I don’t really get the OMS 50-200 f2.8 LWL - I’m hoping for a nice surprise

[vcxz]

A lot of the lens selection advice boils down to simple questions. Is the 12-35 better than the 17mm f1.2? They ask do you really need 1.2? Is the 45 or 75 better? Do you need 45 or 75mm? Especially with modern zooms often matching primes, it really comes down to if you need the extra stops.

The 40-150 is a 70-300, and this is a 100-400. These are pretty classic focal lengths and have co-existed for a long time. So do you need 300-400 or not?

I personally never loved the 100-400 since it seemed to be a jack of all trades and master of none. Too short for birds, too slow for portraits. But this jack of all trades aspect is exactly what appeals to some people, perhaps replacing a 70-200 f2.8.

For me, 100-400 is most useful for larger animals, like going on a safari. But the OM pro lenses can struggle with busy bokeh with grass, which is common with larger animals. So I'll wait to see what the sample images look like.

 

[CBR1100XX]

In terms of who they're making it for? This is simple - they're making it for wildlife photographers. That's it. OMS' strategy for better or worse is to brings products to market for the Outdoor Adventure market, of which wildlife photographers are one segment. This will appeal to wildlife photographers who may be commonly working in lower light, or simply need higher shutter speeds to freeze action. Yes, at the cost of some reach. No everyone's photographing out in the savannahs of Africa - some people are in deep, dark jungles/forests and need all the light gathering they can get. This gives them 100mm more (effective) reach vs the 40-150, which is a big jump with relatively little "cost" at the wide end.

Perfectly said!

Also, for sport shooting, not necessary for the pro/big events, it resolves the need to have two lenses at once. I often have to take both 40-150mm F2.8 and 200mm F2.8 as the extra 100mm of reach of 200mmF2.8 lens makes the difference.

With the new 50-200mm F2.8, I only need one and it gives me huge flexibility over 200mm F2.8.

If I was still photographing bike polo regularly or my daughter's soccer games (when she played) I would be allllll over this. But again, not sure OMS actually has this use in mind or if it's just a side-benefit.

I do agree to the original poster that this lens is not for everyone but who knows. Remember, the big lens ended up being backordered for quite a while due to its high demand!

I would love to see numbers on this, since it's easy to imagine this being more of a supply problem vs. a demand problem. That said, the 150-400 seems to be a widely respected lens.

 

[Dann-Oh]

My kids are young (1 and 4 years old), the older kid is starting to get into sports and activities. Right now he is really into ballet (indoor lower light decently fast motion) I can defiantly see myself selling off my 40-150f2.8 to purchase the 50-200f2.8. Ill get more reach (the camera zone is all the way in the back of the room) and a faster lens at 200mm. We are starting to consider putting the older kid in team sports as well (starting with soccer) so again that extra reach will come in handy.

We take lots of family trips to the local zoo and the 150-400 is too much of a lens and the 40-150 is kind of weird to use, I often have to take the 25f1.2 to get photos of the family, the 12-100f4 is nearly perfect but a bit too short at times, (I almost always use it with the digital 2x tc on it). After typing this out I don't see how the 50-200 will help eliminate the need for the 25f1.2 for family outings.

We have a TON of native plants in the back yard so we get lots of visitors and the 40-150 is often a bit too short for photographing the birds and butterflies and other critters. I can see this lens working nicely with a 16mm macro tube for backyard stuff.

I also think the 50-200 being a white lens design might help with "your not a serious photographer" thing because the lens is white, just like all the Sony 70-200 FF lenses (I only have experience with sony FF so I don't know if the other brands are white too).

 

[john isaacs]

Finally, a lens upgrade for all those that are still using the old Zuiko 50-200 f/2.8-3.5, featuring f/2.8 throughout the range, internal zoom, faster focus, and (hopefully) better coatings.

A great lens for larger wildlife; take it on Safari.

 

[faunagraphy]

I can see it being a good sports lens and a good large animal wildlife lens. Think football and safari lens. For birding 200.m is not long enough.

Yes, a good companion lens for 300mm or 200mm prime owners.

It us still too early for the OM-1 Mk3.

Agreed.

A 12-50/f2.8 IS mini white lens would be nice.

A 12-50mm lens would make no sense for them financially. The difference between 40mm and 50mm isn't significant, unlike that between 150mm and 200mm. One can easily take a couple of steps forward for 50mm AOV in most situations, which isn't always possible while shooting longer FLs (e.g. you might be in a vehicle).

 

[UrbaneHobbit]

I am an amateur birder and hiker who prefers to shoot at or near base ISO to preserve feather and eye/beak detail. Getting outdoors is part of my fitness regimen, and I have little interest in sitting in front of my computer doing AI denoising and other post-processing. My favorite subjects are small finch-type birds and larger shore birds, and I will hike 5-7 miles to find them. I was encouraged by OM System stating outdoors and action as brand values after the transition, and I hoped that they would deliver something for us base ISO birders.

A fast telephoto zoom lens allows me to achieve these goals in dimmer lighting conditions, such as when a bird is perched under tree cover. I can also use faster shutter speeds to freeze motion in better light when the bird is flying, taking off, or landing.

I have the 40-150 f/2.8 and the 200 f/2.8, as well as two sets of teleconverters. The 50-200 f/2.8 would allow me to get rid of both lenses and two of the teleconverters, streamlining my kit to focus on mastering one lens that combines and extends their functionality.

I anticipate going on my first safari next year. Prior to this new lens, I assumed I would take the 200 f/2.8 + TCs and the 40-150 f/2.8, plus a second body. This left me in a bit of a quandary about bringing a third lens for wider shooting, as I was not eager to swap lenses. Now I plan to bring the 50-200 f/2.8 and teleconverters, plus the 12-100 f/4.

All of this assumes the upcoming lens will match or exceed the optical and handling performance of the lenses I already have, which is a high bar. And yes, a built-in teleconverter would be a highly-valued surprise, but I am not expecting one, given the shape of the mount end on yesterday’s leaked photo.

 

[Woody Meristem]

A lot of the lens selection advice boils down to simple questions. Is the 12-35 better than the 17mm f1.2? They ask do you really need 1.2? Is the 45 or 75 better? Do you need 45 or 75mm? Especially with modern zooms often matching primes, it really comes down to if you need the extra stops.

The 40-150 is a 70-300, and this is a 100-400. These are pretty classic focal lengths and have co-existed for a long time. So do you need 300-400 or not?

I personally never loved the 100-400 since it seemed to be a jack of all trades and master of none. Too short for birds, too slow for portraits. But this jack of all trades aspect is exactly what appeals to some people, perhaps replacing a 70-200 f2.8.

For me, 100-400 is most useful for larger animals, like going on a safari. But the OM pro lenses can struggle with busy bokeh with grass, which is common with larger animals. So I'll wait to see what the sample images look like.

So you think the 100-400mm is too short for birds -- what do you think about the 70-200mm for birds? Hopefully you misspoke yourself, if not ...

 

[faunagraphy]

A lot of the lens selection advice boils down to simple questions. Is the 12-35 better than the 17mm f1.2? They ask do you really need 1.2? Is the 45 or 75 better? Do you need 45 or 75mm? Especially with modern zooms often matching primes, it really comes down to if you need the extra stops.

The 40-150 is a 70-300, and this is a 100-400. These are pretty classic focal lengths and have co-existed for a long time. So do you need 300-400 or not?

I personally never loved the 100-400 since it seemed to be a jack of all trades and master of none. Too short for birds, too slow for portraits. But this jack of all trades aspect is exactly what appeals to some people, perhaps replacing a 70-200 f2.8.

For me, 100-400 is most useful for larger animals, like going on a safari. But the OM pro lenses can struggle with busy bokeh with grass, which is common with larger animals. So I'll wait to see what the sample images look like.

So you think the 100-400mm is too short for birds -- what do you think about the 70-200mm for birds? Hopefully you misspoke yourself, if not ...

They meant full frame equivalent focal range.

 

[James Stirling]

To me, the biggest business impact of the release of the Small White Lens is that it is an indication that OMS is still alive. That alone seems more significant than the technical details.

Joe L

Yes and fully agreed, I think this new lens will cement that and will be a hit at the same time, bit like the OM-1 Mk2 and the OM-3 it will silence the none believers & critics, bring it on OM Systems and stand tall

Hah! I appreciate your optimism here. In reality, I think the MFT detractors will never be satisfied. You'll just hear "Why would you pay $4,500 for a rebadged Sigma" or whatever.

