p.2 #1 · 50-200 f/2.8 IS PRO - Great Lens and Lots of Photos
Alan Kefauver wrote:
What, in your opinion, makes it better than the 40-150 f/2.8 Pro which i have? The Sync IS? the extra 50mm? I have Gandalf. Do I really need the 50-200 f/2.8? Want, yes. Need, TBD.
GANDALF! Love it. Honestly - the 50-200 2.8 is a lot more confident and nimble. That sounds crazy since the 40-150 2.8 is smaller and lighter - but the 50-200 is just so easy to use.
And the dual IS is stunning - even with the 2x teleconverter. The overall package is so much more powerful for ME! Hope this helps (and the 40-150 is an awesome lens - if you're happy with it - then it's all good! Don't get something new just because, right? I talk myself into justifying stuff all the time - don't be like me! .
p.2 #2 · 50-200 f/2.8 IS PRO - Great Lens and Lots of Photos
Lawrence Beck wrote:
I'm curious: What is your definition of "larger prints?" What is the largest print you've had made from your best lenses?
Good question! The largest I've gone with M43 is 20 feet by 10 feet at a radiology lab. That was a tripod high resolution one though of an agate. I still keep around GFX for larger requests (and even then I sometimes have to stitch those 100megapixel files.
Regular shots - I am often printing at 60-70 inches. I use noise reduction and selective sharpening though. 95% of my sales are within that range or smaller - so it made sense for me to sell all my full frame stuff and just keep both ends of the spectrum. I should do a video to talk about that!!
p.2 #3 · 50-200 f/2.8 IS PRO - Great Lens and Lots of Photos
OM set up a demo at my local camera store today. I took my 40-150 + 1.4x for comparison. I've been very happy with the 40-150. But the 50-200 felt exactly as Jerred put it -- more nimble and confident. It balances beautifully on an OM1 MII, is built to OM's highest standards, delivers instant focus and rock-solid IS. In hand it feels like a smaller, lighter Gandalf. Smooth as buttah. Will it yield better photos? Don't care. I'm not making art, just collecting memories to share with family and friends. Doing that with equipment I love amplifies the experience. My wife's car and my car will take me to the same destination. But I'd much rather drive my car. Can you go wrong with the 40-150? Absolutely not, especially if you shoot as brilliantly as many who've posted in this thread.
p.2 #4 · 50-200 f/2.8 IS PRO - Great Lens and Lots of Photos
Dawatm wrote:
Is there a QD socket on the lens foot?
Be thankful it at least has a useable Arca-Swiss foot on the tripod collar - OM and Sigma seem to be the only companies that have clued in to this.
The QD socket is a bit too far from the mainstream to expect anyone to incorporate that in their designs, unfortunately. Too bad some enterprising company doesn't offer a machining service to install one for customers...
Regarding the claim that "The ability to shoot at f/2.8 across the entire zoom range is a game-changer. Every bit of light matters, especially when you're out on an adventure. I've never used a 100-400mm equivalent that doesn't slow down at the telephoto end" - let's look at the aperture size at 200mm f2.8 vs FF 400mm f5.6. This is 200/2.8 = 76.9mm, or 400/5.6 = 76.9mm. If you think that the former allows "an extra bit" of light to reach the sensor, this is a misunderstanding. The amount of light passing through two windows of the same size is exactly the same.
p.2 #6 · 50-200 f/2.8 IS PRO - Great Lens and Lots of Photos
ruthenium wrote:
Regarding the claim that "The ability to shoot at f/2.8 across the entire zoom range is a game-changer. Every bit of light matters, especially when you're out on an adventure. I've never used a 100-400mm equivalent that doesn't slow down at the telephoto end" - let's look at the aperture size at 200mm f2.8 vs FF 400mm f5.6. This is 200/2.8 = 76.9mm, or 400/5.6 = 76.9mm. If you think that the former allows "an extra bit" of light to reach the sensor, this is a misunderstanding. The amount of light passing through two windows of the same size is exactly the same....Show more →
By definition, four times as much light reaches each pixel with the f/2.8 lens. It’s not a “claim”, it’s a statement of fact.
p.2 #7 · 50-200 f/2.8 IS PRO - Great Lens and Lots of Photos
Cliff L. wrote:
By definition, four times as much light reaches each pixel with the f/2.8 lens. It’s not a “claim”, it’s a statement of fact.
I believe you wanted to say "reaches a sensor" not pixel. This is correct when the sensor size doesn't change.
In a cross-format comparison, we shall look at the lens entrance pupil diameter.
By definition, the f number is calculated by dividing the lens focal length by the diameter of the entrance pupil.
Thus, the diameter is FL/f.
An m43 lens and a FF lens are equivalent and project the same amount of light on the respective sensors when their entrance pupil diameters are the same, as in the case of 200mm f2.8 and 400mm f5.6 lenses.
An m43 photographer and a FF photographer taking pictures side-by-side using the above lenses will have taken equivalent photos, at the same shutter speed, and displaying the same amount of noise. No better, no worse, and no advantage of any kind except possible different personal user experience and the AF performance of the camera systems.
p.2 #9 · 50-200 f/2.8 IS PRO - Great Lens and Lots of Photos
ruthenium wrote:
I believe you wanted to say "reaches a sensor" not pixel. This is correct when the sensor size doesn't change.
In a cross-format comparison, we shall look at the lens entrance pupil diameter.
By definition, the f number is calculated by dividing the lens focal length by the diameter of the entrance pupil.
Thus, the diameter is FL/f.
An m43 lens and a FF lens are equivalent and project the same amount of light on the respective sensors when their entrance pupil diameters are the same, as in the case of 200mm f2.8 and 400mm f5.6 lenses.
An m43 photographer and a FF photographer taking pictures side-by-side using the above lenses will have taken equivalent photos, at the same shutter speed, and displaying the same amount of noise. No better, no worse, and no advantage of any kind except possible different personal user experience and the AF performance of the camera systems. ...Show more →
You seem to enjoy using a lot of words to explain things you don't understand.
We're talking about lenses, not windows, and the exposure is determined by the quanta of light reaching each pixel well, regardless of sensor size. Believe it or not, some really smart people have figured out that you can actually measure and prove this, using the sensors in the cameras.
p.2 #10 · 50-200 f/2.8 IS PRO - Great Lens and Lots of Photos
Cliff L. wrote:
You seem to enjoy using a lot of words to explain things you don't understand.
We're talking about lenses, not windows, and the exposure is determined by the quanta of light reaching each pixel well, regardless of sensor size. Believe it or not, some really smart people have figured out that you can actually measure and prove this, using the sensors in the cameras.
each pixel receiving light.
that seems to jog a memory I had of Olympus' original 4/3 (from the early days of the E1) marketing which stated, iirc, that the all new 4/3 system (camera body and lenses) was completely designed for digital.
the all new 4/3 lenses were designed so that the light focused from the lens is directed as straight as possible onto each pixel of the sensor.
iirc, it was explained that the straight on direction of light onto the pixels was the reason why 4/3 images are sharper than those from FF lenses as the FF lenses of the day were not redesigned at all for digital/pixels (film being more forgiving of light not directly hitting it's surface as opposed to pixels sitting in wells).
p.2 #11 · 50-200 f/2.8 IS PRO - Great Lens and Lots of Photos
I preordered the lens.
It has to do with weight, reach and f/s.
I have a 150-400 f/4.5 which is awesome and gets me 500mm at f/5.6.
I also have a 100-400 which gets me a good wildlife rig @ 3.9 actual pounds. However, the lens doesn't focus very fast. It is limited to 25 f/s and often achieves far less when only the in-focus shots are counted.
What I see in the 50-200 is with a 2.0 t/c I have a 400mm lens @ f/5.6 that shoots @ 50 f/s and is likely sharper than my 100-400 and faster focusing even with a 2.0 t/c. Interestingly, even with the 2.0 T/C it will weigh about what my 100-400 rig weighs.
So, first, I see this as an upgrade to my 100-400 which will become a backup. I do not see the combo as equal to the 150-400 but is considerably lighter.
I lost my 90mm f/3.5 in the Los Angeles fire. I believe that this lens will fulfill my desire to take macro shots, so I won't repurchase the 90mm.
p.2 #12 · 50-200 f/2.8 IS PRO - Great Lens and Lots of Photos
Paul_100A wrote:
each pixel receiving light.
that seems to jog a memory I had of Olympus' original 4/3 (from the early days of the E1) marketing which stated, iirc, that the all new 4/3 system (camera body and lenses) was completely designed for digital.
the all new 4/3 lenses were designed so that the light focused from the lens is directed as straight as possible onto each pixel of the sensor.
iirc, it was explained that the straight on direction of light onto the pixels was the reason why 4/3 images are sharper than those from FF lenses as the FF lenses of the day were not redesigned at all for digital/pixels (film being more forgiving of light not directly hitting it's surface as opposed to pixels sitting in wells). ...Show more →
In the original 4/3 standard most lenses were expected to be telecentric, increasing the amount of light at normal incidence . At present I don't know how many are actually telecentric but I suspect that the initial aim has been sidelined since better sensors allow lens designers more flexibility in optimizing other parameters.
p.2 #13 · 50-200 f/2.8 IS PRO - Great Lens and Lots of Photos
Tom Reynolds wrote:
I preordered the lens.
It has to do with weight, reach and f/s.
I have a 150-400 f/4.5 which is awesome and gets me 500mm at f/5.6.
I also have a 100-400 which gets me a good wildlife rig @ 3.9 actual pounds. However, the lens doesn't focus very fast. It is limited to 25 f/s and often achieves far less when only the in-focus shots are counted.
What I see in the 50-200 is with a 2.0 t/c I have a 400mm lens @ f/5.6 that shoots @ 50 f/s and is likely sharper than my 100-400 and faster focusing even with a 2.0 t/c. Interestingly, even with the 2.0 T/C it will weigh about what my 100-400 rig weighs.
So, first, I see this as an upgrade to my 100-400 which will become a backup. I do not see the combo as equal to the 150-400 but is considerably lighter.
I lost my 90mm f/3.5 in the Los Angeles fire. I believe that this lens will fulfill my desire to take macro shots, so I won't repurchase the 90mm....Show more →
Interesting... Obviously I have no idea as it's too soon to tell, but I would be surprised if the 50-200 outperforms the 100-400 with a 2Xtc. Especially in AF. But even if it's close I too would prefer to be carrying the new 50-200 because of the option to use it bare where it should be a night and day difference over the 100-400. Something tells me your 100-400 is about to get very lonely
I'm leaving for California tomorrow morning. My daughter lives in the Monterey Hills area, about ten minutes south of Pasadena. My favorite bike ride in the morning is along the canyon and down to the Rose Bowl.
Thank you for sharing these wonderful images and a review.
When I had OMDS kit, it was OM-1 mk2, 300 F4 PRO and Oly 100-400, very good/sharp copy (plus both TCs).
I did controlled sharpness/contrast tests in great light on tripod of 300 + MC14 (420mm F5.6) vs 100-400 at 400mm F6.3
My conclusion was that the IQ was nearly identical. There was noticeable loss of detail and contrast in 300 + MC14 combo vs naked 300. The naked 300 is simply amazing wide open and easily beats the 100-400 in IQ.
I'm wondering if you think 50-200 with MC14 fares better than 300 with MC14? That would be a good reason to take a second look at m4/3 for me again. If the 50-200 +MC14 is similar to 100-400 then it might not make as much sense.
p.2 #15 · 50-200 f/2.8 IS PRO - Great Lens and Lots of Photos
Understand all of the good reasons to order 50-200 (f/s, IS, weather sealing etc.), but I am not so sure 50-200 + MC20 would beat 100-400 at 400mm in terms of sharness/resolution and contrast. As I mentioned in my other post:
When I had OMDS kit, it was OM-1 mk2, 300 F4 PRO and Oly 100-400, very good/sharp copy (plus both TCs).
I did controlled sharpness/contrast tests in great light on tripod of 300 + MC14 (420mm F5.6) vs 100-400 at 400mm F6.3
My conclusion was that the IQ was nearly identical. There was noticeable loss of detail and contrast in 300 + MC14 combo vs naked 300. The naked 300 is simply amazing wide open and easily beats the 100-400 in IQ.
Unless 50-200 takes TCs better than 300mm F4 PRO, I would expect the IQ of the 50-200+MC20 to be slightly worse than a good copy of 100-400 at 400mm, wide open, IMO. That is if you need 400mm (800mm equiv.) reach the native 400mm lens would likely do better.
Tom Reynolds wrote:
What I see in the 50-200 is with a 2.0 t/c I have a 400mm lens @ f/5.6 that shoots @ 50 f/s and is likely sharper than my 100-400 and faster focusing even with a 2.0 t/c. Interestingly, even with the 2.0 T/C it will weigh about what my 100-400 rig weighs.
p.2 #16 · 50-200 f/2.8 IS PRO - Great Lens and Lots of Photos
Scary to see those who tried the lens rave about it. Scary because they’re showing the lens here tomorrow afternoon and I’m planning to check it out. If I like it too much, I may end up trading my 300mm and my 40-150mm for this one. I’d keep my 150-400mm, though.
I hardly ever use my 40-150, because I actually use the Panasonic 35-100mm as my travel long zoom. I use the 300mm also when I want a long lens in case I may want to shoot birds. The 150-400mm is for when I’m sure I’m going to look for birds.
If I’m not mistaken, the new lens with the 1.4x would be about the same weight as the 300mm.
I do wonder about that price, though. Seems a lot for what could be mistaken for a FF 70-200mm f/2.8.
p.2 #17 · 50-200 f/2.8 IS PRO - Great Lens and Lots of Photos
Cliff L. wrote:
You seem to enjoy using a lot of words to explain things you don't understand.
We're talking about lenses, not windows, and the exposure is determined by the quanta of light reaching each pixel well, regardless of sensor size. Believe it or not, some really smart people have figured out that you can actually measure and prove this, using the sensors in the cameras.
First, sorry to hear about your lost camera and lenses. I don't think I can imagine how bad you feel now.
Your recent post in this thread makes me think that you referred to EXPOSURE when you wrote "By definition, four times as much light reaches each pixel with the f/2.8 lens."
The definition of EXPOSURE in Wikipedia is "In photography, exposure is the amount of light per unit area reaching the surface of an electronic image sensor."
If EXPOSURE is what you meant, then your statement was correct. The reasons for this are as follows:
1) Two equivalent lenses, e.g., m43 200mm f2.8 and FF 400mm f5.6, have the same aperture (71.4mm in diameter) and project the same amount of light toward the respective sensors when the SS is the same on the respective cameras.
2) Since the m43 sensor is four times smaller, then the exposure on this sensor (total light per unit area) is four times greater than the exposure on the FF sensor. This means that the ISO on the m43 camera is 1/4 of the ISO on the FF camera. This is true when shooting equivalent m43 and FF systems.
Images from two equivalent m43 and FF systems are equivalent (despite the difference in exposure). These have the same amount of noise, and the same total amount of light is captured by the sensors, no more no less.
If what I wrote above is difficult to understand, then perhaps the more detailed explanations of photographic equivalence on www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence may prove to be more useful.
I hope you should be able to recover your lost camera and lenses.
p.2 #18 · 50-200 f/2.8 IS PRO - Great Lens and Lots of Photos
Tried the lens. Feels nice in the hand. Zoom throw a little long, but acceptable. Lighter than the 300/4.
Like another person in the store, I will sell my 300mm and my 40-150/2.8 and then buy this one, as with the 1.4x it can replace both.
I’ll keep my 150-400mm for when I know for sure I need all the reach I can get. But for outings where I don’t know what to expect this lens will replace the two other ones in my bag.
p.2 #20 · 50-200 f/2.8 IS PRO - Great Lens and Lots of Photos
johnvanr wrote:
Tried the lens. Feels nice in the hand. Zoom throw a little long, but acceptable. Lighter than the 300/4.
Like another person in the store, I will sell my 300mm and my 40-150/2.8 and then buy this one, as with the 1.4x it can replace both.
I’ll keep my 150-400mm for when I know for sure I need all the reach I can get. But for outings where I don’t know what to expect this lens will replace the two other ones in my bag.
Thanks for the prompt impressions after handling it.
That extra 50mm (100mm) on the long end just might eliminate the 1.4x added to the 40-150mm lens for say like skimmers skimming near the boat etc. But adding the 1.4x on the 50-200mm reaches out to 280mm (560mm) at f/4.
I think I'm going to enjoy this lens with all the current technology built in and even IS.
.
.
. 
Can you go wrong with the 40-150? Absolutely not, especially if you shoot as brilliantly as many who've posted in this thread.