Reading mode: Light Dark

I don’t really get the OMS 50-200 f2.8 LWL - I’m hoping for a nice surprise

Go to last post
N

No Time To Lose

Leading Member
Messages
559
Reaction score
929
I quite like trying to understand the business dynamics / drivers for companies in areas of interest for me and I’m struggling with this lens based on the current rumours.

It looks like (I’m not qualified to comment on the numbers suggested here) that the 50-200 f2.8 (LWL) is going to be considerably heavier (1350g vs 880g) and considerably more expensive (longer reach, bigger, more complex - e.g IS - and likely some more exotic materials) than the 40-150 f2.8.

I don’t doubt that there is a use case - f2.8 at 150-200 and f4 at 200-280mm but what is the business case for OMS? Who are the target buyers?
  • Upgrade from the 40-150 f2.8? Yes, some but who? It’s a lot of money. Sports photographers, especially indoors, is the most obvious segment. But what proportion of the M43 population does that represent who would be willing to pay that sort of money? I can’t imagine it is that many - if you are serious about that segment you are very likely to be in FF. Of course there are some exceptions but they are exactly that.
  • Wildlife - yes some - but it has to squeeze in amongst the 40-150, 300 and BWL. A lot of wildlife shooters in the system already have a selection of lenses so the upgrade case needs to be strong enough for them.
  • The IS is an additional feature over the 40-150 but, at these focal lengths, how much difference does sync IS make vs IBIS? I’d guess a stop or 2 above 5-6 stops for IBIS only. Many argue that shutter speeds to freeze motion largely render better IS irrelevant.
  • Well-heeled existing M43 photographers who just want it - or suffer from terminal GAS.
  • Would it pull new photographers into the system? I just don’t know - what use case makes it compelling switch from FF?? I get the BWL case but not this.
On the other hand, it will likely steal some sales from the 40-150/2.8 and 300 going forward. Yes, they probably make more money per sale but those lenses have depreciated investment costs and those losses eat into the business case.

A lens of this complexity must have chewed up a considerable amount of OMS’ development resources - I can’t imagine them doing this without a sound business case and, so far, I can’t see what that is. The success of the BWL must have given them some encouragement - but there is a clear use case for that. I can see why another “white” level premium lens would appeal to them but it has to sell in sufficient volume at the right price to meet (hopefully exceed) the business case to justify the investment and I just don’t understand where that volume is coming from.

So, that’s why I’m hoping that OMS is hiding something else under its skirts - they have been quite good at pulling rabbits out of the hat in the past.
  • Internal TC would be a welcome surprise since there has been no sense of this coming so far. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t given they have it on the BWL but who knows? I would have thought that an internal TC would make it more attractive to more people. Whether they really need it and can justify it is another matter but the same argument applies to the BWL but I can attest that it is a really neat feature on the BWL.
  • Simultaneously launch of OM1.3 that is a more significant upgrade than the OM1.2 was? Possible as discussed elsewhere but, apart from one hint a while ago, there have been no indications of this.
  • An OM1.3 with the patented Astro feature might make a f2.8 lens in this focal range with IS very interesting for some - especially if they also launched (or announced) a WA lens with IS.
I just hope that the rumoured Sep 10th announcement is accurate then we’ll find out.
 
To me, the biggest business impact of the release of the Small White Lens is that it is an indication that OMS is still alive. That alone seems more significant than the technical details.

Joe L
 
Well, the new 50-200 has a market. I have Both the 150-400 und 40-150 2.8 and will order the new one;

The 40-150 2.8 is probably the best value for money pro lens in the MFT line up. It is super Sharp, very fast and works damn well with both Converters. Only downside is the bokeh which can be very easily very harsh.

The new 50-200 2.8 caters for the same market where in FF terms a 400 2.8 sits (not equivalent!!!!!)

(Motor) Sport

Wildlife , especially safari and large animals

Nature

So, if it is somewhere of a 85mm by 190mm, weights 1.2kg and works also damn well with both converter it will be a no brainer. Especially to pair it with the 150-400.

And the looks and design screams 150-400 Quality
 
Joe Lynch said:
To me, the biggest business impact of the release of the Small White Lens is that it is an indication that OMS is still alive. That alone seems more significant than the technical details.

Joe L
Click to expand...
Yes and fully agreed, I think this new lens will cement that and will be a hit at the same time, bit like the OM-1 Mk2 and the OM-3 it will silence the none believers & critics, bring it on OM Systems and stand tall
 
Forget the idea that a 50-200Mm MFT lens is really a shrunken 50-200mm FF lens and think that a from scratch MFT design is quite close to a 100-400/5.6 FF lens. The Sony 100-400GM is f4.5-5.6, in fact f5.6 from quite early in the range.

Read what MEDISN wrote about low light AF performance.

I agree this is a tiny market but it might also be a third party lens maker using it as a learning experience. My money would be on Viltrox doing it for a modest fee rather than say Tamron or Sigma. OMDS might have decided they no longer can maintain a competitive lens design capability, given their tiny throughput of lenses. If it is an OMDS in-house design, that would be interesting to say the least (but only if it’s a good lens).

If this lens goes head-to-head with any of the first party 100-400mm lenses, that would be a major brand statement by OMDS.

I have a Sony 100-400mm GM. It performs quite well but has a number of optical and mechanical issues that make Sony owners keep asking when a GM II will appear. The Sigma 100-400mm is another benchmark, cheaper than first party offers but also optically not quite as good.

First party 100-400mm lenses have OSS. I guess it adds something to IBIS beyond 300mm. Being able to keep your subject in the frame and subject tracking locked on it is helpful, even if you have a high SS.

The next logical step for OMDS would be a new sensor or better use of the capabilities of the IMX472. The Pro zooms could stand a better sensor, the Pro primes less so, apart from the 300/4.

Pricing this lens is a product management nightmare. Too high and sales won’t cover upfront costs, too low and margin won’t justify the resources. If it is an excellent lens, the overall package of lenses might entice new OM1 mk ii buyers. The lenses are the major part of the cost.

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post
 
Last edited:
Can’t win can they? Whatever OM do somebody seems to find fault with them…

My personal feeling is that if they want to not just survive but also thrive then they need to expand their appeal beyond just wildlife and try and attract some of the wider action and sports shooter crowd and this lens will go along way towards that
 
No Time To Lose said:
I quite like trying to understand the business dynamics / drivers for companies in areas of interest for me and I’m struggling with this lens based on the current rumours.

It looks like (I’m not qualified to comment on the numbers suggested here) that the 50-200 f2.8 (LWL) is going to be considerably heavier (1350g vs 880g) and considerably more expensive (longer reach, bigger, more complex - e.g IS - and likely some more exotic materials) than the 40-150 f2.8.

I don’t doubt that there is a use case - f2.8 at 150-200 and f4 at 200-280mm but what is the business case for OMS? Who are the target buyers?
  • Upgrade from the 40-150 f2.8? Yes, some but who? It’s a lot of money. Sports photographers, especially indoors, is the most obvious segment. But what proportion of the M43 population does that represent who would be willing to pay that sort of money? I can’t imagine it is that many - if you are serious about that segment you are very likely to be in FF. Of course there are some exceptions but they are exactly that.
  • Wildlife - yes some - but it has to squeeze in amongst the 40-150, 300 and BWL. A lot of wildlife shooters in the system already have a selection of lenses so the upgrade case needs to be strong enough for them.
  • The IS is an additional feature over the 40-150 but, at these focal lengths, how much difference does sync IS make vs IBIS? I’d guess a stop or 2 above 5-6 stops for IBIS only. Many argue that shutter speeds to freeze motion largely render better IS irrelevant.
  • Well-heeled existing M43 photographers who just want it - or suffer from terminal GAS.
  • Would it pull new photographers into the system? I just don’t know - what use case makes it compelling switch from FF?? I get the BWL case but not this.
On the other hand, it will likely steal some sales from the 40-150/2.8 and 300 going forward. Yes, they probably make more money per sale but those lenses have depreciated investment costs and those losses eat into the business case.

A lens of this complexity must have chewed up a considerable amount of OMS’ development resources - I can’t imagine them doing this without a sound business case and, so far, I can’t see what that is. The success of the BWL must have given them some encouragement - but there is a clear use case for that. I can see why another “white” level premium lens would appeal to them but it has to sell in sufficient volume at the right price to meet (hopefully exceed) the business case to justify the investment and I just don’t understand where that volume is coming from.

So, that’s why I’m hoping that OMS is hiding something else under its skirts - they have been quite good at pulling rabbits out of the hat in the past.
  • Internal TC would be a welcome surprise since there has been no sense of this coming so far. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t given they have it on the BWL but who knows? I would have thought that an internal TC would make it more attractive to more people. Whether they really need it and can justify it is another matter but the same argument applies to the BWL but I can attest that it is a really neat feature on the BWL.
  • Simultaneously launch of OM1.3 that is a more significant upgrade than the OM1.2 was? Possible as discussed elsewhere but, apart from one hint a while ago, there have been no indications of this.
  • An OM1.3 with the patented Astro feature might make a f2.8 lens in this focal range with IS very interesting for some - especially if they also launched (or announced) a WA lens with IS.
I just hope that the rumoured Sep 10th announcement is accurate then we’ll find out.
Click to expand...
The OM 50-200 F2.8 should be good for sports photography and the like.

And 100-400mm is a common FF lens length, but I would have preferred a 50-250mm since I primarily shoot telephoto.

If it is good enough to use the 2x then you get 800mm equiv at F5.6 which is decent.

I used to own the 40-150 F2.8 and I did not care for the IQ with the 2x. And the P 50-200 doesn't work well with their 2x.

I think the OM 50-200 F2.8 makes some sense but should have happened years ago.

I will continue on with my P 100-400.
 
We have to wait for the official announcement and all the Ambassadors and influencer initial reviews to see how it fits in the lineup.

I can see it being a good sports lens and a good large animal wildlife lens. Think football and safari lens. For birding 200.m is not long enough.

The lens is going to be big and expensive. I own the 40-150 both the f2.8 and f4.0 versions. I am using the f4.0 version more in general use because if its size. I use the f2.8 version when in low light. Both are very good lenses. The upcoming 50-200/f2.8 will gave Sync IS which is a bonus. Anyhow, I am open to the upcoming lens and waiting for initial reviews.

It us still too early for the OM-1 Mk3.

A 12-50/f2.8 IS mini white lens would be nice.
 
Last edited:
Kevin Stephens said:
Maybe these new super lenses are paving the way for a higher resolution MFT sensor?
Click to expand...
I do think it will happen eventually.

Most likely to support 6k or 8k video but will have diminished returns because of diffraction.
 
No Time To Lose said:
I quite like trying to understand the business dynamics / drivers for companies in areas of interest for me and I’m struggling with this lens based on the current rumours.

It looks like (I’m not qualified to comment on the numbers suggested here) that the 50-200 f2.8 (LWL) is going to be considerably heavier (1350g vs 880g) and considerably more expensive (longer reach, bigger, more complex - e.g IS - and likely some more exotic materials) than the 40-150 f2.8.
Click to expand...
The 40-150/2.8 bearing the OM SYSTEM logo is already in production and on sale. For the time being - or quite possibly for a long time - the 40-150/2.8 and the 50-200/2.8 will coexist in the OMDS catalog. Since neither your 40-150/2.8 nor mine is part of a subscription plan, no one’s going to come take it away and leave us with a new 50-200/2.8 and a bill for several hundred dollars the moment the new lens is released.
No Time To Lose said:
I don’t doubt that there is a use case - f2.8 at 150-200 and f4 at 200-280mm but what is the business case for OMS? Who are the target buyers?
  • Upgrade from the 40-150 f2.8? Yes, some but who? It’s a lot of money. Sports photographers, especially indoors, is the most obvious segment. But what proportion of the M43 population does that represent who would be willing to pay that sort of money? I can’t imagine it is that many - if you are serious about that segment you are very likely to be in FF. Of course there are some exceptions but they are exactly that.
Click to expand...
In place of a conventional '70-200mm equivalent' telephoto zoom, the 40-150/2.8 has filled that role in the OMDS catalog. The 50-200/2.8 is simply being added as a more aggressive telephoto option. Both are F2.8 high-end telephoto zoom lenses, and both belong to the company’s premium lineup. But that alone doesn’t mean the two lenses can be placed in the same category.
No Time To Lose said:
  • Wildlife - yes some - but it has to squeeze in amongst the 40-150, 300 and BWL. A lot of wildlife shooters in the system already have a selection of lenses so the upgrade case needs to be strong enough for them.
  • The IS is an additional feature over the 40-150 but, at these focal lengths, how much difference does sync IS make vs IBIS? I’d guess a stop or 2 above 5-6 stops for IBIS only. Many argue that shutter speeds to freeze motion largely render better IS irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe removing lens IS from the current 50-200/2.8 design would make it meaningfully more affordable. Good IBIS is great, but Sync IS is even better. That is the kind of value a flagship product is expected to deliver.
No Time To Lose said:
  • Well-heeled existing M43 photographers who just want it - or suffer from terminal GAS.
  • Would it pull new photographers into the system? I just don’t know - what use case makes it compelling switch from FF?? I get the BWL case but not this.
On the other hand, it will likely steal some sales from the 40-150/2.8 and 300 going forward. Yes, they probably make more money per sale but those lenses have depreciated investment costs and those losses eat into the business case.

A lens of this complexity must have chewed up a considerable amount of OMS’ development resources - I can’t imagine them doing this without a sound business case and, so far, I can’t see what that is. The success of the BWL must have given them some encouragement - but there is a clear use case for that. I can see why another “white” level premium lens would appeal to them but it has to sell in sufficient volume at the right price to meet (hopefully exceed) the business case to justify the investment and I just don’t understand where that volume is coming from.

So, that’s why I’m hoping that OMS is hiding something else under its skirts - they have been quite good at pulling rabbits out of the hat in the past.
  • Internal TC would be a welcome surprise since there has been no sense of this coming so far. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t given they have it on the BWL but who knows? I would have thought that an internal TC would make it more attractive to more people. Whether they really need it and can justify it is another matter but the same argument applies to the BWL but I can attest that it is a really neat feature on the BWL.
Click to expand...
It’s worth considering that, regardless of manufacturer, lenses with built-in TC are extremely rare. If you're going to build a TC into a 4x zoom lens, it might be more reasonable to simply design the lens itself as a 5–6x zoom without TC instead.
No Time To Lose said:
  • Simultaneously launch of OM1.3 that is a more significant upgrade than the OM1.2 was? Possible as discussed elsewhere but, apart from one hint a while ago, there have been no indications of this.
  • An OM1.3 with the patented Astro feature might make a f2.8 lens in this focal range with IS very interesting for some - especially if they also launched (or announced) a WA lens with IS.
I just hope that the rumoured Sep 10th announcement is accurate then we’ll find out.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
One way to look at this is that's a "more attainable halo". Currently the halo lens in their lineup is the 150-400, which is even more of a niche product. Price aside, it's not something I would consider buying because I'm primarily an event photographer and while there are certainly times where it would be useful, I don't encounter them frequently enough to justify paying the eye-watering price.

The 50-200/2.8 is also going to be expensive, but from a practical standpoint it really is something I can see having in my bag for event photography. It could become the primary lens that I use for concert photography (although I'm not convinced of that since I already sometimes struggle using 40mm "in the pit" at indoor concert venues). OMS was smart making this a 50-200 instead of simply reusing a 70-200 formulation because at 70mm it would absolutely be a non-starter for me - that is clearly too long for the work I do.

