DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

Started Apr 26, 2016 | Discussions thread
OP arbux Senior Member • Posts: 1,173
Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

Kisaha wrote:

arbux wrote:

cookedraw wrote:

the 50-200 is my favourite.

There is a saying - "All lenses are equal on f8". 130mm f8 is not 200mm f5.6.

50-200 at 130f8

Only that the S doesn't even go above 150mm, so the saying is irrelevant.

I think it stays relevant - I bet that you can upscale 150mm S and get at least the same level of detail as from 50-200mm 5.6. And better DOF control, faster focus, better OIS etc.

The 50-150 is in my radar for some time know but because I professionaly use mostly Canon Cine cameras with the L lenses or Zeiss/Leica primes (and in our company we have 3 Canon Cine lenses), and the recent abandonment of the NX series I am reluctant to "invenst", but the 50-200 for what it is, and what it worths, is maybe the best cheap zoom I have ever used. I think NX cheap zooms are excellent Choices (especially 12-24, 50-200, 16-50, and even the 20-50 and 18-55 for what they cost).

12-24 is great indeed. High quality, very light. However I stand by my opinion about 50-200 - it's getting bad towards long end. Cheap canon 50-250mm is better, also m4/3 kit zooms are better. On the other hand I read opinions and reviews that 50-150 S is also a bit sof at 150mm 2.8. This is definitely not the case with my  lens. Maybe at the minimum focus distance borders are getting soft (I did a wall test). But at usual distance and especially more remote objects, sharpness and details at 2.8 is incredible across the frame. I shot the same view of the town (ca. 700m away) at 2.8 and at 7.1 and there was hardly any difference.

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