My First Impressions of the OM Systems 50-200 f2.8.

drj3

Forum Pro
Messages
14,986
Solutions
36
Reaction score
18,793
Location
Wantage, NJ, US
It is a sharper in the center than my 50-200 f2.8-3.5 SWD and much sharper at the edges. It also seems less likely to jump to background when deer are in front of a busy background (this may be due to the difference in f2.8 vs f3.5 at 200mm). The bokeh is much better than the SWD.

It was late before I had a chance to check out the lens outside. Attached are a few uncropped images (DXO PL9). The images should not be taken as definitive examples of the lens performance, just a few initial images at relatively high ISO.

The first two are the required cat images for any new lens. The first cat is Buddy (a former Community Cat – note the clipped ear) and the second is the spoiled Fifi.

Finding birds or other wildlife is difficult this fall. It is a “mast year”, a year in which trees and shrubs produce a much larger quantity of nuts and fruits than wildlife can consume. There are no birds or squirrels at my feeders and Black Bear have little need to wander during the day to find food.

Fortunately, a few deer came by (Images 3&4) and one finch and a Carolina Wren briefly stopped by (much too far away for 200mm) for images 5&6.

I don’t have a brick wall, so for the last image I photographed the weathered boards of a shed as a rough check of decentering. The lens looks acceptably sharp across the frame at 200mm and f2.8.

31ab09cbfb07487a89489485f3d3ff3b.jpg

c01d41c8294a454ab2612d90c7d3b40a.jpg

6b23153ac1ae4e278528248ab49f562e.jpg

665f89c0344148e28653e24e9e891436.jpg

a943795b90d34348b7808ceb95ab502c.jpg

d9e1e17549ac499f9f4ffb2b8dbdd153.jpg

22f52d20ece54783a659bef79a5836c2.jpg

--
drj3
 
Last edited:
Looks like a keeper! Thanks for sharing your initial results. Mine should've arrived today but it was delay till tomorrow due to UPS flight delay.
 
Great: good to know.


Mine arrived this morning, but I’m not going to be able to test it properly until next week: I’ve got a standard on-tripod test I do against the concrete lines of a wall on one of the university buildings in town.

I don’t suppose you have access to an MC-20?

The only concerns expressed over good copies of this lens seem to have been when combined with the longer TC, where it’s said to be not quite as sharp as the 100-400 mkii at the same focal lengths. Not a big deal for me at all, since the 100-400ii I had was very sharp, but it would be useful to know, and to what extent.
 
Attached are a few uncropped images (DXO PL9). The images should not be taken as definitive examples of the lens performance, just a few
--​

drj3
All sample images processed through DXO and not JPG straight from camera? If yes, how did you use DXO without the lens optical module?
 
Attached are a few uncropped images (DXO PL9). The images should not be taken as definitive examples of the lens performance, just a few --

drj3
All sample images processed through DXO and not JPG straight from camera? If yes, how did you use DXO without the lens optical module?
Yes, DXO, it still processed the images, but any lens corrections would not be done.
 
Great: good to know.

Mine arrived this morning, but I’m not going to be able to test it properly until next week: I’ve got a standard on-tripod test I do against the concrete lines of a wall on one of the university buildings in town.

I don’t suppose you have access to an MC-20?
I will try to do a quick check with the MC-20 today to at least see if it is better than a crop of the bare lens or better than a crop of the MC14. This still will not tell you if it is better or worse than the 100-400 at 400mm. My guess is always that a lens that is 400mm will be better than a 200mm lens with a 2x TC.
The only concerns expressed over good copies of this lens seem to have been when combined with the longer TC, where it’s said to be not quite as sharp as the 100-400 mkii at the same focal lengths. Not a big deal for me at all, since the 100-400ii I had was very sharp, but it would be useful to know, and to what extent.
 
Attached are a few uncropped images (DXO PL9). The images should not be taken as definitive examples of the lens performance, just a few --

drj3
All sample images processed through DXO and not JPG straight from camera? If yes, how did you use DXO without the lens optical module?
Yes, DXO, it still processed the images, but any lens corrections would not be done.
 
Attached are a few uncropped images (DXO PL9). The images should not be taken as definitive examples of the lens performance, just a few --

drj3
All sample images processed through DXO and not JPG straight from camera? If yes, how did you use DXO without the lens optical module?
Yes, DXO, it still processed the images, but any lens corrections would not be done.
Now i understand, applied zero lens correction. Wouldn’t it have been better then to edit/clean up the JPG which would have (in theory) provided the corrections?
Possibly, but I think DXO probably includes the corrections from the lens since there must be some vignetting at f2.8 and none was visible even with my monitor image tests. The image files were the same as the defaults for the mFTs cameras and I assume there will later be corrections which produce a slightly different number of vertical/horizontal pixels.
 
Positive impression indeed! Many thanks for taking the time to post examples. My copy has arrived but I will not be able to pick it up until the weekend. I am eager to get out using it.
 
Attached are a few uncropped images (DXO PL9). The images should not be taken as definitive examples of the lens performance, just a few --

drj3
All sample images processed through DXO and not JPG straight from camera? If yes, how did you use DXO without the lens optical module?
Yes, DXO, it still processed the images, but any lens corrections would not be done.
Now i understand, applied zero lens correction. Wouldn’t it have been better then to edit/clean up the JPG which would have (in theory) provided the corrections?
Possibly, but I think DXO probably includes the corrections from the lens since there must be some vignetting at f2.8 and none was visible even with my monitor image tests. The image files were the same as the defaults for the mFTs cameras and I assume there will later be corrections which produce a slightly different number of vertical/horizontal pixels.
 
Attached are a few uncropped images (DXO PL9). The images should not be taken as definitive examples of the lens performance, just a few --

drj3
All sample images processed through DXO and not JPG straight from camera? If yes, how did you use DXO without the lens optical module?
I'm not familiar with DXO, but all m43 lenses have lens profiles in the firmware which are included in the RAW data file. So there should be no software required to process the RAW data files for this lens.

On the other hand, m43 cameras usually require software updates to process any of their RAW data files.
 
I also miss the DxO lens profiles — especially the inability to use Lens Sharpness Optimization, which makes the images look not quite as crisp (for example, compared to Capture One). I’ve experimented a bit with the sharpening settings and temporarily created my own default preset based on the settings shown in the image. Until DxO releases an official profile for this lens, this setup works perfectly for me — the photos are beautifully detailed, just as I’d expect from a lens of this kind.

Default vs my sharpness profile in DxO Photolab 9
Default vs my sharpness profile in DxO Photolab 9



--
Petr Bambousek Wildlife Photography
https://www.sulasula.com/en/tutorials| http://500px.com/sulasulacom | http://instagram.com/sulasulacom | http://facebook.com/sulasulacom
 
That looks pretty good! Petr. Much appreciated for the information.
 
Attached are a few uncropped images (DXO PL9). The images should not be taken as definitive examples of the lens performance, just a few --

drj3
All sample images processed through DXO and not JPG straight from camera? If yes, how did you use DXO without the lens optical module?
I'm not familiar with DXO, but all m43 lenses have lens profiles in the firmware which are included in the RAW data file. So there should be no software required to process the RAW data files for this lens.

On the other hand, m43 cameras usually require software updates to process any of their RAW data files.
That’s not how DXO operates. It has modules for every individual lens and every camera body on market. If you don’t download the module for your lens/camera combination, the rendering/corrections will be off.
 
Attached are a few uncropped images (DXO PL9). The images should not be taken as definitive examples of the lens performance, just a few --

drj3
All sample images processed through DXO and not JPG straight from camera? If yes, how did you use DXO without the lens optical module?
I'm not familiar with DXO, but all m43 lenses have lens profiles in the firmware which are included in the RAW data file. So there should be no software required to process the RAW data files for this lens.

On the other hand, m43 cameras usually require software updates to process any of their RAW data files.
That’s not how DXO operates. It has modules for every individual lens and every camera body on market. If you don’t download the module for your lens/camera combination, the rendering/corrections will be off.
This makes me glad I don’t use DXO.
 
Got the lens but didn't have time to go outside to shoot with it yet.

So far I did test shots (with close up flowers and my family faces) to make sure the lens works perfectly as expected and luckily it is :-).

What I can see so far comparing to 200mm Prime, the sharpness is identical when viewing at 100% from the back of my LCD. I cannot tell any differences. Very happy with this results. I was expecting the prime to have a slight edge.

Interestingly, for close up shot, the 200mm Prime shows tighter AOV. The image is perhaps about 5-8% more zoom in! The effect is hardly noticeable for a more distant shot. But I can tell immediately looking through the view finder when making the shots.

Quick test shots between the new lens to 40-150mm at both 50mm and 150mm, the 50-200mm lens is shaper viewing at 100% from the back of my LCD.

I also notice the news lens focuses faster with no hesitation comparing to the 40-150 and 200mm in low light and at slow SS like 1/25 or under.

The sync IS of the new lens makes noticeable different for more shaper images at 1/25 SS between comparing to the 200mm prime.

When I have time this weekend, I will test the new lens outdoor with MC14 to compare to the 300mm lens. Hope to share some images then.
 
Got the lens but didn't have time to go outside to shoot with it yet.

So far I did test shots (with close up flowers and my family faces) to make sure the lens works perfectly as expected and luckily it is :-).

What I can see so far comparing to 200mm Prime, the sharpness is identical when viewing at 100% from the back of my LCD. I cannot tell any differences. Very happy with this results. I was expecting the prime to have a slight edge.

Interestingly, for close up shot, the 200mm Prime shows tighter AOV. The image is perhaps about 5-8% more zoom in! The effect is hardly noticeable for a more distant shot. But I can tell immediately looking through the view finder when making the shots.

Quick test shots between the new lens to 40-150mm at both 50mm and 150mm, the 50-200mm lens is shaper viewing at 100% from the back of my LCD.

I also notice the news lens focuses faster with no hesitation comparing to the 40-150 and 200mm in low light and at slow SS like 1/25 or under.

The sync IS of the new lens makes noticeable different for more shaper images at 1/25 SS between comparing to the 200mm prime.

When I have time this weekend, I will test the new lens outdoor with MC14 to compare to the 300mm lens. Hope to share some images then.
Thanks for the update.
 
Attached are a few uncropped images (DXO PL9). The images should not be taken as definitive examples of the lens performance, just a few --

drj3
All sample images processed through DXO and not JPG straight from camera? If yes, how did you use DXO without the lens optical module?
I'm not familiar with DXO, but all m43 lenses have lens profiles in the firmware which are included in the RAW data file. So there should be no software required to process the RAW data files for this lens.

On the other hand, m43 cameras usually require software updates to process any of their RAW data files.
That’s not how DXO operates. It has modules for every individual lens and every camera body on market. If you don’t download the module for your lens/camera combination, the rendering/corrections will be off.
This makes me glad I don’t use DXO.
DXO claim to fame is ISO reduction. Better than Adobe and Topaz. It does this by having an inventory of your hardware through modules.

they offer a free 30-day trial.
I use to use Topaz and Photoshop, but dropped them after seeing DXO does a better job at processing images, especially high ISO images.
 
I also notice the news lens focuses faster with no hesitation comparing to the 40-150 and 200mm in low light and at slow SS like 1/25 or under.
I don’t experience any AF hesitation from my 40-150 PRO on my OM-1.1 in an ice rink (ISO between 3200-6400), but I do experience AF hesitation on my G9.2
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top