Surprise: 45-200 mk-I on G85

Had 45-200 mk-I since my first M43 some 11 years ago and was never very happy with it on various bodies. G1, GF3, GX1, GX7 and I always think it is heavy in terms of M43, difficult to handle on those soap like designed models, possible shutter shock on early models without e-shutter, and as advised by members needed to stop down to f/7.1~8 for better result etc making this lens not easy to use...

As I don't use the long end a lot, I eventually replaced 45-200 by the smaller/lighter 45-150 4 years ago with happy result. The 45-200 would be used only when monopod/ tripod be used for events that I had time to kill.

Added G85 recently, took 45-200 as part of the lenses for an early testing.

Oop, 45-200 delivered quite good result that felt like a new lens beyond my knowledge of it.

It is non DUAL IS compatible, therefore used the same old OIS on G85 as on any other older Panny bodies. Might be removal of AA filter to have a sharper image (I shoot SOOC jpg), improved jpg engine for more pleasant output, ergonomically G85 is far better than GX7/85, and its very quiet and soft m-shutter etc adding up to make this old lens shined again.

@200mm, 1/2000", f/6.3, ISO200, -2ev

@200mm, 1/500", f/6.3, ISO1000, +1/3ev

@84mm, 1/1000", f/6.3, ISO200, -1/3ev

@72mm, 1/1300", f/4.3 (wide open), ISO200

@109mm, 1/1600", f/4.8 (wide open), ISO200, -1ev

I got a good deal on the Mk-II version recently.  I think it was part of a broken up G85 two lens kit. I haven't been able to use it beyond a few test shots yet but I'm liking it so far.

Henry Richardson wrote:

You are not the first one to come to appreciate the legendary Panasonic 45-200mm.

Here are 2 photographers who write about the Panasonic 45-200mm a few years ago. The first one initially thought it wasn't good, but then discovered problems with his technique in using the lens. After that he was much more satisfied with the results.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/01/raised-expectations.html

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/08/zooms-vs-primes.html

Yes, I suppose the larger grip of G85 works better with this lens...

Thank you for your info.

thelightwriter wrote:

I got a good deal on the Mk-II version recently. I think it was part of a broken up G85 two lens kit. I haven't been able to use it beyond a few test shots yet but I'm liking it so far.

I heard the mk-II has some major upgrade, e.g. DUAL IS 2 and WR might be(?).

Enjoy it.

The original 45-200 is one of those lenses you hear very little about as the received wisdom is that it was decent enough at the time, but everything else has moved forward in terms of IQ. Not unlike the 20mm f1.7 pancake being slated for poor AF performance when it’s actually perfectly good (AFC isn’t supported), just slower than later lenses because of the worm drive AF mech.

Interesting links. I guess that the 45-200 needs stopping down at the long end to get the best out of it just like the 100-300.

One thing I’ve found with my photography over the years is that if I needed more than the 35mm end of my 12-35, I needed considerably more and found the 45-150mm to be a good standby most of the time.

If the MK2 version of the venerable 45-200 is of a similar IQ to the 45-150, I might have to make space in my camera bag for one.

Terminal Boy wrote:

The original 45-200 is one of those lenses you hear very little about as the received wisdom is that it was decent enough at the time, but everything else has moved forward in terms of IQ. Not unlike the 20mm f1.7 pancake being slated for poor AF performance when it’s actually perfectly good (AFC isn’t supported), just slower than later lenses because of the worm drive AF mech.

Interesting links. I guess that the 45-200 needs stopping down at the long end to get the best out of it just like the 100-300.

I was also originally accepted and adopted it for quite a long time before it was replaced by a 45-150 a few years ago. During that time f/7.1-8 gave me quite acceptable result and so I took it as a golden rule for such particular lens. Hence, for a 400mm eq AoV lens, needed to stop down to f/7.1~8, the limitation of higher ISO of M43 cameras... Just a very limited lens to me. So am very happy to have similar result from 45-150 wide open.

One thing I’ve found with my photography over the years is that if I needed more than the 35mm end of my 12-35, I needed considerably more and found the 45-150mm to be a good standby most of the time.

Same for me.

If the MK2 version of the venerable 45-200 is of a similar IQ to the 45-150, I might have to make space in my camera bag for one.

GAS?

alcelc wrote:

GAS?

Always something shiny and to catch my eye.