Can't agree more the 200f2.8 is a special lens, but personally I think the better companion is the PL50-200f2.8-4. Why? The PL100-400 is pretty soft after 300, and it is still a pretty large lens (although notably smaller than the Olympus). The 50-200 is great at 200 and still very good at 280 with the 1.4TC. The combo of the 200+1.4 and 2.0TC + the 50-200 gives you a very versatile kit, that is still quite small.
I picked one up when they went on sale last year (I think it was 1499 EUR with the 1.4x) and it is a spectacular lens. Pairs well with the 40-150/2.8 if you want a mid-longish range covered.
The 200 2.8 feels like a dream on my EM-1X. It, and the 40-150 2.8 compliment each other well (that's on my EM-1 II. Got my 200 for 980 bucks. Still want a 300 to go with them.
It looks like am amazing lens. For wildlife where things happen pretty quick I keep two OM-1s ready to go - one with a 40-150 2.8 with a 1.4 attached and another with 300 4 also with a 1.4. I'm pretty happy from a wildlife standpoint. I also happen to get some of my best landscapes using that 300+1.4. And the thing about landscapes is I have time to swap out lens so for sure it's a fun setup I finally have where I don't miss out on as many shots now getting the "right" lens put on...I can see with this 200 where it might be perfect but also limiting as you put in your video. Your videos are always great!! :)
Would be nice to have a comparison between 200mm f2.8 compared to 50-200mm f2.8-4 zoom at 200mm. I have both 50-200mm f2.8-4 and 100-400mm f4-6.3 but I use 50-200mm more often because I haven't had situations where I really needed 300-400mm range.
I rented this lens earlier this year, its superb. Very sharp even with the 1.4 tele. I think an ideal setup would be two bodies, one with the 40-150 2.8 and the other with the 200 2.8. As its a prime there is the risk of too much power if your wildlife subject suddenly comes in too close. Its also amazing as a macro lens!
The 75 needs no review it is legendary. Even fullframe lenses fear its name and only whisper it at night. Seriously though, it's a great lens portrait lens.
It's legendary for sure! I used to rent it for weddings many moons ago because I could never afford to buy it 😂 it has come down in price a lot now... so i am tempted. The only thing putting me off is i tend to shoot much less portraiture now, so I'm not sure how much use I'd get out of it. But it is honestly one of the very best
The 75mm is a legend for sure! If you want that focal length, which is excellent for certain sports and events, don't hesitate to buy it! It's very sharp and compact. However, if you're looking for a portrait lens, you might want to consider the incredible Sigma 56mm f/1.4. It's slightly sharper in the corners wide open, provides a better working distance (in my opinion), and, most importantly, produces less chromatic aberration in high contrast areas. The CR isn't terrible in the 75mm, but it's virtually nonexistent in the 56. Last I checked, the 56 was a little bit cheaper too. But it just depends on whether you want a portrait lens or a lens for sports action and events. Oh, the 56 focuses a lot closer too. However, the Oly does play nicely with extension tubes, focusing quickly and accurately, unlike the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7, for instance, so I recommend you get some if you get the 75mm and like to shoot close-ups.
@@VoidShepherd Really? I always use the lens hood on the 56mm and I've never had any problems with it. Unfortunately, I never use the lens hood for the 75mm because I don't like the design. It doesn't just reverse over the lens hood and snap into place for storage like the one on the 56mm. I just don't really like those screw on lens hoods.
I have just purchased my son a second hand Panasonic g7 as his first camera. Having spent the last decade with Sony full frame I must admit I have been blown away with the quality of the g7 and its interface! I’m now wanting to grab the g7 rather than my own Sony kit as the Panasonic is so versatile and user friendly.
That is a solid lens. It isn't as sharp as the Olympus 100-400 or the 40-150 f/2.8 with a 2x teleconverter or the 200 or 300mm primes or the big white beast, but I still use it when I can't justify the weight of my 40-150.
@ yeah, not as sharp as the ones you mentioned, but I’m not a pro and I’m not using for work purposes, and the price difference between them is pretty huge 😁.
simply gorgeous results, always prime for me, sometimes i regret going full frame because of the incredible leica glass out there that's made for m43s...
I have decided to buy the G9 II instead of the OM 1 because the LCD brightness on the G9II is twice as bright, meaning it's easier to see in direct sunlight when outside.
Hi there! Maybe a missed oportunity of "dances with wolfs" remake in this video (Kevin Costner wasn't available I supose😂). Because you -Emily- are now the un-official M4/3 all brands ambassator i have an Idiot question, if I may.: for this great tele-zoom lenses withs is the best "budget" photo body considerind fast AF - I'm a Lumix amateur user searching for G9- GH5(S-II)-OMD M1 III... Thanks for your videos and your time. Cheers
I don't have any high end M4/3 lenses in this nature. I do though for Canon EF. I have the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 and the Tamron 150-600mm. Both are pricey, but worth it. I do agree with getting the 100-400mm IF you are just getting your first zoom lens. It makes more sense in the long run and gives versatility.
I'd probably go for the 100-400. For street photos I prefer a prime, but for wildlife you're often restricted with how close you can get, so a zoom range is always welcome.
Lovely video! As for the lens, I prefer zoom lenses (and moving my feet!). So I prefer the 50-200mm f2.8 as no need for too many lenses in the bag🙂 nowadays I find it hard to see the difference between a prime and a zoom lens in the output. For me it is another reason to use zoom lenses. But under all circumstances, the PL 200mm f2.8 is an outstanding lens 👍
Thank you for this review on this « old » and now discontinued lens ☹I own this 200mm f2.8 and totally agree with you ! It is one of the best MFT lens I have used ( I don’t have the budget to compare with an equivalent 400mm f2.8 😉 but size is twice smaller and weight 3 time smaller !). In addition I have also bought the Pana/Leica 50-200mm f2.8-4 for versatility. With the 1.4TC and these 2 prenium MFT lenses , I consider I have the top in terms of versatility, weight and size within a reasonable budget (thanks MPB 😊). Just a recommandation : to buy the 1.4TC with the lens since it is nearly impossible to find alone ( used or new !). I have also bought the 2.0TC but IQ is not so good and I prefer not to use
This lens look wonderful, and for me the real issue is how it stacks up against the Zuiko 300mm F4 prime. Everything about image quality vs versatility you have to say about the Lumix 200mm F2.8 could also apply to the Zuiko 300mm. So if you could have only one?
I've only briefly used the 300mm... it is delightful. I think the 200mm, with it being a 2.8, makes the teleconverters more usable (because it multiplies the aperture as well as focal length) but then, 600mm in full frame terms... they're both fantastic! For me I think the Lumix with the 1.4 convertor. But I may be in the minority as I know that oly 300mm is a classic 😊
Last I checked, the Pana/Leica 200mm is the 3rd sharpest lens in the MFT System, only surpassed by the Olympus 17 and 45mm f/1.2 lenses. One review showed that the 200mm with a 1.4x teleconverter attached is still sharper than the Olympus 300mm! It's a little smaller than the 300mm too, which might make a difference in whether it fits in your favorite camera bag. I agree with @MicroFourNerds though. It depends on which focal lengths you will be using and whether you even have enough light to shoot at f/8 with a 2x teleconverter attached to the 300. If I didn't have the 40-150 f/2.8 and I could only have one lens and a pair of teleconverters and I was shooting a G9II, I would definitely go for the 200 since I only occasionally would feel the need for focal lengths greater than what it can deliver with teleconverters, but if I wanted to take advantage of ProCapture Low on an OM-1 series camera and I was spending most of my time photographing distant birds in marshes where I couldn't approach them, I might be inclined to go for the 300mm. If you're not sure, just rent an Olympus 100-400 with a 1.4x teleconverter sometime so you can get a sense of which focal lengths you'll use most often.
That's a fair question. I decided on the 200mm F2.8 back in 2020, because 200mm at 2.8 is a great option for telephoto portrait, landscapes etc, as well as larger wildlide, and the 1.4tc can be used to get close to the Oly 300mm. The 200mm is perhaps my favorite MFT lens, I love the image quality and like the challenge of a fixed focal length.
I cannot thank you enough that you for once waited until I got a bargain on a lens before reviewing it! I bought this a year ago for an absolutely absurdly low price, and it's on of the reasons I bought a G9II and stuck with the system. It's very comparable to the Nikon 400mm PF and it's 1/4th the price. Ridiculous! I replaced the included lens hood with a much shorter one that screws into the filter thread just to protect the lens. The original still fits over it.
Is this lens compatible with Olympus/OM System teleconverters? I've seen this lens listed used online for a pretty reasonable price, but usually without the 1.4x teleconverter, which is pretty hard to come by and costs at least double the price of the Olympus, and I think Panasonic is charging something like $600 for the 2x teleconverter. Since I already have the Olympus teleconverters for my 40-150, I'm wondering whether this lens is going to cost me $1,200 for the lens itself or nearly double that for the lens and both teleconverters. I also don't relish the thought of having to carry around six teleconverters: two for my 40-150, two for the 200, and two for my adapted four thirds mount 300mm f/2.8, which is my primary wildlife lens. I've heard some people say that Olympus and Panasonic teleconverters are compatible and some people say that they aren't. Have you actually tried using them? I would actually love to see a video on this topic to put the question to rest once and for all!
Unfortunately the teleconverters aren't cross compatible to the best of my knowledge. However when I was researching this 200mm lens, they more often than not come with the 1.4x included. On the packaging on my box it says "included 1.4x teleconvertor" so it must have been a popular bundle at some point 🤞 i agree - standalone the converters are atrocious pricing!
@@MicroFourNerds Yes, if you buy the lens new, it includes a 1.4x teleconverter, but I'd say about 85% of the used Pana/Leica 200mm lenses that I find for sale do not include the teleconverter, and those that do usually cost significantly more. Consequently, I'm kind of tempted to adapt an Olympus 150mm f/2 instead and rely on teleconverters to get the necessary focal length. That would at least get me an extra stop of light at any given focal length compared to my 40-150 while weighing much less than the 300mm f/2.8. I expect the 200mm is sharper, but when a 1.4x teleconverter for it costs $600-900 on eBay, plus another $400+ for the 2x, it's hard to justify purchasing such a lens. And it appears that Panasonic only sells the 1.4x teleconverter with that lens, despite them advertising the 50-200 and 100-400 Mark II as being compatible with it. Yet another reason the Olympus 100-400 is a much better option than the Pana/Leica 100-400, in my opinion, although they both leave a lot to be desired.
*Por favor, você pode fazer um mega vídeo sobre lentes de cinema* MEIKE (acho que assim que se escreve 😂) Meike vs Viltrox especificamente sobre a linha lentes de cinema de ambos as marcas. E tudo mais o que você quiser falar sobre esse assunto de lentes de cinema 4/3 Eu te assisto diretamente da floresta amazônica, Manaus AM 📍
At the very start of your episode when the wolves started to make their presence felt, my Bailey got very agitated at the howling. He was not happy with his little ears pricked up. Back on message, I love my 200mm. If I did a side by side comparison with my 100mm-400mm and my 200mm lens of the same subject then the 100-400mm image would look like a potato print. I love my 100-400mm lens but it's not even in the same league as the 200mm. I am seriously considering getting another prime lens, as I'd like more reach, but the only other player in town is Olympus glass, and I'm scared that they will not play nicely with my Panasonic cameras. Have you personally put some of the Olympus big-boy primes onto a Panasonic body to shoot with and do they play nicely together? I bought my 200mm from MPB but sadly it came without any converters. Probably why I got it for such a good price. Would you suggest that I get the 1.4 converter or would it degrade the image quality towards the 100-400mm lens to just not make it worth the effort and expence?
Hmm so because the aperture is starting in a really favourable place at 2.8, the image is very tasty and sharp still with the 1.4x.... unlike the 100-400mm mkii - that was so bad with the teleconver! It just exaggerated all the flaws. I'd say get the teleconverter for your 200, except they're just stupidly expensive standalone (unless someone doesn't know what it is they're selling)
I’m a bit confused about what you’re calling a super zoom. The 200 is a fixed focal-length prime, isn’t it. Love the video, and the images are stunning!
I love m43 cameras and small lenses, but big and heavy telelenses like this doesn't make sense for me. I'd rather bring FF with a similar rated lens, and just crop out a m43 picture.
I don't know that you'd get the sharpness and character cropping a 200mm FF lens though, and guessing the framing may not be that helpful. Also stabalisation may take a hit on FF. I'd also say that the lens is not that large or heavy, I can happily take it hiking or walking and not feel too burdened.
Do they really love it? My local camera store told me that this lens had one of the worst sales ever and they had to discount it like 70% of the original price to sell them.
Presumably because it's crazy expensive (because it's a 200mm lens with an f2.8 aperture). I imagine the the people who own it love it, and many more of us would love to own it but can't justify the price tag and use a 100-300 or 100-400 variable aperture zoom that's a couple of stops slower at 200mm instead.
![40 of the Wildest & Weirdest Cameras/Lenses! [Flint's Fine Photographica Auction Nov 21st 2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XMyzrvn-byA/mqdefault.jpg)
Every photo you’ve shown on that are astoundingly sharp and contrasty. Wow
Very nice lens indeed! Great pictures you got and much probably with a great enjoyment.
Can't agree more the 200f2.8 is a special lens, but personally I think the better companion is the PL50-200f2.8-4. Why? The PL100-400 is pretty soft after 300, and it is still a pretty large lens (although notably smaller than the Olympus). The 50-200 is great at 200 and still very good at 280 with the 1.4TC. The combo of the 200+1.4 and 2.0TC + the 50-200 gives you a very versatile kit, that is still quite small.
I bought the Leica 50-200 f2.8 - f4 definitely an amazing lens as well! Its also sharper than my 100-400
My same choice
Yes, yes and yes. The best out there for action and sports. Close behind it is the 50-200mm.
The wolves are sooo cute! ❤ Tho I didn't know you could approach these one's safely 😅
I picked one up when they went on sale last year (I think it was 1499 EUR with the 1.4x) and it is a spectacular lens. Pairs well with the 40-150/2.8 if you want a mid-longish range covered.
The 200 2.8 feels like a dream on my EM-1X. It, and the 40-150 2.8 compliment each other well (that's on my EM-1 II. Got my 200 for 980 bucks. Still want a 300 to go with them.
Its a work of art. Thank you for the video.
It looks like am amazing lens. For wildlife where things happen pretty quick I keep two OM-1s ready to go - one with a 40-150 2.8 with a 1.4 attached and another with 300 4 also with a 1.4. I'm pretty happy from a wildlife standpoint. I also happen to get some of my best landscapes using that 300+1.4. And the thing about landscapes is I have time to swap out lens so for sure it's a fun setup I finally have where I don't miss out on as many shots now getting the "right" lens put on...I can see with this 200 where it might be perfect but also limiting as you put in your video. Your videos are always great!! :)
Would be nice to have a comparison between 200mm f2.8 compared to 50-200mm f2.8-4 zoom at 200mm. I have both 50-200mm f2.8-4 and 100-400mm f4-6.3 but I use 50-200mm more often because I haven't had situations where I really needed 300-400mm range.
This lens is incredible. It's very hard to find the 1.4x TC but it is well worth it if you do
I rented this lens earlier this year, its superb. Very sharp even with the 1.4 tele. I think an ideal setup would be two bodies, one with the 40-150 2.8 and the other with the 200 2.8. As its a prime there is the risk of too much power if your wildlife subject suddenly comes in too close. Its also amazing as a macro lens!
Sweet lens. I need more versatility, but might have to get one just to have it. Thanks for sharing.
"3D pop exists" *Camera Conspiracies liked that*
So I was thinking about getting the Oly 75mm the other day, and was surprised to see no dedicated review on your channel. Love your stuff Emily!
The 75 needs no review it is legendary. Even fullframe lenses fear its name and only whisper it at night. Seriously though, it's a great lens portrait lens.
It's legendary for sure! I used to rent it for weddings many moons ago because I could never afford to buy it 😂 it has come down in price a lot now... so i am tempted. The only thing putting me off is i tend to shoot much less portraiture now, so I'm not sure how much use I'd get out of it. But it is honestly one of the very best
The 75mm is a legend for sure! If you want that focal length, which is excellent for certain sports and events, don't hesitate to buy it! It's very sharp and compact. However, if you're looking for a portrait lens, you might want to consider the incredible Sigma 56mm f/1.4. It's slightly sharper in the corners wide open, provides a better working distance (in my opinion), and, most importantly, produces less chromatic aberration in high contrast areas. The CR isn't terrible in the 75mm, but it's virtually nonexistent in the 56. Last I checked, the 56 was a little bit cheaper too. But it just depends on whether you want a portrait lens or a lens for sports action and events. Oh, the 56 focuses a lot closer too. However, the Oly does play nicely with extension tubes, focusing quickly and accurately, unlike the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7, for instance, so I recommend you get some if you get the 75mm and like to shoot close-ups.
@keithholland4322 The 56mm is great, but the lens hood is garbage. I use the Sigma 30, and 56mm both are great.
@@VoidShepherd Really? I always use the lens hood on the 56mm and I've never had any problems with it. Unfortunately, I never use the lens hood for the 75mm because I don't like the design. It doesn't just reverse over the lens hood and snap into place for storage like the one on the 56mm. I just don't really like those screw on lens hoods.
I have just purchased my son a second hand Panasonic g7 as his first camera. Having spent the last decade with Sony full frame I must admit I have been blown away with the quality of the g7 and its interface! I’m now wanting to grab the g7 rather than my own Sony kit as the Panasonic is so versatile and user friendly.
Great video, I just got the G9II for a great price and got the 100-300ii which in my opinion is a great lens for a hobbyist like myself 😁.
Oooh fantastic combo! Enjoy!
That is a solid lens. It isn't as sharp as the Olympus 100-400 or the 40-150 f/2.8 with a 2x teleconverter or the 200 or 300mm primes or the big white beast, but I still use it when I can't justify the weight of my 40-150.
@ yeah, not as sharp as the ones you mentioned, but I’m not a pro and I’m not using for work purposes, and the price difference between them is pretty huge 😁.
@@luismoran7176 Yes, it is! For a hobbyist, it's a solid lens for sure!
simply gorgeous results, always prime for me, sometimes i regret going full frame because of the incredible leica glass out there that's made for m43s...
Where is the accommodation? Looks great!
I have decided to buy the G9 II instead of the OM 1 because the LCD brightness on the G9II is twice as bright, meaning it's easier to see in direct sunlight when outside.
Hi there! Maybe a missed oportunity of "dances with wolfs" remake in this video (Kevin Costner wasn't available I supose😂). Because you -Emily- are now the un-official M4/3 all brands ambassator i have an Idiot question, if I may.: for this great tele-zoom lenses withs is the best "budget" photo body considerind fast AF - I'm a Lumix amateur user searching for G9- GH5(S-II)-OMD M1 III... Thanks for your videos and your time. Cheers
I don't have any high end M4/3 lenses in this nature. I do though for Canon EF. I have the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 and the Tamron 150-600mm. Both are pricey, but worth it. I do agree with getting the 100-400mm IF you are just getting your first zoom lens. It makes more sense in the long run and gives versatility.
What camera should be ideal for this lens, and what budget camera could use it? Thank you!!
I'd probably go for the 100-400. For street photos I prefer a prime, but for wildlife you're often restricted with how close you can get, so a zoom range is always welcome.
02:14 Camera Conspiracies has entered the chat...
Is it good with the X2 converter?
I've spent years trying to decide between the 40-150 and 200 2.8 that many years in fact that I still own neither! 😂
Lovely video! As for the lens, I prefer zoom lenses (and moving my feet!). So I prefer the 50-200mm f2.8 as no need for too many lenses in the bag🙂 nowadays I find it hard to see the difference between a prime and a zoom lens in the output. For me it is another reason to use zoom lenses. But under all circumstances, the PL 200mm f2.8 is an outstanding lens 👍
Where is this place? 😍
Thank you for this review on this « old » and now discontinued lens ☹I own this 200mm f2.8 and totally agree with you ! It is one of the best MFT lens I have used ( I don’t have the budget to compare with an equivalent 400mm f2.8 😉 but size is twice smaller and weight 3 time smaller !). In addition I have also bought the Pana/Leica 50-200mm f2.8-4 for versatility. With the 1.4TC and these 2 prenium MFT lenses , I consider I have the top in terms of versatility, weight and size within a reasonable budget (thanks MPB 😊). Just a recommandation : to buy the 1.4TC with the lens since it is nearly impossible to find alone ( used or new !). I have also bought the 2.0TC but IQ is not so good and I prefer not to use
Does the teleconverter work with other Panasonic lenses?
It works also with the 50-200mm and the 100-400mm II
hi, is the leica 200 sharper than the olympus 40-150 2.8? a lot? and with the 1.4 teleconverter how does the performance behave? Thanks
The only reason I might comeback to M43 is PanaLeica lenses. But not this one. I'm not into workout via photography :)
0:41 "Hey there little red riding hood..."
Is the 1.4x teleconverter part of the 200mm (MFT) focal length, or does this bump it up to 280mm?
Lens on it's own is 200(400mm)
I'd be 280mm with the 1.4 Teleconverter.
Yes, with corresponding bump in aperture value.
This lens look wonderful, and for me the real issue is how it stacks up against the Zuiko 300mm F4 prime. Everything about image quality vs versatility you have to say about the Lumix 200mm F2.8 could also apply to the Zuiko 300mm. So if you could have only one?
I've only briefly used the 300mm... it is delightful. I think the 200mm, with it being a 2.8, makes the teleconverters more usable (because it multiplies the aperture as well as focal length) but then, 600mm in full frame terms... they're both fantastic! For me I think the Lumix with the 1.4 convertor. But I may be in the minority as I know that oly 300mm is a classic 😊
Last I checked, the Pana/Leica 200mm is the 3rd sharpest lens in the MFT System, only surpassed by the Olympus 17 and 45mm f/1.2 lenses. One review showed that the 200mm with a 1.4x teleconverter attached is still sharper than the Olympus 300mm! It's a little smaller than the 300mm too, which might make a difference in whether it fits in your favorite camera bag. I agree with @MicroFourNerds though. It depends on which focal lengths you will be using and whether you even have enough light to shoot at f/8 with a 2x teleconverter attached to the 300. If I didn't have the 40-150 f/2.8 and I could only have one lens and a pair of teleconverters and I was shooting a G9II, I would definitely go for the 200 since I only occasionally would feel the need for focal lengths greater than what it can deliver with teleconverters, but if I wanted to take advantage of ProCapture Low on an OM-1 series camera and I was spending most of my time photographing distant birds in marshes where I couldn't approach them, I might be inclined to go for the 300mm. If you're not sure, just rent an Olympus 100-400 with a 1.4x teleconverter sometime so you can get a sense of which focal lengths you'll use most often.
That's a fair question. I decided on the 200mm F2.8 back in 2020, because 200mm at 2.8 is a great option for telephoto portrait, landscapes etc, as well as larger wildlide, and the 1.4tc can be used to get close to the Oly 300mm. The 200mm is perhaps my favorite MFT lens, I love the image quality and like the challenge of a fixed focal length.
It is a fixed lens, not a (super) zoom!
I knowwwwww
I have a very good apple crumble recipe
Excellent! Hahaha
I cannot thank you enough that you for once waited until I got a bargain on a lens before reviewing it! I bought this a year ago for an absolutely absurdly low price, and it's on of the reasons I bought a G9II and stuck with the system. It's very comparable to the Nikon 400mm PF and it's 1/4th the price. Ridiculous!
I replaced the included lens hood with a much shorter one that screws into the filter thread just to protect the lens. The original still fits over it.
Ooo fantastic tip on the lens hood the original is a bit clunky!
Is this lens compatible with Olympus/OM System teleconverters? I've seen this lens listed used online for a pretty reasonable price, but usually without the 1.4x teleconverter, which is pretty hard to come by and costs at least double the price of the Olympus, and I think Panasonic is charging something like $600 for the 2x teleconverter. Since I already have the Olympus teleconverters for my 40-150, I'm wondering whether this lens is going to cost me $1,200 for the lens itself or nearly double that for the lens and both teleconverters. I also don't relish the thought of having to carry around six teleconverters: two for my 40-150, two for the 200, and two for my adapted four thirds mount 300mm f/2.8, which is my primary wildlife lens. I've heard some people say that Olympus and Panasonic teleconverters are compatible and some people say that they aren't. Have you actually tried using them? I would actually love to see a video on this topic to put the question to rest once and for all!
Unfortunately the teleconverters aren't cross compatible to the best of my knowledge. However when I was researching this 200mm lens, they more often than not come with the 1.4x included. On the packaging on my box it says "included 1.4x teleconvertor" so it must have been a popular bundle at some point 🤞 i agree - standalone the converters are atrocious pricing!
@@MicroFourNerds Yes, if you buy the lens new, it includes a 1.4x teleconverter, but I'd say about 85% of the used Pana/Leica 200mm lenses that I find for sale do not include the teleconverter, and those that do usually cost significantly more. Consequently, I'm kind of tempted to adapt an Olympus 150mm f/2 instead and rely on teleconverters to get the necessary focal length. That would at least get me an extra stop of light at any given focal length compared to my 40-150 while weighing much less than the 300mm f/2.8. I expect the 200mm is sharper, but when a 1.4x teleconverter for it costs $600-900 on eBay, plus another $400+ for the 2x, it's hard to justify purchasing such a lens. And it appears that Panasonic only sells the 1.4x teleconverter with that lens, despite them advertising the 50-200 and 100-400 Mark II as being compatible with it. Yet another reason the Olympus 100-400 is a much better option than the Pana/Leica 100-400, in my opinion, although they both leave a lot to be desired.
*Por favor, você pode fazer um mega vídeo sobre lentes de cinema*
MEIKE (acho que assim que se escreve 😂)
Meike vs Viltrox especificamente sobre a linha lentes de cinema de ambos as marcas.
E tudo mais o que você quiser falar sobre esse assunto de lentes de cinema 4/3
Eu te assisto diretamente da floresta amazônica, Manaus AM 📍
Where are the fluffy bois and is it open to people getting to see them?
~400mm is a nice focal length.
Ideal for Peeping Tom’s.
I love mft
It’s a excellent lens. But very expensive 😳.
At the very start of your episode when the wolves started to make their presence felt, my Bailey got very agitated at the howling. He was not happy with his little ears pricked up.
Back on message, I love my 200mm. If I did a side by side comparison with my 100mm-400mm and my 200mm lens of the same subject then the 100-400mm image would look like a potato print.
I love my 100-400mm lens but it's not even in the same league as the 200mm.
I am seriously considering getting another prime lens, as I'd like more reach, but the only other player in town is Olympus glass, and I'm scared that they will not play nicely with my Panasonic cameras. Have you personally put some of the Olympus big-boy primes onto a Panasonic body to shoot with and do they play nicely together?
I bought my 200mm from MPB but sadly it came without any converters. Probably why I got it for such a good price. Would you suggest that I get the 1.4 converter or would it degrade the image quality towards the 100-400mm lens to just not make it worth the effort and expence?
Hmm so because the aperture is starting in a really favourable place at 2.8, the image is very tasty and sharp still with the 1.4x.... unlike the 100-400mm mkii - that was so bad with the teleconver! It just exaggerated all the flaws.
I'd say get the teleconverter for your 200, except they're just stupidly expensive standalone (unless someone doesn't know what it is they're selling)
@MicroFourNerds Probably why I got my lens
I’m a bit confused about what you’re calling a super zoom. The 200 is a fixed focal-length prime, isn’t it. Love the video, and the images are stunning!
It's so hard to classify it isn't it 😂 definitely the wrong choice of words... super... super lens haha that'll do
@@MicroFourNerds You are looking for "telephoto" I think 🙂
I love m43 cameras and small lenses, but big and heavy telelenses like this doesn't make sense for me. I'd rather bring FF with a similar rated lens, and just crop out a m43 picture.
I don't know that you'd get the sharpness and character cropping a 200mm FF lens though, and guessing the framing may not be that helpful. Also stabalisation may take a hit on FF. I'd also say that the lens is not that large or heavy, I can happily take it hiking or walking and not feel too burdened.
Do they really love it? My local camera store told me that this lens had one of the worst sales ever and they had to discount it like 70% of the original price to sell them.
Presumably because it's crazy expensive (because it's a 200mm lens with an f2.8 aperture). I imagine the the people who own it love it, and many more of us would love to own it but can't justify the price tag and use a 100-300 or 100-400 variable aperture zoom that's a couple of stops slower at 200mm instead.