In terms of who they're making it for? This is simple - they're making it for wildlife photographers. That's it. OMS' strategy for better or worse is to brings products to market for the Outdoor Adventure market, of which wildlife photographers are one segment. This will appeal to wildlife photographers who may be commonly working in lower light, or simply need higher shutter speeds to freeze action. Yes, at the cost of some reach. No everyone's photographing out in the savannahs of Africa - some people are in deep, dark jungles/forests and need all the light gathering they can get. This gives them 100mm more (effective) reach vs the 40-150, which is a big jump with relatively little "cost" at the wide end.

I'm outside their "Ideal Customer Profile" for this lens, but I'm still excited about it. I can't imagine dropping $4,500 the day it's announced, but I can imagine picking up a used copy in a year or so or simply renting for gigs where I think it will really make a difference in what I can capture.
 
the bluesman said:
Joe Lynch said:
To me, the biggest business impact of the release of the Small White Lens is that it is an indication that OMS is still alive. That alone seems more significant than the technical details.

Joe L
Click to expand...
Yes and fully agreed, I think this new lens will cement that and will be a hit at the same time, bit like the OM-1 Mk2 and the OM-3 it will silence the none believers & critics, bring it on OM Systems and stand tall
Click to expand...
Hah! I appreciate your optimism here. In reality, I think the MFT detractors will never be satisfied. You'll just hear "Why would you pay $4,500 for a rebadged Sigma" or whatever. I mean, the OM-3 is still getting raked over the coals by these people despite the steady stream of positive reviews and many, many, happy owners.

Some people just love to complain.
 
Sam Bennett said:
In terms of who they're making it for? This is simple - they're making it for wildlife photographers. That's it. OMS' strategy for better or worse is to brings products to market for the Outdoor Adventure market, of which wildlife photographers are one segment. This will appeal to wildlife photographers who may be commonly working in lower light, or simply need higher shutter speeds to freeze action. Yes, at the cost of some reach. No everyone's photographing out in the savannahs of Africa - some people are in deep, dark jungles/forests and need all the light gathering they can get. This gives them 100mm more (effective) reach vs the 40-150, which is a big jump with relatively little "cost" at the wide end.
Click to expand...
Perfectly said!

Also, for sport shooting, not necessary for the pro/big events, it resolves the need to have two lenses at once. I often have to take both 40-150mm F2.8 and 200mm F2.8 as the extra 100mm of reach of 200mmF2.8 lens makes the difference.

With the new 50-200mm F2.8, I only need one and it gives me huge flexibility over 200mm F2.8.

I do agree to the original poster that this lens is not for everyone but who knows. Remember, the big lens ended up being backordered for quite a while due to its high demand!
 
For me, it makes a lot of sense. Primarily as an alternative to the 40-150/2.8 where more reach is necessary and you still want fast low light AF. Plus SYNC IS for video will make this a killer sports/video lens.

Also consider the utility in place of other lenses. Why buy/carry multiple lenses if this one lens can substitute?
  • 40-150/2.8 + 1.4TC = 50-200/2.8 (a full stop faster)
  • 50-200/2.8-4 = 50-200/2.8 (a full stop faster over most of the range)
  • 200/2.8 = 50-200/2.8 (added benefit of 50-199mm)
  • 300/4 = 50-200/2.8 + 1.4TC (added benefit of 70-279mm)
  • 100-400/5-6.3 = 50-200/2.8 + 2.0TC (1/3 stop faster at the long end)
So with one lens +/- the TC's I already own, I can virtually match 5 other system lenses with added benefits. Yes, very appealing!
 
Doxa750 said:
Sam Bennett said:
In terms of who they're making it for? This is simple - they're making it for wildlife photographers. That's it. OMS' strategy for better or worse is to brings products to market for the Outdoor Adventure market, of which wildlife photographers are one segment. This will appeal to wildlife photographers who may be commonly working in lower light, or simply need higher shutter speeds to freeze action. Yes, at the cost of some reach. No everyone's photographing out in the savannahs of Africa - some people are in deep, dark jungles/forests and need all the light gathering they can get. This gives them 100mm more (effective) reach vs the 40-150, which is a big jump with relatively little "cost" at the wide end.
Click to expand...
Perfectly said!

