How much longer will 4/3 lenses be sellable? (second hand)

Started Jan 18, 2013 | Discussions thread
alatchin Senior Member • Posts: 1,055
Re: How much longer will 4/3 lenses be sellable? (second hand)

K Mcgregor wrote:

I've used the 50-200, it's a really excellent quality bit of kit. Definitely you can tell the difference in quality between a lens like that and the cheaper zooms like the 40-150 and indeed the 70-300. However for me personally the extra weight wasn't worth it. The other lenses produce good photographs too. The 40-150 (mine is mk1, not the uber-tiny one) is just so much more portable.

Well my thinking is I am complimenting my m43rds and 43rds setups. I have the diminutive 40-150 for m43rds which is great, small but a bit on the slow side... That with my 9-18 are the only two m43rds zooms I have as the rest of my kit are primes.

As I have the two macros for 43rds (35 and 50) I dont need any from m43rds, and I have the 12-60, what I really lack is a fast lens for sports (I am getting into a bit of shooting local social sports). Now I can get the Panasonic for $1500, with a lot of overlap on my primes and a lot of money, or I can get the 50-200 which only loses half a stop of light and have much more range, and is weathersealed :)... Makes sense.

I am impressed with my new 70-300 thus far, though it was extremely dull weather today. I didn't realise how good it was going to be for macro- being able to focus 3ft away at 600mm equivalent is going to be really damn useful for bug photography in summer!

I am not a telephoto kind of guy and to date have owned nothing longer than 150mm, so this 50-200 will be fun. I was thinking of the 70-300, but I do want the faster glass, and with so many Olympus users fleeing the system, now is a good time to be a buyer

I had been worried, after testing it last night indoors and reading things about its 'slow focus' that it would hunt a lot when out in the field, but actually, it's in anything a bit faster than the 40-150 and less noisy as it focuses as well. It was certainly capable of focussing where I asked it to between the branches of trees as I aimed it at small birds.

The only down side to it in general is that it really is a fairweather lens when used at 600mm equivalent. With the weather being dull today, I had to use ISO 800 and sometimes 1600 and even then the pictures were often underexposed slightly, making for more noise. But such is the inevitable result of necessary trade offs between size and speed and weight and price. It is of course, no faster, aperture-wise, than the 40-150 at 150mm (300mm equivalent)

Like the 40-150, it is slightly soft when wide open, and it has lower contrast at 600mm than any Olympus lens I have used, though possibly at least some of that is the abysmally dull weather of today. It is likely far better at narrower apertures, but like the 40-150, in Britain, it's going to spend most of its life being used wide open!

Yup, Britain can be grey But I still miss home.

Quality is definitely more than enough for me though! Obviously not the best photo, but in today's weather, the best I could manage:

This is a lovely picture, maybe a abit of post processing for contrast would give a bit of depth? But just the teeniest tiniest bit.

-- hide signature --

“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” -Ansel Adams

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow