Olympus UK E-System User Group
Olympus UK E-System User Group

Join our unique resource for Olympus Four Thirds E-System DSLR and Pen and OM-D Micro Four Thirds photographers. Show your images via our free e-group photo gallery. Please read the e-group.uk.net forum terms and conditions before posting for the first time. Above all, welcome!


Go Back   Olympus UK E-System User Group > Show your photos > Foto Fair

Foto Fair Post your photos for friendly, non-critical feedback. This is the place to show pictures if you aren't yet ready for full-blooded critique, or simply want to share an interesting picture with other e-group visitors.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 4 Weeks Ago
pandora's Avatar
pandora pandora is online now
Full member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 16,179
Thanks: 863
Thanked 1,504 Times in 1,455 Posts
Likes: 1,933
Liked 4,170 Times in 1,891 Posts
Re: 40-150 Pro vs. 50-200 SWD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phill D View Post
What Paul is talking about are the occasions when the 40-150 delivers really harsh or what I call nervous bokeh. If you remember I warned you about it before you got the lens. It's the only thing I don't like about that lens and it worries me that adding the x2 TC when it comes out will make it worse. We'll just have to see. A word of warning though DON'T go looking for it or you will see it all to often and it could spoil some of your best shots. Best if you don't notice it. Don't get me wrong the lens can deliver nice oof backgrounds but just with some certain subject to background distances and very busy backgrounds they do look horrible. Actually it's not just specific to this lens as I think the 50-200 does it too but just not quite as pronounced. Sigma make specific lenses called Art lenses that are designed specifically to show smoother oof areas. If Oly brought out a mk2 version of the lens designed in this way I'd buy one in a shot as it's just so annoying when it occurs especially on such an expensive lens. As Paul said it's probably going to be more noticeable as an issue doing portraits. I don't think anyone has done a systematic assessment of the issue, it would be really useful if they had.
Phill, Thanks for explaining that. Now I know exactly what Paul was referring to
and I had noticed the harsh bokeh that I attributed to an M1.2's sensor limitation.
Anyways, here is an updated test done today just seconds before down came the rain.

THESE RESULTS (USING BEAG'S SUGGESTED SETUP) TELLS ME EXACTLY WHAT I NEEDED TO KNOW

Distance to subject, about 40yds. Tripod YES. I can't explain the 1/50s exposure difference unless it was a slight change of light during the lens switch.
__________________
www.markgreenhill.com.au

* mark * Wangaratta, Victoria, Australia **
The OM-D E-M1 Mark II * OM-D M5 MkII * XZ2 * XZ1 * E3
On post-processing: The camera kneads the dough, PP bakes the bread - Greenhill
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 4 Weeks Ago
Phill D's Avatar
Phill D Phill D is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 9,606
Thanks: 1,157
Thanked 1,373 Times in 1,268 Posts
Likes: 977
Liked 2,261 Times in 1,076 Posts
Re: 40-150 Pro vs. 50-200 SWD

OK got to ask what did that tell you Mark? I know what I think but it's your comparison so you first.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 4 Weeks Ago
drmarkf's Avatar
drmarkf drmarkf is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 5,500
Thanks: 343
Thanked 486 Times in 406 Posts
Likes: 2,129
Liked 1,246 Times in 710 Posts
Re: 40-150 Pro vs. 50-200 SWD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phill D View Post
What Paul is talking about are the occasions when the 40-150 delivers really harsh or what I call nervous bokeh. If you remember I warned you about it before you got the lens. It's the only thing I don't like about that lens and it worries me that adding the x2 TC when it comes out will make it worse. We'll just have to see. A word of warning though DON'T go looking for it or you will see it all to often and it could spoil some of your best shots. Best if you don't notice it. Don't get me wrong the lens can deliver nice oof backgrounds but just with some certain subject to background distances and very busy backgrounds they do look horrible. Actually it's not just specific to this lens as I think the 50-200 does it too but just not quite as pronounced. Sigma make specific lenses called Art lenses that are designed specifically to show smoother oof areas. If Oly brought out a mk2 version of the lens designed in this way I'd buy one in a shot as it's just so annoying when it occurs especially on such an expensive lens. As Paul said it's probably going to be more noticeable as an issue doing portraits. I don't think anyone has done a systematic assessment of the issue, it would be really useful if they had.
Yes, I agree a few images seem to bring this characteristic out from the 40-150 Pro, which is quite an old design now, dating to when sharpness, low distortion and micro contrast were the only design aims. It has all those in spades, throughout a relatively long zoom range at wide constant aperture. I don’t believe there are any APSC or FF equivalent example zooms.

I haven’t noticed it more with the MC-14, but maybe I haven’t been looking for it.

I do think bokeh one of those areas that has become a bit of an obsession with some people: it’s actually very much a personal thing, and after all it’s the subject that’s the most important part of an image! Some people praise the glorious OOF parts of images taken with older Canon and Nikon optics that have pretty low resolution and poor ultimate performance otherwise.

Oly have certainly got there with the 1.2 Pro range, and an update to a mkii 40-150 benefiting from modern design and manufacturing would be great. Fixing that bxxxxy self destructing hood would be good, too.

The 300 has also had some stick on the interwebs for allegedly having inferior bokeh compared to the full frame competition (this stick is never accompanied by the facts that this competition is twice the size, three times the weight, and six times the cost!). IMHO this is rubbish, and you can find examples of nervous bokeh from any long lens: it may well be triggered by different stimuli than what some people are traditionally used to, but I disagree it’s any worse constitutively.

When I get back, to support that I’ll post a bird on a stick image taken with the 300/MC-14 with which (against lots of full frame competition) I won one of the Selector’s Awards in our club exhibition this year - she praised the ‘beautiful feathery background’
__________________
Regards,
Mark

------------------------------
http://www.microcontrast.com
Too much Oly gear.
Panasonic 12-32, 12-35, 15. Laowa 7.5.
Assorted legacy lenses, plus a Fuji X70 & a Sony A7S.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 4 Weeks Ago
pandora's Avatar
pandora pandora is online now
Full member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 16,179
Thanks: 863
Thanked 1,504 Times in 1,455 Posts
Likes: 1,933
Liked 4,170 Times in 1,891 Posts
Re: 40-150 Pro vs. 50-200 SWD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phill D View Post
OK got to ask what did that tell you Mark? I know what I think but it's your comparison so you first.
Phill, the comparison tells me that the PRO is significantly sharper, has higher contrast, and more luminance than the SWD.
In this example the SWD has rendered a softer image, more suited to portraiture rather than landscape photography.
__________________
www.markgreenhill.com.au

* mark * Wangaratta, Victoria, Australia **
The OM-D E-M1 Mark II * OM-D M5 MkII * XZ2 * XZ1 * E3
On post-processing: The camera kneads the dough, PP bakes the bread - Greenhill
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 3 Weeks Ago
Tordan58's Avatar
Tordan58 Tordan58 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,173
Thanks: 298
Thanked 384 Times in 320 Posts
Likes: 391
Liked 1,304 Times in 346 Posts
Re: 40-150 Pro vs. 50-200 SWD

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandora View Post
Phill

...

Distance to subject, about 40yds. Tripod YES. I can't explain the 1/50s exposure difference unless it was a slight change of light during the lens switch.
1/250s or 1/200s does not matter. It could be a slighly change of light causing the measurement to flip from one value to next. It could also be that the real aperture differs between lenses. F/4 is just a value presented to user, the real aperture could be F/3.95 or F/4.05. It could also be differences in exposure measurements between the shots, even if on tripod you could have slight changes of composition that cause the change. When you compare the two photos side-by-side the angle of view differs, the 40-150 is about 5% wider than the 50-200SWD at claimed 50mm, and the rotation is not exactly same. Never mind.

Now, which is sharpest? I don't think you can draw conclusions since the resolution of the posted photos is too low and the finest texture is not reproduced with enough detail. The 40-150 gives warmer tone than the 50-200SWD. It also appears to give higher contrast. But sharper? I can't tell.
__________________

My Gallery on 500px
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 3 Weeks Ago
Tordan58's Avatar
Tordan58 Tordan58 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,173
Thanks: 298
Thanked 384 Times in 320 Posts
Likes: 391
Liked 1,304 Times in 346 Posts
Re: 40-150 Pro vs. 50-200 SWD

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandora View Post

Tordan58, both lenses are m.Zuiko.
I am not following. The 50-200SWD is a Zuiko (4/3 DSLR), adapted to fit m.4/3 body.
__________________

My Gallery on 500px
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 3 Weeks Ago
Internaut Internaut is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Manchester
Posts: 2,964
Thanks: 327
Thanked 311 Times in 290 Posts
Likes: 1,575
Liked 685 Times in 295 Posts
Re: 40-150 Pro vs. 50-200 SWD

Useful thread and comparison

Incidentally, the old 50-200 goes very reasonably, second hand, if you need that FL/quality and don’t wish to pay the (not so unreasonable) cost of the newer lens. I might get one because I would use it relatively rarely (but suspect I’ll love it to bits when I do). How do things like continuous/tracking AF bear up when adapted to the E-M1 mk ii?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 3 Weeks Ago
Wildwood Wildwood is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: dfdsfsdf
Posts: 75
Thanks: 0
Thanked 26 Times in 25 Posts
Likes: 48
Liked 34 Times in 23 Posts
Re: 40-150 Pro vs. 50-200 SWD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Internaut View Post
How do things like continuous/tracking AF bear up when adapted to the E-M1 mk ii?

I've photographed House Martins in flight with mine. And that was with an E-M1 Mk 1 body.
__________________
Best wishes

Wildwood
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Wildwood For This Useful Post:
Internaut (3 Weeks Ago)
  #24  
Old 3 Weeks Ago
pandora's Avatar
pandora pandora is online now
Full member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 16,179
Thanks: 863
Thanked 1,504 Times in 1,455 Posts
Likes: 1,933
Liked 4,170 Times in 1,891 Posts
Re: 40-150 Pro vs. 50-200 SWD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tordan58 View Post
1/250s or 1/200s does not matter. It could be a slighly change of light causing the measurement to flip from one value to next. It could also be that the real aperture differs between lenses. F/4 is just a value presented to user, the real aperture could be F/3.95 or F/4.05. It could also be differences in exposure measurements between the shots, even if on tripod you could have slight changes of composition that cause the change. When you compare the two photos side-by-side the angle of view differs, the 40-150 is about 5% wider than the 50-200SWD at claimed 50mm, and the rotation is not exactly same. Never mind.

Now, which is sharpest? I don't think you can draw conclusions since the resolution of the posted photos is too low and the finest texture is not reproduced with enough detail. The 40-150 gives warmer tone than the 50-200SWD. It also appears to give higher contrast. But sharper? I can't tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tordan58 View Post
I am not following. The 50-200SWD is a Zuiko (4/3 DSLR), adapted to fit m.4/3 body.
Comparing the two images at the highest resolution, the 40-150 is significantly sharper. Yes, you are quite right, the i.Zuiko reference was a witless error.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Internaut View Post
Useful thread and comparison
Incidentally, the old 50-200 goes very reasonably, second hand, if you need that FL/quality and don’t wish to pay the (not so unreasonable) cost of the newer lens. I might get one because I would use it relatively rarely (but suspect I’ll love it to bits when I do). How do things like continuous/tracking AF bear up when adapted to the E-M1 mk ii?
I have yet to test the 50-200 for continuous/tracking on the M1.2. The tests relating to this thread is the first time I've attached it.
Another test I have yet to do is to compare results between the 40-150 and the excellent Zuiko 12-60 F2.8 at the overlapping FL.
__________________
www.markgreenhill.com.au

* mark * Wangaratta, Victoria, Australia **
The OM-D E-M1 Mark II * OM-D M5 MkII * XZ2 * XZ1 * E3
On post-processing: The camera kneads the dough, PP bakes the bread - Greenhill
Reply With Quote
The Following User Liked This Post:
RobEW (3 Weeks Ago)
  #25  
Old 3 Weeks Ago
pandora's Avatar
pandora pandora is online now
Full member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 16,179
Thanks: 863
Thanked 1,504 Times in 1,455 Posts
Likes: 1,933
Liked 4,170 Times in 1,891 Posts
Re: 40-150 Pro vs. 50-200 SWD

Quote:
Originally Posted by drmarkf View Post
…. I do think bokeh one of those areas that has become a bit of an obsession with some people: it’s actually very much a personal thing, and after all it’s the subject that’s the most important part of an image! Some people praise the glorious OOF parts of images taken with older Canon and Nikon optics that have pretty low resolution and poor ultimate performance otherwise.
My own view entirely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drmarkf View Post
…. Oly have certainly got there with the 1.2 Pro range, and an update to a mkii 40-150 benefiting from modern design and manufacturing would be great. Fixing that bxxxxy self destructing hood would be good, too.
I'm surprised to hear that. In what way do you see the hood as self destructing? So far at least it's the best thing since sliced bread as far as I'm concerned.
__________________
www.markgreenhill.com.au

