New Panny Leica 50-200 Soft @ 200mm :(

Started Jun 22, 2018 | Discussions
OP Kubicide Regular Member • Posts: 465
Re: Okay doubters... Pics... :)
1

lcubed11 wrote:

Kubicide wrote:

Pics showing the softness compared to the Panny 100-400 @ 200mm - for the non-believers!

Seriously now, I've had many lenses. I know what a good lens looks like. I know what a bad lens looks like. This is a bad lens, sample of 1. So I had hoped other Panny Leica 50-200 owners could post samples of their lens @ 200mm so I feel better about going through the lens lottery and exchange this one for another.

Before anyone points this out: yes, the time of day was different between the two lenses being used by 1.5hrs but that has zero affect on the sharpness - or lack of.

Thanks!

can't tell from the samples, but is the same point used for the focus on each pair??

Yes, it was the same.

JaKing Senior Member • Posts: 5,259
Re: Are you trolling?
1

Kubicide wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

JaKing wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

no; can YOU post images?

Rashid, unfortunately it has become a commonplace on the forum for people to make this kind of assertion without any evidence to support it. In this case, full size examples with intact EXIF data.

I would also like to see some examples.

yes JaKing, and even dismissing the possibility of a troll, there are so many ways to get poor output from a very good lens

You're not trolling this thread are you? Do you have any pics of your 50-200 to share? I just posted samples. Thanks.

Thank you for posting images.

Could you post these separately with intact EXIF data please? This will allow those who own the lens, or those who may have pertinent contributions for you to provide better help or suggestions.

It is normal practice to post such examples in your opening post or following post.

Sorry that your new (and very expensive) lens is not performing to your expectations.

-- hide signature --

br, john, from you know where
My gear list and sordid past are here: https://www.dpreview.com/members/1558378718/overview
Gallery: https://www.canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/page/gallery/

 JaKing's gear list:JaKing's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 EZ Olympus 12-100mm F4.0 Olympus E-1 +27 more
Holistic Photog Contributing Member • Posts: 719
Defective?

Kubicide wrote:

Pics showing the softness compared to the Panny 100-400 @ 200mm - for the non-believers!

Seriously now, I've had many lenses. I know what a good lens looks like. I know what a bad lens looks like. This is a bad lens, sample of 1. So I had hoped other Panny Leica 50-200 owners could post samples of their lens @ 200mm so I feel better about going through the lens lottery and exchange this one for another.

Before anyone points this out: yes, the time of day was different between the two lenses being used by 1.5hrs but that has zero affect on the sharpness - or lack of.

Thanks!

If It's in proper focus and you don't have any filters on it, then it may be a defective lens.

-- hide signature --

Live long and prosper.

amtberg Veteran Member • Posts: 6,167
Re: Okay doubters... Pics... :)
1

Looks bad, assuming the 50-200 is on the left.  What were your exposure settings?  Tripod or no?  IS on or off?  What body?  Filter or no filter?  AF or MF?

cpt kent Regular Member • Posts: 416
Re: Okay doubters... Pics... :)
2

Kubicide wrote:

Pics showing the softness compared to the Panny 100-400 @ 200mm - for the non-believers!

Seriously now, I've had many lenses. I know what a good lens looks like. I know what a bad lens looks like. This is a bad lens, sample of 1. So I had hoped other Panny Leica 50-200 owners could post samples of their lens @ 200mm so I feel better about going through the lens lottery and exchange this one for another.

Before anyone points this out: yes, the time of day was different between the two lenses being used by 1.5hrs but that has zero affect on the sharpness - or lack of.

Thanks!

Been there, done that. (Oly 12-100).

Trust your own judgement- if your not happy, send it back.

OP Kubicide Regular Member • Posts: 465
Re: Okay doubters... Pics... :)

amtberg wrote:

Looks bad, assuming the 50-200 is on the left. What were your exposure settings? Tripod or no? IS on or off? What body? Filter or no filter? AF or MF?

It was hand held, 1/500, f4, no filter, IS on, AF single. The 100-400 same except f5.1 and slight ISO difference.

It's defective for sure either with the OS unit or the optics/mechanics. The post here was really to share and find out if this was a one-off or possible bigger issue as some zoom lenses certainly do soften up at the extremes. Not many owners have replied so far to help verify how isolated this is.

amtberg Veteran Member • Posts: 6,167
Re: Okay doubters... Pics... :)

Kubicide wrote:

amtberg wrote:

Looks bad, assuming the 50-200 is on the left. What were your exposure settings? Tripod or no? IS on or off? What body? Filter or no filter? AF or MF?