Also, for sport shooting, not necessary for the pro/big events, it resolves the need to have two lenses at once. I often have to take both 40-150mm F2.8 and 200mm F2.8 as the extra 100mm of reach of 200mmF2.8 lens makes the difference.

With the new 50-200mm F2.8, I only need one and it gives me huge flexibility over 200mm F2.8.
Click to expand...
If I was still photographing bike polo regularly or my daughter's soccer games (when she played) I would be allllll over this. But again, not sure OMS actually has this use in mind or if it's just a side-benefit.
Doxa750 said:
I do agree to the original poster that this lens is not for everyone but who knows. Remember, the big lens ended up being backordered for quite a while due to its high demand!
Click to expand...
I would love to see numbers on this, since it's easy to imagine this being more of a supply problem vs. a demand problem. That said, the 150-400 seems to be a widely respected lens.
 
MarkAndrewsUK said:
Can’t win can they? Whatever OM do somebody seems to find fault with them…

My personal feeling is that if they want to not just survive but also thrive then they need to expand their appeal beyond just wildlife and try and attract some of the wider action and sports shooter crowd and this lens will go along way towards that
Click to expand...
Yep, definitely. In full frame terms, this is a 100-400 f/5.6...

... not a lot of equivalents ! You have plenty of variable aperture zooms that end up with a darker aperture than that (like f/6.3, or even f/8 if we look at Canon).

f/4-5.6 zooms are generally a lot bigger for the same range. I remember my Sigma 100-400 f/5-6.3 was already around 1200g, and it was huge.
 
Sam Bennett said:
  • Sam Bennett wrote:
Doxa750 said:
Sam Bennett said:
In terms of who they're making it for? This is simple - they're making it for wildlife photographers. That's it. OMS' strategy for better or worse is to brings products to market for the Outdoor Adventure market, of which wildlife photographers are one segment. This will appeal to wildlife photographers who may be commonly working in lower light, or simply need higher shutter speeds to freeze action. Yes, at the cost of some reach. No everyone's photographing out in the savannahs of Africa - some people are in deep, dark jungles/forests and need all the light gathering they can get. This gives them 100mm more (effective) reach vs the 40-150, which is a big jump with relatively little "cost" at the wide end.
Click to expand...
Perfectly said!

Also, for sport shooting, not necessary for the pro/big events, it resolves the need to have two lenses at once. I often have to take both 40-150mm F2.8 and 200mm F2.8 as the extra 100mm of reach of 200mmF2.8 lens makes the difference.

With the new 50-200mm F2.8, I only need one and it gives me huge flexibility over 200mm F2.8.
Click to expand...
If I was still photographing bike polo regularly or my daughter's soccer games (when she played) I would be allllll over this. But again, not sure OMS actually has this use in mind or if it's just a side-benefit.
Sam Bennett said:
I do agree to the original poster that this lens is not for everyone but who knows. Remember, the big lens ended up being backordered for quite a while due to its high demand!
Click to expand...
I would love to see numbers on this, since it's easy to imagine this being more of a supply problem vs. a demand problem. That said, the 150-400 seems to be a widely respected lens.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Trying to sell myself on the 50-200 f2.8...
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
3K
DaveLBlack
D
A
  • Question Question
How viable is the old 50-200 (f/2.8-3.5) on a modern body?
Replies
6
Views
2K
108
1
T
Making the switch to OM
2
Replies
35
Views
466
bluevellet
bluevellet
Phocal
  • User review User review
OM SYSTEM M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO Initial/Ongoing Review
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
19K
Hmm1000
H
D
50-200 f2.8 Pre-Orders
Replies
5
Views
846
Regor250
Regor250

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top