Okay, it's four pounds but a 200/2.0 would be fun

tammons said:

HicHic said:

tammons said:

Tom Caldwell said:

tammons said:

Skeeterbytes said:

The new Sigma 200/2.0 seems fairly priced and probably won't be considered for an m4/3 edition, but would fill a unique niche as a very fast mid tele prime.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9815481333/sigma-200mm-f2-sports-fast-telephoto-prime

Closest I've seen to a Little Tuna replacement, itself a very fun lens if ponderously slow to focus. Just a half pound more heft.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

The Panasonic 200mm F2.8 is one of the best prime lenses I have ever used. Good enough for me anyway. I have owned a 200mm F2.0. Not worth it for one stop.

What we do need are some serious PF telephoto primes for MFT.

400mm F4.

600mm F4.

800mm F5.6.

Would do it.

Click to expand...

Reality bites when it is noted that Panasonic made that 200/2.8 "so good" that they had trouble selling them at the necessary price to make them profitable to make.

Top marks for the lens of course.

But does the sales performance encourage Panasonic to make more exotic type lenses as wished for? Hardly.

Canon made an EF 400/2.8 L in several increasing lighter versions - it can be adapted full function to M4/3. Even focal reduced to give a pretty spectacular 280mm f2.0.

Click to expand...

The first time I took a Panasonic 200mm F2.8 out for a photo session, I could not believe the results and how good this lens was. It was obvious just looking at the LCD screen. That was one of only a few big wow photo gear moments for me.

I have considered a Canon 600mm F4.

Click to expand...

I want one now...

Click to expand...

The 600mm F4 IS III USM even used costs an arm and a leg and weighs 6.8# so almost tolerable compared to the Ver I which weighs 11.8#.

Click to expand...

The 600/4iii is not very good. Softer than the 600/4ii - particularly noticeable when used with TC. 600/4ii is very sharp, but way too heavy. 500/4ii hits the sweet spot imo. Optically perfect, and light enough to hand carry all day.

HicHic said:

tammons said:

HicHic said:

tammons said:

Tom Caldwell said:

tammons said:

Skeeterbytes said:

The new Sigma 200/2.0 seems fairly priced and probably won't be considered for an m4/3 edition, but would fill a unique niche as a very fast mid tele prime.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9815481333/sigma-200mm-f2-sports-fast-telephoto-prime

Closest I've seen to a Little Tuna replacement, itself a very fun lens if ponderously slow to focus. Just a half pound more heft.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

The Panasonic 200mm F2.8 is one of the best prime lenses I have ever used. Good enough for me anyway. I have owned a 200mm F2.0. Not worth it for one stop.

What we do need are some serious PF telephoto primes for MFT.

400mm F4.

600mm F4.

800mm F5.6.

Would do it.

Click to expand...

Reality bites when it is noted that Panasonic made that 200/2.8 "so good" that they had trouble selling them at the necessary price to make them profitable to make.

Top marks for the lens of course.

But does the sales performance encourage Panasonic to make more exotic type lenses as wished for? Hardly.

Canon made an EF 400/2.8 L in several increasing lighter versions - it can be adapted full function to M4/3. Even focal reduced to give a pretty spectacular 280mm f2.0.

Click to expand...

The first time I took a Panasonic 200mm F2.8 out for a photo session, I could not believe the results and how good this lens was. It was obvious just looking at the LCD screen. That was one of only a few big wow photo gear moments for me.

I have considered a Canon 600mm F4.

Click to expand...

I want one now...

Click to expand...

The 600mm F4 IS III USM even used costs an arm and a leg and weighs 6.8# so almost tolerable compared to the Ver I which weighs 11.8#.

Click to expand...

The 600/4iii is not very good. Softer than the 600/4ii - particularly noticeable when used with TC. 600/4ii is very sharp, but way too heavy. 500/4ii hits the sweet spot imo. Optically perfect, and light enough to hand carry all day.

Click to expand...

I wish someone would make a Nikon F to MFT AF adapter that would actually work properly at near factory AF speed.

I have owned the Nikon 500mm PF twice, and it is my favorite 500mm prime to date mostly for the weight and size.

Of course optimum would be a Z 800mm F6.3, but the registration distances are too far off and would take a correction lens if possible at all.

I have used mine on Fuji Nikon z and was surprised how well AF and stable it was when I tried it on Nikon N1 bodies. But on MFT it is almost manual focus as AF adapters are so bad.

DA

jjbinx said:

Tom Caldwell said:

tammons said:

Skeeterbytes said:

The new Sigma 200/2.0 seems fairly priced and probably won't be considered for an m4/3 edition, but would fill a unique niche as a very fast mid tele prime.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9815481333/sigma-200mm-f2-sports-fast-telephoto-prime

Closest I've seen to a Little Tuna replacement, itself a very fun lens if ponderously slow to focus. Just a half pound more heft.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

The Panasonic 200mm F2.8 is one of the best prime lenses I have ever used. Good enough for me anyway. I have owned a 200mm F2.0. Not worth it for one stop.

What we do need are some serious PF telephoto primes for MFT.

400mm F4.

600mm F4.

800mm F5.6.

Would do it.

Click to expand...

Reality bites when it is noted that Panasonic made that 200/2.8 "so good" that they had trouble selling them at the necessary price to make them profitable to make.

Top marks for the lens of course.

But does the sales performance encourage Panasonic to make more exotic type lenses as wished for? Hardly.

Canon made an EF 400/2.8 L in several increasing lighter versions -

it can be adapted full function to M4/3.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

[edit] never tried it with C-AF but S-AF works well. Interestingly I even made this lens do good S-AF with a GM1 body adapted to the 5.5kg Mk I version. Just for laughs of course.

Member said:

I acquired a Metabones adapter a few months back but can’t get C-AF to work with my EF300mm f/2.8 on my E-M1III

I’m using it mainly for Astro (Manual focus) but it would be nice if there was some C-AF function

Click to expand...

After the wannaget posts the fact that someone has an EF 300/2.8 must impress.

However I don't think that anyone uses C-AF with an EF adapter on a Panasonic M4/3 body more than once. S-AF is the only way to go.

Compare: Metabones tries to work C-AF on M4/3 bodies and fails because of the intense racking of the lens trying to stay in focus. On the other hand Panasonic simply locks out the C-AF function for EF mount lenses adapted on their L-Mount bodies that use CDAF.

I must try C-AF again with my G9II and PDAF. Not sure about Olympus/OMS bodies that already have PDAF but some EF lenses have heavier elements that have to travel longer distances to remain in focus.

Member said:

Member said:

Even focal reduced to give a pretty spectacular 280mm f2.0.

Click to expand...

jj

Click to expand...

--
Tom Caldwell

tammons said:

HicHic said:

tammons said:

HicHic said:

tammons said:

Tom Caldwell said:

tammons said:

Skeeterbytes said:

The new Sigma 200/2.0 seems fairly priced and probably won't be considered for an m4/3 edition, but would fill a unique niche as a very fast mid tele prime.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9815481333/sigma-200mm-f2-sports-fast-telephoto-prime

Closest I've seen to a Little Tuna replacement, itself a very fun lens if ponderously slow to focus. Just a half pound more heft.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

The Panasonic 200mm F2.8 is one of the best prime lenses I have ever used. Good enough for me anyway. I have owned a 200mm F2.0. Not worth it for one stop.

What we do need are some serious PF telephoto primes for MFT.

400mm F4.

600mm F4.

800mm F5.6.

Would do it.

Click to expand...

Reality bites when it is noted that Panasonic made that 200/2.8 "so good" that they had trouble selling them at the necessary price to make them profitable to make.

Top marks for the lens of course.

But does the sales performance encourage Panasonic to make more exotic type lenses as wished for? Hardly.

Canon made an EF 400/2.8 L in several increasing lighter versions - it can be adapted full function to M4/3. Even focal reduced to give a pretty spectacular 280mm f2.0.

Click to expand...

The first time I took a Panasonic 200mm F2.8 out for a photo session, I could not believe the results and how good this lens was. It was obvious just looking at the LCD screen. That was one of only a few big wow photo gear moments for me.

I have considered a Canon 600mm F4.

Click to expand...

I want one now...

Click to expand...

The 600mm F4 IS III USM even used costs an arm and a leg and weighs 6.8# so almost tolerable compared to the Ver I which weighs 11.8#.

Click to expand...

The 600/4iii is not very good. Softer than the 600/4ii - particularly noticeable when used with TC. 600/4ii is very sharp, but way too heavy. 500/4ii hits the sweet spot imo. Optically perfect, and light enough to hand carry all day.

Click to expand...

I wish someone would make a Nikon F to MFT AF adapter that would actually work properly at near factory AF speed.

I have owned the Nikon 500mm PF twice, and it is my favorite 500mm prime to date mostly for the weight and size.

Of course optimum would be a Z 800mm F6.3, but the registration distances are too far off and would take a correction lens if possible at all.

Click to expand...

It's too bad that all of the adapted options have poor AF performance.

HicHic said:

tammons said:

HicHic said:

tammons said:

HicHic said:

tammons said:

Tom Caldwell said:

tammons said:

Skeeterbytes said:

The new Sigma 200/2.0 seems fairly priced and probably won't be considered for an m4/3 edition, but would fill a unique niche as a very fast mid tele prime.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9815481333/sigma-200mm-f2-sports-fast-telephoto-prime

Closest I've seen to a Little Tuna replacement, itself a very fun lens if ponderously slow to focus. Just a half pound more heft.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

The Panasonic 200mm F2.8 is one of the best prime lenses I have ever used. Good enough for me anyway. I have owned a 200mm F2.0. Not worth it for one stop.

What we do need are some serious PF telephoto primes for MFT.

400mm F4.

600mm F4.

800mm F5.6.

Would do it.

Click to expand...

Reality bites when it is noted that Panasonic made that 200/2.8 "so good" that they had trouble selling them at the necessary price to make them profitable to make.

Top marks for the lens of course.

But does the sales performance encourage Panasonic to make more exotic type lenses as wished for? Hardly.

Canon made an EF 400/2.8 L in several increasing lighter versions - it can be adapted full function to M4/3. Even focal reduced to give a pretty spectacular 280mm f2.0.

Click to expand...

The first time I took a Panasonic 200mm F2.8 out for a photo session, I could not believe the results and how good this lens was. It was obvious just looking at the LCD screen. That was one of only a few big wow photo gear moments for me.

I have considered a Canon 600mm F4.

Click to expand...

I want one now...

Click to expand...

The 600mm F4 IS III USM even used costs an arm and a leg and weighs 6.8# so almost tolerable compared to the Ver I which weighs 11.8#.

Click to expand...

The 600/4iii is not very good. Softer than the 600/4ii - particularly noticeable when used with TC. 600/4ii is very sharp, but way too heavy. 500/4ii hits the sweet spot imo. Optically perfect, and light enough to hand carry all day.

Click to expand...

I wish someone would make a Nikon F to MFT AF adapter that would actually work properly at near factory AF speed.

I have owned the Nikon 500mm PF twice, and it is my favorite 500mm prime to date mostly for the weight and size.

Of course optimum would be a Z 800mm F6.3, but the registration distances are too far off and would take a correction lens if possible at all.

Click to expand...

It's too bad that all of the adapted options have poor AF performance.

Click to expand...

The Canon EF 200/2.0 L IS actually adapts to AF quite well. One simply has to get over the price shock - or buy a PL 200/2.8 which is a bargain by comparison.

But that object lens on the EF lens must be worth the extra money just for the pose-value (surely?).

Tom Caldwell said:

HicHic said:

tammons said:

HicHic said:

tammons said:

HicHic said:

tammons said:

Tom Caldwell said:

tammons said:

Skeeterbytes said:

The new Sigma 200/2.0 seems fairly priced and probably won't be considered for an m4/3 edition, but would fill a unique niche as a very fast mid tele prime.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9815481333/sigma-200mm-f2-sports-fast-telephoto-prime

Closest I've seen to a Little Tuna replacement, itself a very fun lens if ponderously slow to focus. Just a half pound more heft.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

The Panasonic 200mm F2.8 is one of the best prime lenses I have ever used. Good enough for me anyway. I have owned a 200mm F2.0. Not worth it for one stop.

What we do need are some serious PF telephoto primes for MFT.

400mm F4.

600mm F4.

800mm F5.6.

Would do it.

Click to expand...

Reality bites when it is noted that Panasonic made that 200/2.8 "so good" that they had trouble selling them at the necessary price to make them profitable to make.

Top marks for the lens of course.

But does the sales performance encourage Panasonic to make more exotic type lenses as wished for? Hardly.

Canon made an EF 400/2.8 L in several increasing lighter versions - it can be adapted full function to M4/3. Even focal reduced to give a pretty spectacular 280mm f2.0.

Click to expand...

The first time I took a Panasonic 200mm F2.8 out for a photo session, I could not believe the results and how good this lens was. It was obvious just looking at the LCD screen. That was one of only a few big wow photo gear moments for me.

I have considered a Canon 600mm F4.

Click to expand...

I want one now...

Click to expand...

The 600mm F4 IS III USM even used costs an arm and a leg and weighs 6.8# so almost tolerable compared to the Ver I which weighs 11.8#.

Click to expand...

The 600/4iii is not very good. Softer than the 600/4ii - particularly noticeable when used with TC. 600/4ii is very sharp, but way too heavy. 500/4ii hits the sweet spot imo. Optically perfect, and light enough to hand carry all day.

Click to expand...

I wish someone would make a Nikon F to MFT AF adapter that would actually work properly at near factory AF speed.

I have owned the Nikon 500mm PF twice, and it is my favorite 500mm prime to date mostly for the weight and size.

Of course optimum would be a Z 800mm F6.3, but the registration distances are too far off and would take a correction lens if possible at all.

Click to expand...

It's too bad that all of the adapted options have poor AF performance.

Click to expand...

The Canon EF 200/2.0 L IS actually adapts to AF quite well. One simply has to get over the price shock - or buy a PL 200/2.8 which is a bargain by comparison.

Click to expand...

Or buy a Canon EF 300mm f2.8 and use it with a Metabones SpeedBooster ULTRA. That's assuming what you're after is 210 (or 300mm) and have no use for 140mm f1.4. This should save around $800 after factoring in the cost of the lens and speedbooster.

But IMO, if one cannot take great photos 90% of the time with a 135mm f2 which is readily available in a range of affordable options, an extra stop isn't going to be the game-changer one might think.

Same goes for the native Panasonic 200mm f2.8 vs. Canon 200mm f2.

Tom Caldwell said:

But that object lens on the EF lens must be worth the extra money just for the pose-value (surely?).

Click to expand...

--
Semi-reformed pixel peeper.

The PL 200/2.8 + 1.4x TC works great from the back of the hall and higher than stage height angle with good stage lighting for Dress rehearsal recording.

But I have not had it for long enough to create a significant image collection.

Some examples of M4/3 and lens combinations here. Only cropped to compose.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65634034

Try three different lens combinations including the EF 200/2.0 L on its native body.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65636493

Tom Caldwell said:

The PL 200/2.8 + 1.4x TC works great from the back of the hall and higher than stage height angle with good stage lighting for Dress rehearsal recording.

But I have not had it for long enough to create a significant image collection.

Some examples of M4/3 and lens combinations here. Only cropped to compose.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65634034

Try three different lens combinations including the EF 200/2.0 L on its native body.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65636493

Click to expand...

Yup, I saw the photos when you posted them. It's incredible how much more detail the 50 MP 5DS sensor was able to capture!

Tom Caldwell said:

HicHic said:

tammons said:

HicHic said:

tammons said:

HicHic said:

tammons said:

Tom Caldwell said:

tammons said:

Skeeterbytes said:

The new Sigma 200/2.0 seems fairly priced and probably won't be considered for an m4/3 edition, but would fill a unique niche as a very fast mid tele prime.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9815481333/sigma-200mm-f2-sports-fast-telephoto-prime

Closest I've seen to a Little Tuna replacement, itself a very fun lens if ponderously slow to focus. Just a half pound more heft.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

The Panasonic 200mm F2.8 is one of the best prime lenses I have ever used. Good enough for me anyway. I have owned a 200mm F2.0. Not worth it for one stop.

