Showcase Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 ZD 4/3 SWD

[alex g]

50-200 SWD + EC-20 @ F7 ISO 400

View attachment 549324

Steve, is that a pp gradient making the far background darker, or is it just the contrasty, almost heat-haze-like bokeh that the EC-20 seems to create on the longer lenses?

 

[alex g]

Alex, the background was dark, but I did give it a little more blur in darktable with a lowpass gaussian filter. The EC-20 bokeh is terrible and often needs to be blended in pp.

Ah, interesting, thanks. I think it's fair to say that teleconverters typically amplify whichever idiosyncrasies the main lens happens to have, so you'll get a similar kind of bokeh — only more so. I'm sure you'll agree that on a good day, the 50-200's bokeh can be lovely, but under certain circumstances — e.g. bright sunlight on shiny leaves at exactly the wrong angle and distance behind the subject — it can become a bit lively, with those bright-edged, contrasty blur discs all vying for attention. Multiply all that by two with the EC-20 and you've got quite a riotous texture on your hands. In contrast, the 150/2 produces nice bokeh under most conditions, with more evenly-lit blur discs than the 50-200 — multiply that by two and you generally get something pretty presentable. The 150/2, being a fast telephoto prime, does exhibit some axial CA in the form of green/magenta fringing on the OOF highlights, but it doesn't appear to be as problematic as the variation in brightness of the 50-200's blur discs — or those of the 40-150/2.8, for that matter. The colour fringes blend together, whereas the bright circles seem determined not to.

As you say, adding a little Gaussian blur in pp is a workaround, but it would be nicer not to have to do it!

 

[Rasmus]

Ah, interesting, thanks. I think it's fair to say that teleconverters typically amplify whichever idiosyncrasies the main lens happens to have, so you'll get a similar kind of bokeh — only more so. I'm sure you'll agree that on a good day, the 50-200's bokeh can be lovely, but under certain circumstances — e.g. bright sunlight on shiny leaves at exactly the wrong angle and distance behind the subject — it can become a bit lively, with those bright-edged, contrasty blur discs all vying for attention. Multiply all that by two with the EC-20 and you've got quite a riotous texture on your hands. In contrast, the 150/2 produces nice bokeh under most conditions, with more evenly-lit blur discs than the 50-200 — multiply that by two and you generally get something pretty presentable. The 150/2, being a fast telephoto prime, does exhibit some axial CA in the form of green/magenta fringing on the OOF highlights, but it doesn't appear to be as problematic as the variation in brightness of the 50-200's blur discs — or those of the 40-150/2.8, for that matter. The colour fringes blend together, whereas the bright circles seem determined not to.

As you say, adding a little Gaussian blur in pp is a workaround, but it would be nicer not to have to do it!

I completely agree. The problem with teleconverters is that they have to be paired with fairly amazing lenses to be worthwhile. Which is probably the reason why noone makes a 3x converter - no lens on the planet is good enough to be useful with such a converter.

 

[Phocal]

the 50-200 + EC-20 is very sharp but often IBIS can't handle 400mm and shots come out less sharp due to camera shake. You either have to use a tripod or, as I did in this case, take a lot of shots with highspeed silent shutter. You get tens of blurry ones and one good one.

I have found the IBIS in my EM1 more then adequate with 400mm and even 500mm of reach. The only time I have found it to be lacking is when I put the EC-14 on my 50-500, then again that is a lot of reach.

 

[Christian Braun]

Bladder campion at sunrise

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Olympus OM-D E-M1.1, Olympus 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD @ 182mm, HDR with Photomatix, 5 exposures, Tripod

 

[callie]

I may have misunderstood what I read regarding IBIS. Are you setting IBIS to 400mm when using a 200mm legacy lens.
My understanding is to set for whatever the actual FL of the lens equals regardless of Crop Factor.
Sorry,my bad. Just re-read from the top and I see the discussion included a 400mm lens. Duh!

 

[Phocal]

I may have misunderstood what I read regarding IBIS. Are you setting IBIS to 400mm when using a 200mm legacy lens.
My understanding is to set for whatever the actual FL of the lens equals regardless of Crop Factor.
Sorry,my bad. Just re-read from the top and I see the discussion included a 400mm lens. Duh!

While the 4/3 lenses are technically adapted, they provide all the same information to the camera as native lenses. This includes focal length for the IBIS, so you don't have to make any adjustments in camera for the IBIS setting.

 

[Wisertime]

3 shot panorama with the 50-200 SWD @ 63mm f5.6
View attachment 564266

Now that one you gotta print big! Would look great on metal or acrylic.

 

[Snowonuluru]

I completely agree. The problem with teleconverters is that they have to be paired with fairly amazing lenses to be worthwhile. Which is probably the reason why noone makes a 3x converter - no lens on the planet is good enough to be useful with such a converter.

I actually found a Helios 3x Auto Tele Converter (Made in Japan) for M42 in an op shop for AUD10! But you are right about the IQ, although I was only able to try it in combination with a Hoya 200mm lens.

 

[ijm5012]

Fantastic capture. My only thought would've been to increase the aperture just a bit, to ensure that the entire head is in-focus (I know, it's always easy to sit back and be the critic).

Great focus on the eye though. Was this shot with the bare lens?

 

[DenverDutchman]

This lens remains one of my all time favorites. A couple more captures taken in Costa Rica this past summer.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

P8040826 by jphsmits, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

P8101606 by jphsmits, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

P8121968 by jphsmits, on Flickr

 

[DenverDutchman]

And a couple of flower shots in Costa Rica.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

P8101514 by jphsmits, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

P8101674 by jphsmits, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

P8101537 by jphsmits, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

P1010067 by jphsmits, on Flickr

 

[wolfie]

View attachment 581078

Don't be fooled by those cutesy eyes- make sure you have copyright to this photo ... just saying

 

[Phocal]

Because you doubt that I took it or because you think someone here will use it without permission?

Probably because the monkey will claim he took the photo and win that arguement in court.......costing you millions in legal fees only to eventually win the case but so broke that it doesn’t matter anymore.

 

[wolfie]

Probably because the monkey will claim he took the photo and win that arguement in court.......costing you millions in legal fees only to eventually win the case but so broke that it doesn’t matter anymore.

@datagov What Phocal said - the infamous ape photo scandal ...https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6507709044/download/3710132

Of course the monkey might say he/she didn't sign a model release ...

 

[SVQuant]

Couple from an early morning ramble along the south baylands of the SF Bay yesterday. Both were taken from a few feet away and are only slightly cropped. Really illustrates the adage that a long tele lens is there to fill the frame, not take specks of far way wildlife.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

First time I have managed to take a shot with the eyelid half closed.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Works well for landscape as well

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

One more @123mm. The old Hanger One at Moffett Field and construction cranes at the ever-expanding GooglePlex.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Holoholo55]

Sunbathing
200mm @ f4 with a fill flash
View attachment 596425

Very nicely lit. Nice balance and bokeh!

 

[jreed]

Does anyone have experience using this on a EM5 Markii? Does it autofocus at all, or is it just slow? I'm not inclined to switch to an M1, and can't afford the m. zuiko fast zoom, but my eyes aren't great anymore so I do need some autofocus most of the time... Thanks for any comments...

 

[Holoholo55]

Does anyone have experience using this on a EM5 Markii? Does it autofocus at all, or is it just slow? I'm not inclined to switch to an M1, and can't afford the m. zuiko fast zoom, but my eyes aren't great anymore so I do need some autofocus most of the time... Thanks for any comments...

I tried it on an EM5 Mk I and while it was slow, it could autofocus. On an EM1, it works pretty well.

 

[Phocal]

I tried it on an EM5 Mk I and while it was slow, it could autofocus. On an EM1, it works pretty well.

I found it front focused every time with my EM5. I know some others have reported the same behavior.