p.1 #1 · Curiosity: any comparison between new 50-200 2.8 om and the panasonic 200mm 2.8 ?
I have the 300mm f4 and I am very satisfied with it on om-1 (i and now ii).
However, sometimes I would have had a 200mm 2.8.
Probably it is too early, but I am wondering if somebody compare the 50-200 2.8 om and the old Panasonic 200mm 2.8.
p.1 #2 · Curiosity: any comparison between new 50-200 2.8 om and the panasonic 200mm 2.8 ?
I have used the PL200/2.8 several times and really enjoyed it. Never enough to purchase it though, as I found the fixed focal length (400mm FOV) too limiting for my use. The 50-200/2.8 is a little lighter and covers an excellent range for field sports with great low light autofocus. In place of the 300/4, I am now carrying the 50-200/2.8 + MC-14. In place of the 100-400 F5-6.3, I carry the 50-200/2.8 + MC-20. Really a brilliant option that becomes very flexible with the teleconverters.
p.1 #3 · Curiosity: any comparison between new 50-200 2.8 om and the panasonic 200mm 2.8 ?
MEDISN wrote:
I have used the PL200/2.8 several times and really enjoyed it. Never enough to purchase it though, as I found the fixed focal length (400mm FOV) too limiting for my use. The 50-200/2.8 is a little lighter and covers an excellent range for field sports with great low light autofocus. In place of the 300/4, I am now carrying the 50-200/2.8 + MC-14. In place of the 100-400 F5-6.3, I carry the 50-200/2.8 + MC-20. Really a brilliant option that becomes very flexible with the teleconverters.
With respect the 300 and 300+mc14 how does it compare?
Thank you
p.1 #6 · Curiosity: any comparison between new 50-200 2.8 om and the panasonic 200mm 2.8 ?
pio1 wrote:
With respect the 300 and 300+mc14 how does it compare?
Thank you
My copy of the 300/4 was a little sharper in the center than the 50-200 + MC-14. Edges and corners were identical (both very good). Size and weight wise they feel the same in packing, carrying and shooting. AF is a little faster on the 50-200. Stabilization feels the same on both (excellent). MFD is better on the 50-200 (0.78m vs 1.4m). To me, I am trading a little bit of center sharpness for a whole lot of flexible focal length. The ability to shoot 50mm - 200mm at F2.8 in low light is huge. Slap on the MC-14 in better light and get 280/4 or the MC-20 and get 400/5.6. For me, it's like 4 lenses in one.
p.1 #7 · Curiosity: any comparison between new 50-200 2.8 om and the panasonic 200mm 2.8 ?
Alan Kefauver wrote:
I still want to see a real life comparison between the MZ 40-150 f/2.8 Pro, and the new MZ 50-200 f/2.8
With what parameters? I have some test charts and some back-to-back shots of stationary objects if that helps. Or are you just looking for general impressions from using both?
Generally speaking the 50-200 is the better lens, which is why it is priced the way it is. It has more in common with Big White than any other lens in M43. The center sharpness at 150mm is actually very similar on both the 40-150/2.8 and the 50-200/2.8. So if that is all you are looking for there is no compelling reason to look at the 50-200. However, if you want more reach, improved edge/corner sharpness, OIS, faster AF, a quick release tripod color with Arca Swiss grooves then the 50-200 is worth consideration.
Personally I kept one copy of the 40-150/2.8 and replaced the other copy with the 50-200/2.8. Some theaters and sporting events the 40-150/2.8 is plenty of reach and compact size. For everything else, there is the 50-200/2.8.
p.1 #8 · Curiosity: any comparison between new 50-200 2.8 om and the panasonic 200mm 2.8 ?
MEDISN wrote:
With what parameters? I have some test charts and some back-to-back shots of stationary objects if that helps. Or are you just looking for general impressions from using both?
Generally speaking the 50-200 is the better lens, which is why it is priced the way it is. It has more in common with Big White than any other lens in M43. The center sharpness at 150mm is actually very similar on both the 40-150/2.8 and the 50-200/2.8. So if that is all you are looking for there is no compelling reason to look at the 50-200. However, if you want more reach, improved edge/corner sharpness, OIS, faster AF, a quick release tripod color with Arca Swiss grooves then the 50-200 is worth consideration.
Personally I kept one copy of the 40-150/2.8 and replaced the other copy with the 50-200/2.8. Some theaters and sporting events the 40-150/2.8 is plenty of reach and compact size. For everything else, there is the 50-200/2.8....Show more →
For me as a primarily wildlife shooter, that focal range is not used nearly as much as the 150-400 range. I have always been satisfied with the 40-150 f/2.8's IQ, but the lens stabilization in the 150-400 has spoiled me. Again, as a wildlife shooter, edge IQ is not that important as the subject is nearly always centered, and often has a vignette added in processing. Edge sharpness is important when I can't keep the subject centered i.e. BIF. . Trying to decide whether my want is GAS or a real need. What i would get in the used market on the 40-150 f/2.8 is only about $850.
GAS is very strong in me..................
p.1 #9 · Curiosity: any comparison between new 50-200 2.8 om and the panasonic 200mm 2.8 ?
Alan, I analyzed our needs and how can the new 50-200mm lens help us in our wildlife adventures.
Like with you, the 150-400mm lens gets heavy use, around 95 percent. Fantastic zoom range and handholdable.
We flipped our two 40-150mm lenses to KEH as we did not want to spend the time here on the B&S board as we are now busy. This week should get the assessment but maybe around $680.
We decided on the new 50-200mm for the:
• New design with updated lens elements.
• Built-in image stabilization.
• Increased mm range in the upper limit. 50mm more (100mm full-frame equiv).
• And the fact that most every time we used the 40-150mm we had the 1.4x extender on.
The 40-150mm (80-300mm equiv) at f/2.8.
Add 1.4x to the 40-150mm, and it is now 56-210mm (112-420mm equiv) at f/4
Now with the 50-200mm (100-400mm equiv) at f/2.8, we have that upper range nearly covered without using an extender and stay at f/2.8 for our low-light wildlife capturing times.
If we feel that we still wanted to use the 50-200mm lens and not switch over to the 150-400 lens, then yes, we can add the 1.4x extender and increase the range up to 70-280mm (140-560mm equiv) at f/4. The 150-400mm lens would be at f/4.5.
Your decision to upgrade and spend the money is yours. Not everybody has the funds to get what they want or need and make do with what they have. And most do very well with what they have. Why spend money if it works?
We feel that we travel a lot and the cost of the trips add up. We are there to see the new wildlife and try to capture new and interesting behaviors. Spending extra on camera equipment is small compared to the trip cost. Having the right tool to use when needed is great as you might not get another chance at capturing the moment. Sure, a screwdriver can do other tasks, but it can screw a screw as intended. A screwdriver comes in different sizes to match the task at hand.
. Trying to decide whether my want is GAS or a real need.