Surprised by the Panny 45-175mm power zoom - initial observations

Some lenses are routinely praised in this forum while others are routinely panned. The Panny 45-175mm falls in the latter category.

Mine arrived today. Here are some observations after spending a couple of hours conducting some informal, hand-held tests.

1. Subjects and observers are less likely to think you are a "serious photographer" with this lens than the Panny 14-140 or 45-200, which I also own. The 14-140 is bigger, you see more glass, and when fully zoomed, the 14-140 extends in a way that says, "this is a serious lens."  The Panny 45-175 does not.

2. If you aren't concerned about looking serious though, the Panny 45-175 is an amazing design.  It weighs less than half of what the 14-140 does, and since the zoom is internal, you can't tell whether it's zoomed in or out by observing the photographer.  It is so small as to barely look like a long zoom at all. It has a smaller diameter than the PLeica 45mm prime, and is an inch longer, but weighs less. In fact, the 45-175 is almost identical in weight to the PLeica 25mm.  If you are interested in carrying a long zoom in your bag, but don't want it to feel or look like you're carrying one, this is your lens.

3. Sharpness at 140mm. My hand-held shots were consistently sharper with the 45-175 than the  14-140. Some of this might simply be due to the fact that the lens is lighter and easier to hold, and some might be due to the fact that the front element of the 45-175 is much closer to the camera than that of the 14-140 at 140mm.  Pannasonic advertises that their "power OIS" technology is an improvement over the old "mega OIS" technology, and my experience with the 12-35mm, 14-42pz, and now the 45-175pz supports that assertion. I was able to hand-hold the 45-175mm lens and obtain sharp results at slower shutter speeds than with the 14-140mm. With the 45-175, I had a decent success rate at 1/50th of a second, and some sharp ones even at 1/25th.  I'd have to put the camera on a tripod and shoot both the 14-140 and 45-175 with OIS off to see whether the observed differences in sharpness derive from differences in my ability to hold the lenses steady, or from actual sharpness differences in my copies of these lenses.

4. I shot a variety of things with the 45-175 mounted on my G5, and noticed none of the "double image" phenomenon that has been discussed in the forum. Whether I had the electronic shutter turned on or off made little difference in this regard.

5. The maximum aperture of the 45-175 throughout its zoom range is slightly wider than for the 14-140mm. This means I was able to shoot with slightly faster shutter speeds or lower ISO's.

6. The G5's zoom lever integrates nicely with this power zoom. I could zoom effortlessly by using the camera controls without touching the lens. I'm glad, however, that Pannasonic left a manual zoom ring on the lens. It is a nice supplement to the zoom lever.  When ETC is turned on, the zoom level zooms the lens from 45-175, pauses momentarily, and then zooms on through the ETC range.

8. It could be that I need a better quality UV filter, but for the first time ever, I may consider NOT protecting my lens with such a filter.  I compared shots at 175mm zoom with and without the filter.  "Without" gave that little additional boost in detail that I was hoping for... you could clearly see the diminished resolution with the UV filter in place.

--------------

Conclusion:  the Panny 45-175 (my copy, at least), seemed very sharp -- I had greater success getting sharp pictures at full zoom than I've had with either the 45-200 or the 14-140. What is more, I could achieve this with slower shutter speeds than for the other two lenses. Its light weight and small size compared to these other two zooms make the 45-175 an "easy" lens. It will be a great stealth lens on the entirely silent G5; no one would imagine from its size that it is zoomed to such an extent. You can set the camera on your lap, zoom without touching the lens, shoot without touching the shutter release (by pointing to the articulating screen), and the shutter is completely silent.

Its price is amazing, considering what I'm seeing. In case you couldn't tell, I'm pretty excited.

I agree with you. The 45-175mm lens is a very good one. Surprisingly sharp, much better than the Lumix G HD 14-140 (in the long end), and the Lumix G 45-200mm.

Here is my review of the lens:

http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2011/12/lumix-x-hd-pz-45-175mm-f4-56.html

It is a very underrated lens online, much like the Lumix G 14mm f/2.5.

Rather than using an UV filter, I would recommend putting on the supplied lens hood.

Nice review.

