Pics look very good - very sharp, excellent contrast. Perfect for most photographers who enjoy the hobby and couldn't care about their own image quality, which seems to bother too many in today's - "do I look good with this lens/camera combo?"
I have had this mark.1 lens for many years so I probably know its foibles. A couple of years ago I got a mark.2 for its Power-OIS which goes Dual on the G9. To fit the Power-OIS I think they had to change the focus motors, the mark 2 can focus more quickly (but this may be the extra stability), but remember it is the camera that does the focusing, then how fast the lens motors can move; if you ask it to move a long way, it takes longer. The glassware is identical. The glass is uncoated, this is to /reduce/ chroma, if there is any it becomes white, along with three ED elements. No zoom lens is best at its long end but I do not find it needs backing off very far, ~180mm will do the trick. No lens is at its best aperture wide open, it likes being shut down f/8-f/11 The 45-200 does seem to be a bit unloved and forgotten, this is reflected in the used price of both models. OIS cannot be ascribed to yay-many stops as IBIS can because it doesn't work like that, it won't help you use a slow shutter but does stabilise the image you are trying to shoot, very effectively. Power -OIS can be worth 4-5 stops at that lark. And that can aid focusing, it is difficult for a camera to AF if the image is dancing about.
I consider it bad. It's huge, heavy and it's more like 45-120. Zooming further doesn't bring any extra resolution, at 100mm it's very sharp and from there it's getting worse. But 45-150 is pretty good lens which is cheap, lightweight and the size is very reasonable.
How do you think it compares with the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f/4-5.6? i.e., in saying to avoid the 200mm aspect, would you say to avoid going all the way with the 40-150mm too? Wondering whether to just get the 40-150mm and if I would get very comparable results. Thanks!
Pics look very good - very sharp, excellent contrast. Perfect for most photographers who enjoy the hobby and couldn't care about their own image quality, which seems to bother too many in today's - "do I look good with this lens/camera combo?"
I have had this mark.1 lens for many years so I probably know its foibles. A couple of years ago I got a mark.2 for its Power-OIS which goes Dual on the G9. To fit the Power-OIS I think they had to change the focus motors, the mark 2 can focus more quickly (but this may be the extra stability), but remember it is the camera that does the focusing, then how fast the lens motors can move; if you ask it to move a long way, it takes longer. The glassware is identical. The glass is uncoated, this is to /reduce/ chroma, if there is any it becomes white, along with three ED elements. No zoom lens is best at its long end but I do not find it needs backing off very far, ~180mm will do the trick. No lens is at its best aperture wide open, it likes being shut down f/8-f/11
The 45-200 does seem to be a bit unloved and forgotten, this is reflected in the used price of both models.
OIS cannot be ascribed to yay-many stops as IBIS can because it doesn't work like that, it won't help you use a slow shutter but does stabilise the image you are trying to shoot, very effectively. Power -OIS can be worth 4-5 stops at that lark. And that can aid focusing, it is difficult for a camera to AF if the image is dancing about.
Just bought this lens so really helpful video. Cheers
I consider it bad. It's huge, heavy and it's more like 45-120. Zooming further doesn't bring any extra resolution, at 100mm it's very sharp and from there it's getting worse. But 45-150 is pretty good lens which is cheap, lightweight and the size is very reasonable.
How do you think it compares with the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f/4-5.6? i.e., in saying to avoid the 200mm aspect, would you say to avoid going all the way with the 40-150mm too? Wondering whether to just get the 40-150mm and if I would get very comparable results. Thanks!