PANASONIC 50-200MM F2.8-4.0 LEAVES 2.8 AT 51MM

JaKing · Feb 27, 2018

Haha. I wasn't even approximately right. I claim Panadol "poisoning" by way of excuse.

Of course f/3.5 is 1/3rd stop faster than f/4 in common use.

BTW, I know T-stops are important, but not usually of much import in general photography.

--
br, john, from you know where
My gear list and sordid past are here: https://www.dpreview.com/members/1558378718/overview
Gallery: https://www.canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/page/gallery/

Holistic Photog · Feb 28, 2018

JaKing said:
Haha. I wasn't even approximately right. I claim Panadol "poisoning" by way of excuse.

Of course f/3.5 is 1/3rd stop faster than f/4 in common use.

BTW, I know T-stops are important, but not usually of much import in general photography.

If you want greater DoF, then the F-stop is important. If you're concerned about noise and ISO and exposure, then the T-stop is more important.

I actually just took a look at the construction of both lenses thinking that perhaps the new 50-200 would be simpler and have fewer elements, thus increasing light transmission. Boy was I shocked when I found it had 21 elements in 15 groups. Damn this thing is complex. I don't know if this is the most complex lens construction in the system, but it has to be close. The Oly is 16 elements in 15 groups by comparison.

I think the number of groups, rather than the number of elements, is really what determines the amount of light reflection (although more elements can reduce light transmission), so I'm guessing they're both pretty similar here, but the new lens will obviously have better coatings to minimize reflections. I'm guessing a difference of 0.2 T-stops or less at the long end, thus making them very similar in terms of exposure. But it's just a guess.

JaKing said:
--
br, john, from you know where
My gear list and sordid past are here: https://www.dpreview.com/members/1558378718/overview
Gallery: https://www.canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/page/gallery/

jeffharris · Feb 28, 2018

dougjgreen1 said:
dougjgreen1 said:

dougjgreen1 said:

dougjgreen1 said:

dougjgreen1 said:

And this is also why I would buy the 4/3 50-200mm f2.8~3.5 SWD lens for 1/4 the price of this new Micro 4/3 lens. It's an f2.8 lens up to beyond 100mm.

Click to expand...

And that lens weighs almost 1Kg. A lens this weight for this FL range would probably not fly in the Micro Four Thirds system. I'm sure such a lens could be done, it just won't.

Click to expand...

More glass weighs more. And the 4/3 lens is typically about 1/2 stop faster than this new Micro 43 lens.

Click to expand...

On the long end, it's not even 1/2 stop. Throughout the range, I can't tell you.

At least on the long end, the difference in aperture alone would not account for the weight difference IMO.

dougjgreen1 said:

So it weighs 50% more, because it has more aperture, across the whole zoom range.

Of course there is always a tradeoff of bulk vs. Max aperture. And many folks prefer the faster lenses, just as many other folks prefer the lighter weight ones.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It's 5/12ths of a stop at 200mm. I own a couple of older 200mm lenses. The f3.5 lens was noticeably heavier than the f4 lens. Also, a 100mm f2.8 lens is noticeably heavier than a 100mm f3.5 lens. It's true that the aperture difference alone does not explain the ENTIRE weight differential. Some of it is also due to the fact that the 4/3 lens is optically corrected for distortion, while the M43 lens is corrected in a software profile.

I have two, older 105mm f2.8 SLR lenses. A Pentax SMC Takumar (M42 mount) and a Nikon AI-S macro lens. Yeah, one is a macro lens, but the Nikon is considerably larger and heavier than the Pentax.

So, if a lens is more optically corrected, rather than relying on software correction, then clearly that sort of lens design will impact the size / weight.

Look at the Olympus 45mm lenses, for instance. BIG difference!

dmanthree · Feb 28, 2018

Holistic Photog said:
Maybe, maybe not. The point is, you don't know what FL that lens is actually at where it says f/2.9. It may be 51mm, it may be a little higher. And I haven't seen the image you're referring to that was near 100mm. If you could post it here, it would be helpful.

Also, I'll point out that the 12-100 f/4 isn't much smaller than the 50-200 f/2.8 to f/4. And the maximum entrance pupil of the 12-100 is half of the 50-200. Yet the size and weight of the 12-100 is just a little lower than the 50-200. The maximum entrance pupil is often the primary determinant of lens size. And the 50-200 at least gives you f/2.8 at the widest.

IMO, it all depends on the optical performance of the lens. It's possible that going to f/4 sooner than later helps with the sharpness and performance.

My guess is that the responses here are due more to sticker shock than anything else.

Totally different lenses. And that constant aperture is the reason that the Oly is nearly the same size as the Panny. I'm sure Panny/Leica *coulc* have designed a constant aperture zoom, but it would have been huge and much more expensive. This looks like a good compromise. We'll see how it performs.

