PL50-200 plus 1.4TC versus P100-300ii

Macroramphosis

Jack of Spades and an unfeasibly large wheelbarrow
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
2,248
Location
Charente Maritime, western France
Real Name
Roddy
A quick question for people who have these lenses or experience of them....how does the 50-200 with the 1.4TC attached work out at 286mm versus the 100-300 at 300mm? Is the overall experience of the more expensive lens worth it over the cheaper one? I love the focal length that the 50-200 offers (I use my little 45-175 all the time) but want some more reach now we have moved to live by a river with longer views - there are plenty of birds to play with here! Cost is not a problem as such, which would seem to make the decision easy, but I wondered if difference in price would be worthwhile. I'd probably get a P12-60 for the shorter focal lengths, though the O12-100 keeps rearing its ugly head.

I think the P100-400 will be too big and mean a tripod will have to be to hand most of the time, alas. Anyway, opinions and thoughts welcome!
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
236
Location
Gloucester, UK
Real Name
Deryck
I have the P100-400 and the O75-300, and use both on an em1ii

I very rarely use a tripod, and I am happy to walk around with the Panasonic for a day's shooting,
but I tend to be sure that I will use it before it gets packed e.g. a day at the zoo
The extra 100mm and better IQ mean that I will chose it over the Olympus.
The Olympus gets taken if weight/space is tight (carry on luggage) or I am hiking,
or more often a trip where I think I might need it, but it may not come out of the bag.

I would love the 50-200, it it would replace both the O75-300 and O40-150R, but I would still keep the 100-400.
although I'm sort of waiting for an Olympus F4 40-50 pro equivalent

I have used the PL12-60 as my main travel lens for 3 years, and is normally accompanied by one of my 3 long range lenses
depending on need and weight; but like you the 12-100 is always in my thoughts.
 

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
4,534
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
I've posted this before. The 50-200 cropped to 50% is at least as good and probably better than the 100-300. You don't need the 1.4.

I have the 50-200 and the 100-400. The 50-200 is the better lens.

I had a 100-300 first version, never cared for it. If I were to ever do another inexpensive 300mm it'd likely be the oly 75-300.

Same shot. Original, 33% crop, 50% crop.

50704198792_7aeefdde72_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Full by telecast, on Flickr

50704113041_3d85687679_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
33% by telecast, on Flickr

50704112531_76395f936a_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
50% by telecast, on Flickr
 

RAH

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
2,124
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
I think the PL50-200 is a really nice lens and I'd get one if it weren't so large. But if you are going to be using it without needing a lot of walking (like near your house), I think it would be great with or without the TC. For walking, I think the O75-300 is somewhat more desireable than the P100-300, but since I only have the 75-300 (which is very good, IMHO), I am only going by what I have read.
 

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
4,534
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
I think the PL50-200 is a really nice lens and I'd get one if it weren't so large. But if you are going to be using it without needing a lot of walking (like near your house), I think it would be great with or without the TC. For walking, I think the O75-300 is somewhat more desireable than the P100-300, but since I only have the 75-300 (which is very good, IMHO), I am only going by what I have read.

I carry it for 8-12 hours a day at the drag strip mounted to a G9.

It weighs 8.2 ounces more than the Oly.
It's about 6/10" longer.
Diameter is 0.18" greater.

Those added together do not equal the difference in IQ.
 

RAH

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
2,124
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
Since I mentioned 3 lenses in my post that you quoted (50-200, 75-300 and 100-300), I'm not quite sure what lens you are refering to when you use the term "it". Please clarify. I can infer when you refer to "the Oly" you mean the 75-300, but I really cannot tell if you mean the 100-300 or the 50-200 when you say "it".

Edit: Also, if by "it" you mean the 50-200, I cannot tell if you are thinking it is significantly bigger than the 75-300 or not much bigger at all. I consider 6/10" quite a lot bigger (if you mean 6 - 10"); and also 8 ounces quite a lot heavier on a item that size. So I don't quite know if we agree or if we don't.

I know just from the camera size alone that i could not carry the G9 with just about any lens attached for 8-12 hours, so it's different strokes for different folks and some people are bigger and stronger than others. It's nice to be able to do that.
 
Last edited:

frankmulder

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
548
I don't have the 50-200mm, but I have no problems with the sharpness of the 100-300mm mark I at 300mm. An example (at 300mm, not 286mm, sorry ;); focus on the duck on the viewer's right):

P1080187.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


100% crop for pixel peepers:
P1080187-1.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,435
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
Compared to the Olympus ZD 50-200 SWD (not pictured), the PL 50-200 is quite a compact lens. It's not much bigger than the 100-300, but the IQ is far better. If I could have afforded it at the time, I might have picked it up to replace the ZD. I think that range is an attractive one.

Image from camerasize.com.
Screen Shot 2021-03-13 at 6.39.56 AM.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
4,534
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
Since I mentioned 3 lenses in my post that you quoted (50-200, 75-300 and 100-300), I'm not quite sure what lens you are refering to when you use the term "it". Please clarify. I can infer when you refer to "the Oly" you mean the 75-300, but I really cannot tell if you mean the 100-300 or the 50-200 when you say "it".

Edit: Also, if by "it" you mean the 50-200, I cannot tell if you are thinking it is significantly bigger than the 75-300 or not much bigger at all. I consider 6/10" quite a lot bigger (if you mean 6 - 10"); and also 8 ounces quite a lot heavier on a item that size. So I don't quite know if we agree or if we don't.

I know just from the camera size alone that i could not carry the G9 with just about any lens attached for 8-12 hours, so it's different strokes for different folks and some people are bigger and stronger than others. It's nice to be able to do that.

Since my initial post is about the 50-200, 'it' refers to it.

"6/10'' is sixth tenths of an inch, the 50-200 is a little over one-half of an inch longer and less than a quarter inch greater in diameter than the 75-300. Negligible.

I am comparing the physical characteristics of a lens you find objectionably too large to a lens you are comfortable with in order to demonstrate there isn't that much difference. The point is that the 50-200 is not that much bigger than the 75-300, nor that much heavier. I am not a big person at 5' 9" and 180.

It's all in the strap. If I were to literally try and 'carry' that lens and camera for that amount of time, or even let it hang from a neck strap, I would find it uncomfortable. A shoulder strap resolves any long-term carry discomfort.

When I went to the Henry Ford Museum I forgot to take a neck strap, which is what I use as a safety when the camera is connected to a monopod. The result of that was having to physically hold the camera for 6 hours or so. It was tiring and uncomfortable and toward the last hour or so I had to switch hands frequently. That's on me as I was unprepared for the outing.

edited for typos
 
Last edited:

jhawk1000

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Messages
877
Location
Kansas
Real Name
Mel
I am 80 years young. For years I have photographed baseball for an organization called League 42 which is a baseball league named after Jackie Robinson's uniform number. We have 600 inner-city kids playing in an organization that not only furnishes gloves, uniforms, umpires, 3 diamonds for play, and soon-to-be, a learning center for the boys and girls who play. It costs $30.00 per family no matter how many kids are in the family and has boys and girls from age 5 to 14. I also photograph football during the season and have missed only one game in 8 years when we were in Ireland. I carry a Nikon D2x for daylight games with a long lens or a D750. For evening games, we shoot with Olympus OM D EM-1 and EM-1 ii with either a 40-150mm 2.8 with 1.4 x or a 50-200mm 2.8/3.5. We arrive early and carry this equipment for hours during the heat of September through the cold of November. I find that using monopods, is not a debilitating task. My wife is younger but much smaller and she has no problems. We have lugged backpacks with 2 cameras each, a lot of lenses, and other equipment all over Ireland, the Czech Republic, Germany and seem to have survived the few extra ounces of equipment. My wife does make me actually exercise and do a fair amount of walking before a trip and before the sports season begins. On the 15th, baseball practice begins for League 42 so it begins again.
 

jhawk1000

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Messages
877
Location
Kansas
Real Name
Mel
Luckily, I have been fully vaccinated and my wife gets her last one on March 18 so we will be in a better mental state for baseball. We will still wear masks and still socially distance.
 

RAH

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
2,124
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
Since my initial post is about the 50-200, 'it' refers to it.

"6/10'' is sixth tenths of an inch, the 50-200 is a little over one-half of an inch longer and less than a quarter inch greater in diameter than the 75-300. Negligible.

I am comparing the physical characteristics of a lens you find objectionably too large to a lens you are comfortable with in order to demonstrate there isn't that much difference. The point is that the 50-200 is not that much bigger than the 75-300, nor that much heavier. I am not a big person at 5' 9" and 180.
OK, sorry, I think I was thinking of the Oly 50-200. I had looked at both awhile ago and thought of them as much too large (for me), so that's why I got confused by your meaning (figuring you must mean the 100-300 because I had it in my head that that the 50-200 was very large). (Thanks for the Camerasize screen shot, @Holoholo55; very helpful!). So I stand corrected, which is actualy a good thing because I will now take a second look at the PL 50-200. It might have been the cost that turned me off from it, but I'm not sure till I look. Anyway, I'm glad to find this out. I agree that it is a very nice focal range.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,435
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
OK, sorry, I think I was thinking of the Oly 50-200. I had looked at both awhile ago and thought of them as much too large (for me), so that's why I got confused by your meaning (figuring you must mean the 100-300 because I had it in my head that that the 50-200 was very large). (Thanks for the Camerasize screen shot, @Holoholo55; very helpful!). So I stand corrected, which is actualy a good thing because I will now take a second look at the PL 50-200. It might have been the cost that turned me off from it, but I'm not sure till I look. Anyway, I'm glad to find this out. I agree that it is a very nice focal range.

Yes, that range is very useful. I prefer 50-200 to the 40-150. But, to my disappointment, Olympus never made an M43 native version of their excellent ZD 50-200 SWD. I used the 40-150 Pro with TCs until I got the much larger and heavier Olympus 100-400. One drawback to the PL50-200 is that the Panasonic teleconverters are quite pricey. The PL50-200 is not specified as being compatible with the teleconverters, but it has the extra contacts on the mount and people have used them.
 

Hypilein

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
1,681
The PL50-200 is officially compatible with the TCs. Only other Panasonic lens is the PL200 f2.8 that actually has the 1.4 tc included in the box.
 

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,777
the IQ is far better
Mmm, the 50-200 vignettes less and is maybe around 20% higher centre MTF than the 100-300. It measures slightly higher CA than the 100-300 (though I'd consider the difference negligible) but in the images I've seen the 50-200 can exhibit quite nervous bokeh at the long end (Fuji X type, basically). Not that the 100-300's vignetted swirly bokeh is great but it's probably less bad in the sense of reduced workload in post. In very rough numbers, cropping from the long end of the 50-200 will be about 20% lower MTF than using the 100-300 directly.

I haven't looked for measurements of the 50-200 with the 1.4x but it's unlikely there'll be much MTF advantage, there might well be CA disadvantage, and teleconverters behind zooms usually make bokeh more nervous. Given the long end use case and higher cost and weight of the 50-200, those would all be factors I'd suggest might be worthwhile for @Macroramphosis to consider.

Personally, I got the 100-300 II for long end use before the release of the 50-200 and haven't found anything which seems a strong motivation for switching, though I have also the 45-175 and 45-200. While it's a different lens set, @wjiang's excellent post in the 75/100-300 versus 100-400 thread might also be worth a look as the discussion there is similar.
 

RAH

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
2,124
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
I just checked out the PL 50-200 on KEH. Now I remember why I decided against it when I last looked - let's just say, it wasn't the size. But, if that FL is important to you and you want a very nice lens for some fairly big bucks, go for it!
 

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
4,534
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
Once I decided for the 40th time that I prefer zooms to primes, I set about getting the best of the lot. Right now I have the 8-18, 50-200, and 100-400. The one outlier is my beloved 12-60 3.5 which fills in the set nicely. Every FL from 8-400 is covered with just about perfect overlap. Although I've been thinking lately that even though I don't need to, upgrading to the PL 12-60 2.8 is a natural for the full set. The 12-60 3.5 would remain, I simply love the lens and it's a nice companion size-wise to the GX9.

Yes, they're expensive, but I bought every one of the PL's used and have $2500 in the lot. I'm guessing (without doing the math) that having a lot of primes and less expensive lenses with TC's isn't all that much cheaper overall.

I do keep a 25 1.7 and a Rokinon 85 1.4 when I need the speed, but any other primes are adapted.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,435
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
The PL50-200 is officially compatible with the TCs. Only other Panasonic lens is the PL200 f2.8 that actually has the 1.4 tc included in the box.

Ah, now their site says it is. It didn't on previous occasions when I looked for it. However, at $1,700 retail for the lens and $600 for the 2.0x, it's probably not for me. It's still a jewel of a lens.
https://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and-camcorders/lumix-camera-lenses/H-ES50200.html
 
Last edited:

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
4,534
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
Ah, now their site says it is. It didn't on previous occasions when I looked for it. However, at $1,700 retail for the lens, and $500 for the 1.4x and $600 for the 2.0x, it's probably not for me. It's still a jewel of a lens.
https://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and-camcorders/lumix-camera-lenses/H-ES50200.html
There was a thread in here way back when I first arrived where there was considerable debate as to whether the TC is compatible. While some of their literature says it is, as I recall Panasonic told someone here that it is not.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,435
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
There was a thread in here way back when I first arrived where there was considerable debate as to whether the TC is compatible. While some of their literature says it is, as I recall Panasonic told someone here that it is not.

I saw conflicting thoughts on that. The previous version of the lens webpage did not mention the TCs. The TC webpages did not list the 50-200 as being a compatible lens, only the 200 f2.8. Private users said that they used the TC with their 50-200. As I was not looking to buy, I didn't pursue investigating it any further. Interesting that while the 50-200 lens webpage say it's compatible with the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs, only the DMW-TC20 is listed on their website lens catalog, implying that the 1.4x is not available separately. The TC14 is available in Japan because my friend saw it in a Japanese camera shop priced and sold separately. The TC20 webpage says its compatible with the 200 f2.8. Wish they'd stop waffling around.
https://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and-camcorders/lumix-camera-lenses/DMW-TC20.html
 
Last edited:
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
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom