Every time you watch a David Thorpe video it is an experience that reassures and leaves you completely content to the subject in his care. I do miss him and his wonderful videos.
Your reviews are always a pleasure to watch and I value your view of things, well done David. Personally I think the Panasonic‘s price is too high to compete with the Olympus. You get the Olympus with TC for less and gain the flexibility of using F2.8 for most of the zoom range with the ability to extend the reach with the teleconverter if needed.
Agreed. It seems Panny always overshoots on price (see GM-series, see ZS100 launch price). Heck, if we go on lens, the same could apply to their f2.8 zooms when you compare to Olympus's launch price as well. While Panny gear is smaller/lighter, it tends to be more expensive. I think given time on the market, the price will finally fall to more reasonable level though. I do wonder what size it would have been had they kept it as a constant f4 zoom, cuz the f2.8 is really in name only for the Panasonic. We've already seen the size/weight difference when Panasonic commits to f4 (7-14 f4 vs Olympus f2.8 version); 300g vs 534g respectively.
Thanks! I suppose the Panasonic's price will fall in time but there does seem a trend to a massive augmentation in prices nowadays with camera bodies too. Interestingly, Panasonic' prices seem to hold up better than Olympus and personally I can find no reason why that should be. But a sign of the times is also the cost of the f/1.2 primes. My feeling about the 50-200 is that it will sell to photographers who want a long lens but want to keep the weight down too. I am interested in what terp02Andrew says, too. I wonder what size the 50-200 would have been as an f/4. And the price. I imagine that the 50mm f/2.8 would be necessary for marketing reasons mainly.
I love the lens for being so light and comparably tiny and I discovered the same thing with my camera bag! (That is fits in upright) And as I got it 300€ off at my local camera dealer due to pre order and an additional 100€ cashback, the price is now way more reasonable.
Yes, the size over the Olympus counterpart will matter to some and not a jot to others. I wish I could have got that € deal. In the UK it was £1599, take it or leave it.
Olympus is an internal zoom and like you said has detachable tripod collar, collapsible lens hood, linear MF, and weighs only 100g more with collar detached and 250g more with teleconverter attached.
There are not that many youtube reviews on this lens. Your addition is precious. I wish you make more reviews on recent lenses(I know it's hard for you to get a loan copy though.)
Excellent and comprehensive review. I am new to micro 4/3 and am loving my new Panasonic G9. I've been shooting Canon for decades and and blown away by the performance of the Panasonic.
The Micro Four Thirds cameras and lenses have been getting better and better for a long time but quite incrementally. They've now reached a point where the performance can seriously challenge FF output. Not to so much in absolute out and out quality since bigger will always be better in principle but in results obtained in practical say to day use. The G9 probably feels quite familiar to a Canon user, I'd imagine.
@@davidthorpe7732 as a (1DXii) Canon user who added a, G9 to my kit for something more practical, it's taken me a while to get comfortable with it. I still pick the Canon when I can, but the G9 is an amazing camera and has its own advantages - like the insanely good stabilisation. It also has the very handy feature of matching the Canon colour science *really* well - in photo and video. I will be seriously looking at adding this 50-200mm to my kit. Thanks for the review.
@@langdons2848 That's interesting, Langdon. I wonder if the colour rendering similarity has any connection with the fact that both Canon and Panasonic are go-to makes for video?
I have the first two lenses in this lineup and they’re rock solid performers. Glad to see this lives up to those same standards. I’m definitely adding this to my camera bag.
The Panasonic f/2.8-f/4s are very consistent one to another and overlap by just enough. The three together make a range that in bigger formats would break your back!
You are the only professional photography expert doesn't show us his face for 99% of the video :) I respect your professional way presenting lenses and cameras with added value (Pro voice and respected way of talking) I hope we meet one day soon when i visit UK and we do Landscape pictures video together. Thumb Up
sure, no problem, i just bought from UK the Olympus OMD EM5M2 i will receive it in one week. i always wanted this camera, but no dealer in Dubai, I am also planning to come for Nature photography trip in UK, Scotland and Ireland, i hope we can meet if you think it could be possible, my email is producernasser @ gmail . com if you don;t mind to communicate
Good luck anyway, there is no specific date, it was just an idea only, appreciating your experience, actually i do make travel and tourism videos since one tear for my online TV coming soon, this make travel to more than 10 countries this year, maybe one day we do filming together
Wonderful review. I just spent the evening going through your video on the Panasonic G9 and the video on the Olympus M1 Mark II again. And going through all the comments and all your responses. The time you put into your videos is excellent, but the time that you put into answering the comments is also excellent. Thank you so much.
The image of the swifts is just wonderful . Thank you for your delightful videos sir . In a online world of so much choice on the subject of photography, you are a pure delight . Much respect to you from a micro four thirds user .
Thanks Clive! I do try to make interesting and varied pictures for my videos. Not only does it help me get to know the equipment better but hopefully it makes the videos more interesting. And with most Micro Four Thirds equipment it's a pleasure to do anyway.
Like your reviews a lot. Strangely, zooming to show the image quality at 100 and 200% should be obvious to everybody but you seem to be the only one that thinks about that so your reviews are better, genuinely usefull.
Thanks for the very informative review, David! This lens looks great. I'd love to get it, but I already have the 35-100 f2.8 II, which is a superb and lightweight lens too. But the extra zoom range of this lens would come in handy for many situations.
brill review thanks, i've just got (like 3 days ago) the 100-400mm Leica based on your previous reviews and I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT! I only got a GH series camera for filming for my channel and now it's got me into filming in general (B-roll especially) and photography too. it's SO interesting. love your channel cheers loads o/ Julian
Thanks Julian! The 100-400 is a great lens - all that power in such a compact optic. The range of Micro Four Thirds lenses now really tap the potential of Micro Four Thirds as a one stop system, convenient size and powerful performance. I love the perspective of the long, long lenses. With DSLRs, a lens with the angle of view of the 100-400 needs a donkey to carry it. With the Panasonic I was cycling around London with it tucked away in the front carrier of my Brompton folding bike. Amazing!
