Review on PANASONIC 14 45MM F3 5 5 6 MIRRORLESS H FS014045 by Angela Hernandez

Compact, light, fast autofocus, effective stabilization, excellent sharpness. No problems with light fall-off. My main camera and lens is a Nikon D200 standard zoom 17-55mm f/2.8 for $1,300; So I'm used to professional quality lenses that offer excellent edge-to-edge sharpness, neutral colors, consistent edge-to-edge brightness, very little flare, etc. I bought a Panasonic GF1 and a 20mm f/1.7 as a more portable alternative to my lens. SLR camera. I carry a GF1 with me every day, so I shoot my m4/3 quite a bit. The only negative I can say about the lens is that it has a variable aperture, but that's what all consumer-oriented standard zooms have. By variable aperture I mean it can only open up to f/3.5 at the far end of the zoom (which lets in more light). At the long end, it cannot open further than f/5.6. A constant f/2.8 aperture would result in a much larger, heavier and more expensive lens, like my Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. While my Nikon is perhaps the best zoom for low light and shallow depth of field, the Panasonic 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 is much easier to carry. The OIS stabilization helps in low light, but stabilization can't stop the action like a faster shutter speed (with a larger aperture) can. The picture quality is excellent. I would still say that the 20mm f/1.7 is the only lens every m4/3 user should have, but I could back that up with the 14-45mm in terms of versatility. Build quality is good for such a cheap zoom. I've definitely seen kit zoom lenses for DSLRs that seem cheaper and some that are more durable. Panasonic has a newer 14-42mm kit zoom that should be even cheaper and has a plastic mount instead of the metal mount on this lens. Based on the reviews I would say 14-45mm is better. IQ 14-42 probably isn't much different, but the price isn't much different either. Olympus also has a 14-42mm lens that snaps to a shorter length for carrying, but it doesn't have stabilization as Olympus cameras use in-camera image stabilization instead of a lens. I've used 14-45mm for landscape, architecture, street photography, flowers, people, dogs, etc. I printed the photos in 13 x 19 and the image quality is really very good. Similar lenses I've used are the Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 and the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR. The Panasonic 14-45mm certainly does well and I'd say it's sharper than the Nikon Superzoom (18-200). Panasonic has the advantage of automatically correcting distortion and chromatic aberration in-camera for both RAW and JPEG. So the lens is probably worse than it looks, but you never know by looking at the end result. unless you use a RAW converter that doesn't support patch information in the RAW file. Adobe Camera RAW for Lightroom and Photoshop. The 14-45mm comes with a nice little lens hood that can be stored upside down for carrying, and of course front and rear lens caps. The GF1 isn't as compact with a 14-45mm lens as it is with a 20mm lens, but it's still a balanced combination. I can also comfortably wear the GF1 around my neck with 14-45mm. Zoom is smooth, manual focus is smooth, and it's a good zoom range. I'd rather sacrifice the reach a bit for more extension at the other end, but I think there's always a 7-14mm or an Olympus 9-18mm. 14 mm is sufficient for most purposes. I wear this lens almost every day with my GF1 and 20mm. It's a great little combo.