Again I'm comparing to the faster 20mm lens on the same camera, but I can tell the difference

The 25mm is yet good in this situation

I bought a Panasonic GF-2 and got the extremely popular 20mm lens

Image is not as sharp as the prime 20mm F1.7 or the 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 objectives, but good enough for an amateur like me

It gives you good coverage at the long end up to a nice 400mm equivalent, perfect for wildlife and nature photography.

But there are so many options in this range (including the excellent 20mm f1.7 pancake) that you really can't go wrong with any of these choices.

I only wish Pany made something like the 55-300mm or 28-300mm lenses available for many other camera brands' DSLRs.

At an effective 400mm reach, nice color and sharpness, you think this thing would cost twice the price.

but I can get this error putting the kit 12-60 mm zoom as well

Personally, I like the extra 50mm of reach that the 45-200 gives you

The 20mm is also very nice, but, obviously, for more specific uses

the highly regarded panny 20mm f/1.7 pancake prime (for best available light close-in shooting) together with my G1 and really feel like I have it covered.

This lens makes an effective 90-400mm zoom which completes the package and makes the camera and lens very useful for all types of photography

This is an incredibly compact 70-200mm equivalent zoom as sharp as most prime lenses throughout the entire focal range

(shooting RAW, tripod, same subject, same apeture etc...) as well as the Olympus 12-100mm.

Keep in mind that 400mm equivalent f/5.6 can be very difficult to handhold, even with OIS, and at that focal length atmospheric haze can reduce contrast (I have to wonder whether these factors contribute to some peoples' perceptions of softness)

the sigma 19 and 30mm are smaller, sharper and cheaper but give back a stop of light, but no one would blame you either way.

It's affordable depth of field at the magic 50mm [equivalent for µ4/3] popular with street photographers

The 45-150mm may be just a tad sharper, but for all practical purposes they are very similar in image quality.

Wonderfully useful range, if I only take one lens, this is often my choice, though the 14-45mm is pretty handy as well.

But I realized after being so happy about the lens that I don't have to pay so much to get a good 50mm equivalent lens, this lens really shines in the photos it takes

I remember holding the Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 and wondering wow this is quite small.

Wonderfully useful range, if I only take one lens, this is often my choice, though the 14-45mm is pretty handy as well.

The Olympus 45mm comes to mind as a superb portrait lens, but as a general purpose lens and a walk around telephoto, the 45-200mm really shines

I've also had the Olympus 25mm f1.8 but did not really like it very much

On a GX85, during the day with good lighting, at f/5.6-f/8, I find the 12-60mm to be nearly indistinguishable from my nice primes, whereas most of the budget zooms lost a little bit of something in my eyes