OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

cookedraw wrote:

arbux wrote:

So where is the focus set on this picture?

The bee image have a 4mm DOF (by calculator) and it's manual focus , probably on the bee before it flew away.

But this is the isse with 50-200 - no sharpness at the long end.

Interesting you mention to crop from a shorter focal length, I made some experiments with it and it's not a bad idea, but I like the blur and optical zoom is more fun.

Sure. But difference between 150 and 200 is small, while 150 S provides more blur anyway. But only in out of focus places, objects in focus are sharp, as they should be.

-- hide signature --

" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

arbux wrote:

cookedraw wrote:

arbux wrote:

So where is the focus set on this picture?

The bee image have a 4mm DOF (by calculator) and it's manual focus , probably on the bee before it flew away.

But this is the isse with 50-200 - no sharpness at the long end.

I know the sharpness of the lens very well, made some tests.

It's super sharp at 50, very good at 100, good at 130, at 200 it's sharp in the centre but it's still a very nice lens with nice out of focus blur and nothing strange going on.

Interesting you mention to crop from a shorter focal length, I made some experiments with it and it's not a bad idea, but I like the blur and optical zoom is more fun.

Sure. But difference between 150 and 200 is small, while 150 S provides more blur anyway. But only in out of focus places, objects in focus are sharp, as they should be.

I did not mean to compare the two, in fact I can't cause I only have one

You said it was not good, I disagree and my images too.

-- hide signature --

" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Anyone who says the 50-200 lens is bad needs to get there eyes checked. I have the 50-150 and it's a struggle to get "ready" due to it's size. Is it really even fair to compare the two with the price difference?

I wonder if the 50-150 didn't exist I wonder if so many people would still say the 50-200 sucked.

Krazyheaven wrote:

Anyone who says the 50-200 lens is bad needs to get there eyes checked. I have the 50-150 and it's a struggle to get "ready" due to it's size. Is it really even fair to compare the two with the price difference?

I don't think it makes sense to compare these two lenses in depth. 50-200 is a compact f4-f5.6 for 200$ and the other a premium lens, weathersealed and a constant f2.8. I would like to own both but I would still use the 50-200 sometimes .

The 50-150S do have a construction of 20 lenses (4 ED lenses and 1 XHR lense), 9 aperture blades and a constant f2.8. The 50-150S is clearly the more advanced construction as it should be.

That do not make the 50-200 variable aperture f4-f5.6 a bad lens, ofcourse.

I wonder if the 50-150 didn't exist I wonder if so many people would still say the 50-200 sucked.

cookedraw wrote:

arbux wrote:

cookedraw wrote:

arbux wrote:

So where is the focus set on this picture?

The bee image have a 4mm DOF (by calculator) and it's manual focus , probably on the bee before it flew away.

But this is the isse with 50-200 - no sharpness at the long end.

I know the sharpness of the lens very well, made some tests.

It's super sharp at 50, very good at 100, good at 130, at 200 it's sharp in the centre but it's still a very nice lens with nice out of focus blur and nothing strange going on.

I can agree with that. However every tele helps with blur. I basically think that samsung 50-200 is nothing outstanding, esp. at the long end.

Interesting you mention to crop from a shorter focal length, I made some experiments with it and it's not a bad idea, but I like the blur and optical zoom is more fun.

Sure. But difference between 150 and 200 is small, while 150 S provides more blur anyway. But only in out of focus places, objects in focus are sharp, as they should be.

I did not mean to compare the two, in fact I can't cause I only have one

You said it was not good, I disagree and my images too.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

However even before having 50-150 it was not difficult to notice descreasing optical quality in 50-200, esp. comparing super sharp 50mm (this lens is extremly sharp at 50mm) and medicore 200mm. Medicore but still usable.

-- hide signature --

" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

-- hide signature --

" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Krazyheaven wrote:

Anyone who says the 50-200 lens is bad needs to get there eyes checked. I have the 50-150 and it's a struggle to get "ready" due to it's size.

I have no issue with the size. Fits well in the small bag and usually I just have it attached to the camera in hand.

Is it really even fair to compare the two with the price difference?

Why not? Price of S lens is for light (2.8), build quality and weather sealing. There is nothing premium about 200mm 5.6.

I wonder if the 50-150 didn't exist I wonder if so many people would still say the 50-200 sucked.

I didn't like it too much before S lens were announced. You see the IQ and have other lens to compare. Not even to compare one all test - casual pictures speak by themselves.