It was hand held, 1/500, f4, no filter, IS on, AF single. The 100-400 same except f5.1 and slight ISO difference.

It's defective for sure either with the OS unit or the optics/mechanics. The post here was really to share and find out if this was a one-off or possible bigger issue as some zoom lenses certainly do soften up at the extremes. Not many owners have replied so far to help verify how isolated this is.

Thanks.  I guess the lens just became available in N America, so not a lot of them in owners’ hands yet.  I’ll definitely post my experience on Monday or Tuesday.

C Sean Senior Member • Posts: 1,945
Re: Okay doubters... Pics... :)

Kubicide wrote:

amtberg wrote:

Looks bad, assuming the 50-200 is on the left. What were your exposure settings? Tripod or no? IS on or off? What body? Filter or no filter? AF or MF?

It was hand held, 1/500, f4, no filter, IS on, AF single. The 100-400 same except f5.1 and slight ISO difference.

It's defective for sure either with the OS unit or the optics/mechanics. The post here was really to share and find out if this was a one-off or possible bigger issue as some zoom lenses certainly do soften up at the extremes. Not many owners have replied so far to help verify how isolated this is.

I always shoot handheld and my very first shots with the 50-200mm 2.8-4 was in the back garden. At 200mm, I was taking photos of garden ornaments and on closer inspections the lens was capturing 'small' insects on these ornaments. I'm talking about insects the size of your typical house fly, I'm talking about the insects the size of a tip of a pin. To pick up the the tiniest of insects some distance away shows good copy of your 50-200 can be pretty sharp.

Looking at your photos, it clear your lens is defective and of course should be returned to the supplier.

amtberg Veteran Member • Posts: 6,167
My copy ... NOT soft!
5

Kubicide wrote:

Well, I've had good luck with the Panny Leica's until now. Just received the new 50-200 lens and it's unfortunately quite soft at 200mm. Surprisingly bad actually, and there's also a significant drop in contrast suggesting possible flare / stray light issues as well.

Curious to hear from others that may have bought this lens - can you post a sample image @ 200mm if your lens is sharp?

I just received my lens a few hours ago and have done some preliminary checks.  Happy to report that it's actually very sharp at the long end, even with the 2X TC attached.  I'll post a bunch of tests and comparisons to some of my other lenses in the next few days, but for now....

fireplace33
fireplace33 Senior Member • Posts: 2,864
Re: New Panny Leica 50-200 Soft @ 200mm :(
1

Mine seems to work well. Tale a look here.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61292433

-- hide signature --

www.fireplace-photography.com

 fireplace33's gear list:fireplace33's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR Tokina 11-20mm F2.8 Canon PowerShot G15 Nikon D90 +23 more
amtberg Veteran Member • Posts: 6,167
Re: New Panny Leica 50-200 Soft @ 200mm :(

fireplace33 wrote:

Mine seems to work well. Tale a look here.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61292433

Those are great!  I'm going to attempt some macro-type shots with the 2X TC, which I believe turns the lens into a .5 magnification near-macro with very good working distance.

OP Kubicide Regular Member • Posts: 465
Thanks for the replies

From those that have received the lens. Guess it was time I was unlucky - haven't had a "bad" lens in a long time. Surprised as (my) 5x other Panny's were all fine first time. Oh well!

(Still going to stand-by for a bit before buying it again to make sure it was isolated.)

left eye
left eye Senior Member • Posts: 1,641
Last resort, check the rear element.

Unlike many tele-zooms the lens was optimised to be excellent at 200mm as it was designed to cope with the extra magnification imposed by the 1.4x and 2x tele-convertors.

If yours isn't excellent at 200mm there must be a problem.

An outside chance, but often overlooked, check that the rear element is clean - i.e. doesn't have a finger mark on it!

 left eye's gear list:left eye's gear list
Olympus E-300 Pentax K-5 Fujifilm GFX 50S Panasonic GH5 +5 more
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 4,046
Re: Defective lens, return.
1

Considering you can crop an image from the 40-150PRO from 4500X3500 to 1000X800 and it still looks sharp and detailed, the 50-200 "destroys" the 40-150PRO is a gross exaggeration = defective testing.

