p.3 #1 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
doady wrote:
I supposed if I ever bought a telephoto lens this would be the one. Not too long, not too dark, doesn't overlap too much with 12-100mm f/4 (my current longest lens). But I would still prefer a prime if they ever made one (something like a 150mm f/2).
Price in Canada is significantly lower than price in US. $3700 USD should mean $5100 CAD, but instead it is $4700. I wonder why....
p.3 #2 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
great lens for crepuscular/ nocturnal wildlife , butterflies etc , mammals and birds in their environment,landscape and even portraits , i want one of these
p.3 #4 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
i received my 50-200/2.8 and tested it against my 150-400/4.5 and 40-150/2.8 @ 150/4.5 today.. i use MF and manual exposure but with TTL flash exposure to reduce the variables. spoiler alert: they're very close to one another in terms of performance...but yeah that 40-150/2.8 is pretty damn good.
from what i can tell so far, 50-200/2.8 can replace the 40-150/2.8 and 300/4 in terms of practical use. it has been mentioned that if you have the 40-150/2.8 and the 150-400 you don't really need the 50-200/2.8 and i think that's also true. but need != want ...so there you go.
will post more updates here with additional findings...well, at least until the novelty wears off
...and maybe...just maybe, i will be making cool images with them...that would be a huge step for me...taking actual pictures with cameras...an alien concept to me.
one thing to note... it just dawned on me that the pull-back-to-MF mechanism of 40-150, 300, and 90/3.5 is actually pretty trash for anything that requires MF because it's too coarse. the MF ring of the white bois are so much better...but damn at the price you're paying they better be.
p.3 #5 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
I guess it would be nice to have IS in that focal range. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the 40-150 Pro has IS, although it works OK with the IBIS.
p.3 #6 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
dalegaspi wrote:
i received my 50-200/2.8 and tested it against my 150-400/4.5 and 40-150/2.8 @ 150/4.5 today.. i use MF and manual exposure but with TTL flash exposure to reduce the variables. spoiler alert: they're very close to one another in terms of performance...but yeah that 40-150/2.8 is pretty damn good.
from what i can tell so far, 50-200/2.8 can replace the 40-150/2.8 and 300/4 in terms of practical use. it has been mentioned that if you have the 40-150/2.8 and the 150-400 you don't really need the 50-200/2.8 and i think that's also true. but need != want ...so there you go.
will post more updates here with additional findings...well, at least until the novelty wears off
...and maybe...just maybe, i will be making cool images with them...that would be a huge step for me...taking actual pictures with cameras...an alien concept to me.
one thing to note... it just dawned on me that the pull-back-to-MF mechanism of 40-150, 300, and 90/3.5 is actually pretty trash for anything that requires MF because it's too coarse. the MF ring of the white bois are so much better...but damn at the price you're paying they better be....Show more →
"the pull-back-to-MF mechanism of 40-150, 300, and 90/3.5 is actually pretty trash for anything that requires MF because it's too coarse"
I had heard the same.
I had read that the solution is to put the camera/lens in full (proper) manual focus and the lens' focus ring is then as it should be.
p.3 #7 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
dalegaspi wrote:
i received my 50-200/2.8 and tested it against my 150-400/4.5 and 40-150/2.8 @ 150/4.5 today.. i use MF and manual exposure but with TTL flash exposure to reduce the variables. spoiler alert: they're very close to one another in terms of performance...but yeah that 40-150/2.8 is pretty damn good.
from what i can tell so far, 50-200/2.8 can replace the 40-150/2.8 and 300/4 in terms of practical use. it has been mentioned that if you have the 40-150/2.8 and the 150-400 you don't really need the 50-200/2.8 and i think that's also true. but need != want ...so there you go.
will post more updates here with additional findings...well, at least until the novelty wears off
...and maybe...just maybe, i will be making cool images with them...that would be a huge step for me...taking actual pictures with cameras...an alien concept to me.