What we do need are some serious PF telephoto primes for MFT.

400mm F4.

600mm F4.

800mm F5.6.

Would do it.

Click to expand...

Reality bites when it is noted that Panasonic made that 200/2.8 "so good" that they had trouble selling them at the necessary price to make them profitable to make.

Top marks for the lens of course.

But does the sales performance encourage Panasonic to make more exotic type lenses as wished for? Hardly.

Canon made an EF 400/2.8 L in several increasing lighter versions - it can be adapted full function to M4/3. Even focal reduced to give a pretty spectacular 280mm f2.0.

Click to expand...

The first time I took a Panasonic 200mm F2.8 out for a photo session, I could not believe the results and how good this lens was. It was obvious just looking at the LCD screen. That was one of only a few big wow photo gear moments for me.

I have considered a Canon 600mm F4.

Click to expand...

I want one now...

Click to expand...

The 600mm F4 IS III USM even used costs an arm and a leg and weighs 6.8# so almost tolerable compared to the Ver I which weighs 11.8#.

Click to expand...

The 600/4iii is not very good. Softer than the 600/4ii - particularly noticeable when used with TC. 600/4ii is very sharp, but way too heavy. 500/4ii hits the sweet spot imo. Optically perfect, and light enough to hand carry all day.

Click to expand...

I wish someone would make a Nikon F to MFT AF adapter that would actually work properly at near factory AF speed.

I have owned the Nikon 500mm PF twice, and it is my favorite 500mm prime to date mostly for the weight and size.

Of course optimum would be a Z 800mm F6.3, but the registration distances are too far off and would take a correction lens if possible at all.

Click to expand...

It's too bad that all of the adapted options have poor AF performance.

Click to expand...

The Canon EF 200/2.0 L IS actually adapts to AF quite well. One simply has to get over the price shock - or buy a PL 200/2.8 which is a bargain by comparison.

But that object lens on the EF lens must be worth the extra money just for the pose-value (surely?).

Click to expand...

Just guessing, I think he is talking about Nikon F/PF lenses.

I had a Nikon 200mm F2.0 that I used on a Z body and tried it on MFT.

I also owned a Panasonic 200mm F2.8 and for all the typical reasons I would choose the P 200mm F2.8 over any 200mm F2.0 any day of the week. One stop really doesn't make that much difference considering the weight of a 200mm F2.0 lens.

tammons said:

Tom Caldwell said:

HicHic said:

tammons said:

HicHic said:

tammons said:

HicHic said:

tammons said:

Tom Caldwell said:

tammons said:

Skeeterbytes said:

The new Sigma 200/2.0 seems fairly priced and probably won't be considered for an m4/3 edition, but would fill a unique niche as a very fast mid tele prime.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9815481333/sigma-200mm-f2-sports-fast-telephoto-prime

Closest I've seen to a Little Tuna replacement, itself a very fun lens if ponderously slow to focus. Just a half pound more heft.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

The Panasonic 200mm F2.8 is one of the best prime lenses I have ever used. Good enough for me anyway. I have owned a 200mm F2.0. Not worth it for one stop.

What we do need are some serious PF telephoto primes for MFT.

400mm F4.

600mm F4.

800mm F5.6.

Would do it.

Click to expand...

Reality bites when it is noted that Panasonic made that 200/2.8 "so good" that they had trouble selling them at the necessary price to make them profitable to make.

Top marks for the lens of course.

But does the sales performance encourage Panasonic to make more exotic type lenses as wished for? Hardly.

Canon made an EF 400/2.8 L in several increasing lighter versions - it can be adapted full function to M4/3. Even focal reduced to give a pretty spectacular 280mm f2.0.

Click to expand...

The first time I took a Panasonic 200mm F2.8 out for a photo session, I could not believe the results and how good this lens was. It was obvious just looking at the LCD screen. That was one of only a few big wow photo gear moments for me.

I have considered a Canon 600mm F4.

