Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Olympus M.Zuiko ED 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3 announced
#11
(02-13-2019, 07:54 PM)thxbb12 Wrote:
(02-13-2019, 07:13 PM)wim Wrote:
(02-13-2019, 01:35 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: As expected, very weak at the long end according to the MTF charts: https://www.olympus.com.au/getattachment...2.gif.aspx

A compact but optically good 12-100 4-5.6 would make more sense.
Or something more unique and not found in any other system, like a 10-50.
Would be the ultimate travel zoom IMO.
There is such a lens, the 12-100 F/4 Pro Smile.

Kind regards, Wim

Read my message again: I said compact. The 12-100 f4 is anything but compact, it's a beast (like this 12-200 btw).
Compact is in the eye of the beholder.
I reckon it is compact for such a lens. But that's just me Smile.

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: a gaggle of Canon primes, a lone Canon zoom (sold 5D II recently Smile), an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II, Pen F and Panasonic GM5 with 14 primes, 8 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#12
Olympus has announced the new M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3 super-telephoto zoom lens for Micro Four Thirds cameras. The lens features a 35mm equivalent focal range of 24-400mm for a 16.6x zoom, the highest magnification available for mirrorless cameras tutuapp.
#13
borisbg, I sure hope you do NOT feel like me now, because I'm feelin' pretty lousy these days. Smile Some kind of super resilient cold that doesn't go away despite heaps of pills I've been gobbling.

Re: the lens, EPZ kind of confirms that the lens sucks rhino at the long end.
https://www.magezinepublishing.com/equip...698092.jpg
Not that good even at 70mm.
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/olymp...erformance
#14
I meant something else. There was a typo on Oly website. "Food" instead of "hood"
#15
(03-16-2019, 08:34 AM)Rover Wrote: borisbg, I sure hope you do NOT feel like me now, because I'm feelin' pretty lousy these days. Smile Some kind of super resilient cold that doesn't go away despite heaps of pills I've been gobbling.

Re: the lens, EPZ kind of confirms that the lens sucks rhino at the long end.
https://www.magezinepublishing.com/equip...698092.jpg
Not that good even at 70mm.
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/olymp...erformance

Results are weak overall and at 200mm they are very very bad, yet ephotozine grades this lens a 4/5 and "recommended".
This site (like many others) has zero credibility in terms of ratings.
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#16
The conclusions, yes, but the charts should be accurate unless there's something terribly wrong with their methodology.
I guess at Photozone it would've been a 2* lens tops. Smile
#17
(03-17-2019, 04:30 PM)Rover Wrote: The conclusions, yes, but the charts should be accurate unless there's something terribly wrong with their methodology.
I guess at Photozone it would've been a 2* lens tops. Smile

I should have been more accurate indeed.
I meant to say that they have zero credibility in terms of ratings.
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#18
There is a disconnect between the 200mm images and the MTF results (as they kinda point out too).
#19
(03-17-2019, 02:15 AM)borisbg Wrote: I meant something else. There was a typo on Oly website. "Food" instead of "hood"

I got that. Smile Guess I'm stuck being the "evil proofreader" anyway but I can't help myself (on my previous job as an editor I was collecting funny errors and misprints by myself and my folks, and it was a long and hilarious read).

(03-18-2019, 08:28 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: There is a disconnect between the 200mm images and the MTF results (as they kinda point out too).
Could be variance between results at different focus distances, or something (like Klaus got when testing the Samyang 85/1.4). Frankly I only skimmed through the review because it had no real meaning for me as I'm not a MFT user (yet) anyway.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)