one thing to note... it just dawned on me that the pull-back-to-MF mechanism of 40-150, 300, and 90/3.5 is actually pretty trash for anything that requires MF because it's too coarse. the MF ring of the white bois are so much better...but damn at the price you're paying they better be....Show more →
I received mine this week and have been testing it when the weather has cooperated. One initial finding in test vs. the 40-150 is that the 40-150 seems to have a completely flat plane of focus whereas the 50-200 has some field curvature in the corners at the long end (certainly at 150-200mm). Basically, if I shoot a flat subject at the long end and 2.8 then most of the frame is in focus and sharp but the corners have a nervous look because they are a bit out of focus. If I focus in the corner then all 4 corners become sharp but the central part of the image is now softer. FWIW, one of the corners has less curvature and it's decently sharp when you focus in the center. The other 3 require stopping down. It is most noticeable at short distances and less noticeable at far distances. Again, the 40-150 is somehow perfect at both, it's really a marvel compared to most of the telephoto zooms I've owned. I wanted to ask if you have done any testing for this and if you have any findings. Usually field curvature is partly the design and partly sample variation, so I'm wondering if a different copy would do better (but not optimistic). So far I can't say the 50-200 is sharper at any part of the range. The advantages so far are additional 50mm, build, the sync-IS, and MFD. Bokeh might be better too but I haven't tested it H2H.
This might not be a big deal on a cheaper lens, but this one is almost $4,000. I have 3 other telephotos in that price range including one other zoom and they perform better in this regard, as do two cheaper zooms I have with similar specs and the much cheaper 40-150.
p.3 #8 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
ketang wrote:
I received mine this week and have been testing it when the weather has cooperated. One initial finding in test vs. the 40-150 is that the 40-150 seems to have a completely flat plane of focus whereas the 50-200 has some field curvature in the corners at the long end (certainly at 150-200mm). Basically, if I shoot a flat subject at the long end and 2.8 then most of the frame is in focus and sharp but the corners have a nervous look because they are a bit out of focus. If I focus in the corner then all 4 corners become sharp but the central part of the image is now softer. FWIW, one of the corners has less curvature and it's decently sharp when you focus in the center. The other 3 require stopping down. It is most noticeable at short distances and less noticeable at far distances. Again, the 40-150 is somehow perfect at both, it's really a marvel compared to most of the telephoto zooms I've owned. I wanted to ask if you have done any testing for this and if you have any findings. Usually field curvature is partly the design and partly sample variation, so I'm wondering if a different copy would do better (but not optimistic). So far I can't say the 50-200 is sharper at any part of the range. The advantages so far are additional 50mm, build, the sync-IS, and MFD. Bokeh might be better too but I haven't tested it H2H.
This might not be a big deal on a cheaper lens, but this one is almost $4,000. I have 3 other telephotos in that price range including one other zoom and they perform better in this regard, as do two cheaper zooms I have with similar specs and the much cheaper 40-150.
interesting. I honestly find it tedious to do such test because to make the lens plane completely parallel to a FLAT subject is incredibly difficult...but maybe I'm doing it wrong. I'll give it a shot (pun lol) and see my findings.
there's one quick test that I did that I also found quite annoying with this god-expensive lens: veiling when focused at a subject farther away or near infinity. to be fair, I also find this a issue with the 150-400...and the 300/4 does NOT have this issue. mind you, it's minor...but I'm annoyed nonetheless because if I find no such fault with with the cheaper 300/4...I guess to be fair the 300/4 is a prime. and again, this warrants more nerd testing lol.
p.3 #9 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
Alan Kefauver wrote:
I guess it would be nice to have IS in that focal range. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the 40-150 Pro has IS, although it works OK with the IBIS.
p.3 #10 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
Paul_100A wrote:
"the pull-back-to-MF mechanism of 40-150, 300, and 90/3.5 is actually pretty trash for anything that requires MF because it's too coarse"
I had heard the same.
I had read that the solution is to put the camera/lens in full (proper) manual focus and the lens' focus ring is then as it should be.
hm... that seems to defeat the convenience of the pull-back focus ring mechanism. but i will try this and report back.
EDIT: yeah, didn't make a difference in operation whether you put the body in MF or pull-back to engage MF on lens, granularity is the same.
p.3 #11 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
dalegaspi wrote:
hm... that seems to defeat the convenience of the pull-back focus ring mechanism. but i will try this and report back.
Before the OM-1's much better AF/subject detection Ai, I used the convenient clutch MF a fair bit at times, with previous m4/3 bodies, to 'quickly help' the AF find a bird in a busy background (brush) or to grab a BIF at a greater distance to begin tracking it (long before shutter activation). Sometimes, even to quickly help the AF reacquire a lost BIF mid sequence.
If the clutch MF is indeed notably coarser than full MF then it really suited me just fine for how I used it.
Quick to active and quick to get the bird close enough for the AF/Subject Ai to then takeover.
Having a finer acting focus ring would have been worse.
For macro or portrait work(which I shot far less often) I'd use full MF and/or full MF+ AF.
p.3 #12 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
dalegaspi wrote:
interesting. I honestly find it tedious to do such test because to make the lens plane completely parallel to a FLAT subject is incredibly difficult...but maybe I'm doing it wrong. I'll give it a shot (pun lol) and see my findings.
there's one quick test that I did that I also found quite annoying with this god-expensive lens: veiling when focused at a subject farther away or near infinity. to be fair, I also find this a issue with the 150-400...and the 300/4 does NOT have this issue. mind you, it's minor...but I'm annoyed nonetheless because if I find no such fault with with the cheaper 300/4...I guess to be fair the 300/4 is a prime. and again, this warrants more nerd testing lol.
will keep everyone posted....Show more →
what is “veiling when focused at a subject farther away or near infinity”?
what does it look like?
p.3 #13 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
dalegaspi wrote:
interesting. I honestly find it tedious to do such test because to make the lens plane completely parallel to a FLAT subject is incredibly difficult...but maybe I'm doing it wrong. I'll give it a shot (pun lol) and see my findings.
there's one quick test that I did that I also found quite annoying with this god-expensive lens: veiling when focused at a subject farther away or near infinity. to be fair, I also find this a issue with the 150-400...and the 300/4 does NOT have this issue. mind you, it's minor...but I'm annoyed nonetheless because if I find no such fault with with the cheaper 300/4...I guess to be fair the 300/4 is a prime. and again, this warrants more nerd testing lol.
I agree that it is quite tedious. That said, I do my best on these tests while in the return period because I always run into situations where having too much field curvature makes it hard to get the image I want under the shooting conditions. Additionally, I find having low curvature often translates into the right sharpness profile on three dimensional scenes and that by stopping down things get sharp across the frame sooner. The 40-150 is a good example of that. On a 3D landscape scene I can often shoot right from 2.8 and get the look I want. The 300 f/4 is the same.
p.3 #14 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
Paul_100A wrote:
what is “veiling when focused at a subject farther away or near infinity”?
what does it look like?
it manifests itself like a bit of haze (what Leica peeps refer to as the "Leica glow" but let's not trigger those people and brigade this thread lol) which robs contrast and detail...and in the context of the conversation, not obvious unless you pixel peep (beyond 100% most of the time) and compare with another lens. like this one i've taken a while back comparing the 150-400/4.5 and the 300/4...again, not that obvious unless you're comparing to a god-tier lens, which is what the 300/4 is.
p.3 #15 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
So I did that testing today...again, I cannot stress enough that my methods are perfect...but this is incredibly hard to do. Luckily it's very rainy/overcast today in the location of my home where I did this that allowed even lighting and I didn't have to set up some complicated lighting setup.
The test is to show what @ketang is mentioning about the field curvature at close distances wide open...so being level is not as important, but keeping the subject parallel to the sensor is important here but since we're not dealing with macro distances, there's some relatively forgiving tolerances.
the setup:
- camera on a heavy 5-series Gitzo tripod with geared column with Arca Swiss C1 head...stability of the tripod is never going to be in question
- I am using an el-cheapo DGK resolution chart but is good enough for this testing. The chart is attached to a McStand copy stand magnetic board standing upright. I should have made sure that the thing is level (using bubble level) but the results will show that (thankfully) it wasn't necessary.
- All used MF with focus-peaking.
- @ketangs concerns do have merit. You can see that the 50-200 at 2.8 does have some astigmatism on the upper right and left corners (it's not present in the middle top edge so it's not DoF issue)...but it's ever so slight that you have to go 300% to see it. I'm not bothered by it because i rarely find myself having the need for that use case, but it can be annoying for a lens at this price, even if it's a result of sample variation.
- the 40-150 is basically faultless, maybe a little bit of vignetting that can be easily corrected. it's the GOAT for a reason.
- the 150-400 has a very slight astigmatism (even less so than the 50-200) on the upper right corner...but yeah overall still very good.
To be clear, the conclusion here is not "my god these expensive lenses are trash." It's all relative, and all these lenses are very good...it's just that the 40-150 is THAT good. Peak Olympus (lol pun) right there.
p.3 #16 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
dalegaspi wrote:
So I did that testing today...again, I cannot stress enough that my methods are perfect...but this is incredibly hard to do. Luckily it's very rainy/overcast today in the location of my home where I did this that allowed even lighting and I didn't have to set up some complicated lighting setup.
The test is to show what @ketang@ is mentioning about the field curvature at close distances wide open...so being level is not as important, but keeping the subject parallel to the sensor is important here but since we're not dealing with macro distances, there's some relatively forgiving tolerances.
the setup:
- camera on a heavy 5-series Gitzo tripod with geared column with Arca Swiss C1 head...stability of the tripod is never going to be in question
- I am using an el-cheapo DGK resolution chart but is good enough for this testing. The chart is attached to a McStand copy stand magnetic board standing upright. I should have made sure that the thing is level (using bubble level) but the results will show that (thankfully) it wasn't necessary.
- All used MF with focus-peaking.
- @ketang@s concerns do have merit. You can see that the 50-200 at 2.8 does have some astigmatism on the upper right and left corners (it's not present in the middle top edge so it's not DoF issue)...but it's ever so slight that you have to go 300% to see it. I'm not bothered by it because i rarely find myself having the need for that use case, but it can be annoying for a lens at this price, even if it's a result of sample variation.
- the 40-150 is basically faultless, maybe a little bit of vignetting that can be easily corrected. it's the GOAT for a reason.
- the 150-400 has a very slight astigmatism (even less so than the 50-200) on the upper right corner...but yeah overall still very good.
To be clear, the conclusion here is not "my god these expensive lenses are trash." It's all relative, and all these lenses are very good...it's just that the 40-150 is THAT good. Peak Olympus (lol pun) right there.
Thanks for doing the test. It's a little hard for me to see exactly what is going on without being able to access the full-resolution photos (maybe that requires a different Flickr account?). I recently ordered a second copy to see if it is any better. I like a lot of things about this 50-200, particularly the maximum magnification, rendering, build, and solid OIS, but as you say for $4,000 I would also like it to do better in the corners both at f/2.8 and f/4. The sharpness I'm seeing is more like a M43 lens maxing out at $2,000 rather than twice that (at least per-tariffs).
p.3 #17 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
ketang wrote:
Thanks for doing the test. It's a little hard for me to see exactly what is going on without being able to access the full-resolution photos (maybe that requires a different Flickr account?)
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I thought I always enabled access to originals in my Flickr account...but i guess i haven't done that... but I just changed that and you should see the originals as of this writing...
I like a lot of things about this 50-200, particularly the maximum magnification, rendering, build, and solid OIS, but as you say for $4,000 I would also like it to do better in the corners both at f/2.8 and f/4. The sharpness I'm seeing is more like a M43 lens maxing out at $2,000 rather than twice that (at least per-tariffs).
I thought about having it exchanged but it's such a PITA and there's always a chance of getting a worse copy. And yeah the current pricing is a bit obnoxious and it feels like they don't want to sell it to their loyal customers... they should have made the price at least on par with the the FF 70-200 (around 3k USD)...if they did that, I probably won't be as annoyed...and OM system could have probably sold more...it's a missed opportunity really...
side track...
this lens release is probably the turning point for the system...because it's a new lens since the OM System acquisition that's designed from the ground up and not the usual Sigma lens rebadging or any of the old lenses with the new brand. i was a bit worried that OM System is now a dead end because there hasn't been a real new lens since the acquisition...this certainly changed that perception for me...between this and the OM-3 and _of course_ the flagship OM system Monster Curry perhaps the company is on the way to where it was in its heyday.
p.3 #18 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
dalegaspi wrote:
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I thought I always enabled access to originals in my Flickr account...but i guess i haven't done that... but I just changed that and you should see the originals as of this writing...
