (older model) 14-45mm
  • Pany 12-35 F/2.8
  • Pany 35-100 F/2.8
-- hide signature --

.Sam.
GF1+20+45 Sigma DP2 & Pentax K20D - ist* DS - ZX-5 - LX
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/shadzee/

You forgot in zooms the good Panasonic Lumix 14-140mm.


-- hide signature --

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
If plan A doesn't work, the alphabet has 25 more letters, keep calm.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
Aleo Photo Site

 Aleo Veuliah's gear list:Aleo Veuliah's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Aleo Veuliah
Forum ProPosts: 14,466Gear list
Like?
Re: There are very few poor MFT lenses / Agreed. No text.
In reply to WT21, Mar 1, 2013

WT21 wrote:

The Panasonic 14-42 is not too bad, but it's mostly just disappointing because it was a step down from the excellent 14-45 (which was the original Panasonic kit lens). The Olympus 14-42 mk 1 is not great, and is probably the only m43 lens I would say to avoid, but that's mainly because the the mkii and R versions are excellent, and super cheap (used should run you around $80).

The Panasonic 14-140 is a bit big, expensive and slow at the long end. Another lens I would personally avoid, but some people like it for it's smooth zoom and IS. It was one of the first m43 lenses. The Oly 14-150 is a super zoom, and shares the typical super zoom issues of being jack of all trades, master of non. The Panasonic 14-42 and 45-175 X lenses did have some IS stabilization issues, but I believe they've been worked out.

The Oly 17/2.8 is a little slow and not the sharpest lens for a prime, but mainly suffers in comparison to the P20/1.7, which is similar sized but faster and better IQ.

The Panasonic 45-200 can be a little soft at the long end, but is pretty darn cheap. The Oly 40-150 doesn't have the best contrast, but again is super cheap and super small.

IMO, That's the worst you can say about most of the m43 lenses. I am currently exploring NEX with a 5n, and there are LOTS worse things you can say about the NEX lenses. Ugh. Another thing -- most m43 lenses are very good at their wide open aperture. The thing I'm finding with NEX is you have to stop down the lenses. For instance, the NEX50/1.8 only begins to shine at f/2.8 and really f/4 (peaking at 4/5.6). The Olympus 45/1.8 is ready to go at 1.8 and gets even better at just 2.0, meaning the supposed sensor advantage of the NEX is negated by having to stop down the lenses for peak performance (I only bring up the NEX comparison, because I know you've been posting at the NEX forum, so I thought it would be a useful comparison).

Excellent m43 lenses, IMO, include (not in any order):

Panasonic 100-300: very contrasty, great IS and fantastic reach, though a bit big

PL25/1.4 -- just a stellar lens

Voigtlander 25/0.95 -- a special lens (though it's MF)

Voigt 17/0.95 -- again, another unique but MF lens

PL45 macro -- incredible contrast, nice size and feel

Oly 45/1.8 -- not my favorite focal length, but a great portrait lens

Oly 75/1.8 -- I haven't shot with this yet, but the reviews and every clearly show this to be a special lens

Panny 20/1.7 -- portable powerhouse, though the AF is getting a little old (it's slow compared to the more recent designed lenses)

Panny 14/2.5 -- this lens is pretty good corner to corner and has good contrast, but it's price and size make it special

Oly 12/2 -- not my focal length, but I have used it, and it takes great shots

Oly 9-18 -- great UWA, and nicely priced. Panny 7-14 is also special. These two lenses are not directly comparable, as the cost is pretty different, one takes filters, on doesn't, but one goes wider than the other, but one flares more than the other. If you need UWA, you can find a home in one of these lenses

That's just off the top of my head. Hope it helps in some way. Probably doesn't clear up anything for you, though

edit: for manual focus lenses, I've found the FD series to be the best budget MF lenses on m43, in terms of contrast, color, and sharpness wide open. OMs are also good, though personally I prefer the FDs. If you move up to rangefinder lenses, it's a mixed bag, but I enjoyed my Voigtlander 40/1.4 and 75/2.5 on m43.

-- hide signature --

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
If plan A doesn't work, the alphabet has 25 more letters, keep calm.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
Aleo Photo Site

 Aleo Veuliah's gear list:Aleo Veuliah's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads