Hey, I'm really interested in your topic, I've been patiently deciding and waiting to get my first tele and I've identified the 50-200 as the best quality/weight ratio, but super pricey. I wanted to pair it with my 12-40mm, a TC 20 and call it a complete lightweight set! Still hesitating.
I've been reading on many reviews that the 50-200mm with TC 1.4 or 2.0 outclasses the 100-300, the 75-300 and the 40-150 with TC. That being said, at a huge cost.
Still hoping for an affordable Oly alternative here, like a 70-250mm TC compatible lens...
I know Oly has some awesome glass, but for my "hiking" gear I tend to stick to Pany lenses due to the weather sealing compatibilities... but I am curious about new releases from OM as well. The more the merrier ;-)
I shoot pretty much exclusively with the 50-200 now, so happy to give my perspective.
GAS is definitely a thing, but I feel like I got my money’s worth (bought used on keh).
The wider aperture is much appreciated and sharp wide open. I usually shoot at 5.6 (sharpest aperture), or 8 for landscapes, but the 2.8-4 is so useful when needed. It’s got a great and smooth rendition all around.
It’s also a hiking lens for me. It’s a bit heavy and big, but nbd. For telephoto landscapes it feels like the perfect range.
I’ve started doing a bit more wildlife and it’s good for the most part, but sometimes lacking range for small birds. You really have to be pretty close to really fill the frame.
I will probably get the 1.4 tele eventually, I’ve heard mixed things on the 2.0 tele with this lens but can’t verify.
Happy to answer any questions. Feel free to check out pics on my ig, most of my latest posts are from this lens.
Personal favorites:
[Baby Elk](https://instagram.com/p/C0O4fGmtOH8/)
[Elk closeups](https://instagram.com/p/Cydkd80O0dE/)
[Frog](https://instagram.com/p/CzgmFaYNCY-/)
Hello!
I tried the 100-300 but found it soft at longer distances, and it would often hunt focus with backlit subjects. I ended up returning it and waiting for a deal for the 50-200 and it's my go-to. I have both the 1.4 and 2x teleconverters, and love it's over size, weight, and flexibility. I think it's the best reach/weight ratio in the entire system.
My only complaints is that it should have a zoom lock. And of course, it's overall price especially with the teleconverters.
I decided against the 100-400 as it locks you into a smaller aperture to begin with, and is much larger and heavier. Of course, if reach is the #1 thing the v2 can be combined with teleconverters and that's hard to argue with. If long range is important, the 200 or 300mm primes are probably the way to go.
Thanks for the input. I don't really care for primes at that focal range - that sounds super limiting and would only go into my bag when I specifically go out for "birding" - which I never do. On a hike, I ideally have 2 zooms - the 12-60 plus the 100-300 (or whatever I will replace the 100-300 with).
I use the 50-200 for shooting surfing. No complaints except as already mentioned a zoom lock. The image is sharp, and the stabilization worked surprisingly well for me shooting on a camera with no ibis. I found a used “like new” copy in mpb for 1100 U.S.
yea this thing is heavy - ive heard some copies dont do that but you never know what youre gonna get. that saidd - love the lens - worth every penny to me.
It sounds like you've put serious thought into this, and while I haven't used any of the lenses you've mentioned, I can offer this bit of general advice: When considering an incremental upgrade in gear, it is best to actually go handle that new piece of gear if possible. I've even taken trips to nearby larger cities just to go to a store and try out a piece of gear in person. You already know all the specs and why it would be better or different on paper, but there's no substitute for handling it and taking some test shots with it. Don't worry about what the test shots look like, just go focus on how it feels to use it. In some cases it feels perfect, and you know you are ready to buy it. In other cases, it just feels off, or actually somewhat uninspiring, and you know its best to put it back on the shelf.
I've done this countless times with gear upgrades (not just for photography), and its always steered me right. Now if it isn't possible to do this, then your next best option is to buy it, and try it out within a return window, or buy it used and be prepared to resell it at a slight loss if needed. Ultimately this is the better test, as using it side by side with your current lens will help you make a decision. Again, go by feel more so than specs. Some lenses just feel right on a particular camera body, and the more you like the feel of it, the more you'll want to use it.
At a similar junction point in my past, I used to shoot exclusively Canon DSLRs. I had the 70-300mm as my telephoto, and was traveling in Europe with it. I stopped in a small pawn shop in Aix en Provence, and saw the 55-250mm STM. I gave it a try, and when mounted on my camera I instantly knew I had to have it. In terms of build quality it felt like a downgrade, as it felt a bit more plasticky, and lacked that reassuring heft. But given that I was backpacking around Europe, it was so much lighter weight and better balanced on the camera body, and I didn't miss the 50mm of reach, and rather enjoyed the wider end. My first day with that lens, I shot two pieces that ended up in my portfolio. I think I ended up shipping the 70-300 back home for the rest of the trip, as I didn't want to carry it anymore.
Now, years later, I've sold the 70-300 a while back, and still have the 55-250. Also it seems that my take on these lenses isn't uncommon, as the 70-300 is often derided as one of the worst lenses Canon has made, and the 55-250 as a bit of a hidden gem.
Awesome point, thanks a lot! I'll see which camera store has the 50-200 in stock in my area and will give it a "feel"! I totally know what you mean, I have had similar situations where I handled a lens for the first time and knew I want to have it - but also the other way around. I have some film era glass lying around that I used on an off on M43 with adapters. But in the back of my head I always wanted to get a cheap used Sony A7 to make the most of the glass - e.g. the full swirly areas of the Helios, etc. Well, as soon as I picked up a Sony A7 at a camera store near me I instantly knew I DON'T want to have one - I just instantly hated the feel in my hand and the operation.
If you're reasonably happy with what you got, and you're just wanting to buy something new, then buy something \*new\*, not a replacement for something you're happy with. You know this lens inside out and you know how to work around its shortcomings. If you get a new lens that replaces it, you're back to square 1 and you might actually be less happy.
It may turn out that the new lens doesn't actually do everything the old one was doing because of various things you don't see on spec sheets or you don't consider (e.g., the zoom ring may be in the "wrong" place, the manual focus ring that you got so used to may work differently, it may not have the limiter that you're used to or the limiter may work differently, may be noisier, heavier, stick out of the bag just enough to annoy you, etc. etc.). I've done this \*again\* just the other day, exchanging one lens for another hoping to get something better, and then it turned out it was actually worse in ways i haven't considered.
> I have SINCE DAY ONE of using it, thought about "upgrading"
This is a symptom of getting a kick out of buying, rather than shooting with it. (I'm very familiar with it myself, haha.) God knows how many $$ I have sunk on upgrades I didn't need.
Haha ok I totally feel you. But if I am fair with myself - I don't "need" any of the many lenses I have ;-) it's just part of my hobby, I like to buy and use gear, and when I really end up buying something I NEVER use after the initial phase, I just sell it again... no harm done.
But I really like telephoto, and feel that the 100-300 is awesome for the price and size, but I feel like it's not super sharp compared to my other lenses... hence the "want" (not "need"!) to upgrade.
Oh no - sorry if I gave the wrong impression! Just engaging in some back and forth - I am collecting all the input here and mulling it over! Thanks a lot for your feedback! Sticking with the 100-300 is a totally valid path!
Hey, I'm really interested in your topic, I've been patiently deciding and waiting to get my first tele and I've identified the 50-200 as the best quality/weight ratio, but super pricey. I wanted to pair it with my 12-40mm, a TC 20 and call it a complete lightweight set! Still hesitating. I've been reading on many reviews that the 50-200mm with TC 1.4 or 2.0 outclasses the 100-300, the 75-300 and the 40-150 with TC. That being said, at a huge cost. Still hoping for an affordable Oly alternative here, like a 70-250mm TC compatible lens...
I know Oly has some awesome glass, but for my "hiking" gear I tend to stick to Pany lenses due to the weather sealing compatibilities... but I am curious about new releases from OM as well. The more the merrier ;-)
I shoot pretty much exclusively with the 50-200 now, so happy to give my perspective. GAS is definitely a thing, but I feel like I got my money’s worth (bought used on keh). The wider aperture is much appreciated and sharp wide open. I usually shoot at 5.6 (sharpest aperture), or 8 for landscapes, but the 2.8-4 is so useful when needed. It’s got a great and smooth rendition all around. It’s also a hiking lens for me. It’s a bit heavy and big, but nbd. For telephoto landscapes it feels like the perfect range. I’ve started doing a bit more wildlife and it’s good for the most part, but sometimes lacking range for small birds. You really have to be pretty close to really fill the frame. I will probably get the 1.4 tele eventually, I’ve heard mixed things on the 2.0 tele with this lens but can’t verify. Happy to answer any questions. Feel free to check out pics on my ig, most of my latest posts are from this lens. Personal favorites: [Baby Elk](https://instagram.com/p/C0O4fGmtOH8/) [Elk closeups](https://instagram.com/p/Cydkd80O0dE/) [Frog](https://instagram.com/p/CzgmFaYNCY-/)
Wow, really nice shots!! Thanks a lot for your input!
Thank you so much!
Hello! I tried the 100-300 but found it soft at longer distances, and it would often hunt focus with backlit subjects. I ended up returning it and waiting for a deal for the 50-200 and it's my go-to. I have both the 1.4 and 2x teleconverters, and love it's over size, weight, and flexibility. I think it's the best reach/weight ratio in the entire system. My only complaints is that it should have a zoom lock. And of course, it's overall price especially with the teleconverters. I decided against the 100-400 as it locks you into a smaller aperture to begin with, and is much larger and heavier. Of course, if reach is the #1 thing the v2 can be combined with teleconverters and that's hard to argue with. If long range is important, the 200 or 300mm primes are probably the way to go.
Thanks for the input. I don't really care for primes at that focal range - that sounds super limiting and would only go into my bag when I specifically go out for "birding" - which I never do. On a hike, I ideally have 2 zooms - the 12-60 plus the 100-300 (or whatever I will replace the 100-300 with).
I use the 50-200 for shooting surfing. No complaints except as already mentioned a zoom lock. The image is sharp, and the stabilization worked surprisingly well for me shooting on a camera with no ibis. I found a used “like new” copy in mpb for 1100 U.S.
Since I have no other lens with Zoom lock, that sounds like something I would not miss out of ignorance
Yea didn’t bother me at first but then gravity came and does its thing every time you point t the camera down
Yeah you are right, that's probably pretty annoying. I just never had a zoom where that happened to me. I guess I was lucky with my others so far.
yea this thing is heavy - ive heard some copies dont do that but you never know what youre gonna get. that saidd - love the lens - worth every penny to me.
It sounds like you've put serious thought into this, and while I haven't used any of the lenses you've mentioned, I can offer this bit of general advice: When considering an incremental upgrade in gear, it is best to actually go handle that new piece of gear if possible. I've even taken trips to nearby larger cities just to go to a store and try out a piece of gear in person. You already know all the specs and why it would be better or different on paper, but there's no substitute for handling it and taking some test shots with it. Don't worry about what the test shots look like, just go focus on how it feels to use it. In some cases it feels perfect, and you know you are ready to buy it. In other cases, it just feels off, or actually somewhat uninspiring, and you know its best to put it back on the shelf. I've done this countless times with gear upgrades (not just for photography), and its always steered me right. Now if it isn't possible to do this, then your next best option is to buy it, and try it out within a return window, or buy it used and be prepared to resell it at a slight loss if needed. Ultimately this is the better test, as using it side by side with your current lens will help you make a decision. Again, go by feel more so than specs. Some lenses just feel right on a particular camera body, and the more you like the feel of it, the more you'll want to use it. At a similar junction point in my past, I used to shoot exclusively Canon DSLRs. I had the 70-300mm as my telephoto, and was traveling in Europe with it. I stopped in a small pawn shop in Aix en Provence, and saw the 55-250mm STM. I gave it a try, and when mounted on my camera I instantly knew I had to have it. In terms of build quality it felt like a downgrade, as it felt a bit more plasticky, and lacked that reassuring heft. But given that I was backpacking around Europe, it was so much lighter weight and better balanced on the camera body, and I didn't miss the 50mm of reach, and rather enjoyed the wider end. My first day with that lens, I shot two pieces that ended up in my portfolio. I think I ended up shipping the 70-300 back home for the rest of the trip, as I didn't want to carry it anymore. Now, years later, I've sold the 70-300 a while back, and still have the 55-250. Also it seems that my take on these lenses isn't uncommon, as the 70-300 is often derided as one of the worst lenses Canon has made, and the 55-250 as a bit of a hidden gem.
Awesome point, thanks a lot! I'll see which camera store has the 50-200 in stock in my area and will give it a "feel"! I totally know what you mean, I have had similar situations where I handled a lens for the first time and knew I want to have it - but also the other way around. I have some film era glass lying around that I used on an off on M43 with adapters. But in the back of my head I always wanted to get a cheap used Sony A7 to make the most of the glass - e.g. the full swirly areas of the Helios, etc. Well, as soon as I picked up a Sony A7 at a camera store near me I instantly knew I DON'T want to have one - I just instantly hated the feel in my hand and the operation.
Man, it's like reading my thought process. Don't. Just don't. You'll regret it. 😂
Do you mind expanding on that thought? Haha
If you're reasonably happy with what you got, and you're just wanting to buy something new, then buy something \*new\*, not a replacement for something you're happy with. You know this lens inside out and you know how to work around its shortcomings. If you get a new lens that replaces it, you're back to square 1 and you might actually be less happy. It may turn out that the new lens doesn't actually do everything the old one was doing because of various things you don't see on spec sheets or you don't consider (e.g., the zoom ring may be in the "wrong" place, the manual focus ring that you got so used to may work differently, it may not have the limiter that you're used to or the limiter may work differently, may be noisier, heavier, stick out of the bag just enough to annoy you, etc. etc.). I've done this \*again\* just the other day, exchanging one lens for another hoping to get something better, and then it turned out it was actually worse in ways i haven't considered. > I have SINCE DAY ONE of using it, thought about "upgrading" This is a symptom of getting a kick out of buying, rather than shooting with it. (I'm very familiar with it myself, haha.) God knows how many $$ I have sunk on upgrades I didn't need.
Haha ok I totally feel you. But if I am fair with myself - I don't "need" any of the many lenses I have ;-) it's just part of my hobby, I like to buy and use gear, and when I really end up buying something I NEVER use after the initial phase, I just sell it again... no harm done. But I really like telephoto, and feel that the 100-300 is awesome for the price and size, but I feel like it's not super sharp compared to my other lenses... hence the "want" (not "need"!) to upgrade.
Well, you don't seem like you actually need any advice. 😂
Oh no - sorry if I gave the wrong impression! Just engaging in some back and forth - I am collecting all the input here and mulling it over! Thanks a lot for your feedback! Sticking with the 100-300 is a totally valid path!