I thought about having it exchanged but it's such a PITA and there's always a chance of getting a worse copy. And yeah the current pricing is a bit obnoxious and it feels like they don't want to sell it to their loyal customers... they should have made the price at least on par with the the FF 70-200 (around 3k USD)...if they did that, I probably won't be as annoyed...and OM system could have probably sold more...it's a missed opportunity really...
side track...
this lens release is probably the turning point for the system...because it's a new lens since the OM System acquisition that's designed from the ground up and not the usual Sigma lens rebadging or any of the old lenses with the new brand. i was a bit worried that OM System is now a dead end because there hasn't been a real new lens since the acquisition...this certainly changed that perception for me...between this and the OM-3 and _of course_ the flagship OM system Monster Curry perhaps the company is on the way to where it was in its heyday.
Now OM System give us the EM1x successor please!...Show more →
Thank you for these, they are very helpful. I would say yours looks similar to mine, so it might be a design reality. I am going to test a second copy tomorrow and see if there's any variation.
p.3 #19 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
dalegaspi wrote:
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I thought I always enabled access to originals in my Flickr account...but i guess i haven't done that... but I just changed that and you should see the originals as of this writing...
I thought about having it exchanged but it's such a PITA and there's always a chance of getting a worse copy. And yeah the current pricing is a bit obnoxious and it feels like they don't want to sell it to their loyal customers... they should have made the price at least on par with the the FF 70-200 (around 3k USD)...if they did that, I probably won't be as annoyed...and OM system could have probably sold more...it's a missed opportunity really...
side track...
this lens release is probably the turning point for the system...because it's a new lens since the OM System acquisition that's designed from the ground up and not the usual Sigma lens rebadging or any of the old lenses with the new brand. i was a bit worried that OM System is now a dead end because there hasn't been a real new lens since the acquisition...this certainly changed that perception for me...between this and the OM-3 and _of course_ the flagship OM system Monster Curry perhaps the company is on the way to where it was in its heyday.
Now OM System give us the EM1x successor please!...Show more →
Long story short, I am keeping the second one. First, it is better than the first copy at the wide end, off-center. At the long end, it is clearly better at f/4 and f/5.6. At the long end and f/2.8 it can be better, but I also find that taking a few shots in AF-S back to back (electronic shutter on a tripod with a pause in between shots) that the point of focus shifts slightly and so you might get a shot that looks pretty great across the frame and might get one where it looks like there's curvature and therefore looks similar to the first copy. I am guessing there is a sweet spot where the frame is focused between what is ideal for the center and corners. This will make less of a difference the further the subject is. Overall, the level of variation is not as high as I've seen with some zooms, but at this price I need it to be good enough.
p.3 #20 · M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO is coming!?
ketang wrote:
Long story short, I am keeping the second one. First, it is better than the first copy at the wide end, off-center. At the long end, it is clearly better at f/4 and f/5.6. At the long end and f/2.8 it can be better, but I also find that taking a few shots in AF-S back to back (electronic shutter on a tripod with a pause in between shots) that the point of focus shifts slightly and so you might get a shot that looks pretty great across the frame and might get one where it looks like there's curvature and therefore looks similar to the first copy. I am guessing there is a sweet spot where the frame is focused between what is ideal for the center and corners. This will make less of a difference the further the subject is. Overall, the level of variation is not as high as I've seen with some zooms, but at this price I need it to be good enough. ...Show more →
good call making the exchange here, then. fortunately my sample doesn't exhibit those issues at apertures smaller than f2.8...
just an additional thing: I made these series of tests comparing the 3 lenses (40-150/2.8, 150-400/4.5 and 50-200/2.8) https://adobe.ly/4qk0GAv and throw in the Nikon Z 70-200/2.8 just to see if a cropped full frame would produce similar detail as the m43rds at the same focal length ...where in this case you can argue that it's inconclusive because of the very annoying focal length breathing that the Nikon exhibits making it harder to make a fair comparison... that focal length breathing is practically non existent (or at least consistent) with all the OM System lenses. it's weird because reviews have noted that there's no focal length breathing on the Nikon 70-200/2.8S but that hasn't been my experience. at least it's not as bad as some of the older F-mount 70-200/2.8 ...
but I just changed that and you should see the originals as of this writing...