Thanks for the suggestion.

What shutter speeds and focal lengths did you test at?

I love mine, too.  Paired on my G5 with the 13-35, it's a great very compact kit.

tom

As I said, these were casual, hand-held comparisons, but I spent about 2 hours, indoors and out, shooting through the zoom range of the 45-175mm zoom.  The comparisons with the 14-140mm were mostly at 140mm and ranged in SS from 1/25th to 1/500th second.

Beyond the comparisons, I just shot a variety of things with the 45-175mm -- pets sleeping, pets in motion, buildings at a distance, leaves and branches, dark rooms indoors. At 45mm, I went as slow as 1/4 second with the shutter speed.  I turned OIS on and off at various FL, and shot with both the electronic and mechanical shutter.

As you would expect, fuzzyness increased at very slow SS and high ISOs.

I have shot with both the 45-200 and 14-140 Panny lenses (the latter more extensively).  As I reported, I saw nothing disappointing from the 45-175 in terms of sharpness or double-edges. Based upon the comparisons, I will be selling the 14-140 and will pocket the difference, confident that I have a lighter, smaller, sharper (at least hand-held), and longer FL zoom.  I also own the Panny 12-35mm, so I no longer need the short end of the 14-140 zoom.

It's a really good lens. Sharp at all focal lengths. I get no double images at any shutter speed.

OM-D

I think it's sort of like the pz 14-42: if you get a good one it's quite decent.  But there seems to be real quality control issues with both lenses.  Maybe Panasonic has increased the keeper rate?

How do you make sure you get one with good build, because I noticed you can get one for about $200 now, which pretty much what the 45-200mm and 40-150mm R is going for.

Same here, I really like this lens.

agree 100% with your comments  bowportes , allow me to endorse this statement with links to some examples in various different situations:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6333157380/photos/1759862/guard-of-the-scorpio-hit-gx1-45-175?inalbum=battle-of-oranges

http://www.zoomview.it/page%2056%20x%20G2.html

http://www.zoomview.it/page%202%20x%20private.html

http://www.zoomview.it/page%2054%20x%20G1.html

Regards,  Vittorio

Only way to tell for sure is to buy it from a store that will let you test it first.  Short of that ... buy from a reputable vendor with a good return policy.

It's great for concerts, as well. Many venues have a limit on the size of the lenses they allow. The 45-175 will often fall below that threshold. Or, just keep the lens hidden, and enter the venue with a pancake or PZ 14-42 on your GX, GF, G or PEN, and it looks like a P&S or bridge camera. You just pop on the 45-175 after the show starts.

Is it bright enough though?  I usually bring a fast prime to a concert.  Never really considered this one because of limited aperture range.

Nice review.  I think the extra wheel lever on the G5 is a real huge plus for owners of these power zooms.   I bet it's perfect for video too.

Can anyone post a size comparison of the 45-175 vs the other two Panasonic with similar zoom range, and/or the Oly 40-150

I bought this as my first long lens ... I now have the 14-140 (walk about lens but less range and much bigger and heavier) and the 100-300 (great range but a tank by comparison) and I can see myself keeping all three ... the 45-175 is small and light and very sharp. It is great for video too.

Seriously? I thought only kit lenses extended like that ...

It matches a camera like the GF3 or GX1 far better than the 14-140.

I've looked at the tests ... both lenses are sharp, but the small one is really sharp. So is the 14-42 Power OIS ... I have no idea why these cheap lenses get a bad rap.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Can only do two, but FWIW ...



--
Nick
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/

Bright enough as a video lens in most cases. If shooting stills it depends on how good the camera is at high ISO and how still the performers are.

Because they are not cheap, or at least were not cheap when first introduced. They were marketed as some kind of premium higher middle class product.

They are a bit curious. The video convenience was usually not appreciated by serious videographers whose weaponry of choice are legacy MF primes, and the power everything interface and counter-intuitive OIS behaviour baffled serious stills photographers, and those are the kind of people who write reviews. Hence the almost universal negativity, and people often feeling pleasantly surprised when they actually try and use them.

This lens is shorter, and looks less serious and spectacular, than the cheap non-X 14-42 zoomed to 42.