Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 50-200mm F2.8-4.0 ???

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
opiecat Senior Member • Posts: 2,392
Re: Actual reply about Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 50-200mm F2.8-4.0

iano wrote:

opiecat wrote:

iano wrote:

I have the 50-200mm, and use it with the G9. First thing is the previously I was using the panasonic 100-300 for longer end of the zoom range, and I was getting something like 1/30 decent BIF shots....basically useless. With the 50-200mm the AF speed in the same situation seems like more than 10x faster. Where the 100-300 would seem to take even over 1 second, with the 50-200 it is basically instant. The end result is the keeper ratio for moving subjects is almost 100% (not counting when I miss the framing ).

A pro review should be better than mine for IQ, but if there is anything I can add I will see what I can do. This is the m43 best lens I have used. I have used the 100-400 but not long term. I have not used the Oly 40-150 though.

just curious - which 100-300 did you use ver 1 or ver 2? ihave the 100-300 v2 and was

I own the 100-300 v1. But I have a friend with the mkII and he also tried the comparison. In his words, the the 100-300 ver1 is like a bicycle and the ver2 is a better bicycle, but the 50-200 is a Ferrari, which makes the difference between the two significantly different bicycles seem trivial.

We could see the difference between the two 100-300 lenses. But you had to think about it. Sometimes the difference, if any, seemed inconsequential. But between either lens and the 50-200, it was night and day. Relative to the 50-200, the two 100-300 are in the same bracket as far as AF goes. Different IS and weather sealing do further differentiate the two 100-300 lenses.

So could be .5s down from .6s or even .2s down from .25s times for 100-300s..... same tests 50-200 seems like 0.05s or less

planning on getting the 50-200 but was wondering how much faster that PL's AF motor is vs the 100-300 v2.

In practice, is seems like more than 10x in many situations. In situations where you can watch the 100-300 obtain focus, the 50-200 is just instant.

So is this real? Is my memory exaggerating these tests? I even questioned myself that it could be so different. I just grabbed the 10-60 PanaLeica for a quick comparison at around 60mm. Was there a difference focusing and infinity then at something at around 1 meter? OH YES!. The 10-60 may be a Leica, but it can still hunt for a fraction of a second. You can see it focus. On the same test the 50-500 is just instant. That tiny 'beep' is just instant (and with the g9 I accidentally took a photo in one test because it was ready so instantly).

thank you for your input.  it's good to know that the AF motors of the 50-200 is indeed faster.  i don't have a G9, but have a G85, so it may not be as fast, but the 50-200 should be faster still than then 100-300.

now if panny would just get that price down a few hundred

-- hide signature --

'when 900 years you reach, look as good you will not' -- master yoda

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