p.1 #1 · Don’t waste your time searching - OMS 50-200/2.8
I tested 3 samples of the new OMS 50-200/2.8 lens. They showed sample variations visible at actual picture size on the computer screen. The best one was compared to the old Olympus 40-150/2.8 lens. It couldn’t match its performance at 150/2.8. I failed to locate the MTF charts. A reply from the OMS support stated: “The requested charts are for internal use and confidential. We regret that we cannot provide them.” OMS is probably the only lens manufacturer who decided to hide the info. and they may have a reason. The balance of the reply was a boilerplate text without any concern to answer other important questions.
p.1 #2 · Don’t waste your time searching - OMS 50-200/2.8
Are you looking for the published MFT charts for the lens or for your specific lens at the time of factory testing? Their website does provide general MFT charts for that lens, which I have copied to my files. It seems impressive enough to me.
p.1 #3 · Don’t waste your time searching - OMS 50-200/2.8
I'm looking for a general MTF charts for both lenses and I'd appreciate your posting them if you have them. I doubt any manufacturer generates the charts for the individual lens copies, but I may be wrong.
If the new lens MTF chart shows better performance than the old lens, then poor production QC is probably the reason for the sample variations and poor performance, if one can trust the MTF charts.
p.1 #5 · Don’t waste your time searching - OMS 50-200/2.8
I wonder if the charts for the 40-150mm F2.8 lens have been mislabeled. My experience with the lens I own feels the opposite - the lens is outstanding at 150mm F2.8 while it is ordinary but perfectly usable at 40mm.
I shall add that the 45-100mm is one micro-four-thirds lens that fully justifies buying a micro-four-thirds body.
p.1 #7 · Don’t waste your time searching - OMS 50-200/2.8
Thanks Amol for posting the info.
I wonder about the source of the 50-200/2.8 MTF chart. I received a second reply from the OMS support, which reads like an AI generated text, stating:
Quote: “1) MTF Charts for the M.Zuiko 40–150mm F2.8 PRO and 50–200mm F2.8 IS PRO
We do not publish full internal MTF charts for these lenses. The current OM SYSTEM product pages for both models provide specifications and downloads, but do not include MTF graphs.”
I’m not sure what they mean by the “full internal MTF charts”.
My old lab tests & field experience with the Pro Olympus lenses proved they are outperforming many best rated teles on the market, some of which I still use. The graphs and bar charts from different sources are incomparable. The bar charts were not generated by the manufacturer. The 50-200 lens MTF graphs mirror my lens characteristics. The tele end is better than wide which is still very good. The peak performance is about f4. Sample variations is a fact of life, but I have not seen many definite lemons among Olympus lenses as with other brands, Nikon and Sony in particular. The 40-150.2.8 lens is one of the best and the bar graphs seems mislabeled, as indicated in the earlier post. The lens served as a reference for the 50-200 tests which it will replace. Unfortunately, the max. 300 mm for me is only marginally useful and add-on TC’s are non-starters. Finally, the OM1 AF system tendency to hunt affects focus repeatability, a crucial issue during testing. Canon quad pixels structure clearly demonstrates its advantage.
p.1 #8 · Don’t waste your time searching - OMS 50-200/2.8
VX4321 wrote:
I tested 3 samples of the new OMS 50-200/2.8 lens. They showed sample variations visible at actual picture size on the computer screen. The best one was compared to the old Olympus 40-150/2.8 lens. It couldn’t match its performance at 150/2.8. I failed to locate the MTF charts. A reply from the OMS support stated: “The requested charts are for internal use and confidential. We regret that we cannot provide them.” OMS is probably the only lens manufacturer who decided to hide the info. and they may have a reason. The balance of the reply was a boilerplate text without any concern to answer other important questions. ...Show more →
A little background info would help. How did you come by 3 different copies to test? What was your testing protocol? How did you test them against your 40-150mm f/2.8?
p.1 #9 · Don’t waste your time searching - OMS 50-200/2.8
I always had access to photo equipment. Lens test consists of 3 steps: optical centering test, resolution test and flare & bokeh check. If a samples fails the first step it is rejected. The last checks are characterization of the optical design. Anyone can do a comprehensive test at home, but it is a mind numbing exercise requiring utmost care to avoid errors. If you want to try, start with reading very old ( over 10 yrs.) articles on the Camera Rentals. This is as much as I can offer to satisfy curiosity.
p.1 #10 · Don’t waste your time searching - OMS 50-200/2.8
VX4321 wrote:
I always had access to photo equipment. Lens test consists of 3 steps: optical centering test, resolution test and flare & bokeh check. If a samples fails the first step it is rejected. The last checks are characterization of the optical design. Anyone can do a comprehensive test at home, but it is a mind numbing exercise requiring utmost care to avoid errors. If you want to try, start with reading very old ( over 10 yrs.) articles on the Camera Rentals. This is as much as I can offer to satisfy curiosity.
It is interesting that you mentioned Camera Rentals where I distinctly recall reading that any zoom lens can be expected to fail the decentering test at some of the focal lengths. I personally don't care about "decentering" as much as others do. When there's a real problem with a lens that can really affect image quality, this is something that an experienced photographer would sense while processing the photos. It's that uncomfortable feeling that you may be familiar with - like, you process a raw, then another, and what you see just doesn't look right.
My interest in testing lenses is only for two simple reasons (a) to learn where a zoom is at its sharpest, on the wide end or when zoomed in, and (b) to compare one lens to another in terms of image quality.
p.1 #12 · Don’t waste your time searching - OMS 50-200/2.8
@ EBH, Yes, I enjoyed Rodger’s witty and informative articles.
@ ruthenium, Most owners “test” lenses by taking few clicks. If the zoom tests show good centering at both ends and de-centering in between, then I’m sure the devil must be involved. Have you considered calling an exorcist?
@ new zoom. It seems that marketing decided to trade the IS for the superior optical performance. That is most unfortunate in view of the camera solid IBIS performance with the 150-400.
p.1 #17 · Don’t waste your time searching - OMS 50-200/2.8
VX4321 wrote:
I always had access to photo equipment. Lens test consists of 3 steps: optical centering test, resolution test and flare & bokeh check. If a samples fails the first step it is rejected. The last checks are characterization of the optical design. Anyone can do a comprehensive test at home, but it is a mind numbing exercise requiring utmost care to avoid errors. If you want to try, start with reading very old ( over 10 yrs.) articles on the Camera Rentals. This is as much as I can offer to satisfy curiosity.
p.1 #18 · Don’t waste your time searching - OMS 50-200/2.8
@ gmccroskery. Vote for me. I’m already on the ballot for the Global Emperor post facing stiff competition.
Telex notes: OMS 50-200 vs. Canon 100-500 & 100-400 zooms in use:
- Ergonomics (lens switches). Canon’s small & stiff, hard to use with bare hands, impossible with gloves vs. excellent large & easy to operate even with gloves on the OMS zoom.
- OMS fixed barrel with IF and IZ & Arca Swiss foot vs. terrible Canon extending barrel & bare foot.
- Strange and confusing reversed zoom & focus rings on Canon.
- No surprise with 100-400. A bottom grade lens. Small, light, painfully slow & footless, but all these can be excused by the price. Good choice for taking snaps during a stroll on a sunny day.
