50-200 owners! Do you actually need the lens?

C Sean · Oct 9, 2025

I apologies if my post comes across as a bit rude. I seen several posts here from the recently new owners of OM System 50-200mm 2.8. I'm wonder if you bought the lens because you actually need it or done it out of loyalty to the brand?

I bought the very good and compact Panasonic Leica 50-200mm 2.8-4 around 2018. The reason why I bought the lens because for one I actually asked for a pro version of the Lumix 45-200mm F4-5.6 and the second is actually needed the lens from time to time!

What I did discover is when Lumix tried to copy Full Frame lenses with the 2.8 zoom series, both the 12-35 2.8 and the 35-100mm 2.8 were very restrictive in their focal lengths. Olympus had the right idea of doing their own 2.8 zooms with longer focal lengths and were more practical lenses. Lumix down the line corrected their mistake by releasing the 2.8-4 series by keeping their zooms somewhat compact, fast enough for most shooting and delivering longer focal lengths.

Like the Panasonic Leica 12-60mm 2.8-4, the 50-200mm 2.8-4 was compact enough but it also saved me from carrying other lenses. For example the 12-60mm saves me carrying both the 12-35 and the 35-100mm. The 50-200mm 2.8-4 on the other hand saves me carrying both the 35-100mm and the 100-400 and possibly a further body! Also the lens is great for motor racing, sports, events and animal/birds workshop.

So with the Panasonic Leica 50-200mm 2.8-4 been out for many years now and it half the price of the OM System 50-200mm 2.8. Why are people all a sudden rushing to buy the lens and I did read someone commented they didn't know why they bought the lens in the first place! The second thing I want to point out is the size of the lens and it depth of field. Both Sony and Nikon had released their 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 for mirrorless years ago. In fact I saw the Nikon Z 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 yesterday! But for some reason all a sudden people need the Om System 50-200mm 2.8 ignoring the fact there been good alternatives already out for many years and at a cheaper price too!

My final comment, as an owner of the PL50-200mm 2.8-4 and the PL100-400mm. I used the 100-400mm more because of wildlife.

David Ward · Oct 9, 2025

C Sean said:
I apologies if my post comes across as a bit rude. I seen several posts here from the recently new owners of OM System 50-200mm 2.8. I'm wonder if you bought the lens because you actually need it or done it out of loyalty to the brand?

I bought the very good and compact Panasonic Leica 50-200mm 2.8-4 around 2018. The reason why I bought the lens because for one I actually asked for a pro version of the Lumix 45-200mm F4-5.6 and the second is actually needed the lens from time to time!

What I did discover is when Lumix tried to copy Full Frame lenses with the 2.8 zoom series, both the 12-35 2.8 and the 35-100mm 2.8 were very restrictive in their focal lengths. Olympus had the right idea of doing their own 2.8 zooms with longer focal lengths and were more practical lenses. Lumix down the line corrected their mistake by releasing the 2.8-4 series by keeping their zooms somewhat compact, fast enough for most shooting and delivering longer focal lengths.

Like the Panasonic Leica 12-60mm 2.8-4, the 50-200mm 2.8-4 was compact enough but it also saved me from carrying other lenses. For example the 12-60mm saves me carrying both the 12-35 and the 35-100mm. The 50-200mm 2.8-4 on the other hand saves me carrying both the 35-100mm and the 100-400 and possibly a further body! Also the lens is great for motor racing, sports, events and animal/birds workshop.

So with the Panasonic Leica 50-200mm 2.8-4 been out for many years now and it half the price of the OM System 50-200mm 2.8. Why are people all a sudden rushing to buy the lens and I did read someone commented they didn't know why they bought the lens in the first place! The second thing I want to point out is the size of the lens and it depth of field. Both Sony and Nikon had released their 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 for mirrorless years ago. In fact I saw the Nikon Z 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 yesterday! But for some reason all a sudden people need the Om System 50-200mm 2.8 ignoring the fact there been good alternatives already out for many years and at a cheaper price too!

