• Gallery

Support

You can support this site without any cost or disadvantage at all by clicking this link to Amazon or the one on the left before buying anything – be it underpants, a cupboard, a TV, a pen, a lens or a camera. Amazon is the only shop worldwide, I’m really satisfied with to a 100%, so I have no caveats advertising them. Of course, you can also directly donate a small amount of money, e.g. the amount you would have spent for a magazine, with the button on the left.

Panasonic G Vario 45-150mm 1:4-5.6 OIS

 

A Panasonic tele lens with image stabilization for the mft - cameras, a "lower-end" model ("G" Vario) and also sold in KITs.

Panasonic makes several different tele-zooms for mFT, but other than Olympus, these all have slightly (or massively) different focal lengths, so it's easier to tell them apart (a 45-175, a 45-200, a 100-300, a 35-100/2.8, ...). This is the smallest of all, including Olympus-teles. And since size is the one and only reason for me to own mFT-equipment at all, there was no alternative.

It smaller than the Canon 18-55mm KIT-lens. Here's a comparison to the smallest "fullframe" 70-300mm - lens I know of, the Tamron non-IS. The IS-version is a lot bigger, as is the Canon:

Happily, it is excellent in any way, too, optically and mechanically. You'll have a hard time finding such a good and consistently good tele for Canon "fullframe"-DSLRs, at any price.

The main problem with it is, that it is so small and light, that I really have problems holding it steady enough to get sharp shots, even with image stabilization.

The most common alternative is the Olympus 40-150mm, which is a tiny bit worse optically and mechanically, even if only to a completely irrelevant degree, but also a bit bigger. The Pana is about 50% more expensive used, but that's still only € 150,- vs. € 100,- in very good condition with (used-)warranty, so for me, it's worth it. It's more than double that new. Of course you can also think of buying more focal length like 200mm or even 300mm, but you also "pay" in size for it: the 45-200 is 50% longer and the 100-300 about 85%. Nonetheless, these are tiny still, too.

 

COMPATIBILITY

As a classic, genuine G Vario Lumix, it works perfectly with every mFT camera, Panasonic or Olympus. There are no known issues in any combination, but remember, that, other than Olympus, most Panasonic-bodies don't have stabilization built in, so you don't have any with Olympus-lenses. Because these cameras have sensors, that are smaller than 35mm - film, it gives you a field-of-view roughly like a 90-300mm lens would give on 35mm. And remember, too, that 35mm is 3:2 - while mft is 4:3 - format, so that it isn't exactly comparable, in fact a little less in height and a little more in width.

 

PRICE

This lens is usually sold seperatly or in kits with a body. It's € 300,- new at the moment, what I wouldn't pay, as the Olympus is only € 150,-. But single winning bids with (used-) warranty start at around € 150,- on ebay and that's the way I chose, while I sold my Olympus for € 130,- used. The size-difference was surely worth € 20,- for me (or € 30,- having the ebay-provision in mind).

 

ACCESSORIES

As usual, this original G Vario is shipped without the shade, I wouldn't use anyway. They charge obscene prices for this cheap plastic-barrel, so I'd always buy third-party if you insist in having a fixed shade, or use my favourite, a collapsible rubber hood instead. For me, it'd destroy the advantage of the whole system, if I'd use a shade, because the only reason for me to own mFT-equipment is size.

It uses 52mm filters, which seems to develop as a bigger standard for mFT-lenses: Several Panasonic lenses use it and especially the Olympus 9-18mm, which is my standard-lens on mFT. My other two "standard"-lens-selections are the 45/1.8 and the 14-42 EZ, which both use 37mm-filters, so I just have to carry two small (cheap) sizes. Of course it'd be better to just have one size of filters, but that's the price you have to pay for the size-advantage: You can't built a 90-300 equivalent lens or an ultrawide with 37mm filters and bigger filters would destroy the size-advantage of the 45mm or the 14-42.

Like on all mFT-lenses I know of, the focus-ring doesn't really move an optical element, but actuates the AF-motor, which, other than I expected at first, actually works fine and even has the advantage, that it can be progressive: The faster you turn the ring, the bigger it's steps are.

The filter - thread doesn't rotate, making the use of grads and polarizers uncomfortable.

I don't know and have never used any tele-converters for mft.

 

MECHANICS

Made in China.

Metal lens mount.

I'm not exactly sure, what the rest is made of. The inner barrel is plastics, but the outer body? It feels like some kind of metal, but seems a bit too light for this and it could as well be some very hard, coated plastics. Well, in the end it doesn't matter: It's small, light and feels very high-quality and sturdy, so who cares?

Manual focussing is "by wire": When you turn the focus ring, it actuates the AF - motor. This is a bit strange when you do this for the first time, but other than in some lenses for Canon EOS and others, this implementation is actually very good and intelligent and - after you've got used to it - works better than a classic mechanical coupling. This is, because the manual focus ring works progressively: If you turn the ring fast for a significant distance, focus is moved by a comparitively long step, while, when you turn it really slow, very small steps are taken. The longer the focal length, the smaller the steps seem to be to deal with the lower depth-of-field. Pretty smart.

A nice side effect is, that the focus ring of course doesn't turn during AF and that full-time-manual-override is possible. The focus ring itself is perfectly usable.

The focus-ring feels exceptionally smooth and the zoom, even if a tiny bit more "uneven", is great, too and even better than on the Olympus 40-150.

It extends to double it's size at 150mm, but even then, nothing shakes, wobbles or has play, everything feels tight and high-quality.

Not exactly Canon-L-standard, but really great for this price-class.

Plastic filter thread.

The focus-motor is extremely fast and nearly completely silent. Fulltime manual override is possible. It doesn't "feel" as fast as on Canon DSLRs, but this is due to the system itself and not a fault of the motor: Contrast-AF (used in all cameras that focus relying on the sensor-image), while being absolutely precise, in comparison to phase-detection-AF used in most DSLRs, does not "know" in which direction to focus, so it always moves in both directions (near and far) before it locks, while in most situations, when focus isn't completely off, DSLRs at once turn in the right direction, but don't have such a high precision. AF-fine-tuning (or Micro-Focus-Adjustment, MFA, as Canon calls it) simply isn't necessary on mFT.

It's really great to have such a small and light construction with such a good feeling nonetheless.

The Panasonic is better built than the Olympus, but not worth the price-difference when new (€ 300,- vs. € 150,- at this moment on Amazon).

 

ERGONOMICS

As already mentioned, it is extremely, close to unbelievably, small and light, especially for it focal length range. Size DOES matter, also see Lenses: What's important? so this is a real plus. It's size and weight alone justify owning it for me. It is so small and light, that you can always bring it, even if you know, that you most likely will not need it. It fits in the pocket of a coat or in any bag I can think of. You can even carry it in the pocket of your trousers for a short while.

It feels very good in every postion.

The lens extends significantly with zooming, but front does not turn when focussed, so the use of grads and polarizers is a joy. The 52mm - filters are very common and easy to get used.

There is no focus-scale, which would make no sense anyway, because of the progressive actuation of the AF - motor, see "mechanics", and no infrared-focus-indices or depth-of-field-scale.

Zoom- and manual-focus-rings feel exceptionally smooth and tight and even dampened. The focus-ring is big enough to give you a good feel and grip and is in the right position.

Fulltime manual focus override is possible, as it always is on mFT, and you can turn the zoom-ring with one finger.

The main challenge with this lens' ergonomics is it's biggest advantage at the same time: It's size. It may sound odd, but it's actually really hard for me to take sharp photos with this lens, even with image stabilization! It's not that it's not sharp itself, but the combination with a small mFT-body is so light, that I can't really hold it as steady as a Canon EOS 5D Mark II with a long tele, weighing 5 to 10 times as much. I usually have a benefit of 4 stops with IS in comparison to the 1/focal-length-rule, but I have a hard time getting a sharp shot at 150mm (300mm equivalent) at 1/250th with this lens on my E-PM2. For the examples below, I had to rest the camera on a wall.

 

Overall: GREAT! But hard to handle.

 

OPTICS

You can read optical reviews all over the net, e.g. at photozone. Optics of this Panasonic lens are very good at maximum with exceptional consistency. It's hard to find a tele-zoom with a similar range and this (consistently) good for Canon EOS "fulframe", even among the Canon L - lenses for 10 times the price, in fact. This may partly be due to the automatic corrections, mft - bodies do in-camera, but the result is, what counts and what you see in your pictures.

Distortion is hardly visible and most pronounced at 150mm (pincushion), where it is still a whole lot better than the Canon EF 50/1.8 PRIME. At 45mm, it is in the range of the 85/1.8.

Vignetting may be about one stop at max, but with a pleasing, slow fading, so it's never annoying.

CAs are exceptionally low, maybe around a half pixel or so? This is so good, that I don't even bother to correct it in post-processing. That's prime-level, again.

The minimum focus distance is 0.9m, so at 150mm, the maximum magnification is aprox. 1:3.5 and as such very good, making a special macro-lens obsolete in most cases, at least on paper. In reality, I find the 0.9m still too much in some cases, especially at the short end. This may be because I have to hold my PEN in front of me because of the lacking finder, so that I "loose" half a meter of distance e.g. in the zoo... But maybe I'm an idiot.

The aperture is made of 7 rounded blades, giving you smooth bokeh and out-of-focus highlights with great 14-ray-light-stars, if you manage to get some at all. The smaller sensor of mft - cameras leads to a lot more depth-of-field than you would expect for the field-of-view provided and being used to 35mm film, because depth-of-field is always the same for a lens with a certain focal length and aperture, so is the same here as any 45-150mm 1:4-5.6 lens would provide on "fullframe". Therefore, it is a bit more difficult to blurr the background on mft, but with this lens, it diminishes nicely from around 90mm on wide open.

I don't have any information about this lens' usability for infrared-photography, sorry.

Flare, is nothing to worry about with this lens. While I think, that a lens less prone to flare and especially ghosting is not always better, as at least ghosts can be a very nice tool to show the lighting conditions in your pictures, this 45-150mm flares slightly and produces some ghosts with a bright source of light in or just outside the frame, but not at all on an annoying level. You can shoot directly into the sun and if you don't melt your sensor, the pictures look great all the time, with just some green ghosts in the opposite corner of the photo. I think, the relaively small front - element helps a lot here. I use this lens for a while now and I don't have one single shot, that is really blown out from flare - it doesn't "glow out" like many new kit-lenses, which can't handle simple candles without loosing contrast.

It's color reproduction seems to match most of my other lenses, despite some old Sigmas.

Sharpness is one of the most overrated qualities of lenses. That being said, this lens is very sharp for it's range. Very sharp at max and truly exceptional regarding it's consistency. Maybe you could be able to spot a very slight difference in sharpness between the very last pixels in the corners and the center at 45mm, but from 80mm to 150mm I didn't manage to find a difference at all!  And that's on 16MP and a lens with image stabilization, which, because of the "controlled decentering" any IS does, always costs sharpness: Even Canon L-teles with IS are usually worse in the corners than the non-stabilized versions ... and these are the reference, for sure. The Olympus, while still impressive, is a bit worse here. The next remarkable thing is, that is does not get worse on the long end, not at all! It even gets better in the corners. WOW.

It really is astonishing, at what optical quality Olympus and Panasonic manage to built their lenses for these prices and sizes. 

Here are some samples, all 100% crops from 16MP JPGs (E-PM2):

45mm f/4 (wide-open), roughly the center.

45mm, f/4 (wide-open), extreme top-left corner.

150mm f/5.6 (wide-open), roughly the center.

150mm f/5.6 (wide-open) extreme top-right corner.

On mFt, stopping down usually, at least with lenses this slow, doesn't really help sharpness, because due to the smaller sensor, diffraction, meaning the purely physical effect of softening when closing the aperture, that has nothing to do with the lens' quality, already starts to become visible from around f/5.6 on, while it is f/8 or f/11 on APS-C and "fullframe". These lenses are still perfectly usable at f/11, of course, but already getting weaker.

But if a lens is this sharp wide open, it's not necessary to worry about stopping down.

ALTERNATIVES

The most obvious alternative is the Olympus 40-150mm, which is great, but this lens is is even better in regard to the only point that counts for me, the only reason to own mFT-equipment at all: Size. So I'd always buy the Panasonic.

The only exceptions to this conclusion might be

- if you're on an extremely tight budget and want the cheapest possible lens, even if the difference is "only" € 50,- or

- if you want the Olympus for it's outer appearance - it looks a lot better with Olympus bodies and a lot more like a "classic" photographic lens or

- if you insist in buying new, what I could understand really well. Then the Panasonic is more than double the price of this Oly and no, it isn't worth such a difference.

Of course you can also think of buying more focal length like 200mm or even 300mm, but you also "pay" in size for it: the 45-200 is 50% longer and the 100-300 about 85%. Nonetheless, these are tiny still, too. I just can give you the advice to test the longer lenses, if you are unsure: 150mm (300mm equivalent) is a LOT of reach and for me is by far enough for nearly everything, maybe apart from bird-shooting while lying in the swamp wearing a dry-suit... but you probably won't use a mFT-camera for that anyway. And stability really is a point, for me even with this lens and surely a lot more so with 300mm (600mm equivalent) - I really don't know how I could ever hold such a lens still enough.

A word about supporting this site

I don’t run this site to earn money. I have a real job to earn my living with, a completely normal job. Since everything I write about here I have bought myself, for myself and with my own money from normal shops or ebay-sellers to actually use it, how much and what I am able to write about , depends on the amount of money that I can save and invest in equipment with good conscience. I share all this, because I want to, not to sell it. But when you find this helpful, maybe even as helpful as buying a magazine or book, of course you can support me, if you want. Your benefit is, that you help me being able to afford things to write about here.

You can use the “Donate” – button on the left to directly send a small amount of money (or a big amount, if you insist). You don’t need a paypal account to do so, every method is possible. If you decide to donate 99 cents, I’m thankful for it, because 10 people being as kind as you, make one new filter tested! The default currency is US $, but it works well with € or nearly any other currency, too.

But even more simple and without any cost or other disadvantage at all it is, to simply use this link to Amazon (or the one on the left) before buying anything there. For you it’s exactly the same as going there directly by typing the web-adress in your browser, you just klick this link first! It doesn’t matter, what you buy or where in the world you buy it, be it underpants, a pen, a cupboard, a lens or a Leica M9, be it in Germany, the USA, the UK or Australia: Amazon’s servers simply realize, that you came there through the link on my page and I get a small percentage of anything you buy FROM THEM. There’s absolutely no cost or other disadvantage for you, Amazon simply pays for my “advertisement” through this. I originally didn’t want to ever do any advertising personally. But then I decided to break this rule for Amazon. I’m a completely satisfied customer and buy everything from them. It’s the only shop in the world I would personally and on my private basis really rate a complete 100% in every regard. They have perfect service, even do call you back, answer emails with real, personal writing, extremely fast delivery even on Christmas-day, always perfect and completely new items, are never considerably more expensive than the very cheapest internet-sellers, have an extremely fast refund-system without being picky or having ever displeased me in any way and sell every good I have ever wanted to buy. They work on a completely different level than any retailer I have ever tried, and deliver it directly to me, without robbing me time and money to drive to the city or mall. I wouldn’t advertise them, if I wasn’t convinced, that it is OK to do so.