Click to expand...

I want one now...

Click to expand...

The 600mm F4 IS III USM even used costs an arm and a leg and weighs 6.8# so almost tolerable compared to the Ver I which weighs 11.8#.

Click to expand...

The 600/4iii is not very good. Softer than the 600/4ii - particularly noticeable when used with TC. 600/4ii is very sharp, but way too heavy. 500/4ii hits the sweet spot imo. Optically perfect, and light enough to hand carry all day.

Click to expand...

I wish someone would make a Nikon F to MFT AF adapter that would actually work properly at near factory AF speed.

I have owned the Nikon 500mm PF twice, and it is my favorite 500mm prime to date mostly for the weight and size.

Of course optimum would be a Z 800mm F6.3, but the registration distances are too far off and would take a correction lens if possible at all.

Click to expand...

It's too bad that all of the adapted options have poor AF performance.

Click to expand...

The Canon EF 200/2.0 L IS actually adapts to AF quite well. One simply has to get over the price shock - or buy a PL 200/2.8 which is a bargain by comparison.

But that object lens on the EF lens must be worth the extra money just for the pose-value (surely?).

Click to expand...

Just guessing, I think he is talking about Nikon F/PF lenses.

I had a Nikon 200mm F2.0 that I used on a Z body and tried it on MFT.

I also owned a Panasonic 200mm F2.8 and for all the typical reasons I would choose the P 200mm F2.8 over any 200mm F2.0 any day of the week. One stop really doesn't make that much difference considering the weight of a 200mm F2.0 lens.

Click to expand...

Well quite a lot of money says some people think that one stop on a Canon EF 200mm lens to f2.0 does make a lot of difference at the coal face. The 200/2.0 has a huge object lens compared to my EF 200/2.8 L.

I like the weight, size, price of the 200/2.8 L which is a go-everywhere sort of lens but the 200/2.0 L is the lens that justifies specialist use. We can pay a lot more just to get the nth degree of extra capability in our lenses. But the EF 200/2.0 L is never going to be a simple carry-about lens like the EF 200/2.8 L.

No disagreement here.

Tom Caldwell said:

HicHic said:

It's too bad that all of the adapted options have poor AF performance.

Click to expand...

The Canon EF 200/2.0 L IS actually adapts to AF quite well. One simply has to get over the price shock - or buy a PL 200/2.8 which is a bargain by comparison.

But that object lens on the EF lens must be worth the extra money just for the pose-value (surely?).

Click to expand...

Oh really...using which adapter? And on which M43 body?

HicHic said:

Tom Caldwell said:

HicHic said:

It's too bad that all of the adapted options have poor AF performance.

Click to expand...

The Canon EF 200/2.0 L IS actually adapts to AF quite well. One simply has to get over the price shock - or buy a PL 200/2.8 which is a bargain by comparison.

But that object lens on the EF lens must be worth the extra money just for the pose-value (surely?).

Click to expand...

Oh really...using which adapter? And on which M43 body?

Click to expand...

Here is my old test comparison of about 20 EF lenses (I have added more since):

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64144177

Read the chart carefully for the nuances of individual lenses.

You will see that the Canon EF 200/2.0L was well behaved when adapted to L-Mount with the Sigma MC-21 and Fotodiox Fusion adapters and also adapted to M4/3 with Metabones and Viltrox adapters. Did not extend my test to focal reduction adapters but Metabones uses the same firmware for all relative adapters. The camera. body for M4/3 was the G9.

I can confirm that the EF 200/2.0L is a no-sweat lens when electronically adapted.

The camera body for L-Mount would have been the S1.

HicHic said:

Skeeterbytes said:

The new Sigma 200/2.0 seems fairly priced and probably won't be considered for an m4/3 edition, but would fill a unique niche as a very fast mid tele prime.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9815481333/sigma-200mm-f2-sports-fast-telephoto-prime

Closest I've seen to a Little Tuna replacement, itself a very fun lens if ponderously slow to focus. Just a half pound more heft.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

Bit short for wildlife. 250/2 would be nice.

Click to expand...

if it's mc20 compatible, a 400/4 is nice