My final comment, as an owner of the PL50-200mm 2.8-4 and the PL100-400mm. I used the 100-400mm more because of wildlife.

Just got my copy yesterday...love it! Sharp detail/beautiful rendering. I sold a couple lenses to offset the hefty price. I've been waiting on this lens for years...they finally made it.

ahaslett · Oct 9, 2025

I wavered between the PL 50-200mm and 100-400mm GM to replace my Zuiko 50-200mm SWD. The Sigma 100-400mm got dropped because of IQ, need to buy a collar etc.

If the OM 50-200/2.8 had been available at the time, I might have bought it.

I was going to get a used 35-100/2.8 to add the tele zoom to my EM1.2 kit. There was a sale on the 40-150/2.8 the day I picked up the GM, so I bought that instead. It was a good decision.

I’ve not been that impressed with sample images from the 50-200mm so far. A lot of them aren’t really suitable for showcasing the lens but the ones that are seem just a little worse than I hoped. Since I’m not interested, I haven’t dived into the RAWs that Petr provided, but I find it thought provoking the images he chose to showcase the lens, a bit like his tests of the 150-600.

Someone asked for tripod shots against the 40-150/2.8 with TCs on both and subjects that cross the frame. If I was still in the market for a tele zoom, that would be the decider for me.

The lens is about 2x the historic discount price of the Sony 200-600 G, and it’s too heavy to carry on a neck strap with the collar demounted, unlike the 40-150/2.8. Once I use a sling screwed into the foot, I can carry a big lens for a long time. Then it’s a matter of holding it on target for maybe a long time.

TL

R It extends the range of MFT and has its place, but there are many other options. It’s rather expensive at the moment, especially against used and discounted prices.

Andrew

--
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

Art_P · Oct 9, 2025

If someone needs a fast lens in that focal length, and they shoot OMS/Olympus, a Pan/Leica lens won't cut it.

IS sync won't work between brands, weather sealing isn't reliable, and of course the zoom ring works in the wrong direction.

After seeing what the lens can do, sure I want one, but do I need it? Already having the 300/4 to cover 300 and 420, and the 12-200 to cover that range in good light, I've determined a 40-150/2.8 would cover my needs for a fast mid range zoom for when the 300 is too long. Now to find one at a good price.

Danielvr · Oct 9, 2025

C Sean said:
I'm wonder if you bought the lens because you actually need it or done it out of loyalty to the brand?

Compared to your Pana-leica 50-200mm, The OM System 50-200mm f2.8 is brighter, offers constant exposure throughout the zoom range, it has greater DoF control, better/faster AF and better image stabilization on OM cameras, it focuses closer and at 2x greater magnification, it is sturdy and weather sealed, it supports teleconverters, it supports Pro Capture and Focus Stacking on OM cameras, and it has a tripod foot.

I think buyers simply have a use for some of these features.

tammons · Oct 9, 2025

I am not an owner, but this is my take after owning the other F2.8 lenses in that range. If you absolutely need F2.8 from 100-400mm equiv lens with the best IQ for that range then yes.

However, my most used combination is the 12-100mm F4 and the PL 100-400mm, IE I tend to go from WA/normal zoom straight to super tele most of the time. I used to own the 40-150mm F2.8 and the PL 200mm F2.8 and rarely used either, so I doubt I would use the 50-200mm F2.8 either.

If I shot indoor sports or concerts or something like that, I would seriously consider it.

drj3 · Oct 9, 2025

I did not need the lens. I do not really need any of my lenses or cameras. However, I enjoy using my cameras and lenses and the 50-200 f2.8 makes it more enjoyable.

I wanted the f2.8 since I often photograph large wildlife in the late afternoon/evening. My 50-200 f2.8 f2.8-3.5 is slower at 200mm and has some difficulty maintaining focus very low light. I never got the 40-150 f2.8 because it was too short without the MC14 and I preferred the images of my 50-200 SWD to those of the MC14+40-150.