The extra range with the TC's are nice to have if you have enough light. F/2.8 is highly desirable in an 80-300 telephoto when you don't. You can leave f/5.6-8 home on a gloomy day if your subject moves.

It would be nice if the OLY lens was lighter. If it was, it wouldn't be as robust. Internal zoom is pretty nice. The comment that the 50-200 destroys it is nonsense. If it did, it wouldn't matter.  The OLY lens is sharp enough and its faster.

whumber
whumber Senior Member • Posts: 2,357
Re: Defective lens, return.
2

MShot wrote:

Considering you can crop an image from the 40-150PRO from 4500X3500 to 1000X800 and it still looks sharp and detailed, the 50-200 "destroys" the 40-150PRO is a gross exaggeration = defective testing.

I really don't agree that the Olympus is "sharp enough" at 210mm, I find it's performance there fairly disappointing. If the Lenstip measurements are accurate, the PL is over 40% sharper than the Olympus at 200/210mm, that is a huge difference. That's like the difference between an entry level tele zoom and a high end tele prime.

It would be nice if the OLY lens was lighter. If it was, it wouldn't be as robust. Internal zoom is pretty nice. The comment that the 50-200 destroys it is nonsense. If it did, it wouldn't matter. The OLY lens is sharp enough and its faster.

What I actually said.

I think the biggest takeaway is that the new 50-200 absolutely destroys the 40-150 + 1.4x if you want to shoot at 200/210mm. (PL => 73 lp/mm, O => 52 lp/mm).

If you don't think a 40% difference in linear sharpness qualifies as destroying the competition (and that's ignoring the garbage bokeh the 40-150 produces, especially with the TC) then I don't know what does.

 whumber's gear list:whumber's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +10 more
amtberg Veteran Member • Posts: 6,167
Re: Defective lens, return.

whumber wrote:

MShot wrote:

Considering you can crop an image from the 40-150PRO from 4500X3500 to 1000X800 and it still looks sharp and detailed, the 50-200 "destroys" the 40-150PRO is a gross exaggeration = defective testing.

I really don't agree that the Olympus is "sharp enough" at 210mm, I find it's performance there fairly disappointing. If the Lenstip measurements are accurate, the PL is over 40% sharper than the Olympus at 200/210mm, that is a huge difference. That's like the difference between an entry level tele zoom and a high end tele prime.

I don't think you can compare the Lenstip sharpness measurements of the two lenses because they used different bodies with different sensor sizes.  The PL lens certainly isn't 40% sharper, although it does appear to be a tad sharper at the long end based on Gordon's comparison shots.

(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 4,046
Re: Defective lens, return.
1

The test is inaccurate and not representative of what is seen in real world photography. 40% difference is nonsense. There is no way to measure two images and determine one is 40% sharper.

There is a very noticeable difference between the 40-150PRO with or without the TC and a consumer quality lens. There is no way there is that much difference between OLY PRO and PL lenses.

(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 4,046
Re: Defective lens, return.
2

This is a 2.5 inch long bird. Individual feathers cannot be seen with the naked eye at 5 feet. Lens is mounted on a 16MP body, might be more detailed on a 20MP sensor but what for?

Post an image from a PL lens that is 40% sharper than this one at 210mm and explain how the delta was calculated. It won't look any less detailed to the naked eye.

Then explain the comment "The PL lens destroys the OLY lens".

Astrotripper Veteran Member • Posts: 6,809
Re: Defective lens, return.

whumber wrote:

What I actually said.

I think the biggest takeaway is that the new 50-200 absolutely destroys the 40-150 + 1.4x if you want to shoot at 200/210mm. (PL => 73 lp/mm, O => 52 lp/mm).

If you don't think a 40% difference in linear sharpness qualifies as destroying the competition

Well, if you adjust those numbers to the 16mp sensor that the 50-200 was tested on, then the difference will be smaller, probably closer to 10 lp/mm than 20 as shown above. And that is only a measurement at the longest end, so hardy a full picture. Adding in the natural sample variation and the picture is not as clear cut as it seems at first glance.

qualifies as destroying the competition (and that's ignoring the garbage bokeh the 40-150 produces, especially with the TC) then I don't know what does.

Actually, I would say the tendency to produce unpleasant bokeh on Oly is a bit more definite disadvantage here.

 Astrotripper's gear list:Astrotripper's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M1 II +17 more
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 4,046
Re: Defective lens, return.

I agree sometimes the OLY can produce ugly bokeh

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads