PDA

View Full Version : E5 50-200swd + ec14


wezzzor
13th November 2011, 12:30 PM
Hi everybody.

Not so long ago i sold my 70-300 and upgraded to the 50-200 swd. The iq off this lense is amazing.

I shoot at lot of surfing pics so the swd motor and larger aperture of the 50-200 has been a big help. the only thing i miss is the reach from the 70-300.

i have read great things about the 50-200+ ec14 combo.

Could anybody post a pic of the 50-200 @ 200mm vs the 50-200 + ec14 @200mm. i would just like to see how much extra reach im getting.

Thanks.

David M
13th November 2011, 12:42 PM
It's 283mm at the long end with the EC14 so it's going to have slightly less reach than the 70-300 at the long end assuming the 300 is actually 300 at the long end.

wezzzor
13th November 2011, 12:59 PM
i'd like to see real world pics, unfortunatly i never had the 70-300 and the 50-200 at the same time to compare.

Ross the fiddler
13th November 2011, 09:05 PM
i'd like to see real world pics, unfortunatly i never had the 70-300 and the 50-200 at the same time to compare.

I would still love to get the 50-200 SWD lens but wouldn't get rid of the 70-300 lens as I have also used the EC14 with it with OK results in good light giving a reach of 425mm.
See here (http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17706) if it helps.

Melaka
13th November 2011, 09:52 PM
I ...... wouldn't get rid of the 70-300 lens as I have also used the EC14 with it with OK results in good light giving a reach of 425mm.
See here (http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17706) if it helps.

Oh yes you would - the IQ of the 50-200 with the EC14 more than makes up for the few mm loss of focal length compared to the 70-300 and you can use it in almost any light. Some of the pix in my gallery are taken with that combo.

OlyPaul
14th November 2011, 08:08 AM
As David M said the EC14 gives you 283mm at the long end but you also lose a stop of light which no one has mentioned.

So in fact it becomes a 283mm at f4.5 compared to the 70-300mm at 300mm and f5.6,just half a stop faster than the 70-300mm.

Bikie John
14th November 2011, 09:08 AM
I have never used the 70-300 so can't compare directly. I use the 50-200 with EC-14 for rugby when the light is not too bad (usually up until the clocks change) and the quality is very good throughout the range. As long as the operator gets it right, of course.

Ciao ... John

snaarman
14th November 2011, 09:48 AM
As David M said the EC14 gives you 283mm at the long end but you also lose a stop of light which no one has mentioned.

So in fact it becomes a 283mm at f4.5 compared to the 70-300mm at 300mm and f5.6,just half a stop faster than the 70-300mm.

I had the 70-300, and a good lens it is too. However, I felt I needed to stop it down to f8 for best IQ. If you really want sharp at the long end then you need to think f8 or f11...

Pete

David M
14th November 2011, 11:25 AM
As David M said the EC14 gives you 283mm at the long end but you also lose a stop of light which no one has mentioned.

So in fact it becomes a 283mm at f4.5 compared to the 70-300mm at 300mm and f5.6,just half a stop faster than the 70-300mm.

If my math is correct (because I'm to lazy to mount everything to check) it becomes f5 at the long end.

Bikie John
14th November 2011, 11:33 AM
If my math is correct (because I'm to lazy to mount everything to check) it becomes f5 at the long end.

The camera shows it as f/4.9 - so you're pretty close there, David.

Ciao ... John

wezzzor
15th November 2011, 06:35 PM
is it possible that anybody with a 70-300 could post a pic at 200mm and a pic at 283mm approx?

yes i found the 70-300 wide open at F5.6 to soft for my liking and at f8 to slow to freeze action on gloomey days when is nearly always here in Ireland. also the auto focus wasnt up to the task.

jchallen
17th November 2011, 12:05 AM
Hi, I have bothe the 70-300 & 50-200, and an ec14. I will try and make time to do a few test shots this weekend at the various focal lengths.

Can't make any promises about the composition quality but I must be able to find something suitable while out dog walking.

Regards,

Danny
17th November 2011, 07:55 AM
I don't think I can agree that you need f8=11 to get sharp images from the 70-300mm. This lens is inherently sharp as it is, maybe slightly sharper at f8, but certainly it gives excellent results from 5.6-7.1.

Tordan58
17th November 2011, 09:48 AM
Hi,

I have both lenses as well as the EC14.

The 70-300 is a good lens, but the 50-200 + EC14 provides sharper images and the contrast is higher. The need for additional crop (due to the ~5% focal length difference) is easily compensated by the IQ difference.

For objects in motion and action scenes the SWD helps a lot.

My reason for keeping the 70-300 are weight&size and the macro capabilities.

/Tord

Wee man
17th November 2011, 12:40 PM
I have taken the following three shots; boring subject but I think you want to see the difference in the three set ups re image size.
All taken 20 yards away from duck at f8, all lenses at full stretch, camera on tripod.

three apples = 70 - 300 full stretch
two apples = 50 - 200 + ec 14 full stretch
one apple = 50 - 200 full stretch

Hope this helps all straight from camera all I have done is to resize to 800 wide I had to turn the res to 200 pixels to get them to load on gallery.


70 - 300 f8 full stretch

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/919/70_300_at_300_F8.jpg

50 - 200 + EC14 f8 full stretch

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/919/50_200_plus_EC14_at_200_f8.jpg

50 - 200 f8 full stretch

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/919/50_200_at_200_f8.jpg

Apples used as I have a poor memory!!

Let me know if you need more.

catkins
17th November 2011, 05:20 PM
Just a quick query re the three shots - I presume that these are off tripod?
Notwithstanding that I am surprised by the softness in the '50 - 200 + EC14 f8 full stretch' shot and that the '70 - 300 f8 full stretch' shot, as seen here, shows such good clarity and tonal balance compared to both 50-200mm shots.
I know that the 70-300mm is good in good conditions but I would have expected the 50-200mm to show more of its strengths in the comparative shots.
Did the shoot meet with your expectations and experience of normal use of the two lenses? And if so, do you feel that a lot of the performance gain with the 50-200mm is more in the speed of focusing onto a moving subject and therefore more accurate focus lock and better results, rather than just better quality glass? I know that the 70-300mm is sometimes frustrating in lower light as it 'hunts' while trying to lock onto a subject, but once locked your images would imply little to be upset about from the cheaper lens.

Regards
Chris

West Arm Rider
17th November 2011, 06:02 PM
:) Hi all... just popped in from the other site FTU and found this thread really interesting as I'm in the process of acquiring a 50-200 (have the 70-300). Hope no one minds me commenting...

The apples sequence gives me a real good representation of sizes that might be expected and I thank Wee man for that. The softness appears to be from focus, the 70-300 is on the duck and the two 50-200 shots appear to hit focus slightly behind the duck, you can see this on the diagonal branch near the ducks head, so a sharpness comparison may be difficult to acheive....

PS: Or, I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.

David Morison
17th November 2011, 06:31 PM
Notwithstanding that I am surprised by the softness in the '50 - 200 + EC14 f8 full stretch' shot and that the '70 - 300 f8 full stretch' shot, as seen here, shows such good clarity and tonal balance compared to both 50-200mm shots.
I know that the 70-300mm is good in good conditions but I would have expected the 50-200mm to show more of its strengths in the comparative shots.
Regards
Chris

I too am surprised. I have a 70-300 and am aware of the low-light focus issues but I am nevertheless happy to use it as a general walk-about telezoom lens. However, if I compare the 70-300mm with my 300mm f2.8 (18x the price!) with both at f8, it does exhibit a fair degree of softness and I would think the 50-200mm would show similar IQ to the SHG lens.

Is it possible to see some 100% crops from these images?

David

wezzzor
17th November 2011, 10:49 PM
hey wee man,

thanks for the three shots, the ec-14 does add a considerable bit of extra reach, and the images are a big help. but is the amage from the 50-200 + ec14 mis focused? i heard the ec 14 has only minor effects on the image.

Ross the fiddler
17th November 2011, 11:32 PM
hey wee man,

thanks for the three shots, the ec-14 does add a considerable bit of extra reach, and the images are a big help. but is the amage from the 50-200 + ec14 mis focused? i heard the ec 14 has only minor effects on the image.

This is when the focus adjustment feature on models such as E30 & E5 are sometimes needed. I found I had to apply it for the combination of the EC14 & Sigma 150 macro lens (as the lens itself was spot on & the EC works perfectly on Zuiko lenses). There might also be a calibration issue with this particular 50-200 lens.

Wee man, the shutter speeds were low, as was asked already, were they hand held or tripod shots & was IS used? Maybe the heavier lens caused more shake. ;) :D

gazza95
18th November 2011, 10:33 AM
As point of reference there is a thread on the Telephoto lens forum which I found usefull.

http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13820

Gary

Wee man
18th November 2011, 12:45 PM
At first I was not sure how to react to the comments made on the images as all I had done was to take three quick shots to show the image size for each lens to assist a fellow member. Conditions were windy and the 50 200 was mounted on the camera which was on the tripod, today the 50 200 was mounted on the tripod by the lens mount. The comments have made me think I might have a poor lens or one that needs sorting. So today I have repeated the shots, this time I am looking for the expertise which exists out there to comment on the shots to let me know were I go next.....

All shots as before straight from camera, on a tripod, all taken at f8 in poor light, 20 yards from target, focus point same for each shot being mid wing of duck, antishock 2 secs, no IS the ISO setting was 400.

Apples again plus a duckling!

3 apples 70 300 f8

2 apples 50 200 EC14 f8

1 apple 50 200 f8


70 300 f8

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/919/70_300_f8_2.jpg

50 200 + EC 14 f8

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/919/50_200_Ec14_f8_2.jpg

50 200 f8

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/919/50_200_F8_2.jpg


will be interested in the comments for my use as I may have to calibrate this lens or worse?

Tordan58
18th November 2011, 01:20 PM
Hi,

At a first glance the 50-200 + EC14 appears to be sharper and provide higher contrast, but I am afraid the resolution of the samples is not high enough to conclude.

Is it possible to provide 1:1 samples? Ypu need to crop out a representative part (in the centre of the picture) of a defined size, e.g. 800 pixels or 1024 (not sure how large pictures are supported by this forum, higher is better and helps in inspecting sharpness)

/Tord

catkins
18th November 2011, 03:07 PM
At a quick glance that's certainly very helpful and it seems to at the very least show a consistency that one would expect from these lens.
Exposure for all three is now much improved and is as expected, with the two closer shots achieving better exposure on the wooden duck, whereas the 'wider' shot of the 200mm is a little lighter - again this would be expected due to the increased area of shaded background for the metering to take account of.
Sharpness seems good with especially the first two (difficult to tell on the wider shot), and again I'm pleasantly surprised (as a 70-300mm owner) that there is not as much clear distinction between the 70-300mm and the 50-200mm + teleconvertor as I had assumed might be the case.
Ideally, if larger versions can be uploaded to a site such as DropBox into a Public folder, any more detailed checking can then be done by those interested.
But based on these images and also on other threads, I would think the key advantages of a 50-200mm lens (+ convertor) are
- focusing speed to lock on (especially for sports, etc.) where fast reaction focusing in lower light will be the key benefit of the 50-200mm combo.
- build quality

If these features are less critical, then it looks like the value lens is still keeping up with the heavyweights for those of us with lighter wallets!!

Perhaps we should be encouranging a similar test with the Oly 90-250mm lens?!! I know with the aviation photography there is often this talk about which lens is best in any of the manufacturer's product range and, as with Cathrine Spikkerud's thread, general opinion seems to be that a fixed focal length prime telephoto lens is the ideal for sheer picture quality. Zooms of any description will always struggle a bit with extra movement for example being potentially added in if you are zooming while photographing a moving subject for example.

Interesting to see these and thanks for taking the time to do (and redo) the comparative shots.

Regards
Chris

gazza95
18th November 2011, 04:20 PM
At the risk of appearing too much of a pixel peeper I did a few of my own test on 50-200 with and without a 1.4 converter on an E-3

First point to make is that my 50-200 performs best at around F4.5-F5.6 at f8 sharpness is begining to drop.

With the 1.4 converter the peak is not surprisingly at f8. So same aperture diameter as f5.6 without converter.

If you compare output at F5.6 without converter and F8 with a converter you do see a little difference. The difference is obviously smaller if you compare both at f8 as teh 50-200 is no longer at its peak.

If you compare result with lens fully open then for some reason the difference seems bigger either due to focus differences or simply as the quality drops quite a bit when fully open. This is reason I tend to shoot Aperture priority and keep lens in its sweet spot.

If at f8 we are starting to see the effects of diffraction then it does not surprise me we see little difference between the various lenses at this aperture. The 150 f2 I tried some while ago was sharpest at around F2.8 where it was sharper than a 50-200 at F4.5-F5.6

This other question is how many days do we have when you can shoot sensible shutter speeds at optimum aperture and iso 100-200 and hence see the real difference?




Gary

Ross the fiddler
18th November 2011, 09:44 PM
At first I was not sure how to react to the comments made on the images as all I had done was to take three quick shots to show the image size for each lens to assist a fellow member.

Your reply was that of a gentleman. Thanks for redoing it for us all.

You are are not the only one to get soft results from the 50-200 SWD lens as Pandora experienced that at first but it seemed to be a combination of how it was held & supported with IS being on that may have caused it in his situation. It is a lens that I would love to add to my kit, but as I said earlier, I would still keep the 70-300 lens too, for its lighter convenience & extra reach with the EC14 (in good light only).

Wee man
18th November 2011, 11:32 PM
Hope this has been of of help, I do not have the skills to place this elsewhere and even had to reduce the res to 200 pixels and 800 wide to get it to load into the site gallery.
The duck is made of stone and was in a dark area. I selected f8 purely as a standard setting maybe I should have gone wider? I could crop a standard area from each shot but really all I would be doing is giving more detail on my lenses. This I will do for myself and compare them before I go any further, I am happy that both lenses are working as they should it was i think just the nature and speed of set up in the first set of shots when I was only thinking of comparing image size; quality was not considered which it maybe should have been?


Thanks for your comments especially you Ross.

wezzzor
19th November 2011, 12:12 AM
hi wee man

thanks a bunch for the uploads, its exactly what i was looking for. the ec1.4 does add a good bit of extra reach. i plan to use the 50-200 + ec14 combo on bright sunny days and remove the ec for the gloomy days.

Greytop
19th November 2011, 01:30 AM
hi wee man

thanks a bunch for the uploads, its exactly what i was looking for. the ec1.4 does add a good bit of extra reach. i plan to use the 50-200 + ec14 combo on bright sunny days and remove the ec for the gloomy days.

It is also worth considering the EC-20 and 50-200 combination, pretty sharp wide open at f/7.1 and even more reach.

A few examples...

http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/500/P7226797_1024.jpg (http://dpnow.com/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/24333)

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/p3243419_10242.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/31767)

http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/500/P3253458_1024.jpg (http://dpnow.com/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/24524)

Ross the fiddler
19th November 2011, 04:47 AM
It is also worth considering the EC-20 and 50-200 combination, pretty sharp wide open at f/7.1 and even more reach.

It looks extra sharp on your E5 too. *yes

Thanks Wee man for your kind remarks.

Phill D
19th November 2011, 08:15 AM
Stunning shots Huw. How does it compare if you just take a shot with the 50-200 alone and then enlarge to the same size?

Greytop
19th November 2011, 12:12 PM
It looks extra sharp on your E5 too.*yes


Thanks Ross, actually I think it's a case of my EC-20 and 50-200 work very well together.

Stunning shots Huw. How does it compare if you just take a shot with the 50-200 alone and then enlarge to the same size?

Thanks Phill, an interesting thought. I've never done the comparison test but I would be surprised to see a better result. All of these images were quite heavy crops even at 400mm.

Ross the fiddler
20th November 2011, 07:34 AM
Thanks Ross, actually I think it's a case of my EC-20 and 50-200 work very well together.

And operated exceptionally well on a great camera body. *yes

*chr