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

I agree of course, the 50-150 is freaking awesome. How many others have not just internal focus, but internal zoom as well? That said though, head to head with lenses in the same class the 50-200 offers unparalleled value and even though it's sharpness is less at 200 than the wide end, it's still sharper at 200 than the long ends of the competition from most other brands.

Also, I really enjoyed using the 50-200 with the Fotga macro tubes. My favorite, for many other lenses either the focus distance became too short for my preference or the magnification ratio wasn't improved as significantly.

Notomb wrote:

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

Real photographers know, that it is not the equipment that makes the photo but the photographer themselves. Will your client know any difference in quality, if you dont compare lenses with them? No.

You can buy most expensive lens, and take poor photos, compared to someone with least expensive lens.

Real photographers know, that it is not the equipment that makes the photo but the photographer themselves. Will your client know any difference in quality, if you dont compare lenses with them? No.

You can buy most expensive lens, and take poor photos, compared to someone with least expensive lens.

Genius, sell your NX1 and 500 and buy NX5 and 100 . Same photo and many money for the genius

@VisualFX:

Right. That's why "real" photographers usually shoot with crappy equipment because they can save money and noone will notice, lol! Contrary to what you say you can usually see the difference even without comparisons, especially when the light becomes challenging (that's a biggie, easy to spot for most with a bit of experience), when your AF needs to be fast and precise for action shots (another biggie and easy to notice for everyone), when you shoot in rain, fog, sea spray, wind and dust, when you shoot extensively in freezing conditions, when you need high resolution, superb sharpness and contrast across the frame for landscape and studio shots, or when you need a very thin depth of field and dreamy bokeh to get good subject isolation and 3D pop. Different lenses have different characters, and a good photographer knows how to employ the character of a lens, which is much easier when s/he starts out with a very good and well defined lens and doesn't have to battle stiff zoom rings, massive flare, flatness and washed out colours, softness and smear, lousy bokeh, dust or moisture in the lens and a half-competent AF. Tools for the task, as they say, and tools always matter as they allow you to define your style and the result in very distinct ways. Which does not mean that good tools turn you by default into a good photographer, and that a good photographer can't take a good picture with a smartphone (which is what you meant). But you'll always see the difference, and for those who shoot a lot, have a good eye and sell their stuff, the difference in IQ matters a lot. For the shots you take and your eye none of this may be of relevance.

Have a good one.

Andrea

NX1 + 50-200mm f/4.0-5.6 OIS

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4663339269/photos

I always find myself agreeing with your posts 100%.

Me too.

Not that strange in my opinion. They are the two long lenses since the 18-200 is basically useless as a photo lens on the long end. It's true that they're pretty different but I think it's natural for people to wonder if the more expensive lens is really worth more or if the cheap lens is any good. I'm glad we can say that both the cheap lens is a winner and the expensive one is worth the extra dough. This is where the NX system excelled, we got good lenses and always at a great performance:price ratio. Fuji had great lenses, but not so great prices, Sony has both expensive lenses that are good and bad lenses that are cheap, but not much in the way of bang for your buck. Etc....

Thanks for these samples. I have both lenses and almost never use the 50-200. To my eye the S lens is visibly sharper and the color tones are a bit more vibrant. But in a pinch the 50-200 will do and it has more reach. I just wish Samsung hadn't left us in the lurch without a longer lens, perhaps 150-400. This would give us equivalent to Panasonic's and Fuji's 100-400.

Can't they at least eBay the 300 f/2.8 prototypes? I wish...

It was about 2 months ago.