Those ungrateful swines, they should be delighted to pay more than double the price for the rebadged Sigma 150-600 how dare anyone criticise this Sigma makes some superb lenses so I would not be worried about the quality of a lens that they designed.

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/om-system-m-zuiko-digital-ed-150-600mm-f5-0-6-3-is-lens-3149138/

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-sports-dg-dn-os-lens-for-sony-e-3010547/

I mean, the OM-3 is still getting raked over the coals by these people despite the steady stream of positive reviews and many, many, happy owners.

You have promoted the OM-3 in many posts, nothing wrong with enjoying using a given camera . But given the speed with which the camera toppled down the sales charts I don't think the "many many" number will be as high as you may think. I am sure those who bought it are happy . But given the closeness of launch price here in the UK at least ( there was a running offer on the OM-1 II at the time ) it is not a surprise for example that it is some 90 spots below the OM-1II at B&H best selling mirrorless cameras

Some people just love to complain.

And some folk want to live in a bubble of confirmation bias where nary a complaint is heard.

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[James Stirling]

I am sure the attraction of the longer focal length compared to the 40-150mm F/2.8 will appeal to a number of users. For a lot of action shooters a lens is never long enough or fast enough As a casual longer lens user the 40-150mm F/2.8 + 1.4xTC if needed covers what I need. Given how good the 150-400 TC is I would expect this lens to be excellent and for those with the 150-400 TC it would make a good combo

 

[SaltLuck]

You have promoted the OM-3 in many posts, nothing wrong with enjoying using a given camera . But given the speed with which the camera toppled down the sales charts I don't think the "many many" number will be as high as you may think. I am sure those who bought it are happy . But given the closeness of launch price here in the UK at least ( there was a running offer on the OM-1 II at the time ) it is not a surprise for example that it is some 90 spots below the OM-1II at B&H best selling mirrorless cameras

The OM-3 is #4 and #8 on the M43 best seller list - impressive for the price.

You might think Panasonic is succeeding in FF rather than M43, but OM is beating them there too. In fact, the OM-3 is outselling all but one Panasonic body across both formats.

Whatever you think about OM-3 sales, you should be far, far more concerned about Panasonic's overall lack of sales in the US.

 

[James Stirling]

You have promoted the OM-3 in many posts, nothing wrong with enjoying using a given camera . But given the speed with which the camera toppled down the sales charts I don't think the "many many" number will be as high as you may think. I am sure those who bought it are happy . But given the closeness of launch price here in the UK at least ( there was a running offer on the OM-1 II at the time ) it is not a surprise for example that it is some 90 spots below the OM-1II at B&H best selling mirrorless cameras

The OM-3 is #4 and #8 on the M43 best seller list - impressive for the price.

You might think Panasonic is succeeding in FF rather than M43, but OM is beating them there too. In fact, the OM-3 is outselling all but one Panasonic body across both formats.

Whatever you think about OM-3 sales, you should be far, far more concerned about Panasonic's overall lack of sales in the US.

That makes it approx 110th spot on the bestseller list , you do realise that there are other makers just like there are other :

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[No Time To Lose]

To me, the biggest business impact of the release of the Small White Lens is that it is an indication that OMS is still alive. That alone seems more significant than the technical details.

Joe L

I agree that it looks a positive sign of continuing investment by OMS and that is important. But, the lens needs to sell well enough to payback the investment and help keep OMS heading forward.

 

[No Time To Lose]

40-150 f 2.8 was released in 2014, what’s wrong in releasing update after 11 years?

There would be no harm in a 40-150/2.8 update at all IMO but I’d argue that this is not an update - it’s an all new lens.

 

[epozar]

What is LWL standing for??

 

[James Stirling]

What is LWL standing for??

Little white lens maybe ?

 

[No Time To Lose]

Maybe these new super lenses are paving the way for a higher resolution MFT sensor?

That would be nice but I recall a recent post about an interview with OMS that suggested this wouldn’t be forthcoming any time soon - they indicated faster processing and more computational stuff in the near / mid term.

 

[epozar]

What is LWL standing for??

Little white lens?

Bigger than 40-150/2.8

 

[ahaslett]

What is LWL standing for??

Little white lens?

Bigger than 40-150/2.8

Which is black.

OM would have a BWL & LWL, like the Big & Little Tunas.

I prefer black.

A

 

[No Time To Lose]

What is LWL standing for??

Little white lens maybe ?

Good guess!