Reading mode: Light Dark

50-200 vs kit lens.

Go to last post
I believe it is. Look through the forums for images from the 50-200 and comments. I find the sharpness and contrast improvement clearly visible in the posted images without question. I think you will be able to tell the 50-200 images at a glance.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/knoblock/ Equipment in plan.

Film will only become art when its materials are as inexpensive as pencil and paper. -- Jean Cocteau
 
Hurry you have only one day left :)

I got mine for two weeks now and still learn how to deal with the weight in shooting handheld.

Here is a pix I took yesterday with my E-500 handheld.

 
I bought mine yesterday and didn't even realise there was a rebate! I checked and I can get it. Now I can afford that extension tube.

--
Steve
 
If you don't mind the extra weight and size , then yes, it can be better . If you find it limiting to the point where you don't want to use it , then no , it's not better.

Purely optically, yes , it's better. But, the lens isn't what makes the photos is it ? .... and the 40-150 won't stop anyone from this.

Know yourself and be free :)
 
For instance, if you're looking to be shooting low-light action, over a variety of distances back-to-back (so, say, the 150mm f/2 might be less obvious of a pick), the f/2.8-3.5 might help over the slower values of either 40-150mm version.

The extra 50mm also helps if, say, you're shooting from fairly far away -- ex. shooting from stands, or any opposite-field or outfield shot for softball or baseball.

If you're going to be flying a lot and need the most compact, lightest travel zoom, and a fast aperture isn't a priority... well, this isn't the most obvious pick, as it weighs 2.4 pounds (with collar) ( ) and takes up some space, and you'd need something else to cover the wides for street/landscape photography.

( ) I tend to shoot without the collar attached. If I'm shooting softball, a monopod or the ball head on my tripod would just get in the way of rapid acquisition, as well as mobility, and I don't want the collar even possibly slowing down my use of the zoom ring. Collar goes back on if I'm using a 'pod, 'tho.
 
The 50-200mm is a very sharp, clean lens -- one of the best I've ever owned. I don't know of anyone who owns this lens who doesn't love it. The 40-150mm is a great lens for what it costs, but it the question of whether the 50-200mm is worth the extra $$ really boils down to your needs for speed and clarity. The image below is one I did with the 50-200mm and I can assure you that in the 12X16 print I have of this image you literally count the hairs on this tiger's nose -- I doubt very seriously I would have gotten that kind of sharpness and resolution from my 40-150mm lens. To be sure, the 50-200mm is worth its price as lenses go.

God Bless,
Greg
http://www.imagismphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/daddyo

E-1, 1/160 Sec @ f5.6, 50-200mm @ 200mm, ISO 200

 
Yes, those I took in Stavanger, that you refer to as "before" were taken in not so good conditions. Just go to the link below and beach volleyball. When the women players wear long shirts and tights, is is bad weather.
--
Raymond
http://www.bildebank.com
 
Those are outstanding pics with the E1! I have an E500 and am thiking of getting the E330 with the 50-200. This will be approx. $1,100, $380 for the camera body and 680 after rebate for the 50-200. I,m a fireman an I take pictures at fire scenes an events. However I also take general every day type pics of things that intertest me.

For the price I have considered going to canon D30 or nikon 80d w/18-135 (I think that's the focal length) which is about the same price give or take $$$. Any suggestions would be helpful.
--
Shaun
 
I had the 40-150 F3.5 kit lens and was very happy with it but needed a little more reach and light. I lashed out and bought the 50-200 and fell in love with it. I hadn't planned to sell the 40-150 but quite honestly I haven't used it once since buying the longer zoom because it really is that much better. The size isn't an issue to me between these two lenses because the quality and results outweigh the extra effort. It is an outstanding lens and wonderfully sharp with great bokeh.
--
Ingrid M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top