Tele lens: panasonic 45-175mm or 45-200mm?

I own and love the 45-175 - one of my favorite lenses, both when I used GX7 and now G85, where is uses dual IS. It is compact and zooms internally, has both electric and manual zoom, and is a great working range.

+1. The 45-175 is smaller and does not extend when zoomed. I use it, the kit 12-32 and the 20mm f1.7 with my GM 5 as a very light kit that, "covers everything" (for snapshots). It all fits in a very small bag with an extra battery. FL-LM3 flash and sd card. As far as IQ goes, I would rate the 45-175 and 45-200 in the same class (45-175 may be slightly sharper?). That little flash and auto-iso is just great for indoor snapshots with the 12-32 lens.

--
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Clarkes 3rd Law

I agree with the others, the 45-175mm is an excellent, true "m43" lens. I wouldn't bother with the 45-200mm personally, if anything I'd consider the 100-300mm in its place if you want that big lens feel.

But yeah, the 45-175mm is one of the best lenses for m43 if you consider price, compactness and quality.

I have compared some tele zoom lenses here, and find that the 45-175mm tends to be the very best:


So I would recommend the 45-175mm lens.

I very recently bought the 45-175 and was very surprised how small it is. The fact that it is internal zooming makes it even more so. Unfortunately, I have had no time to properly test it. At first glance it seems to perform better than my cheap Oly 40-150, which I think is quite good for a lens at this price.

Astrotripper said:

I very recently bought the 45-175 and was very surprised how small it is. The fact that it is internal zooming makes it even more so. Unfortunately, I have had no time to properly test it. At first glance it seems to perform better than my cheap Oly 40-150, which I think is quite good for a lens at this price.

Click to expand...

I don't have either. When I bought my GX85, it came with two kit lenses: 12-32 + 45-150.

I had the O40-150 since 2014 and was pleasantly surprised the 45-150 handily beat it in all (overlapping) focal lengths, especially @150mm. I sold my O40-150 not because it's not good but because the 45-150 was better.

I bought the 45-200 because it is water resistant and the range is better for me than the 45-175.

There are very few reviews of the mark ii version, but the one which I found put it as a much better performing lens than the 45 175. For the Mark I version, Photozone.de scores the old 45 200 better as well.

Unfortunately after I did some initial tests with it, which confirmed that it was better than the 14 140 ii (no slouch in the performance stakes), it was left in USA with my GX8 and the SD card, and I will not be able to pick it up until December. However based on my short period of use, I would say it is very good.

There are many people on this form who put this lens down, often on the basis of second hand reports so far as I can see. Maybe there was a bad batch of the Mark I version which gave rise to this view.

I can only say that I would not buy a 45 175 in preference, especially as the comparative tests say it is not as good.

My only suggestion would be to try one yourself and make up your own opinion and in thus case not rely on others.

Tom

BertrandJow said:

Hi,

I'm considering buying a tele lens for a GX80. I narrowed it down to 2 panasonic: 45-175 and 45-200mm. I can't decide between them: they both have IS and are compatible with dual IS, have an aperture of 4-5.6, are not too big, and the 200mm is 80$ more expensive. All other things being equal I would prefer the longer range, but is there any drawback to the 200mm, like a difference in picture quality or AF speed between them, or a faster drop to 5.6 on the tele side? I tried to find reviews but most reviews for the 200mm were of the mark 1 which is now quite old.

Any way to choose between them?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

I have both. Initially started with the 45-200 and later got the 45-175.

I find the 45-175 noticeably sharper than the 45-200. Yes, I have the Mark 1, but sharpness is not improved on the Mark 2.

Add to that the fact that the 45-175 is significantly smaller and is half the weight of the 45-200, I have not used the 45-200 since.

The extra 25mm at the tele end really doesn't do anything for me. If I need to be reasonably mobile yet maximise my reach, I will pull out my 100-300mm:

https://microfourthirdssite.wordpre...amera-bag-micro-four-thirds-wildlife-edition/



--
My blog:

no comparison really; the much smaller 175 is sharper!

4 the life of me I can't figure why Lumix would reissue this bloated, mediocre lens. I couldn't give it away soon enough when i got my 45-150! (-:

other than being about twice as heavy as it ought, weak IQ at long end, and rough feeling zoom action, it was OK, ha ha

other than the original 14-42, I can't think of a "stinker" lens that Lumix has produced besides the 45-200. And even if u get a 'good' copy, there is the weight.

(with heavy Oly pro lenses, at least there is a payoff of IQ and speed

I own the 45-175 which I bought on recommendation as well, and was pleasantly surprised by how good it is. Not only is it small and light, its optics are really good and the internal zoom is invaluable. I wrote a review of it here:

Thanks for all your answers! I think I'll go with the 45-175mm then, it does seems like the better choice for picture quality, build and compactness despite the 200mm having the longer reach and slightly bigger average aperture.

About the 100-300mm, I'd definitely like the much longer reach and faster lens, but I'm not ready for the extra bulk or cost yet, plus there would be a gap between 32 and 100mm (which may or may not be a problem). Maybe I'll consider it when I've had more experience with the camera and other lenses.

I would repeat my advice that you test both before making a decision. Look at this review before deciding that the 45 175 is sharper (I could not compare with 45 175, but did with 14-140 which is shown as sharper than the 45 175.


Of course if the smaller lens is an advantage for you that may override sharpness considerations, but for me the water resistance of the 45 200 was the killer feature

Good luck, anyway

Tom

Your 14-140mm is sharper than your 45-175mm? That's the 1st time I ever heard of that being possible. I own both of those lenses, and have never before in my years of using Panasonic gear heard of anyone before who had a 45-175mm that was worst than their 14-140mm.

Sranang Boi said:

Your 14-140mm is sharper than your 45-175mm? That's the 1st time I ever heard of that being possible. I own both of those lenses, and have never before in my years of using Panasonic gear heard of anyone before who had a 45-175mm that was worst than their 14-140mm.

Click to expand...

My 14-140mm is sharper than my 45-175mm, there is no comparison. Maybe i have a bad copy.