I don't think it has been out that long and didn't fill an obvious gaping hole in the Olympus/Panasonic lens range. I do like it though. I bought it for Costa Rica for which it worked well. I didn't know how much I would use it after that, but I am finding it quite useful for wildlife which doesn't like you getting too close. I have also recently picked up the overpriced teleconverter for less than half price. I am not yet as convinced by the teleconverter as I am with the bare lens, but it is early days. The teleconverter photos lack "punch" - maybe lacking contrast rather than resolution.It's quite an expensive lens, and I get the feeling most people already have the range covered by other lenses.
This lens is on my shortlist. I currently have the P100-300ii, but this PL50-200 intrigues me and I like the range. I can't tell if this lens doesn't sell well, or if people just hold on to it--I can't find many out there used. Anyone use this with the teleconverter?
I have done a lot of testing and comparisons of various lenses with/out TC's but have not done any with a Panasonic lens, I don't own any of their lenses (basically I am an Olympus shooter).
Good to know. One thing I like about this lens is that it’s not much of a weight gain over the 100-300. The 100-400 adds some heft. Yes, they aren’t focal-range equals, but like you said, you resolve more detail from the better quality lens. I’m pretty committed to my G9 at this point, so I would love to round out my collection with this one. All PL, all the time!Teleconverter shmeleconverter. This lens is amazing, easily the best lens I own. I haven't had the chance to compare it directly to the 100-400 yet, but initial impressions after limited use of the 100-400 give it to the 50-200 hands down. It doesn't sell well because it has too many less costly cousins, so most people opt for the less expensive options. I know I can crop a shot to match a 100-300 even up and still have better IQ.