--
-------------------------------------------------
---wicked clever tag line---

katastrofa · Feb 28, 2018

What's the practical difference between F/2.8 and F/2.9?

enossified · Feb 28, 2018

Lots of weird logic here.

1. The idea that old FT lenses can be had for low money overlooks the fact that when new they cost a fortune and require an EM-1 to focus quickly. Comparing used prices to new prices isn't fair.

2. Looking at the 12-100 vs. the 50-200 for size/weight? How about the 50-200 against the 45-150 Pro? Surprise, surprise...

JHaagsma · Feb 28, 2018

Well, the PanaLeica 50-200 is amazingly small and lightweight for what it is, so I guess there is a price to be paid somewhere and in this case it might be the max aperture going to f4 quite fast. We'll have to wait for a true sample of the lens to be sure. With the PL 12-60 2.8-4 it is a similar story: max aperture going to f4 faster than the old Zuiko 12-60 2.8-4.

reggieandtfe · Feb 28, 2018

enossified said:
Lots of weird logic here.

1. The idea that old FT lenses can be had for low money overlooks the fact that when new they cost a fortune and require an EM-1 to focus quickly. Comparing used prices to new prices isn't fair.

2. Looking at the 12-100 vs. the 50-200 for size/weight? How about the 50-200 against the 45-150 Pro? Surprise, surprise...

The 40-150mm Pro also has an internal zoom so it’s likely the Panasonic is longer when zoomed.

Nikonparrothead · Feb 28, 2018

Good to know though I've always viewed variable aperture zooms as constant at its lowest F stop and treat the highest one as widest angle possible.

Chuck Liddell · Feb 28, 2018

JHaagsma said:
We'll have to wait for a true sample of the lens to be sure. With the PL 12-60 2.8-4 it is a similar story: max aperture going to f4 faster than the old Zuiko 12-60 2.8-4.

The photo is of a finished production lens just like the public will get. Not a pre-production sample. It ramps from 50-100 to reach f4. If you want f2.8 above 50mm this lens won't do it. I'm not saying this won't be a good lens. It will just not be a great low light zoom like many hoped for from Pana. When zoomed out the 50-200mm is about the same length as the 100-300mm at 300mm.

Jacques Cornell · Feb 28, 2018

Chuck Liddell said:
Many people have been asking how long the new Panasonic 50-200mm F2.8-4.0 ASPH stays at F2.8. Well the answer is it stops being f2.8 as soon as you turn the zoom ring. It goes to F2.9 as soon as you hit 51mm. Image here - PANASONIC 50-200MM F2.8-4.0 LEAVES 2.8 AT 51MM

Yeah, the price is making me consider a Canon 70-200 f4L with an autofocusing adapter instead. I had a 70-200 f4L back in my Canon days, and it was a great lens. If AF performance is good...

Anyone know?

nebulla · Feb 28, 2018

Unless you shoot only Panasonic cameras with no PDAF, why would any one pay $1700 for this lens when the Olympus 50-200mm can be purchased on ebay for as low as $400? Might be a little lighter, and probably a little sharper, but is it worth $1700 . After all the Olympus is no slouch on the E-M1 1 or 2, and it is quite sharp too.

jeffharris · Feb 28, 2018

nebulla said:
Unless you shoot only Panasonic cameras with no PDAF, why would any one pay $1700 for this lens when the Olympus 50-200mm can be purchased on ebay for as low as $400? Might be a little lighter, and probably a little sharper, but is it worth $1700 . After all the Olympus is no slouch on the E-M1 1 or 2, and it is quite sharp too.

The Oly 50-200mm weighs 995g + the MMF-3 lens adaptor @ 42g = 1037g
The Panasonic 50-200mm weighs 655g

BIG difference! The Panny supports all the latest AF technologies, even without DFD. That means considerably more speed and accuracy.

Me, I can't make an educated assessment until of the new Panny lens until I see a number of reviews and image samples from numerous sources… and not just from the "best" photographers.

It's like auditioning hi-fi equipment. I purposely bring a few not so great sounding recordings (most recording engineers and their work is middling) to see how it handles real-world stuff, not just the best of the best. Same here.

This lens really doesn't fit into my lens desires/needs. It's variable aperture, size, weight & price don't help, either.

Mystic38 · Feb 28, 2018

katastrofa said:
What's the practical difference between F/2.8 and F/2.9?

if the sky is falling, you cannot take your shot at f2.9........

Advent1sam · Feb 28, 2018

Chuck Liddell said:
JHaagsma said:

We'll have to wait for a true sample of the lens to be sure. With the PL 12-60 2.8-4 it is a similar story: max aperture going to f4 faster than the old Zuiko 12-60 2.8-4.

Click to expand...

