Telephoto Zoom comparison

[ralf-11]

I will do that Walt. Maybe I should wait a day or two more to see if anyone has more thoughts or sees any noise (like I seem to).

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

I'd like people to tell me which one has higher image quality

Number1 is slightly better, even though it has slightly less reach.

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

ok, here is M2, ...
Let me know if there is something I can do to make comparison with the D image easier,

Are you deliberately trying to sabotage this comparison? : post D, then M2 with one space line between them, in the same post, obviously.

 

[ralf-11]

I edited the D & M2 post.

BTW, the forum area is not just Reviews, but includes Tests & Shootouts

I'm open to ideas on other places to have posted it.

 

[oldracer]

... We yearn for the answer. Is D our new hero? Is M a disaster?
Pray tell, please do, which is which and who is who. ...

First we need to know the purpose.

• For posting photos to Facebook and the odd internet forum, both are equal.
• For prints up to about 24" wide, both are equal.
• For larger prints, both are adequate when viewing distances are normal.
• For pixel peeping and looking at very large prints from distances of a few inches, then we need to do some careful reproducible tests. Resolution targets, identical camera and settings, identical light, absolutely solid support, etc. From this we will get an answer to a question that doesn't matter much.

 

[ralf-11]

Purposes vary, as is common for equipement. I posted above why I am doing a comparison of the lens how they will usually be used in the field. I do not usually shoot test targets for example (nothing wrong with that tho). I would certainly want to be able to make large prints of the better captures made, as well as display on a large screen TV.

 

[ralf-11]

here is a screen grab I made from the zoomed capture screen in LR
- M2 is on the Left, with D on the Right (this is from the near center of the image)

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

 

[Brownie]

Still D for me. Though this test, I agree, should be more closely matched for true judgement you see.
Alas! Alas! We yearn for the answer. Is D our new hero? Is M a disaster?
Pray tell, please do, which is which and who is who. For we, dear friend, have been e're so patient with you.

Burma Shave

You need to get better and out of bed. Way too much time on your hands!

here is a screen grab I made from the zoomed capture screen in LR
- M2 is on the Left, with D on the Right (this is from the near center of the image)

View attachment 735862

No real new info though, a closer look at what we've already seen. Cough it up!

 

[ralf-11]

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

I really wanted to like the m43 setup because it so small and light relative to my Nikon 80-400 used on a DX body (D5300) which is the setup producing the "D" image.

The PL setup is my G9 body using the 50-200 PL lens and the PL 2x tele-extender to get an equiv. of 800 mm FF. It produced the M and M2 images. They are just significantly softer and have more noise when enlarged.

The m43 sensor is smaller of course but not that much smaller, and the Nikon D5300 has no IS in the body AFAIK, and is older technology. The add'l IS might compensate for handheld or use on a rest, but if it did it was not enough.

I don't know if compatibility of the 2x tele-extender was the cause or if the PL 100-400 mm lens would do better, or if I just got a not so great example of the tele-extender or the 50-200 lens.

Anyway, the PL system is too far away in quality to keep, despite the smaller size.

 

[InlawBiker]

Hm that's interesting. How did the native 50-200 PL do without the TC? Did you try a 1.4x TC as well? I have never seen a 2x converter add quality to anything, only reach.

Greg.

 

[ralf-11]

I didn't do that test as the only reason for me to get the lens is to get to 800... or at least 700mm FF equiv.

It would have been nice tho to cover that 50 to 100 m43 range

 

[alex g]

I'm not entirely convinced of your mathematics, Ralf, for what it's worth. 400mm on a DX camera (≈1.5 crop factor) is equivalent to 600mm FF, or 300mm µ43. So perhaps a fairer fight would be between the 80-400 and the 50-200 + 1.4x TC? The 50-200mm isn't a spectacularly sharp lens, judging by the published test numbers — the designers evidently intended it to make nice-looking images, not record-breaking ones. Adding a 2x converter to that type of lens is never going to produce comparable resolution to that from a decent non-teleconverted lens. I know nothing about the 80-400, but I assume it's a reasonable optic. It would be interesting to see what the 1.4x TC looks like on the 50-200 though.

 

[InlawBiker]

Is that the new 80-400? It's supposed to be a pretty good lens.

Anyway clearly something is wrong with the M43 setup. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, it should be pretty easy to shoot the 50-200 with and without the TC and see the difference, even if you have to crop. It should at least narrow down where the problem is occurring.

 

[ScottinPollock]

They were taken in different light, slightly different angle, and they're SOOC. I see Nikon's engine applying a lot more sharpening than Panasonic's.

You need to shoot raw and apply the same settings to both in post to compare.

 

[Phocal]

This thread has really made me giggle...…………….

