Photozone review of m4/3 45-200 lens up now

http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/417-panasonic_45200_456

Somewhat marginal performance at 200mm, but good up to 150mm. Sharpness discussion seems to correspond fairly closely to slrgear's review.

thanks for the link

both results for 14-45 & 45-200 sound disappointing to me.

If we compare in the same range of price with Canon 18-55 iS - 55-250 IS,
the Panasonic optics cannot compete.

This is not anyway a big surprise for me after watching several pictures from the 45-200 on forums ...

The G1 is indeed a nice camera & a nice concept but they should have put more efforts on their optics, considering there is no other alternative !!!

olivier1 said:

both results for 14-45 & 45-200 sound disappointing to me.

If we compare in the same range of price with Canon 18-55 iS - 55-250
IS, the Panasonic optics cannot compete.

Click to expand...

For the tele lenses that was expected from the published MTF curves. The lens tested at Photozone seems slightly better at 200mm, centre, than the one SLRgear tested.

The Lumix has been designed with an especially lightweight AF group to get fast CD-AF. This constraint may be a factor why it's harder to get a consistently good result over the whole zoom range.

For the standard zooms, the 14-45 got a much better review at SLRgear (they didn't test the uncorrected data) and I don't agree the lens can't compete. It depends on how one feels about the distortion and vignetting, of course.

olivier1 said:

The G1 is indeed a nice camera & a nice concept but they should have
put more efforts on their optics, considering there is no other
alternative !!!

Click to expand...

The G1 body has hardware that's probably quite expensive, so to make the price points they could not spend a fortune on the lenses. Canon have a big volume advantage.

Still, the 14-45 seems sharper than most kit lenses and the 45-200 is fair for a lens that goes to 400mm equivalent, stabilised.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

I agree there that the 14-45 is far better, and the 45-200 is mediocre come fair in comparison.

--

The 45-200 does seem disappointing to me, but the results seem to coincide with pictures posted (sharp at under 150mm, softish beyond that). The Canon 55-250 definitely seems to be a better performer, and at a better price at that. I guess if you consider the 45-200 to be a 45-150, then it's competitive. On the build quality front, these Pansonic lenses seem nice, in my limited examination of them. I do like that the front elements don't rotate, and that they have metal mounts. But image quality is the more important aspect to me.

It'll probably keep me from getting a G1 until if/when some better lens is available. If I'm going to have to swap lenses, I'd like the long end of the tele lens to be good. It'll be interesting to see how the 14-140 turns out.

olivier1 said:

thanks for the link

both results for 14-45 & 45-200 sound disappointing to me.

If we compare in the same range of price with Canon 18-55 iS - 55-250
IS,
the Panasonic optics cannot compete.

This is not anyway a big surprise for me after watching several
pictures from the 45-200 on forums ...

The G1 is indeed a nice camera & a nice concept but they should have
put more efforts on their optics, considering there is no other
alternative !!!

Click to expand...

DElliott said:

It'll probably keep me from getting a G1 until if/when some better
lens is available. If I'm going to have to swap lenses, I'd like the
long end of the tele lens to be good. It'll be interesting to see
how the 14-140 turns out.

Click to expand...

same opinion.
I was hesitating between Canon (450D or 1000D) and G1.

I like the live view of the G1 (currently bridge owner), but I am not sure it is worth buying a G1 just for this advantage ...

I have an FZ50 currently, so the improved, large EVF is quite appealing to me, as is the fast CDAF. But if the G1 system doesn't develop to my liking, I'll likely do something along the lines of a D90, which is admittedly a much more expensive route to go. But it and the Rebel are the only sub $1000 bodies that offer features competitive with the G1 (more than 3 focus points, bracketing, decent viewfinders, etc.). The bonus is that both those cameras have very good dynamic range, a weakness of the G1. I prefer the Nikon mid-range lens choices to Canon's right now though. In particular, I'm interested in the 16-85 VR and the 70-300VR.

just read both M4/3 Lens report, made me wonder what's the point. I used to carry around SLR, and RF ( later Contax G2 ) in film days so I can had the superiority of good lens in the RF as the lens not limited by the mirror.

I was expecting the Panasonic G lens to match if not exceed at least their own in the 4/3 range. The numerous Image samples online already get me doubting, my own test with the G1 do not convince me either. And I guess the Data in those test finally confirm it.

What sense is that to go all the length adn yet provide no decent lens for the system ... I mean They did that with 4/3 ( well at least those were decent lens, just not a decent lineup )

Thanks, I think I would wait for the system to gain a bit more mature then, and if Panasonic / Olympus want us to just go buy the system based on a good promise, that simply won't work; even less so in this economic environment. They need to deliver instead ...

--

• Franka -