The photo is of a finished production lens just like the public will get. Not a pre-production sample. It ramps from 50-100 to reach f4. If you want f2.8 above 50mm this lens won't do it. I'm not saying this won't be a good lens. It will just not be a great low light zoom like many hoped for from Pana. When zoomed out the 50-200mm is about the same length as the 100-300mm at 300mm.

I think the 50-200 either fits your requirements or not. For me, personally, the sub<f4 apertures are all a bonus and a 50mm 2.8 is a nice option to have, even a 75mm f3.5 is actually very useful. I found myself often stopping down from f2.8 anyway on the 35-100. I honestly see this in reality as a 100-400 f4c. (ff equiv)

Now, lets look around and see what 100-400 f4c options there are for any format? currently none unless I'm mistaken? If you consider the situation its actually either 70-200 2.8 / 4 or 70-300 4-5.6 or 100-400. If you want 100-400f4 on aps-c, sure you can do it but it requires the 70-200 2.8 (big, expensive also) and you need the 1.4tc. You do gain a little extra focal length on the long end but you lose on the wide and you have to be prepared to swap tc on/off.

The 50-200 fits a very nice gap in the current m43 line-up and offers up something very unique and very flexible too.

Lu1Wang · Feb 28, 2018

The way this lens is positioned against Oly 40-150 Pro is very similar to the PL 12-60 vs Oly 12-40. You can choose to get either constant f2.8, or sacrifice a bit of light for extra reach. They weight about the same too. PL 12-60 reaches F4 pretty early at 40mm, and that doesn't seem to bother most users at all. It's still very sharp with a very flexible zoom range, the perfect compromise between constant f2.8 normal zoom and a low f-stop super zoom.

The only difference is PL 50-200 is a lot more expensive than Oly 40-150 Pro. Unlike PL 12-60 to Oly 12-40, which you can get for about the same price.

nebulla · Feb 28, 2018

jeffharris said:
nebulla said:

Unless you shoot only Panasonic cameras with no PDAF, why would any one pay $1700 for this lens when the Olympus 50-200mm can be purchased on ebay for as low as $400? Might be a little lighter, and probably a little sharper, but is it worth $1700 . After all the Olympus is no slouch on the E-M1 1 or 2, and it is quite sharp too.

Click to expand...

The Oly 50-200mm weighs 995g + the MMF-3 lens adaptor @ 42g = 1037g

The Panasonic 50-200mm weighs 655g

BIG difference! The Panny supports all the latest AF technologies, even without DFD. That means considerably more speed and accuracy.

Me, I can't make an educated assessment until of the new Panny lens until I see a number of reviews and image samples from numerous sources… and not just from the "best" photographers.

It's like auditioning hi-fi equipment. I purposely bring a few not so great sounding recordings (most recording engineers and their work is middling) to see how it handles real-world stuff, not just the best of the best. Same here.

This lens really doesn't fit into my lens desires/needs. It's variable aperture, size, weight & price don't help, either.

I realize this too Jeff, but this little weight loss and probably better Af as mentioned, would not make the difference for me. As a matter of fact, I prefer a little more weight with M43. Makes the camera feel a lot more stable.

Jacques Cornell · Feb 28, 2018

nebulla said:
Unless you shoot only Panasonic cameras with no PDAF, why would any one pay $1700 for this lens when the Olympus 50-200mm can be purchased on ebay for as low as $400? Might be a little lighter, and probably a little sharper, but is it worth $1700 . After all the Olympus is no slouch on the E-M1 1 or 2, and it is quite sharp too.

Comparing used to new is hardly relevant. And, as you say, the Oly is not an option for Panny shooters. You've answered your own question.

Nomoreheroes · Feb 28, 2018

Chuck Liddell said:
Many people have been asking how long the new Panasonic 50-200mm F2.8-4.0 ASPH stays at F2.8. Well the answer is it stops being f2.8 as soon as you turn the zoom ring. It goes to F2.9 as soon as you hit 51mm. Image here - PANASONIC 50-200MM F2.8-4.0 LEAVES 2.8 AT 51MM

Well they charge you as it would have been a constant F2.8 lens

Maybe this is some new EQ-factor

dougjgreen1 · Feb 28, 2018

Jacques Cornell said:
nebulla said:

Unless you shoot only Panasonic cameras with no PDAF, why would any one pay $1700 for this lens when the Olympus 50-200mm can be purchased on ebay for as low as $400? Might be a little lighter, and probably a little sharper, but is it worth $1700 . After all the Olympus is no slouch on the E-M1 1 or 2, and it is quite sharp too.

Click to expand...

Comparing used to new is hardly relevant. And, as you say, the Oly is not an option for Panny shooters. You've answered your own question.

PANASONIC 50-200MM F2.8-4.0 LEAVES 2.8 AT 51MM

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts