Does anyone have the PL200?

[DynaSport]

The lens is shipping, but I haven’t seen any threads about it. Several threads about the G9. Is this lens just too expensive for the m43 world?

 

[ijm5012]

The exact same question was asked over on DPR.

In summary, it's an excellent performing lens, even with the 1.4x TC. My biggest question with the lens is who will buy it? For shooting wildlife, the 600mm FoV offered by the 300/4 PRO is likely better, as 400mm can be a bit short for wildlife. Sure, the PL 200 comes with a 1.4x TC to make it a 280/4, but if you're using that the majority of the time, why not just buy the 300/4 PRO and save yourself $500 (nearly double that if you buy used)?

Instead, I think see it as more of a sports lens. The problem is, does m43 really have a good sports body? Some people feel the E-M1 II is adequate, while others would dispute that. The G9 seems that it may perform just as well as the E-M1 II, but is that really good enough vs. cameras like the 7D2/D500, and 1DX2/D5? For an amateur, probably so. However, how many amateurs are buying a $3,000 lens?

There's no doubting the optical performance of the lens, however I think its price point and position it occupies in the lens portfolio will limit its sales potential (although many felt the same way about the 300/4 PRO, and it seems to be selling very well, so who the hell knows? lol).

 

[wjiang]

I think the main audience were probably already using SHG primes and 40-150/300 PROs with TCs on some kind of E-M1. You'd have to make a good argument about replacing such glass with what is likely a side-grade. Most notably, the excellent SHG 150mm f/2 with the EC-14 gives a still excellent 210mm f/2.8.

 

[Hypilein]

I think if you are mainly a Panasonic shooter this lens is more attractive than the Oly 300 PRO. It is in some ways more flexible and DUAL IS is really nice, but I fear that like @wjiang said, the main audience may have already gone for the Oly, and until recently when the G9 came out the Em1 was the only real option for wildlife/action shooters, so many are already Oly shooters.

Personally, the price of either is more than I can chew, but I am hoping (although most likely in vain) that some lens rental company will have the lens on offer so I can maybe rent it out for a wildlife trip one day.

 

[Phocal]

The exact same question was asked over on DPR.

In summary, it's an excellent performing lens, even with the 1.4x TC. My biggest question with the lens is who will buy it? For shooting wildlife, the 600mm FoV offered by the 300/4 PRO is likely better, as 400mm can be a bit short for wildlife. Sure, the PL 200 comes with a 1.4x TC to make it a 280/4, but if you're using that the majority of the time, why not just buy the 300/4 PRO and save yourself $500 (nearly double that if you buy used)?

Instead, I think see it as more of a sports lens. The problem is, does m43 really have a good sports body? Some people feel the E-M1 II is adequate, while others would dispute that. The G9 seems that it may perform just as well as the E-M1 II, but is that really good enough vs. cameras like the 7D2/D500, and 1DX2/D5? For an amateur, probably so. However, how many amateurs are buying a $3,000 lens?

There's no doubting the optical performance of the lens, however I think its price point and position it occupies in the lens portfolio will limit its sales potential (although many felt the same way about the 300/4 PRO, and it seems to be selling very well, so who the hell knows? lol).

It is an odd positioned lens focal length wise. While it would have been more expensive and heavier, a 200mm f2.0 would have been way more interesting. May have even gotten me to buy a Panasonic lens. But at 200mm f2.8, no desire or interest since it doesn’t give me anything I don’t already have.

I think the main audience were probably already using SHG primes and 40-150/300 PROs with TCs on some kind of E-M1. You'd have to make a good argument about replacing such glass with what is likely a side-grade. Most notably, the excellent SHG 150mm f/2 with the EC-14 gives a still excellent 210mm f/2.8.

That is one reason I have no interest in it. As an Olympus shooter with the 150/2 there is really no reason to even look at the 200/2.8. I can throw on the EC-14 and have a 200mm f2.8 lens with at least equal IQ or shoot without it for a 150/2. That combo pairs a lot better with my 300/4 than the 200/2.8 would. I have actually found the 150/2 and 300/4 make the perfect 2 lens 2 body combo for shooting wildlife. Throw in both TC’s and you have 4 lenses in 2 that have great IQ and fast apertures.

But if new to the system, it could be a good option. I had great success for 2 years using the 150/2 with both TC’s. Kind of gave me three lenses in one with great to amazing IQ. But I seldom if ever really need more than 300mm of reach, so using a 150/2 with TCs gave me better focal lengths. Others may find differently.

But................

I got my 300/4 for $1800 and you can probably find a 150/2 for $1200. So if you kept your eyes open and shot an EM1 you could get the 300/4 and 150/2 for less than the 200/2.8.

 

[hoodlum]

It is an odd positioned lens focal length wise. While it would have been more expensive and heavier, a 200mm f2.0 would have been way more interesting. May have even gotten me to buy a Panasonic lens.

Based on the Fuji 200mm f2 ($6,000) I don't believe they would have sold many of these lenses.

Fujinon XF200mmF2 will Cost around $6,000 - Fuji Rumors

 

[Phocal]

Based on the Fuji 200mm f2 ($6,000) I don't believe they would have sold many of these lenses.

Fujinon XF200mmF2 will Cost around $6,000 - Fuji Rumors

I bet Olympus could do a 150/2 or even 200/2 for around $3,000 to $4,000 tops, they did it with the 150/2. I can't find any prices at release (just a quick search) but I found some reviews of the 150/2 in 2009 (was released in 2004) that say the price was $2300, that puts it at around $2700 in todays money.

 

[davidzvi]

The 200mm f/2.8 took me a bit by surprise. I also think a 150mm f/2 might have been better. That is unless they aren't going to be releasing the 50-200 f/2.8-4.0. If you compare the size of the O150 (4/3), O40-150, O300, PL100-400, PL200, and images of the PL50-200; you could project that a PL150 f/2 might be heavier with a larger diameter than the PL200 f/2.8, but also shorter.

 

[Xx123456xX]

While I'm certain this lens has excellent optical performance, I think for an f2.8 prime in the 100-200mm range, it's too niche and too expensive. When you look at the $1500 40-150 2.8 pro, this lens seems rather slow for a $3000 prime. I would've been willing to shell out $3000, maybe even $4000 for an extra stop at that focal length.

Also I think some who have been waiting for the PL 50-200 2.8-4 are feeling somewhat slighted.

 

[Xx123456xX]

For shooting wildlife, the 600mm FoV offered by the 300/4 PRO is likely better, as 400mm can be a bit short for wildlife. Sure, the PL 200 comes with a 1.4x TC to make it a 280/4, but if you're using that the majority of the time, why not just buy the 300/4 PRO and save yourself $500 (nearly double that if you buy used)?

This was my main factor when deciding between these two lenses.

 

[hoodlum]

This was my main factor when deciding between these two lenses.

I wonder how many would consider a 400mm f5.6 over either the 300mm f4 or 200mm f2.8. The pricing would be similar for all 3 and while I own the 300mm F4, I would seriously consider switching to a 400mm f5.6 for the type of birding I do. i would not consider the 200mm as it is too short.

 

[Xx123456xX]

I wonder how many would consider a 400mm f5.6 over either the 300mm f4 or 200mm f2.8. The pricing would be similar for all 3 and while I own the 300mm F4, I would seriously consider switching to a 400mm f5.6 for the type of birding I do. i would not consider the 200mm as it is too short.

I'd be willing to get a 400 f4 or 500 f5.6 in the $2500-$4000 range.

 

[Reflector]

Instead, I think see it as more of a sports lens. The problem is, does m43 really have a good sports body? Some people feel the E-M1 II is adequate, while others would dispute that. The G9 seems that it may perform just as well as the E-M1 II, but is that really good enough vs. cameras like the 7D2/D500, and 1DX2/D5? For an amateur, probably so.

It sure didn't stop working professionals from swapping off a 7D2 to an E-M1II from what I've seen.

However, how many amateurs are buying a $3,000 lens?

Nikon thinks the 180-400 is a "consumer" lens at $12.4k, enough so that they released it at CES. I guess if you're looking at the serious long reach crowd that's not pro and has the cash...

 

[davidzvi]

....Nikon thinks the 180-400 is a "consumer" lens at $12.4k, enough so that they released it at CES. I guess if you're looking at the serious long reach crowd that's not pro and has the cash...

"Consumer"? I'm not sure what gives you that idea. Being released as CES doesn't make it any less a Professional lens. It's more likely that the CES announcement was timed for early copies to be available for the Winter Olympics.

 

[wjiang]

I wonder how many would consider a 400mm f5.6 over either the 300mm f4 or 200mm f2.8. The pricing would be similar for all 3 and while I own the 300mm F4, I would seriously consider switching to a 400mm f5.6 for the type of birding I do. i would not consider the 200mm as it is too short.

300mm f/4 with the MC-14 = 420mm f/5.6.

 

[ijm5012]

Nikon thinks the 180-400 is a "consumer" lens at $12.4k, enough so that they released it at CES. I guess if you're looking at the serious long reach crowd that's not pro and has the cash...

Lol, even people over on the Nikon forum were a bit taken aback by the announced price, coming in at $1400 more than the Canon version.

The MTF curves look as if it'll be a fantastic performer, but buying a lens that's worth more than the current value of both of the cars I own is crazy.

 

[SkiHound]

The exact same question was asked over on DPR.

In summary, it's an excellent performing lens, even with the 1.4x TC. My biggest question with the lens is who will buy it? For shooting wildlife, the 600mm FoV offered by the 300/4 PRO is likely better, as 400mm can be a bit short for wildlife. Sure, the PL 200 comes with a 1.4x TC to make it a 280/4, but if you're using that the majority of the time, why not just buy the 300/4 PRO and save yourself $500 (nearly double that if you buy used)?

Instead, I think see it as more of a sports lens. The problem is, does m43 really have a good sports body? Some people feel the E-M1 II is adequate, while others would dispute that. The G9 seems that it may perform just as well as the E-M1 II, but is that really good enough vs. cameras like the 7D2/D500, and 1DX2/D5? For an amateur, probably so. However, how many amateurs are buying a $3,000 lens?

There's no doubting the optical performance of the lens, however I think its price point and position it occupies in the lens portfolio will limit its sales potential (although many felt the same way about the 300/4 PRO, and it seems to be selling very well, so who the hell knows? lol).

I'd concur. The Canikon 70-200 f/2.8 zooms are less expensive. I'd expect the PL200 is better optically and certainly the reviews I've read rave about the optical performance. But the Canon is generally regarded as an outstanding lens. I have to wonder how many they'll sell.

 

[ijm5012]

I'd concur. The Canikon 70-200 f/2.8 zooms are less expensive. I'd expect the PL200 is better optically and certainly the reviews I've read rave about the optical performance. But the Canon is generally regarded as an outstanding lens. I have to wonder how many they'll sell.

Are you talking about mounting a Canon 70-200 2.8 on a Metabones smart adapted, and using that instead?

 

[SkiHound]

No, was simply thinking about relative prices. Physically, the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses at the long end have the same focal length and aperture of the PL. In terms of construction, I would think it would be more difficult and costly to design a high quality zoom lens than a fixed focal length lens. I know the market for the Canon 70-200 is vastly larger than for a m43 lens. I know the optical quality is superb. From what I've read it may well offer the best optical quality of any extant m43 lens. But as a fixed focal length lens with a somewhat specialized focal length and a price exceeding the Olympus 300 f/4, I just can't see much of a market for it. And perhaps that's Panasonic's thinking. That it is a specialty lens and wouldn't sell that well even if it were $1,000 less expensive. But the price certainly surprised me.

 

[davidzvi]

It does make for a more flexible option than the O300 I guess.

300mm f/4 - 420mm f/5.6 vs 200mm f/2.8 - 280mm f/4 - 400mm f/5.6

But at $3k for the lens and $600 for the 2xTC plus what ever the 1.4 is going to be; it's not really that much cheaper than the O40-150 + O300 + 1.4 TC. Though it would be much smaller and lighter.