I definitely like the new lens and especially the bokeh. Even with DXOs sometimes excessive sharpening the background is still very nice.

I will probably not use the MC20 with the lens (other than initial testing) since I have the 300mm f4 and both TCs. I may occasionally use it with the MC14, but my primary use will be without TCs. I my initial evaluation of the TCs is that both are better than a crop of the lens alone when shot from the same distance and shutter speed and that the MC14 crop is at least as good or better than the MC20 with its one stop higher ISO.

Be More · Oct 9, 2025

I am going to buy the lens because I want to. I already have the 40-150 and 300 Pro pairing which I am extremely happy with. So I certainly don't need it.

Why have I not entertained picking up a PL50-200mm? For a long time when I was using the G9 I had wanted it. What held me back was the zoom ring turns the wrong way for my liking and to my other lenses and it trombones and lacks a tripod collar. And now I am using OM system cameras exclusively it lacks full compatibility. If Panasonic had followed up the G9 with a genuine G9Ii successor I would likely be using both brands and may have continued to consider the PL50-200mm.

Why would I be looking at Nikon and Sony for 100-400mm lenses?! They don't fit the mount and are a different focal length. I have already previously owned the Olympus 100-400mm. The Canon, Nikon and Sony 70-200mm offerings also don't fit the mount and any that might work with adaptors do not offer full compatibility or performance.

So back to the new OM 50-200mm, I am going to get it because I want to. Not because I need to, and it is not because of any kind of brand loyalty or to prop up the company. I like the results I am seeing from the lens so far. It offers that extra reach over the 40-150 Pro and appears to handle at least the 1.4TC very well. Depending on how well it handles the 2.0TC it will either coexist alongside my 40-150 and 300 or may replace both. Something the PL50-200mm could never do due to the afore mentioned reasons and lack of being a constant aperture.

I don't believe any camera gear is a need, only want. And for me personally, OM system is offering me what I want.

drj3 · Oct 9, 2025

ahaslett said:
I’ve not been that impressed with sample images from the 50-200mm so far. A lot of them aren’t really suitable for showcasing the lens but the ones that are seem just a little worse than I hoped.

I never purchased to 40-150 f2.8, but I doubt that there is much difference is sharpness of that lens and my new 50-200 f2.8 at 150mm. The 40-150 f2.8 is an exceptionally sharp lens. If you rarely want focal lengths beyond 150mm, then I can see no reason that you would want the new lens since I doubt you will see any difference in sharpness of your images. The bokeh will not be as good with the 40-150 f2.8, but you can deal with that in PP.

My main problem with the 40-150 f2.8 is that I use focal lengths between 150-200mm about 60% of the time with my FTs 50-200 SWD.

If I had purchased the 40-150 f2.8, the MC14 would have almost always been on the lens, so the comparison is between a 56-210 f4 lens and a 50-200mm f2.8 lens. The 50-200 f2.8 is then a full stop faster and I am quite certain sharper than the MC14+40-150 with the TC across all focal lengths.

ahaslett said:
Someone asked for tripod shots against the 40-150/2.8 with TCs on both and subjects that cross the frame. If I was still in the market for a tele zoom, that would be the decider for me.

Andrew

The appropriate comparison shots would be between 50-150 for both lenses without TCs (my guess is there will be little difference in resolution), between 56-200 with the MC14+40-150 and the 50-200mm f2.8 without TCs (the new lens should be better), and finally between the 100- 280mm with the MC20+40-150 f2.8 and MC14+50-200 f2.8 (the new lens should be much better).

ahaslett · Oct 9, 2025

drj3 said:
ahaslett said:

I’ve not been that impressed with sample images from the 50-200mm so far. A lot of them aren’t really suitable for showcasing the lens but the ones that are seem just a little worse than I hoped.

Click to expand...

I never purchased to 40-150 f2.8, but I doubt that there is much difference is sharpness of that lens and my new 50-200 f2.8 at 150mm. The 40-150 f2.8 is an exceptionally sharp lens. If you rarely want focal lengths beyond 150mm, then I can see no reason that you would want the new lens since I doubt you will see any difference in sharpness of your images. The bokeh will not be as good with the 40-150 f2.8, but you can deal with that in PP.

It’s very hard to see any difference between the 40-150/2.8 @ 150mm f2.8 and the 100-400 GM @ 300mm f5.6 on a 61Mpix body.

drj3 said:
My main problem with the 40-150 f2.8 is that I use focal lengths between 150-200mm about 60% of the time with my FTs 50-200 SWD.

Go for it!

drj3 said:
If I had purchased the 40-150 f2.8, the MC14 would have almost always been on the lens, so the comparison is between a 56-210 f4 lens and a 50-200mm f2.8 lens. The 50-200 f2.8 is then a full stop faster and I am quite certain sharper than the MC14+40-150 with the TC across all focal lengths.

For me, the MC14 is more of an occasional use option, more likely to be on the 300/4.

drj3 said:
drj3 said:

Someone asked for tripod shots against the 40-150/2.8 with TCs on both and subjects that cross the frame. If I was still in the market for a tele zoom, that would be the decider for me.

Andrew

Click to expand...

The appropriate comparison shots would be between 50-150 for both lenses without TCs (my guess is there will be little difference in resolution), between 56-200 with the MC14+40-150 and the 50-200mm f2.8 without TCs (the new lens should be better), and finally between the 100- 280mm with the MC20+40-150 f2.8 and MC14+50-200 f2.8 (the new lens should be much better).

Probably so, but a definitive set of tests on a tripod would be helpful. Copy variation as between the TCs and the lenses makes the results with a TC interesting but inconclusive.

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

MEDISN · Oct 9, 2025

The Panasonic 50-200 has been out for 8 years so anyone that would benefit from it, probably has it already. It didn't offer a compelling reason for me to switch from the Olympus 40-150/2.8 which had been on the market since 2014. In fact, at 150mm the Panasonic was already at F4 (3.9 technically) which is too slow to focus quickly for indoor work. I use the 40-150/2.8 so much, I bought a second one. It is my most used lens across all of my systems.

Last month I sold off my older copy of the 40-150/2.8, and ordered the new 50-200/2.8. Primarily as an alternative to the 40-150/2.8 where more reach is necessary and I 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 and lighter)
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 nearly match 5 other system lenses with added benefits. Plus I get SYNC-IS and 50fps with AF + AE with weather seals that actually line up with the mount unlike my Panasonic lenses.

You mention FF lenses in this range. The appeal to me of this new 50-200 from OM Systems is the 100-400mm AoV but with F2.8 autofocus indoors! The pain point with the FF 100-400 is they struggle for indoor sports, so I switch to the FF 70-200/2.8 which is too short so have to shoot APS mode which at least gets me to 300mm at 20MP on the A1 but this is no better IQ than M43 which costs and weighs a lot less. A 100-400mm AoV will cover just about every type of indoor event I shoot plus be a great companion to the 150-400 for wildlife (small, high speed birds).

Size-wise, it's actually very similar to my Sony GM 70-200/2.8 II (1045g, 0.82m MFD) which is a pleasure to shoot with, just not enough reach.

Regor250 · Oct 9, 2025

C Sean said:
.... Both Sony and Nikon had released their 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 for mirrorless years ago. In fact I saw the Nikon Z 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 yesterday! But for some reason all a sudden people need the Om System 50-200mm 2.8 ignoring the fact there been good alternatives already out for many years and at a cheaper price too!

What good will a Sony or a Nikon lens serve with my OM-1 ? I don't want another system and I am happy with the one I got. If I need/want 200mm @ f2.8 then it makes a lot of sense to me.

--
Roger

Skeeterbytes · Oct 9, 2025

You're at the camera counter putting together an OM-1ii system. You've chosen the 12-40, 8-25 and are pondering a tele zoom.

So many choices.

A 40-150 Pro, in f:4 or f:2.8 flavor? A 100-400.5-6.3?

Now there's a compelling fourth choice. What none of the options presents are OIS and distance limit switch. None has that particular zoom range. Two take the MCs. One is variable aperture and two are external zooms.

There, in a nutshell, is the opening for the new zoom.

Have the 40-150/2.8 and not plunking my money down, at least not today, maybe someday. Also have the 2005 edition 4/3 50-200/2.8-3.5, the bread-and-butter tele in my kit for a good while. It pales compared to the new lens in every technical regard while they are separated by a whopping 5 grams. How OM stuffed all that technology in at that curb weight is a wonder.

Well done, guys.

Rick

HicHic · Oct 9, 2025

drj3 said:
I will probably not use the MC20 with the lens (other than initial testing) since I have the 300mm f4 and both TCs. I may occasionally use it with the MC14, but my primary use will be without TCs. I my initial evaluation of the TCs is that both are better than a crop of the lens alone when shot from the same distance and shutter speed and that the MC14 crop is at least as good or better than the MC20 with its one stop higher ISO.

Can you do a test of the lens @ 200mm, comparing f2.8, 3.2, 3.5 and 4? Something with fine text would be ideal.
I'm curious how much improvement there is stopping down, if any.

The main reason I sold my 40-150/2.8 was how much performance was left on the table by shooting f2.8 @ 150mm. Curious to see if the new lens suffers from the same issue.

Skeeterbytes · Oct 9, 2025

HicHic said:
drj3 said:

I will probably not use the MC20 with the lens (other than initial testing) since I have the 300mm f4 and both TCs. I may occasionally use it with the MC14, but my primary use will be without TCs. I my initial evaluation of the TCs is that both are better than a crop of the lens alone when shot from the same distance and shutter speed and that the MC14 crop is at least as good or better than the MC20 with its one stop higher ISO.

Click to expand...

Can you do a test of the lens @ 200mm, comparing f2.8, 3.2, 3.5 and 4? Something with fine text would be ideal.
I'm curious how much improvement there is stopping down, if any.

The main reason I sold my 40-150/2.8 was how much performance was left on the table by shooting f2.8 @ 150mm. Curious to see if the new lens suffers from the same issue.

40-150/2.8 is sharpest zoomed long.

DaveLBlack · Oct 9, 2025

Need is a strong word when there are so many good options. The PL 50-200/f2.8-4.0 never intest me because my 40-150/f2.8 was more than good enough. The PL50-200/2.8-4.0 had too many issues for an Olympus camera users. The lens is basically f4.0 were it is going to be used the most. So it was too slow. The lens in not interal zoom. The IS is not compatible with Olympus cameras. Just to list a few issues.
I have been using my 50-200/4.0 lens for nearly a week now. I am really been enjoying it. Yesterday I was photographing bugs on blooms. Amazing close focusing ability. This morning just before sunrise I was able to take deer photos. The deer were in the woods. So not much light. The 200mm, f2.8 and Sync IS all came together.

I still got my 40-150/f2.8, but it is not going to get much use.

My only complaint with the new lens us the size. When I want to have a smaller kit I will have other options like the 12-100/f4.0 lens.

Todd Yes · Oct 9, 2025

C Sean said:
So with the Panasonic Leica 50-200mm 2.8-4 been out for many years now and it half the price of the OM System 50-200mm 2.8. Why are people all a sudden rushing to buy the lens and I did read someone commented they didn't know why they bought the lens in the first place! The second thing I want to point out is the size of the lens and it depth of field. Both Sony and Nikon had released their 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 for mirrorless years ago. In fact I saw the Nikon Z 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 yesterday! But for some reason all a sudden people need the Om System 50-200mm 2.8 ignoring the fact there been good alternatives already out for many years and at a cheaper price too!

I like using an Olympus camera, and with the Olympus 50-200mm I get Sync IS and the fastest continuous shooting frame rates the camera is capable of. I can't do that with Panasonic, Sony, or Nikon lenses on an Olympus body, and I don't want to use Panasonic, Sony, or Nikon bodies.

HicHic · Oct 9, 2025

Skeeterbytes said:
HicHic said:

drj3 said:

I will probably not use the MC20 with the lens (other than initial testing) since I have the 300mm f4 and both TCs. I may occasionally use it with the MC14, but my primary use will be without TCs. I my initial evaluation of the TCs is that both are better than a crop of the lens alone when shot from the same distance and shutter speed and that the MC14 crop is at least as good or better than the MC20 with its one stop higher ISO.

Click to expand...

Can you do a test of the lens @ 200mm, comparing f2.8, 3.2, 3.5 and 4? Something with fine text would be ideal.
I'm curious how much improvement there is stopping down, if any.

The main reason I sold my 40-150/2.8 was how much performance was left on the table by shooting f2.8 @ 150mm. Curious to see if the new lens suffers from the same issue.

Click to expand...

40-150/2.8 is sharpest zoomed long.

At what aperture?

cgbear · Oct 9, 2025

I've had the lens for 2 days now. Not a big need, more of a quality of life improvement. I also recently started shooting video where the SyncIS and smooth internal zoom would help even more (but photography is still primary). My main wildlife kit will now be: OM1ii, 300/4 + MC14&20, and 50-200/2.8 with or without MC14. This replaces the 40-150/2.8, the OM 100-400 that I never got along with, and PL 50-200. The PL 50-200 was a stop-gap, I tried the TC14 with it but didn't like the results. I used to enjoy shooting with the Olympus E-5 with non-SWD 50-200/2.8-3.5 and 150/2 but focus speed was an issue on MFT.

I'm torn on selling the 40-150/2.8 since it had gotten so much good use, but I'll likely soon realize that I won't need it. I am keeping the 40-150/4 as it's been such a useful travel lens to complement another compact (P&S) camera.

I did consider more cost-effective alternatives. I've rented the Sony GM 100-400 before and didn't like the handling, it's a chunky lens despite the similar length. I considered the new Lumix S 100-500/5-7.1 long and hard-- I actually made a pre-order then canceled it. I think it can give me close-enough quality of results at 57% the cost of the OM50-200 (in the US), but without the smooth internal zoom and more flexible light gathering, and I'm not ready to go all-in on any full-frame system for "compact" telephoto (I do use FF for landscape and portrait); I'd also need to replace the 300/4 on FF with... ?

Anyway, in the end, OM 50-200 won out on overall convenience & consolidation.

Skeeterbytes · Oct 9, 2025

HicHic said:
Skeeterbytes said:

HicHic said:

drj3 said:

I will probably not use the MC20 with the lens (other than initial testing) since I have the 300mm f4 and both TCs. I may occasionally use it with the MC14, but my primary use will be without TCs. I my initial evaluation of the TCs is that both are better than a crop of the lens alone when shot from the same distance and shutter speed and that the MC14 crop is at least as good or better than the MC20 with its one stop higher ISO.

Click to expand...

Can you do a test of the lens @ 200mm, comparing f2.8, 3.2, 3.5 and 4? Something with fine text would be ideal.
I'm curious how much improvement there is stopping down, if any.

The main reason I sold my 40-150/2.8 was how much performance was left on the table by shooting f2.8 @ 150mm. Curious to see if the new lens suffers from the same issue.

Click to expand...

40-150/2.8 is sharpest zoomed long.

Click to expand...

At what aperture?

Peak at f:4, center and corner. Still excellent wide open.

50-200 owners! Do you actually need the lens?

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

New member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts