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

Started Oct 1, 2012 | Discussions thread
shihhan Regular Member • Posts: 307
Re: 45-150 or 45-200

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.

  - 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?

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?


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.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow