Any opinion on the Samsung NX 50-200mm f/4.0-5.6 OIS Zoom Camera Lens for use with NX1?

Hi All,

NX1 owner with the 16mm-50mm S lens. I've been thinking about picking up this 50-200mm lens as Amazon has it on sale for around $220. Can anyone comment on its performance with an NX1? I'm sure its not as great as the "S" version, but the price is obviously significantly lower. I'd appreciate any input.

Thanks,
Chris

B&h has it for $199.

It's not as sharp, or fast as the 50-150. But it gets the job done in good lighting.

At $199 it's a steal. Worth every penny.

It is acceptably sharp, and has the added benefit of OIS, auto focus, and the ability to change aperture.

I would pick it over an adapted lens any day. (unless you absolutely need a wider aperture)

Chris JC wrote:

Thanks parakalien. You mention its not as sharp as the 50-150 S lens, but would you say its still better than using a similar Canon or Nikon lens with an adapter?

Better than many similar lense of other brand, but Always Kit lens.

If need AF and OIS no alternative or S or 50-200.

MF no OIS there is a world of lens

Hey I have both lenses and I do prefer the 50-150mm S lens over the 50-200mm that being said I will now do my own compare of the 2 lenses.

Samsung 50-150mm S is bigger and heavier then the 50-200mm lens it also doesn't extend from the lens when zooming, It also is weather sealed and has a better OIS then the 50-200mm.

Samsung 50-200mm doesn't weigh much at all good for hiking and it does perform quite well. It might not be as good as the 50-150mm S Lens but it definitely is worth the price its listed as.

I quickly snapped 2 photos from both lenses from NX1 at 150mm, shutter/100, ISO/ 200, F/5.6 and cropped them 50% for a quick compare for you.

Samsung NX 50-150mm S

Samsung NX 50-200mm

Both lenses do produce nice photos.

you cant go wrong with the 50-200mm price point and performance.

Is the 50-150mm S lens worth getting over the 50-200mm for the average person taking pictures of their kids and other thing and not doing any professional work I would say the 50-200mm is a better purchase due to low cost.

At the end of the day both lenses take wonderful photos and you cant really go wrong with either of them it just boils down to how much do you want to spend.

Hope my opinion helps.

I'd rate the NX 50-200mm lens as a very good performer and excellent value for money. The addition of OIS is especially useful for low light shooting.

Thought I would throw in a more real world compare here is a portrait of my 2 kids stuffed animals.

you will note their isn't much of a difference.

Background blur looks almost the same on both lenses.

The 50-200mm is slightly softer but that isn't always a bad thing depending on what your photographing.

Both shot at ISO/160, shutter/200, F/5.6 at 50mm

Samsung NX1 + 50-150mm S

Samsung NX1 + 50-200mm

If you would like any other examples please let me know.

Thought i would share this also.

It was shot with the NX1000 + NX 50-200mm.

http://johnhildebrand.zenfolio.com/p456573417/h77115c0b

I picked my 50-200mm up at bestbuy for $149.99. For the money it is great,  but definitely falls short of the 50-150mm.  If you are filling the frame and don't need to crop it takes very acceptable images,  but once you start to crop it struggles.   The 50-150mm allows you to crop an incredible incredible amount prior to the image looking bad.

That being said,  the OIS, autofocus,  and electronic aperture control makes it better than any adapted lens in a comparable apert

ure range.

I've said this quite a few times before, but let me say it again if people here don't mind. The 50-200 is a surprisingly good lens for the price. But the difference to the 50-150 S is very significant not only in terms of build quality (dust and water resistant S lens, not so the cheap one, and yes, this matters) and zoom function (the 50-200 has a very stiff zoom ring which makes it near impossible to zoom smoothly and precisely), but also at the longer end: past 100 and latest at 130 mm the 50-200 gets very soft. Not so the S lens which superb all way through its range. The S lens has also a much faster, accurate and silent AF. The AF of the 50-200 is actually not bad at all, but still no match for the S lens. If you shoot against the light, or if the light comes from the side and touches the front element, you can really forget the 50-200. Unlike the S lens which is excellent even in difficult light. Overall the 50-200 doesn't have the pop (micro contrast), sharpness and resolution/detail of the S lens and hence it doesn't deliver that 3D plasticity which makes both S lenses stand out. As you already have the 16-50 S and are used to that IQ, you may very well be disappointed with the 50-200.

I don't use my 50-200 anymore since I have the 50-150 S. But if you can't afford the latter, the 50-200 may make sense (although the S will also look and handle a whole lot better on the NX1). The 50-200 is actually at least as good or better than a lot of comparably priced lenses from other manufacturers. Third party lenses will always be a hassle on the Samsungs, unfortunately. But I've seen very nice images taken with a Samyang tele on the NX1, the 135 mm f2.0, I think (but beware of extreme sample variations with those).

Just my 2 cents.

Andrea

I agree with Andrea that the 50-150mm S lens is a superior lens to the 50-200mm and if you have the money to burn its well worth getting it over the 50-200mm. But the 50-200mm performance is good and sure it has limitations but once you learn the characteristic of the lens it can produce wonderful photos without any issues.

I to hardly use the 50-200mm lens after getting the S lens.

Another lens that i would recommend is the NX45mm 2D it is a wonderful prime lens (I only have used the 2D edition so not sure how the 3D eddition compares to it)

So if you have they money id recommend the 50-150mm S Lens its a wonderful lens.

If you really dont got the money to spend the 50-200mm isn't a bad choice at all and can produce nice photos.

Cheers.

Andrea Georgia wrote:

I've said this quite a few times before, but let me say it again if people here don't mind. The 50-200 is a surprisingly good lens for the price. But the difference to the 50-150 S is very significant not only in terms of build quality (dust and water resistant S lens, not so the cheap one, and yes, this matters) and zoom function (the 50-200 has a very stiff zoom ring which makes it near impossible to zoom smoothly and precisely), but also at the longer end: past 100 and latest at 130 mm the 50-200 gets very soft. Not so the S lens which superb all way through its range. The S lens has also a much faster, accurate and silent AF. The AF of the 50-200 is actually not bad at all, but still no match for the S lens. If you shoot against the light, or if the light comes from the side and touches the front element, you can really forget the 50-200. Unlike the S lens which is excellent even in difficult light. Overall the 50-200 doesn't have the pop (micro contrast), sharpness and resolution/detail of the S lens and hence it doesn't deliver that 3D plasticity which makes both S lenses stand out. As you already have the 16-50 S and are used to that IQ, you may very well be disappointed with the 50-200.

I don't use my 50-200 anymore since I have the 50-150 S. But if you can't afford the latter, the 50-200 may make sense (although the S will also look and handle a whole lot better on the NX1). The 50-200 is actually at least as good or better than a lot of comparably priced lenses from other manufacturers. Third party lenses will always be a hassle on the Samsungs, unfortunately. But I've seen very nice images taken with a Samyang tele on the NX1, the 135 mm f2.0, I think (but beware of extreme sample variations with those).

Just my 2 cents.

Andrea

Luckily there is someone know photography

Thz Andrea

I agree with Sendeva that the 45 is a most wonderful lens. Sharp and yet with lovely bokeh, great and distinctive colour pop, and a fast and precise AF. It's very small, weighs next to nothing and doesn't cost the world. For similar uses despite its near double focal length only the absolutely phenomenal 85mm f1.4 beats it (and most other 85 1.4 / 1.8 lenses, whether crop or ff). That being said, I think the 16-50 S may have better flare resistance and a bit higher resolution than the 45, plus weather sealing (dust!). But of course the 45 is a faster lens and offers even better subject-background separation than the 16-50 S despite offering 5 mm less on the long end, which is not that much anyway at that focal length (unlike it would be on the low end/at WA where every millimeter makes a big difference).

Andrea

Depends which Nikon or Canon lens It's better than the Canon consumer zooms in this class on Canon bodies or adapted. If you go to the better Canon L stuff, that is better. The Tamron 70-300 IS VC .... err whatever letters I forget is pretty comparable. The AF is also a bit slower than the 50-150, so it often doesn't keep up with birds coming right at the camera as the start to be frame filling (an area where the 50-150 even wavers a bit). It's a nice light lens. It's far far sharper than the 18-200 on the long end and still sharper on the short end though the difference is less dramatic there. I'm not familiar enough with Nikon lenses to say much about that.