[shoplink 21542]
[/shoplink]
ePhotozine (Click here) is one the very few website still reviewing Four Thirds lenses. Tehy just posted their Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD lens test: “Very few lenses give as solid a performance in all areas as this lens. As it is sharp from wide open, it allows the relatively bright maximum aperture to be used to great advantage. Although the price may be higher than other alternatives, this is a premium lens that provides premium performance and if quality matters, it may well be worth the extra money.”
Check out the 50-200mm lens price at [shopcountry 21542].
Techradar (Click here) tested the Olympus E-PL2: “The E-PL2’s Live Guide also doesn’t explain how the camera settings are changed, it merely indicates their impact. This means that novices photographers aren’t encouraged to progress on to more advanced shooting mode such as aperture or shutter priority and to explore more of the control available to them. This is a shame as the E-PL2 provides plenty of control and opportunity for customisation. While it cannot quite match the image quality from an APS-C format DSLR all round, the E-PL2 produces high quality images. The level of detail present in low sensitivity images is high and noise control at the higher settings is impressive.”
Also Photoreview Australia (Click here) posted an E-PL2 review: “Overall performance for the review camera was similar to the E-PL1 we reviewed just over a year ago. The review camera’s metering was still biased to favour shadows over highlights. Highlight clipping wasn’t as bad as we found with the E-PL1, although it was quite important to meter on a mid-tone area in subjects to avoid over- or under-exposure. Autofocusing was noticeably faster than we found with the E-PL1 and accurate in most conditions, although it slowed markedly in very low light levels.”
Check out the E-PL1 price at [shopcountry 18844].
13 Responses
Would the lack of comments be because the lens is a Four Thirds mount and not a m4/3rds one, or am I just an old cynic?
That sounds like a great lens. $1200 at B&H.
Will AF work using a Panasonic GH2 with a 4/3 to M4/3 adaptor? If so, would it matter if it was the Olympus or Panasonic adaptor?
Too bad Olympus doesn’t make native M4/3 lenses at this level of quality.
Focusing would work, but it would be painfully slow, drain the tiny batteries quickly, and you’d basically throw the entire SWD part away. The point of SWD is lightning-fast focus, and you don’t get that on m4/3.
This lens has no competition among other manufacturers compared to APS-C, and it’s significantly better performer and has significantly less bulk than xxx-400mm models such as Nikon 80-400 or Canon 100-400, plus costs less $ and has brighter aperture and is weather sealed.
That’s because it’s a 62.5-250 APS-C equivalent, not 100-400 🙂
I recently bought this lens from an Olympus dealer. Mine is second hand, in great condition and I get another year of warranty from the dealer. I paid half of the retail price for a new one, a real bargain.
I have used it little so far (looking for opportunity and time to spare) but the initial tests I did have shown this is a really fast lens on my E-5, both in terms of focus speed and aperture.
If you can get your hands on one, buy it. Highly recommended.
The lack of comments might come from the fact that the quality of this lens is rather old news 😉
Unfortunately, it isn’t as mechanically solid as one would expect. There actually have been quite a number of reports of spontaneous self-disassembly. I’ve had my own share of mechanical problems with both non-SWD and SWD versions myself.
Nonetheless it is one of my all-time favourite lenses.
It is no match though for a Canon EF 100-400mm mounted on a current 18 MP APS-C body, like the 600D, 60D or 7D. With a 12 MP E-30 or E-5, you actually need the 50-200’s focal length doubled by the 2x converter to get the same telephoto reach.
Which would be no problem at all if you could buy a decent 100-400mm lens for Four Thirds, but you can’t, so to get 400mm all you can do except trying to get hold of a used Sigma 50-500 which isn’t manufactured anymore is to take the 50-200 plus EC-20, making it a 400mm f/7 lens, and stop down two or three thirds lest the images become too soft.
And the question why Olympus doesn’t make such a lens for Micro Four Thirds is easily answered: because it would have to be just about as large and just about as heavy, disproving any claims of the mirrorless system’s automatically smaller and lighter lenses. The better, the faster and the longer a lens gets, the less tends it’s size and weight advantage to become when specifically designed for Micro Four Thirds.
Megapixels don’t matter because 100-400 can’t resolve 12mp yet alone 18mp apsc sensor.
50-200 + ec14 will give you better result at the long end compared to 7d + 100-400 and if you dont need the long reach, you remove the converter and blow Canon combo away. 🙂
Wrong. The Canon 100-400, if it is not defective, is an excellent lens which resolves well and has no problems with an 18 MP sensor, let alone less. In the center it is already sharp wide-open, which means f/5.6, with an EOS 60D. The 50-200 with EC-20 on the other hand has to be stopped down to at least f/8, better f/9 or f/10, to produce really sharp images. (And while the EC-14 doesn’t degrade image quality as much as the EC-20 does, it provides substantially less telephoto range.)
And if you don’t need the telephoto range, of course you won’t use the 100-400. You’d use a 70-200 or 70-300 instead which are available for Canon with at least comparable apertures and image quality.
So, as much as I do value the Zuiko 50-200, it isn’t quite as if other manufacturers had nothing comparable.
Yeah, Olympus really messed up badly with telephoto lenses. They have a sensor that is a godsend for telephoto, and what do they do? They produce a 50-200 lens and license the 70-300 design from Sigma… *facepalm*
A 100-400 lens for 4/3, with the quality of Canon’s excellent lens, would have been truly awesome.
Alas, Olympus doesn’t know what photographers want or need, has no clue about marketing, and thus they are now one foot in the grave.
Old 5D beats 18mp models using ef lenses easily when it comes to details, especially not so good lenses such as 100-400.
more megapixels does not equal more detail or resolution, especially with 100-400 and other similar lenses.
plus, 7d has pretty strong aa filter.
Try comparing these combos head to head to see what I mean.
I checked the physical specs:
Filter Thread 67mm
Dimensions Approx. 3.4 x 6.2″ (8.64 x 15.75cm)
Weight 2.2 lb (1.00kg)
That’s one big-ass lens! Like strapping a D7000 body (+some) to your camera. No wonder it has a tripod mount! This is a perfect example of why M4/3 lenses are slower in order to keep them smaller.
So, no more complaints about the 14-140mm, okay? 😉
Dimensions Approx. 2.76 x 3.31″ (7.01 x 8.41cm)
Weight 16.23 oz (460g)
I always laugh when reviewers state Olympus can’t quit match an APS-C sized sensor when under “most” conditions my EPL1 (sadly) beats my Nikon D700 in terms of color and details when it comes to OOC JPEGs. Yes the D700 does beat it in lightroom, but I have to work harder to get the Olympus look !