* mark * Wangaratta, Victoria, Australia **
The OM-D E-M1 Mark II * OM-D M5 MkII * XZ2 * XZ1 * E3
On post-processing: The camera kneads the dough, PP bakes the bread - Greenhill
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 3 Weeks Ago
Phill D's Avatar
Phill D Phill D is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 9,606
Thanks: 1,157
Thanked 1,373 Times in 1,268 Posts
Likes: 977
Liked 2,261 Times in 1,076 Posts
Re: 40-150 Pro vs. 50-200 SWD

I'm sure you are right about the resolution Mark but like Tord I was struggling to see any real differences in the posted images. The new lens did seem to be more contrasty but i did prefer the image from the older 50-200 lens. Somehow in the close ups it looked like it was ever so slightly better focussed to me.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 3 Weeks Ago
drmarkf's Avatar
drmarkf drmarkf is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 5,500
Thanks: 343
Thanked 486 Times in 406 Posts
Likes: 2,129
Liked 1,246 Times in 710 Posts
Re: 40-150 Pro vs. 50-200 SWD

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandora View Post
My own view entirely.


I'm surprised to hear that. In what way do you see the hood as self destructing? So far at least it's the best thing since sliced bread as far as I'm concerned.
Quite a few people have reported their 40-150 hoods have suddenly fallen apart in a shower of little bits. The interwebs are full of reports - eg https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3990980

Now, many, many have had no problems whatsoever - mine must’ve been one of the earliest 40-150 delivered in the U.K., and it’s been faultless (there, that’s bound to bu@@er it now...)
__________________
Regards,
Mark

------------------------------
http://www.microcontrast.com
Too much Oly gear.
Panasonic 12-32, 12-35, 15. Laowa 7.5.
Assorted legacy lenses, plus a Fuji X70 & a Sony A7S.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 3 Weeks Ago
RobEW RobEW is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 1,983
Thanks: 160
Thanked 73 Times in 67 Posts
Likes: 1,164
Liked 184 Times in 125 Posts
Re: 40-150 Pro vs. 50-200 SWD

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdk42 View Post
Contrast is slightly higher in the 40-150, but otherwise at this size it's hard to make a call on resolution. The other potential negative of the 40-150 - overly busy OOF blur - isn't evidenced on this shot since pretty well everything is in focus. Overall though I don't think image quality is a good reason to separate these lenses - size, AF speed, min focus distance, compatibility with focus stacking, and long term reliability are probably more important.
And - for some of us at least - price. The used price of 50-200 (SWD or non-SWD) makes it an absolute bargain.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 3 Weeks Ago
pandora's Avatar
pandora pandora is online now
Full member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 16,179
Thanks: 863
Thanked 1,504 Times in 1,455 Posts
Likes: 1,933
Liked 4,170 Times in 1,891 Posts
Re: 40-150 Pro vs. 50-200 SWD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phill D View Post
I'm sure you are right about the resolution Mark but like Tord I was struggling to see any real differences in the posted images. The new lens did seem to be more contrasty but i did prefer the image from the older 50-200 lens. Somehow in the close ups it looked like it was ever so slightly better focussed to me.
My own comparison (stated in reply) is based upon what I can see of the images on a 24" 1080 HDMI screen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drmarkf View Post
Quite a few people have reported their 40-150 hoods have suddenly fallen apart in a shower of little bits. The interwebs are full of reports - eg https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3990980

Now, many, many have had no problems whatsoever - mine must’ve been one of the earliest 40-150 delivered in the U.K., and it’s been faultless (there, that’s bound to bu@@er it now...)
Thanks for the warning Mark, I will take extra care to ensure that I treat it … gently. Could the disintegration be Brexit related do you think …
__________________
www.markgreenhill.com.au

* mark * Wangaratta, Victoria, Australia **
The OM-D E-M1 Mark II * OM-D M5 MkII * XZ2 * XZ1 * E3
On post-processing: The camera kneads the dough, PP bakes the bread - Greenhill
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:13 PM.


© The Write Technology Ltd, 2007-2019, All rights reservedAd Management plugin by RedTyger