Showcase Panasonic Leica 50-200mm f/2.8-4

Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
191
Real Name
Mike Peters
50-200 @200, f4.0 1/500th, iso 200...
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
191
Real Name
Mike Peters
Damn you, Mike. I just looked up the price of this lens and my wallet cringed.
Yeah, it'll make you gulp, but it's so worth it, but only if you need it. Combined with the12-60 PL it covers all the bases for me, and it's much lighter than the OLY 40-150 2.8. The sharpness is also less crunchy.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
191
Real Name
Mike Peters
One more...
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
191
Real Name
Mike Peters
From a night at the opera. The range and reach of this lens is so useful...
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
215
Location
North Yorkshire
There don't seem to be many samples from this lens (probably because it is new and rather expensive) so I thought I would post one. I have only had the lens a few weeks but finding it suits my needs quite well.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

MadMarco

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2014
Messages
438
Location
Guildford, England
A couple more from this great lens. The second picture was taken through a window (I was inside and the robin was obv. outside!).

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

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

tonyturley

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 19, 2014
Messages
879
Yup, this lens has been on my radar, but the lowest I've seen it is $1400 USD used. That's more than 2X more than I've ever paid for a lens. I'll just have to be patient and keep watching.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
191
Real Name
Mike Peters
Wow, that first image is at ISO 8000!

That really puts the assertion that M4/3 can't do low light on its head...
Yup, I've been saying that for ages. I routinely go up to 12800. It only looks bad if I blow the exposure. I think people who shoot straight jpeg files or people who have no clue as to how to process raw files are going to be disappointed, but otherwise if you use your noggin and expose and process with care, you can get very good results at higher iso settings on MFT.
 

speedy

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,061
Hmmmmm. Haven't posted much in here for some reason. I shall attempt to rectify that. This, is what I bought mine for. So won't get a massive amount of use, but still worth it for the appropriate occasions
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

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

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

speedy

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,061
And from a visit to a proper race track
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
191
Real Name
Mike Peters
Interesting observation, I would have thought that Oly OOC JPG would do well too (with good exposure). Not so?
I don't think any camera makes good jpg files SOOC at higher iso's. They all smush the noise AND the detail. A well processed raw will retain good detail and suppress the noise in a way that looks natural and organic.

A raw file shot at 6400...
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

bbarnett51

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
641
I really like the bokeh I’m seeing from this lens. It appears less nervous than the Oly 40-150.(I hate the term nervous when describing bokeh btw ) Of course it could just be the extra oof areas from the longer focal length.

I actually shoot with the 50-200 2.8-3.5 over the Oly Pro bc it’s more versatile to me. Woth the 1.4 it just covers so many bases. This would obviously be the same. I like what I’m seeing here!
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,328
I really like the bokeh I’m seeing from this lens. It appears less nervous than the Oly 40-150.(I hate the term nervous when describing bokeh btw ) Of course it could just be the extra oof areas from the longer focal length.

I actually shoot with the 50-200 2.8-3.5 over the Oly Pro bc it’s more versatile to me. Woth the 1.4 it just covers so many bases. This would obviously be the same. I like what I’m seeing here!
Yeah, I think that in terms of optics and versatility, the Oly 12-100/f4 is better than the PL12-60mm/f2.8-4, but the reverse is true when it comes to the PL50-200mm/f2.8-4 vs. the Oly 40-150/f2.8.

The only reason I can think to own the 40-150/f2.8 instead is if you are always shooting at 150mm/f2.8 for low-light sports or theatre. For every other application the PL50-200 just seems better - smaller, lighter, nicer bokeh, and a more flexible focal range.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom