Comments on: (FT4) New Panasonic 45-175mm m43 lens to be announced soon?

By: Panasonic = confused

Panasonic = confused — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 22:35:33 +0000

Small compact zoom is actually exactly what M4/3 needs. Only if they could make a 14-42mm super compact lens (perhaps thin as 20mm). To make the camera pocketable. That would be amazing and put the M4/3 exactly where is should be, professional camera in your pocket.
14-150mm and 20mm are the only lenses I need anywhere.

By: Duarte Bruno

Duarte Bruno — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 01:03:04 +0000

I don’t smoke mate! But the copy I tried to profile for PhotoAcute was so badly soft that they refused my profile thinking I had made a serious focusing mistake… :O
I lost a lot of time on that lens and I though I indeed was dealing with a bad copy, that was until I saw SLRGear’s sharpness graph. I don’t know what they were smoking either because their graph reflects what I saw.
If your copy gives you enough per pixel sharpness to publish prints all the best for you, but I do admit I hate that lens like the plague and I would never keep it should it belong to me and not to a co-worker…

By: Milo Hess

Milo Hess — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 01:41:57 +0000

I agree. Not sure what Duarte is smoking….Seems like a vendetta against the 45-200. Meanwhile no editor has ever complained when they publish my images. LOL

By: Milo Hess

Milo Hess — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 01:36:21 +0000

The 45-200 too soft? I find the exact opposite. It is very sharp….in fact I use it on occasion for photojournalism.
Not to mention the fact it a great value for the $.

By: Luke

Luke — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:27:23 +0000

I’ve handled one plenty….and I use it quite a bit. I don;t look at graphs and charts…..I look at photos. The ones I take with it are sharp and have nice contrast. The only lens I use more often is the excellent 20mm. I would love to have a bright high performance zoom, but I don’t see the point of putting out a marginally better version of something that already performs adequately well for its’ price.