For those arguing for a test target, I don't shoot targets either. I prefer to test lenses as I would use them in the field. Granted I wouldn't shoot a flower for testing, I would look for a subject that I would use the lens for and shoot it like I typically would.

For those arguing for using same settings, I don't use same settings when testing lenses with different apertures either. I test them as I would shoot them in the field, which is typically wide-open...whatever that aperture would be. I will also typically stop them down one full stop (which is usually the sharpest spot for most m4/3 lenses) during a shootout as well.

How I do lens comparisons - Shootout - Olympus 75-300 vs 50-200 SWD w/ EC-14 vs 300/4 Shoot Out
- Shootout - Lens Comparison - Olympus MZ 300mm f4.0 IS Pro & Olympus ZD 150mm f2.0 w/ EC-20

For the OP. Your math is off as mentioned above and you should really compare the 50-200 with the 1.4tc not the 2.0tc, I think you will find the results much closer. I also think it's kind of ridicules to think that a consumer lens with a 2x tc would even come close to another consumer lens without a TC. You are kind of comparing apples to oranges here.

Regardless, even the 80-400 is a bit to soft for me. It's image looks pretty close what I get from my MZ 75-300, which would give the same reach at a much lighter setup. I bet any of the xx-300 zooms would be equal to the 80-400.

my 2 copper pieces,

Phocal

 

[ralf-11]

Scott,

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

They were taken within a minute or less of each other on a clouded in day, so light differences are lens/sensor I think.

Good point about the difference in jpg engines.

However... here is a screen grab of the NEF & RW2 raw files viewed side by side in LR6 (iMac Retina display)

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

 

[alex g]

That said, I'm surprised the difference is that great between the two images. I suspect there may have been something lacking in the shooting technique... what do you mean when you say the camera was on a flat rest? Do you mean you were hand-holding it while resting your elbows on something, or that the camera was sitting stationary on a flat surface? If the latter, then the IS of the Panasonic system would turn itself off after a couple of seconds, so it isn't a good test of the IBIS anyway. Which shutter were you using? As suggested earlier in the thread, when dealing with such long focal lengths, using the electronic shutter with a few seconds release delay would help rule out the influence of any potential hand shake.

 

[ralf-11]

I tried hand-held, on a flat rest and elbows supported - all looked the same.

 

[davidzvi]

This thread has really made me giggle...…………….

For those arguing for a test target, I don't shoot targets either. I prefer to test lenses as I would use them in the field. Granted I wouldn't shoot a flower for testing, I would look for a subject that I would use the lens for and shoot it like I typically would.

For those arguing for using same settings, I don't use same settings when testing lenses with different apertures either. I test them as I would shoot them in the field, which is typically wide-open...whatever that aperture would be. I will also typically stop them down one full stop (which is usually the sharpest spot for most m4/3 lenses) during a shootout as well.

How I do lens comparisons - Shootout - Olympus 75-300 vs 50-200 SWD w/ EC-14 vs 300/4 Shoot Out
- Shootout - Lens Comparison - Olympus MZ 300mm f4.0 IS Pro & Olympus ZD 150mm f2.0 w/ EC-20

For the OP. Your math is off as mentioned above and you should really compare the 50-200 with the 1.4tc not the 2.0tc, I think you will find the results much closer. I also think it's kind of ridicules to think that a consumer lens with a 2x tc would even come close to another consumer lens without a TC. You are kind of comparing apples to oranges here.

Regardless, even the 80-400 is a bit to soft for me. It's image looks pretty close what I get from my MZ 75-300, which would give the same reach at a much lighter setup. I bet any of the xx-300 zooms would be equal to the 80-400.

my 2 copper pieces,

Phocal

I have to agree with almost everything here except calling either of these consumer lenses. Panasonic specifically calls the 50-200 "LUMIX G LEICA DG VARIO-ELMARIT Professional Lens". And the Nikon is a gold ringed Nano coated lens which Nikon uses to identify their Professional lenses.

 

[Pluttis]

Not that realistic to think/expect that a zoom lens with 2x tele converter would performe as good or even close to a lens without any tele converter, a tele converter alway means a loss in image quality and with 2x tele converter that loss in image quality usually is big...especially when used on a zoom lens.

The 50-200 is a good lens, but not so good with a 2x tele converter.

Panasonic Leica 100-400 would probably be a better match for the Nikon 80-400

Mirrorless Super Telephoto Comparison Leica, Fuji, Nikon, Olympus

But at the same time Richard wong´s test shows that the 50-200 should perform good with 2x converter, seams to do as good or better than Panasonics 100-400 and far better than the results that are shown here

Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 50-200mm f/2.8-4.0 ASPH lens Review – Review By Richard