I have a GH2 with the 14-42mm &amp; 100-300mm. Looking to replace de 42mm. Can't decide between this 45-175mm &amp; 14-140mm lens as primary lens. Any suggestions/comparisons? Thanks.
2029245
Hi Pablo, I have a similar camera (and lens set). I have the GF5 with the X series (compact) 14mm-42mm and I recently got the x series 45mm-175mm. After a ton of reading all the reviews and comments and factoring price and everything (for me) I decided this was the best 2nd lens for me. That said, it is no good UNLESS one is 20+ feet away from what you basically want to shoot. When I take a group shot I have to switch back. I will say the 45x175 is a superb lens, but if you were going to mount one and leave the other home, you would really want the 14-140 (IMO). When I chose the 45-175 I figured why get a lens that was already a range of one I had but in practical use I now see the 14mm-140mm There were a few other factors, one was the price was significantly higher (I got my 45-175 for one hundred ninety two using "like new" on warehouse deals) the other was I really wanted a "X" series lens and the 14-140 is a "G" series only. Two other factors were the 14-140 was almost 8 years older and twice as heavy. I have a GF5 and LOVE how with the 45-175 mounted I can hold it like a soda can in one hand when not using it. I am sure the 14-140 is a great lens, and with the GH2 being a much bigger and heavier camera, I am not sure the increase weight would be an issue. Next time I get another lens my quandary may be similar to your, but it would be the 100-300 vs the very useable 14-140. I already get "Wow" comments with the 45-175 mounted on my tiny red GF5 camera. I can only imagine the comments the humongous 100-300 (zoomed out) would get. I do like how the 45-175 it totally internal and am a tad fearful of the 'zooming/slide' tube feature of the 100-300. I know they have to do it, but it's a tad scary. Overall I really think if you are going to REPLACE (meaning sell or no longer have access the 14-42mm lens) you should opt for the 14-140. That way you ONLY change if you want CRAZY zoom potential! Take care!
36984
I was in a similar situation, and after trying all the options for a few weeks decided on the primes mostly for size and weight reasons. This lens is tiny for an f/2.8 zoom, but it is big and heavy compared to most other m4/3 lenses. UPDATE: After my latest vacation, constantly switching between primes, I've reconsidered my decision. I sold two of my primes and got the 12-40 again.
1784426
The lens is great for all around use. Tack sharp and worth every penny. If you plan on moving full frame it's worth it. On a DX body it will act like a 36-105. It's a bit on the weighty side but not over bearing. I have found the images have a certain pop to them that most other lenses can't provide unless they have the nano coating. Your other option is the great 17-55 which is designed for DX cameras. Look online there are some great reviews. If money isn't an issue go for it.
1713457
The 300 F2.8 is one of the best lens Nikon has ever made and is better. The added reach and the fact that the 300 F 2.8 works perfectly with 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0 converters makes it the perfect choice. I have tried the 500 F4 and it is way to big to carry around or hold. The 300 f 2.8 is still large but can be handheld which is huge. Thanks for asking.
354388
The 14-42 covers 28mm to 84mm. The 17mm covers 34mm. Lower the number the wider of the shot. The advantages are it's smaller and has a faster aperture. Which means a shallower depth of field and it's better in low light. You can't zoom with the 17mm as it's a prime lens. The two lenses compliment each other, not replace each other. Each serve a different purpose.
1716981
This Lens is phenomenal! I also have the 6d and together they are great. Don't waste your money on the 24-70. At first, I was not too sure about the 28-70L , but after Using it at a few events, it is proven to be an awesome lens. My copy is tack sharp and the only difference is 4mm.
1516119
It sucks but it was worth the wait. Here are links to my first GH2 test video on youtube and Vimeo that has the native 1080p24 MTS 93mb file available for download that looks better on a large HDTV.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI8iL4H-Cckhttp://vimeo.com/17899410My GH2 with 50mm F1.4 Pentax FA lens:http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5288/5267764174_755d8e68bd_b.jpg
2256733
I usually think of zooms for versatility, but if you were just interested in a prime, I'd say this one was the best combination. 14mm is too wide. 35mm a bit too close (remember it's actually closer to 50mm when you take into account the cropped sensor). 23mm is a bit more flexible as well as being a great lens.
1270622
The 18-140mm lens is a very good lens. I did trade mine for a 16-85mm lens that fit my work better. Also I have used the18-200mm lens which is also a very good lens. I don't think you could go wrong with any of these lens. The choice remains on what you want from your lens.
503711
I've shot with the 14-35, 35-100, 50-200, and 50. I'm coming off a rather battle worn E-30. I think it's faster and more dependable by far. Coupled with such a big bright viewfinder and you can see exactly what is happening in AF and MF (with enlargement and peaking). The 14-35 screams. I'm sure the newer MFT lenses are optimized but I can't believe it would need to be much faster. Even the old 50 macro, which was never a speed demon, is behaving quite admirably. But do get the grip. Put that with some big glass and it is a very sweet shooting combo. Smaller and easier to handle than a comparable DSLR rig but still pro. I've shot with the 14-35, 35-100, 50-200, and 50. I'm coming off a rather battle worn E-30. I think it's faster and more dependable by far. Coupled with such a big bright viewfinder and you can see exactly what is happening in AF and MF (with enlargement and peaking). The 14-35 screams. I'm sure the newer MFT lenses are optimized but I can't believe it would need to be much faster. Even the old 50 macro, which was never a speed demon, is behaving quite admirably. But do get the grip. Put that with some big glass and it is a very sweet shooting combo. Smaller and easier to handle than a... » Read More I've shot with the 14-35, 35-100, 50-200, and 50. I'm coming off a rather battle worn E-30. I think it's faster and more dependable by far. Coupled with such a big bright viewfinder and you can see exactly what is happening in AF and MF (with enlargement and peaking). The 14-35 screams. I'm sure the newer MFT lenses are optimized but I can't believe it would need to be much faster. Even the old 50 macro, which was never a speed demon, is behaving quite admirably. But do get the grip. Put that with some big glass and it is a very sweet shooting combo. Smaller and easier to handle than a comparable DSLR rig but still pro. « Show Less
1111390
I would just buy the 18-140 as it is the one you would use the most. Later you could consider what additional lenses you would like to buy. A 50mm is a mild telephoto on a DX body so you might be better off buying the 35mm f1.8 instead. The 70-300mm VR is a better lens and there is less overlap with the 18-140. You see quite a few good used 70-300mm VR's for sale at reasonable prices because a lot of people buy them and then later discover they don't have much need for a lens that long.
2198004
Hi there..I put this lens on my af100 video camera. Its pretty wobbly to film without a tripod. But I think the gh2 might have internal stabalization? If not..this lens will be too shaky to film without a tripod...
916481
I have been very happy with the 18-200mm. It was my first lens and remains a workhorse. I have since acquired a 28-135mm as part of a used setup and have yet to try it - there's been no need as the 18-200mm exceeds it in range.
824633
I find the 28 to 70 lens to be a really great lens, sharp, easy to use, fast focus but a bit heavy when used for an event such as weddings. I would recommend looking at 24 - 70mm lens by sigma.
267124
I'm not a G series owner "yet", but I think there are very few real choices for lenses. The 45-200 is the most likely choice for telephoto. And the 20mm/f1.7 "pancake" for indoors/low light. I'd think the lense you have is probably the better overall for average use, especially if the EZ zoom feature works as well as in the FZ series. I would think you could reach @150mm at 5EZ. The EZ zoom feature is supposed to be able to double the focal length, bringing the 14-45 (28-90) to 28-90 (56-180). And it is "free".Unless you need the long reach of the 45-200mm (90-400mm), which I can't do without, why spend the money? I'm not a G series owner "yet", but I think there are very few real choices for lenses. The 45-200 is the most likely choice for telephoto. And the 20mm/f1.7 "pancake" for indoors/low light. I'd think the lense you have is probably the better overall for average use, especially if the EZ zoom feature works as well as in the FZ series. I would think you could reach @150mm at 5EZ. The EZ zoom feature is supposed to be able to double the focal length, bringing the 14-45 (28-90) to 28-90 (56-180). And it is "free".Unless you need the long... » Read More I'm not a G series owner "yet", but I think there are very few real choices for lenses. The 45-200 is the most likely choice for telephoto. And the 20mm/f1.7 "pancake" for indoors/low light. I'd think the lense you have is probably the better overall for average use, especially if the EZ zoom feature works as well as in the FZ series. I would think you could reach @150mm at 5EZ. The EZ zoom feature is supposed to be able to double the focal length, bringing the 14-45 (28-90) to 28-90 (56-180). And it is "free".Unless you need the long reach of the 45-200mm (90-400mm), which I can't do without, why spend the money? « Show Less
923246
I too have the 45-175. Keep an eye out prices vary all the time. If you see a 'great deal' (especially used) GRAB IT. That is true for all items on Amazon. Now, you have three lenses and you must have a kit lens with your G5? If you have a bare G5 then none of these is my best advice, you will not like how 45mm (effectively 90mm) is not nearly 'wide' enough for close up shots... So, assuming you have a 14-42 and this is your SECOND lens you have price and age to decide. lowest cost (and low weight) is the newest 45-150 (2012). Best overall range, in my biased opinion, is the 45-175 (2011) Significantly older and middle of the three pricewise (and much heavier and larger) is the 45-200 (2008). Really, like someone else said, just keep checking (sometimes the price will change significantly during a day), I got my 45-175 for 192 and change last June. Best of luck!
797770
According to the Panasonic lens chart for the 14-45 lens, the minimum focus distance is 1 foot or 12 inches. I haven't tested the G1 in the more traditional macro/close-up type approach. I didn't get the impression that the camera likes getting closer than 12".From @2-3', I was able to engage the Extended Zoom (2x) + 4x digital + a Tcon 1.7 teleconverter (1200mm) and got surprisingly good results. I'm not suggesting you do it, but it worked.