Thanks! I'm pretty sure 5:10 is a jackdaw. Just checked: definitely a jackdaw - has distinctive light colour in eye. Hooded crow has all black eye and is much heavier bird.
Another crafted, sensible, practical review. Thank you. In passing I would mention that Panasonic seem to be recreating the line of lenses which brought me to the Olympus E3 many years ago (12-60 / 50-200 / 50 macro all of which were reviewed as being some of the very best lenses available and which provided the user with a lighter weigh, faster and optically better alternative to most SLR system. Three lenses and body would pack into a small bag. The 50mm was and remains the sharpest lens I have ever used and can be used as a short telephoto or portrait lens and with the dedicated 1.4 converter for the 50-200 (also fits the 50) one could cover 24-540 at f2.8 to 4 400 at f4 & 540 at f5.6) and have a specialist macro / portrait lens with just a 3 lens system. The 50-200 has a tripod collar and with the use of the Olympus four thirds to micro four thirds adapter all can still be used with great success on the OMD EM1 Mkii . Downsides- like the Panasonic lenses the zooms do not focus internally and they have a variable aperture. Also, the 50-200 lens hood is large - but it does reverse and slide over the lenses for storage and has a slider to allow one to access a circular polariser! Yes they will work with the OMD EM1 Mk1 but for action shots not as well as with the Mkii. reverse
Thank you, Steven. Interesting observation. I have noticed the FT lenses are highly spoken of by everyone who has experience of them but never tried one myself. I prefer a fixed aperture and internal focusing in principle but given the weight and size savings I'm happy enough with the outcome. And Olympus now do the fixed aperture zooms anyway, so there's no lack of choice. I wonder if the focusing speed of the FT lenses is very different on the Mark I Mark II E-M1s. Have you tried both?
David Thorpe Thank you for taking time out to comment upon my post. I used the OMD EM1 from launch until last September when I traded it in for the MKii and in my opinion, (fwiw) I would say the OMD EM1 MKii is the first of the OMD series which really allows one to make use of the FF lenses on a MFT body. The speed to focus is improved, but more so the accuracy. The ability to set the focus range and the type and degree of focus lock when using FT helps with this I feel. Having said this, everything you say about the advantages of the MFT lenses is true and significant. However, as a stop gap or a solution for someone unable, or unwilling, to buy into the 300 f.2, the 50-200 with 1.4 converter, does offer a workable compromise and the colour rendition is beautiful. This said, time passes and one cannot argue that the MFT 12-40 / 40-150 with 1.4 converter makes for a smaller, lighter system and one which, with the addition of the 300, provides greater reach. Also, with the faster aperture, more opportunity to blur the background and work at lower ISO’s when available light is at a premium. Whichever way one cuts it, the improvement to the sensor and imaging engine in the OMD EM1 Mkii now allows us to make use of some wonderful legacy lenses and I think this is all I wanted to say. Should the 12-60, or 50-200 SWD lenses cross your path, I would be interested to learn what you think about their optical ability. The former I always considered a really good walk around lens. It’s extra reach and close focusing ability being particularly useful. Thank you.
Thanks Moe - absolutely nothing about this lens improves on the Olympus. It's just different and adds to our choice. For me the Panasonic earns a place simply because it is smaller and I get around by public transport and bike when I can. For me, that's why it is a welcome addition. Panasonic would be silly to challenge Olympus on their own ground and how could they do it better? So their f/2.8-f4 zooms are not better or worse, just different.
As always, an excellent review! I was hoping from last month that you'd be reviewing this lens this time around! I think all the pros and cons you mentioned closely reflect mine as well. I desperately need a longer telephoto lens for my event photography. For that type of work, the Panasonic checks more of the important boxes over the Olympus for me: weight and reach. And I haven't been disappointed with Panasonic-Leica build and image qualities. One thing many people have been upset with this lens is the price. As usual, you get what you pay for. And comparing it with a 35mm equivalent is just silly as well. As a pro tool, you'd earn your money back on this lens pretty fast. Getting that close-up of a musician in a big music all? You bet!
Agreed. I would like as much separation with the subject and background as possible when zooming in for close-ups. But then again, you can fake it a bit with photoshop. Looking at some of my images in dark environments, f/4 should be plenty to work with.... Though, I look forward to the day where ISO 6400 is as clean as today's 1600 on m43. :-)
The present day 1600 IQ level at 6400 would be exactly what I'd want too. After that, any further increase would be fine but more of a technical wiz than any practical use to me.
David Thorpe Agreed. I once in a while venture beyond 6400 but it’s rare. Though at 200mm, 6400 will become more regular to get the shutter speed I’ll need at times. So the sooner the better. :-)
I tried the 50-200 last week and was blown away by it! Amazing quality with equaling the image. I felt I was using a zoom version of my beloved Nocticron 42.5. This is a MUST lens for me!
Review worth the wait. How do you comapre it to Panasonic 100-400? How is the sharpness at a the longest end for both lenses and across the range? I don't know why but I would be still inclined to buy 100-400 for extra reach.
For IQ, both the same, really. We're getting to a stage where IQ can be taken as read! This and the 100-400 are different lenses for different purposes, though there is some overlap. The longer lens is definitely specialist, though, for long range things. After all, its focal range _starts_ at a telephoto length that used to be most photographers longest lens. No bad choice, just more or less suitbale.
Great review David and one that really caught my attention. Interestingly I also found the Panasonic brighter than the Olympus @ 150mm f4. I wonder whether Panasonic were slightly conservative in there f stop rating?
Thanks! In theory the f stop is based on physical characteristics bit so should be all the same but I think zooms may make that more complicated. In reality lenses should be rated in T stops as cine lenses are. That way the actual light transmission of the lens is given As it is there are f/1.2 lenses that are no brighter than f/1.4 ones simply due to the extra glass elements required to correct such a lens absorbing the extra light.
I have G9 and can’t decide between Oly 40-150 and 50-200. I want to use it primarily for birds in flight. Focal range is not an issue for me especially with 1.4X. Dual IS vs. no dual IS is the big issue. Any thoughts? You seem to indicate there is hardly diff
I don't think stabilization is an issue any more where it is available. I wouldn't want to use the 40-150 on an unstabilized body is all I'd say. For birds in flight, both lenses would be much the same, though the optical performance would probably be better on the Panasonic. Converters always harm definition. The thing is that these Micro Four Thirds lenses are so sharp that while the 40-150+ converter might be in theory a tad less sharp, you'll never see the difference in normal use. The tripod mount might swing you. Or the smaller size of the Panasonic. But sharpness, probably not. In filed conditions, going out to 200mm in one sweep, no converter necessary might be useful?
From a purely practical point of view: the 40mm setting sits at the left end of the Oly's zoomring (as seen from the photographer), whereas the 50mm setting of the PanaLei sits at the right end of the scale; the latter may be confusing when one uses it in combination with the Oly 12-40 standardzoom. Also I find the 1.4 convertor-option a big plus for the Oly lens.
Yes, the converter is very useful and the lens has enough sharpness in hand to accommodate it without any apparent sharpness loss. It would be nice if some basic things could be standardised. Some hopes!
Another thoughtful and helpful review, thanks. I am looking to replace my Oly ED 50-200 SWD in time and this looks like the exact replacement, but for the price....ouch. This alone swings me towards the Oly40-150 f2.8.
I think that factor will loom large in many photographer's thinking. The two zooms, different as they are, are nonetheless direct competitors and one is a lot dearer than the other. I bought the Panasonic because I wanted to review it but in a personal use scenario I could put up with a bit more bulk in return for saving £500 and gaining a constant f/2.8 aperture. Even adding in the converter, it's a £250 saving. I can't see the Panasonic price dropping by that amount any time.
Hey David! Have you had a look/tried the Panasonic Leica 200m f2.8 prime? I'm sooooo hoping to see a good review/sample shots with it but there's nothing good online with the same quality as your reviews!
Another of your excellent reviews from a photographer with the background and experience to make sound judgements and observations. An interesting lens, with a useful working range, but I can't help thinking the PanaLeica price premium, lovely thought the build quality and aesthetic of the lens is, makes a secondhand Olympus 40-150 a mighty tempting option. Now if only there was a Lumix 1.4x converter for the 35-100..? The compact combo' I'd go for...
Yes, I agree, a 1.4x for the 35-100 would be an excellent idea - at a sensible price! I imagine the price of this lens will come down in time but I don't suppose as much as the 40-150. I'd love to know the relative lens sale figures for the makers but overall it's nice to have a choice. The 35-100 f/2.8 is a favourite - a lens truly within the Micro Four Thirds spirit.
I'm sure Panasonic have sold many 35-100 lenses(and it's been a staple lens product for several years so well 'into profit' by now), and the 40-150 has seemingly done well for Olympus. The 1.4x converter for the latter lens suggests Olympus maybe thought a converter for the 35-100 was a surprising omission too?
Yes, likely. It's such an obvious accessory for an f/2.8 35-100, f/4 being a perfectly good aperture for a 4x telephoto and the lens being well sharp enough to take it.
Thanks, Andrew. Quite a few people have mentioned how they'd like a 1.4x for the 35-100 f/2.8 Panasonic. Panasonic seem to listen to their customers in camera design - I wonder if they do with matters like this?
Hello David! Great review, as always! I think I watched almost all of your Panasonic videos. Always my go to channel, whenever I need help to make up my mind. I would appreciate your opinion on one thing though. I recently upgraded to the G9 and along with the new body i also got the 12-60 leica. Before i had the lumix 12-60. Although the differences may not be huge I still much prefer the results I get with the leica lens. That got me thninking if the 50-200 would be an "upgrade" to my 35-100 2.8 mark I. Really curious on your opinion. Thanks a lot and have a wonderful weekend.
Thanks, Paolo! I'd say that it's a different lens more than an upgrade. Your 35-100 and the mark 2 version are optically identical and just as sharp optically as the 50-200. The later dual stabilization is available on the 50-200 and the Mark 2 35-100 but it's a nicety only. The stabilization of the G9 body only is good enough on its own, really. The 35-100 is so compact, it's a classic Micro Four Thirds lens. The 50-200 is a lot bigger and much heavier so only an upgrade if you really do need the extra reach. If I could only have one, the 35-100 it would have to be.
Glad you liked the review - and the accent :-) Yes, this lens would be good for video. It operates silently and smoothly and is plenty sharp. The only thing would be that, in common with most other stills zooms, if you alter the zoom, the focus goes off. Mind you, its pretty poor practise to zoom while videoing anyway.
Hi David, I watched a review recently on the Panasonic 35-100mm II, which showed gorgeous footage but the reviewer also warned about the lens having micro jitters when used for video. I’ve not heard you mentioned that issue on any of your reviews? Have you discerned micro-jitters in any of these 3 zoom lenses?
It's not something I have noticed but my reviews are so heavily slanted at stills users that video isn't something I do a lot. I do making my own RU-vid videos, of course, but that's mainly with an Olympus 60mm macro lens. I'll take a look and see if I get the jitters!
the 50-200mm. should always be used without any TC. Tests had brought out that it is really at least as good a quality for the cropped in photo as the use of the 1.4 or 2.0 TC would provide with this lens ( it might be different with the 200mm 2.8 though ! )
Yes, it'll work with the Olympus just as it would with a Panasonic body, Micro Four Thirds being a standard covering both makes. You won't have the Dual Stabilization you'd get with a Panasonic body but the Olympus's stabilization is such that you really don't need it.
Hi David, as always an informative review. I have a question which I am hoping you can answer.. if you were starting over and had neither lens and used the Panasonic G9 or GH5 which lens would be your choice for sports, events and some portrait work all mostly outdoors..? You seemed so enthused by the Olympus in your original video review and seem a little underwhelmed perhaps because of the pricing of the Panasonic..Really interested in your views.. as I am trying to make this choice myself.. I think I am just concerned that I may miss the f2.8 at 150mm!?
I'd choose the 50-200 personally, purely and only on the basis of its compact form. That's because I get around London on public transport and my bicycle and size is of the essence. If I kept my gear in the boot of my car and worked from there, I'd buy the Olympus. Quality-wise, there's nothing in it. The f/2.8 aperture at 150mm is very valuable so leaving aside my personal requirements, it's a more useful lens overall and that lens with its converter would be my choice. The Olympus is quite an exciting spec, the Panasonic a much more bread and butter one which is probably why my heart says Olympus and my head says Panasonic.
Thank you David...It is a fascinating decision.. here is where I am.. I am now siding towards the Panasonic because I believe I am much more likely to want to keep it in my camera bag and take it with me all the time including for holidays and other non work stuff.. However when I need it for work then the extra reach will be useful without the need of using the MC-14 and if..(and perhaps its a big if) the price of the 1.4 panasonic converter comes down in price then the option of extending this lens to 280mm (560mm) would be fantastic and would arguably replace my 100-300mk2! I would continue to use the Olympus 75mm f1.8 for indoor event work and portraits most of the time but I am interested to see how the Panasonic may perform with its compression and sharpness as an optional portrait lens and for some events from 100mm to 200mm....so the 50-200mm is definitely growing on me..decisions / decisions...
I know, decisions, decisions. And even if you bought both, which one would you take out with you? I sometimes wish there were one camera and three lenses only, take it or leave it. No more decisions :-)
Interestingly one of the photos that impressed me was the image of the cat at around 5 mins into the video.. the smooth background around the cat just spoke to me (perhaps I am easily pleased) Can you remember if that was taken at 200mm? f4? or? as there wasnt any exif data shown...
Yes, that one is 200mm @ f/4. I think that background, being so detailed with the small stones lends itself to good blur - and the pot and stuff in the background is further away than it looks, there being a slight dip in the ground there.
Thanks for the review David, as always you work is nothing but superb. This lens is tempting me, given that i also own the Olympus Zukico 40-150 f2.8, im about to buy a G9 and seems the focus on Panasonic with DFT only happens as fast on Panasonic lens, so just wondering in your testing did you find it to focus faster on Panasonic bodies vs the Oly 40-150?
@Bubz of Steel, thanks for the reply, and while i agree the ideal would be to test it by myself and decide upon that, but i was more into getting a opinion from David in terms that he tests tons of lenses and specially reviewed recently the G9, and even swaping the 40-150 for the 50-200, i see other reviewers say that the focus on the Panasonic cameras is better with native lens, so was just wondering if David felt it also or maybe it was negligble between the 40-150 and the 50-200.
Once the camera has locked on to the subject, It makes little difference, really, Pabula. I find that the lock on happens a little quicker with a Panasonic lens on a Panasonic body than an Olympus lens on a Panasonic body.. But still not as quick as either lens with the Olympus E-M1 Mark II and its PDAF. It's only apparent at the extremes, however and in practise you'd not notice much fd any difference. None of that negates the fact that if you have a subject moving fast and erratically, the Olympus's PDAF is that bit better with either make of lens.
My findings too. The Olympus seems to pick up the initial lock on a bit faster and to track erratic subjects a bit better - probably both for the same reason, the PDAF. But outside of specific scenarios and in practical use, pretty much the same. And yes, as you say, fast by any standards.
David have you ever considered if the Olympus 40-150 is or is not weather sealed when fastened to a Panasonic body? The lens looks slightly to wide for the rubber seal to fit snuggly and I don’t know how to test it. Also do you think the oly is stabilized enough by the G9 at 150 and 210 compared to the 50-200?
The rubber seals are precisely the same diameter, as are the mounts. The mounts have to be the same, of course, since the lens fitting is basic to the Micro Four Thirds standard. The only difference is that Olympus use a single surface and the Panasonic has a double ridge. But that's means nothing, really, so yes, the weather sealing is the same. With the stabilization, the G9's body stabilization is just as good as Olympus's so it's as stabilized on that body as it would be on the other. The dual stabilzation is the icing on the cake, that's all.
The 50-200 is much more of a general purpose lens than the 100-400. If you shoot all sorts of subjects, the smaller zoom is the one. If you shoot birds and wildlife, more specialized things, the 100-400mm is better. There's no hard and fast answer but if I didn't have any long focal lengths at all, I'd go for the 50-200.
Thank you for this great video but now I'm just more confused that before 😅. I have a G85 and like to travel, and do a bit of sport photography. It was really hard for me to choose between the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 and the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 with MC-14 (no extra cost) what give a 150-210mm f/4.0, and now there is this new 50-200m f/2.8-4.0... To resume, Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8: + Compact, lightweight, O.I.S. (with dual IS support), 58mm filter (that I already have), great IQ, in barrel zoom, relatively inexpensive. - Can be short, lack of range could mean that an extra lens is needed (Panasonic 100-300 f/4.0-5.6). Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 with MC-14 for 56-210 f/4.0 (effectivement 150-210mm): + Extra range, versatility because f/2.8 up to 150mm and f/4.0 up to 210mm), great IQ, in barrel zoom. - No O.I.S. (what can be useful by indoor, low light, hand-held shoots), expensive (cost as much for me as the Panasonic 35-150mm f/2.8 and 100-300 f/4.0-5.6 together), heavy (fast as heavy as two Panasonic tele-zoom lenses), monstrously big, no 58mm filter. Panasonic Leica 50-200mm f/2.8-4.0: + Long range, relatively lightweight (300g less than the Olympus with MC), great IQ, higher capacity of "always on lens" because no needed to constantly change between two lenses or lenses with or without converter. - No in barrel zoom, expensive (cost as much for me as the Panasonic 35-150mm f/2.8 and 100-300 f/4.0-5.6 together or the Olympus with the MC-14), not as great low light/bookeh capacity than the competitor, f/3.3 at 100mm and f/3.9 at 150mm, no 58mm filter. For Travel, the 35-100m f/2.8 is better, for sports the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 (with converter) is probably better, for best of both world with some compromises the 50-100m f/2.8-4.0 is better. Am I right ? What would be your pick for my kind of usage (70% travel/trekking and 25% sports and 5% birds/animals) ?
Hi Alain - the stabilization on your G85 makes the Olympus perfectly OK for hand holding even with 150mm with the converter added so the stabilization of the 50-200 is not such a great advantage, though the dual stabilisation is especially suited to long lenses. The 35-100 is really not long enough for sport or birds. All your points are valid. Hmmmm... It really comes down to a toss between the Olympus and Panasonic longer zooms. I actually prefer the Olympus with its constant f/2.8 but more often take the 50-200 when I'm going out and about. It's that bit smaller and means less lens changing. Neither choice would be a bad one but the 50-200 is definitely that much better for travel/ trekking. It's marginal though, hence your (and my) difficulty in choosing.
@David Thorpe Thank you for your response ! Yeah, that is where I'm now, if the 50-200m could have f/2.8-3.0 at 100mm and f/3.3-3.5 at 150mm, the choice would be so much easier to make... For birds I've tested the 40-150mm f4.0-5.6 today, and 150mm is too short, I would wait and get the Panasonic 100-300 II or may be the Pana-Leica 100-400 later, is not my priority now. Did you had the feeling that the 50-200mm lacks on aperture or is it must of the time enough ? So, now I have to choose between: - The Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8, with the converter 56-210mm (effective 150-210mm) f/4.0 1127g (1027g for lens with everything attached ans 102g for the converter, see on user review on Amazon) Ø79,4mm x L160mm = 0.7922 Liters (sorry if you use the imperial system 😅) 1250€ (with converter) - Panasonic Leica 50-200 f/2.8-4.0 662g (don't know if it is with everything attached or not) Ø76mm x L132mm = 0.5988 Liters 1390€ My heart wants Olympus and my (little) travel bag wants the Panasonic 😅, may be I would try both. Thank you for your feedback, is very nice to get real life infos, tests are great but it is always a world between tests usages and real-life usages.
@@AlainKapture For birds, the 100-400 is ideal but it is a very long lens and rather specialist, not much use in travel situations. The Olympus 300mm f/4 would be nice but it's a lot of money for a lens that'll be only useful for a minority of your time. The 100-300 is lovely, small and light but the optical quality doesn't match the alternatives, especially at the 300mm end. However, it is still a good lens capable of good results. With the f/2.8 and f/4 you mention, I do tend to treat the 50-200mm as an f/4 lens. I don't find that particularly restrictive given the stabilization levels available with it, though that's no help for fast moving subjects. It's a restriction I'm prepared to live with in return for the practicality of the 50-200 but the fact remains that f/2.8 would be better. Having said that, a 50-400 with constant f/2.8 would be too big and too expensive. All said and done, the 50-200 is better suited to travel and all round ease of use than the others .
I have a question bro. I just picked up a used panasonic 50-200m f2.8-4.0 telephoto lens for my GH5. The lens performs fine but just wondering while turning the zoom ring at around 120mm I feel a bit a resistance. If you look at the back of the lens, this is the point where the elements reverse direction. Do you think this is normal? I was expecting to have the same feel all the way through the zoom range but it just feels a bit rough at that point then smooths out. Its not major and doesn't require excessive force to turn, but you definitely feel a change in the smooth turning of the ring.
I've just zoomed mine in and out and I do feel a very slight change in resistance. It is very small, though and something that only registered with me once you had mentioned it. I'd still describe the zoom overall as very smooth, though. If yours actually impedes use, it's not right, that's for sure but it doesn't sound like it.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Thanks for responding. This makes me feel better. Also, I have the 42.5 f1.2 Nocticron and can hear the autofocus slightly hum when the aperture adjusts. Is this normal as well? It is more noticeable than my Panasonic 12-35 f2.8.
@@JapaneseMonster Yes, that's normal. It varies across lenses and even between similar lenses sometimes. It's most likely the aperture control adjusting itself. All kinds of magnets and motors operating all the time it is powered up.
One thing to mention with m 4/3 and adapted lenses, long heavy lenses that trombone can and will wreck your in body stabilization, at least that's what happened with my olympus pen epl-5 when using an older adapted sigma 75-300 lens, the impact of folding it up from full length threw it out of whack, its full manual and stiff so no matter how gentle i was with it i didn't even realize it was doing anything until it was too late, my next camera is gonna be the panasonic lumix gx8.
I had the same doubt too, on why Panny is so confident in its pricing of long telephotos. You could argue it cuts the weight in half compared to Canon 100-400 and Sony 100-400 but at a similar price as those and higher than that of 40-150 Pro + TC, I can hardly justify it.
When I sell something, I get the best price I can for it taking into account the cost. I assume Panasonic do the same. The argument for and against is answered by one thing only - do enough people buy it or not?
I have the Oly 40-150 and its a decent lens. But its just a little bit too big for my needs so it usually stays home. I absolutely adore my 12-60mm Leica and blown away by its performance for a 'kit lens'. My 12-60mm is sharper then my Oly at 60mm, and I cant tell the difference between the 12-60mm at 16mm/f4 vs my Sig 16mm/f4. But none of that matters because online compression squashes any difference to where it does not matter. So the lens I might consider getting out of the 3 now mentioned is the Pany 35-100mm. Its 3rd on my list for its class, and would probably be the one that best fits in my bag while keeping up in performance department. Yet I I think both the other lens are 'better'. We never are truly happy with our lens... lol
One of the biggest mistakes I made was to sell my 35-100 f/2.8. I then missed it so much that I bought a new one, making it overall a very expensive lens. As you imply, at this level there is very little difference between lenses and it comes down to a matter, excluding price, of what size/ zoom range compromise you will make. The 35-100 may not have the zoom range of the Olympus 40-150mm but its size is disproportionately smaller and that makes it a very attractive lens.
@@DavidThorpeMFT I do wish I got the 35-100 over the Oly I have now. Wish I could trade it but that might be implausible. I think one of my grips about the m43 f2.8 lens is that there really is not much difference between f2.8 and f4 in terms of depth of field if your trying to get it shallow, you have to go to primes for that. For out door stuff where we have lots of light, doing run and gun event video, f4 is fine, and the 12-60mm when thought as a constant aperture f4 is an absolute gem for my video work. Add in the fact that its prime lens sharp across its range, I had no reason to want to carry 2 of the f2.8 zoom lens over it.
@@chrisklugh I use my 40-150 a lot for getting shallow depth of field, full zoom at f/2.8. That's fine for stills but hardly practical for most video. Primes, yes, 45mm/ f/2 or so and the depth of field is very pleasant.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Agreed. Rarely do I need to shoot beyond 100mm FF Equiv with video, that's why I adore the 12-60 so much. Most of when I do want to get that reach is when I'm doing stills and the 40-150 does a good job at that. Its just too big for carry everywhere conveniences. I've even considered getting one of the slower zooms that are much smaller, but I feel like I would notice the IQ difference enough and not be satisfied. Maybe for the time being, I should be grateful I have the Oly and GAS some other time! lol
@@chrisklugh A photographer without GAS? - if you manage it, don't forget to keep your halo polished :-) Of the slower zooms, the Panasonic 35-100 f/4-f5.6 shouldn't be overlooked. Tiny as it is, it's performance is exceptional.
Nice range, beyond me at the moment though so I’m going to add the 100-300 mkii to my 12-35 and 35-100 instead, as the longer lens won’t be used that often. This would make a nice kit with the 8-16 and maybe a 25mm fast prime for travelling though
All sounds good to me, a great outfit. The 8-18, 25mm f/1.4 and 50-200 are my basic lens set to cover all eventualities but the 100-300 is a lot more compact and wieldy.
David Thorpe I think I may look to a 2 body kit in the future, the GX80 and 20mm, and a wide and tele prime, and a G9 with the kit you mention. Or even the G9 kit and just the GX80 and 20mm (it rarely comes off, I am considering sealing them together with silicone for a wether proof kit!)
Hi David, another great video thank you... I've had my MFT gear for over a year now and I've never been happy with AF-C. After getting the G9 I found I was still not much better off. Recently, I began to suspect my Olympus 40-150mm Pro. I noticed that it would go (very slightly) out of focus when I turned the zoom ring. I went to our local camera store to try another one - it did the same. I also tried it on an Olympus body - again, the same. I have just tried it again with my 35-100mm f2.8 also the same. Is this a known problem with MFT cameras as I have never seen it mentioned anywhere in reviews. I have since conditioned myself to NOT ZOOM when tracking a moving subject that is coming towards me and my hit rate has just sky rocketed. I now very rarely get an out of focus shot - unless I forget and accidentally turn the zoom before shooting. Have you experienced this?
The ability to maintain focus when zooming is called parfocus, Graham. Hardly any autofocus zooms are parfocus since they refocus so fast that it doesn't matter. Unless, of course you zoom in video!
I don't think I made myself clear. I'm well aware of non-parfocal lenses where focus drifts as you zoom in or out from one extreme to the other. I'm talking about the focus going soft just by turning the zoom ring just ever so slightly. Try it yourself. Put it in manual focus, zoom in on something & focus. Then back off the zoom just a hair. Even non-parfocal lenses should stay in focus for that amount of travel.
Yes, it does alter focus quickly, doesn't it? It's not something that I've ever noticed but I mostly use AF so wouldn't. Equally, when I do use MF, it is on something where I want depth of field to be very controlled or macro so I wouldn't zoom the lens other than for exact framing and leave it there. I take the view that knowing that a lens doesn't hold focus on viewing, it doesn't matter how much but that it won't do it at all and so always refocus. I haven't got the Olympus big zoom to hand - maybe that's better and would be a more suitable choice?
Sorry, Graham, your comments seem to have reached me out of chronological order. I think that for the lens to both zoom and refocus plus follow focus all at the same time is one heck of a computing requirement and the processor can't keep up. You've probably already done it but switching off stabilization and all ancillary tasks like shading comp, anything that takes up processing time will give the best results. Also using the single point AF mode will help since the camera knows exactly where you want to focus. Having said all that, I wouldn't expect even the top range DSLRs like the D4 Nikon to do what you want with any great consistency.
I have specialised in equestrian photography for the past 25 years. In showing & dressage you have to track a horse and capture the moment it's legs are in the correct position and the Nikon D3 was the first camera I bought capable of doing it consistently. This is why I've gotten into the habit of doing it this way. Now I realise that the zooming action of MFT camera lenses causes micro adjustments of the focus, I agree with you and think it will be almost impossible for the camera's processor to keep up - especially using contrast detect As I said in my first comment, I have just got to condition myself not to zoom whilst tracking on AF... :)
It's a different class of lens, really, Jo, as it should be given the price difference. The 45-200 is a good lens, plenty good enough.....but the 50-200 is a ral cracker. As is its Olympus 40-150mm Pro counterpart.
If you don't need the faster focusing or wider zoom range of the native lens, I'd stick with the Canon lens. If you don't have any native Micro Four Thirds lenses, though, you'd be amazed at how good the focusing and stabilization is with the 50-200.
Looks like a great lens, good focal length range, but £450 more than the Oly 40-150 Pro + MC-14....it's a lot to pay for the advantage of reduced size and weight (although for me that is a big advantage), especially as there are plenty of the Oly combos on the second hand market now. I paid £766 for the Oly lens and £175 for the MC-14.
The price will come down, I suppose. Like you I value the smaller physical form but if I were having to have one or the other (I have both only because I review them) it would have to be the Olympus, regardless of whether it cost less or not.
I got one for £1100, used but like new. Very pleased with it except ProCapL can't be selected on the camera (Oly E-M1 Mark 2). However if that is selected with an Oly lens fitted, the the lens is changed for a Panasonic, it works. Make sense of that if you can, I can't.
I am still trying to decide what telephoto to buy to compliment my 100-400 for low light activities. The Olympus seems the best value but is shorter and will be used on a Panasonic body. The 50-200 isn't 2.8 the whole way and doesnt have the tripod mount and the 200 2.8 is expensive and is less versatile :s
The Olympus 4-150mm f/2.8 would be the nearest and best solution to your problem, I think. Don't worry about using it on a Panasonic body. I mix Panasonic and Olympus lenses and bodies at will and find it makes little difference which is on what. A Panasonic with IBIS would be best, obviously.
@@DavidThorpeMFT I have another question David if I may? I made the mistake of picking up a Nikon D500 with 50-500 sigma and I think I could deal with the weight and size of it. What are your thoughts for wildlife? Will it really be any better than say a G9 with 100-400?
@@JoeMaranophotography The angle of view of both lenses will be pretty similar and the aperture at full zoom is the same so you could expect the D500 to be around one stop better in noise performance. That's rule of thumb, of course. Probably more salient is that the Dual Image Stabilization pf the G9 combo will be much, much better than that of the Nikon and given the weight of the Nikon combination that is likely to be more important than sensor size. Unfortunately there are never definitive answers to these sort of questions, so much depending on circumstances.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Its always nice to hear thoughts though ;) For me its the AF performance for BIF thats most tempting. The G9 has everything I could want though apart from some GH5 video featires like V-LOG
I would but at those the focal lengths for those sports it'd mostly be at or near f/4. The Olympus 40-150 loses a little reach but would be a better buy for sports. That constant f/2.8 gives much more confidence in low and lowish light. You also have the on lens Fn button for 'back button focusing'. And the manual focus collar which means you can set focus on a spot, the net probably, and simply pull back the collar to get that point. Push forward and you have normal auto-focus. I don't think the DfD makes much difference, certainly not enough to overcome the non-constant aperture .
@@FR8Productions Sorry to sound pedantic but all _Micro_ Four Thirds lenses work with the G85 or any Micro Four Thirds cameras, for that matter, Olympus or Panasonic. It's a standard so if you buy any Micro Four Thirds equipment it'll work with your G85. Here's the pedantic bit - Four Thirds was a previous, older, standard and can only be used with an adapter and is better avoided unless you know exactly why you want it.
I switch off stabilization for birds in flight type pix, since Im, using high shutter speeds anyway and it's not necessary. Also, if you are using AFC, it frees up processor time for the tracking algorithm.
Sorry David can't answer it any more, I'll try my best as I'm becoming a bit of an expert on Lumix. It looks like the GX80 specifically, but you'll have to double-check that for yourself...
Both are pin sharp ans focus fast s0 it's down to the physical size and aperture. The 50-100 has the greater reach but it's only f/2.8 for a small part of its zoom range. At 150mm the Olympus is, obviously f/2.8. The Panasonic is f/3.9, almost a stop slower. The Panasonic is around £1050 UK, the Olympus about £930. Of course, the Olympus doesn't have the range of the Panasonic but it does have a 1.4x converter available which brings it up to 420mm at extra cost. Overall, the Olympus is unique and for the likely uses of such a lens, the f/2.8 aperture is a huge advantage. Unless I had an overriding need for the extra 50mm of the Panasonic, I'd go for the Olympus.
@@DavidThorpeMFT thank you! i found a bargain for both 1.4 TC and the 40-150 and i was debating if i should get it or put some more money into the newer 50-200.
@@DavidThorpeMFT i did it! this is my first medium-long range lens, so ill need to go through some learning curve. what i immediately disliked about this lens, is the access to the zoom ring is hiding under the hood. hope i get used it it quick.
@@nexeusbd Slide the hood forward to the working position, Moses. You have it in the 'bag' position to save space when stowed. Turn the lenshood a fraction and slide it forward - don't un-bayonet it - and it will uncover the zoom and focusing rings. Don't forget that if you pull the focusing ring back, it puts you directly into manual focus. If you set a manual position and then revert to auto by pushing the ring forward, the focus will be right where you left it if you pull the ring back again, giving you a useful and immediate preset focus position. That sliding hood is one of the best design features of the lens.
It would be nice, if you ever take a hold on 4/3 lenses, to express your thoughts on the old lenses, especially telephoto zooms, and if they can eventually be an acceptable option for users of mft. I know that they run away from the benefits of the system ( fast af, small size and weight ), but i am considering buying a sigma 135-400mm 4/3 to use with adapter because i would like to have that kind of telephoto reach for a bit of occasional wildlife, zoo, etc photography but can't really justify buying a panaleica 100-400mm. The size difference, even with adapter, is not that big, and af speed is in some situations not a problem.
It's one of the great aspects of Micro Four Thirds bodies that you can fit virtually any lens to them. I'm like you in that I can't justify a 300mm Olympus f/4 lens, so for when I do want such a long lens I have an old 80s Nikon 300mm f/4.5 which cost me just £120. I'm an advocate of using adapted lenses. They not only do a job but sometimes have a different and very pleasing image quality and since you are only using the centre part of the lens's field, IQ is enhanced. A dealer told me that an awful lot of lenses he once thought would be good only for the bin have been given a new lease of life. That has to be good news.
Look, Calvin, I asked it what kind of bird it was and it distinctly said, "I'm a hooded crow". Jackdaws are noted for their sense of humour so maybe he was just pulling my leg. I'm going to the park shortly, so I'll take it up with Jacob. He told me that was his name but can I believe that now?
If you need this range just buy an excellent condition 50-200mm F2.8-3.5SWD and adapter for around 30% of the price of this. Panasonic . I cant imagine the Panasonic outperforms the Olympus apart from the faster autofocus speed you will get and some extra focus points.
I'll stick with my Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 with the MC-14 1.4X teleconverter as needed. It's a shame that the Panasonic's teleconverter doesn't work on this lens...I thought it did.
Yes, it's a shame. It seems to foul something on the mount. It looked hopeful at first since there seemed to be enough depth in the back of the lens for it to fit. But it doesn't. The Panasonic converter seems too expensive since it is highly unlikely to be better than Olympus's.
Yes, it can but for very low light you'd need something faster, an f/2 or better. That won't be a zoom lens since the fastest for Micro Four Thirds is f/2.8. Primes are better in that they are usually faster but they can be even more expensive and are much less versatile. Something like the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 or the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 might be fast enough but they are expensive too. Otherwise you are looking at lenses lke the 75mm f/1.8 Olympus.
No, for wildlife at night you are getting into very specialed areas of photography. The new Panasonic 200mm f/2.8 would look to be the best so far for night wildlife but cheap it ain't! The Olympus 40-150 Pro has the aperture but I doubt that 150mm would be a long enough reach. The Olympus 300mm would be ideal but at f/4 not so good in very dim light.
Would be interested to know how it compares to oly 12mm f2, or other mayb like 14mmf2.5x.79 (poorman solution im currently using). Nevermind the 14mm if you dont hav, but I'll be interested to knw which would be a worthy upgrade considering the price. My primary use is travel and food, and often call for the wide angle for arm length selfies and we-fies.
I think ePHOTOzine might be able to get me a 12mm f/1.4 to try when I get back to London :-) The little 14mm is a relatively easy lens to build and certainly the one I had was of a very high order of sharpness. I'd be very surprised if the f/1.4 was any better even when stopped down. The Olympus 12mm I sold when I got the 12-40 zoom since the zoom was not only more convenient to use but just as sharp. Albeit, a stop slower.
Is there any chance you can look into or talk about this subject..... Instead of continuing to make camcorder with 1/3”or 1/2 “, sensors such as Sony pxw z150 and z280, why can’t Sony also make a camcorder with the sensor and mount of their D-SLR A7 series cameras. Just imagine a camcorder with the quality, low light ability of A7sii (or the new A7siii), with audio Xlr, no more over heating issues, no more video limit of 30min, Built in ND filters etc etc not forgetting the full frame bokeh!!!!! surely there is a Market for this type of camcorder with a full frame sensor and mount??? So why hasn’t Sony made such a camcorder????? Kull
Thanks for your confidence in me but I do stick strictly to Micro Four Thirds equipment. I'm no help anyway since neither Olympus or Panasonic even answer my emails, let alone would want any input from me.
There's be no reason to switch from one to the other, really, unless some pressing feature made it an obvious move. I really do like to keep as small a bag as possible so the space saved over the Olympus is important to me. In terms of performance, they are the same so the choice has to be for other reasons, size being one. It's not a huge difference but it does enable me to carry two extra lenses in the same space. I have the Panasonic because I buy lenses to review. Otherwise I'd forego the 45 and fisheyes in my bag and save some money!
I find it super odd that such an outright pragmatist repeatedly insists on requesting vanity collars for lens hood mounts! That's not something that I'd ever want - my 14-140Mk1 hood was always on backwards and acted as a bumper and support unless there was a flare-need for it occasionally. How very peculiar of you :-)
Bonjour En prestation mariage j'aimerais savoir à quelle distance maxi du sujet pour obtenir une photos (gros plan alliances) avec un leica 50/200 micro 4/3 (100/400) = en zoomant au maximum ? Je voudrais être le plus discret possible et être le plus éloigné possible de mes sujets sans parler de téléobjectif bien sûr :-) Merci
A nice lens but I would still pick the Oly 40-150 Pro T.C. bundle. Especially now that it appears Panasonic do not repair their pro lenses, but only swap them and out of warranty not much change from a new lens. Lots of threads about the repair issue at DP Review and Mu-43 for anyone who has not heard yet EG www(dot)dpreview.com/forums/thread/4222130
I saw that thread. It was a while ago now, i wonder if Panasonic have reacted to it? I have no relationship with them whatsoever, so i only know what everyone else does, unfortunately.
Hi David - love your reviews. Sometimes I'll put one on I've seen before just to listen to your voice - calming somehow. (Also good for some confirmation bias on something I've purchased.) Anyway, are you aware of the controversy over Panasonic's repair policies on these expensive lenses? I'd like to hear your viewpoint on that. e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47481 www.mu-43.com/threads/panasonic-repair-service-woes.97917/
Yes, i've heard of those problems. I'm lucky enough not to have had anything Micro Four Thirds break down on me but there's always a first time. The policy seems pretty poor to me but given that Panasonic don't even answer my emails, I am in the same position as everyone else. When I did have a problem with a faulty camera, the service was poor and I said so very forthrightly. That was on a G80 that was DOE but took me ages to get a replacement.
It's in a huge park so lorries aren't allowed, luckily. Your point stands, though, because the traffic is very heavy in the park perimeter road and very stop and go as people pull up to watch the deer or let them across the road. It's a narrow road so even a slight swerve to avoid a car can put you in the path of oncoming traffic. I've seen cyclists riding on central London roads while using their mobiles - as a cyclist myself I'm very aware of how dangerous that is.
As a non native English speaker I have hard time to understand this guy. I think he is saying cool things but I can’t catch 3 words in a row.drop out at 3:50...
I speak as clearly and in as measured a way as I can but I'm a Londoner and have a London accent. I know your problem, I speak French and have it with French language voice-overs. There's not much I can do except aopolgise.
I.M., at that time marker, he used a colloquial expression that you are probably not familiar with. With the very short pauses between the words, your brain did not find any matches in its memory (it is all about pattern recognition).
I think it’s not about pattern recognition... it’s just the accent. I dropped out at 3:50 not because what David said at that time marker. It’s because the concentration required was such that I couldn’t understand the topic. I work for a multinational company and we all speak English: Germans, Dutch, French, Italians, Czech and even Americans. The only guy we don’t understand is a British guy from Birmingham. It’s funny. Not your problem... it’s mine.
@@TheGuggo , thank you for the clarification. American English is my primary language and I had some difficulties with some other English versions (e g., Australian). As I watched more and more "foreign" YT videos, my recognition has improved significantly. The speaker's diction makes a big difference of course.
@@michaels3003 My criterion for true French fluency is to be able to watch any French gangster film set in somewhere like Marseille, so with a southern French accent, colloquial language and spoken at speed. As a British English speaker I can do that with American films with more or less any accent from the Bronx to Louisiana. As a French speaker with French films, I most definitely can't! No-one should forget, though, that many native English speakers have great trouble understanding a strong Glasgow accent or a Geordie one. Birmingham not so much but the accenting is quite different so I can see the difficulty.
