Has anyone any experience of this lens, I'm looking for a budget lens that will give me a litttle more than the 40-150 kit lens. Specifically how does it perform at the 200 end of the range.
Regards
Mike
Has anyone any experience of this lens, I'm looking for a budget lens that will give me a litttle more than the 40-150 kit lens. Specifically how does it perform at the 200 end of the range.
Regards
Mike
Hi Mike, I did try one of these a while back and wasn't impressed. Your 40-150 is much sharper (and brighter).
You could sell your 40-150 and get a 50-200 instead. The 40-150 is a very good lens, but the 50-200 is an excellent one. It's a lot dearer though
Maybe you could keep an eye out for a used one? Or you could hang on for the 70-300 in a couple of months?
Hi Ian,
I think it was the 50-200 i borrowed for a couple of shots in Oxford, very good but very expensive like you say. I guess I'll keep looking then
Cheers
Mike
agree with the fact that this lens is not very impressive...
wanted a budget zoom, and when we compared it with my wife's kit lens (40-150mm) i was a bit disappointed...
i'm getting used to it now, and don't use the widest aperture ; even found two good things about it :
. a nice(r) bokeh (than 40-150) [but it can be a personal pov]
. good for atmospheric moody shots : uploaded an example here...
Well I just wanted to post a new thread about this discussion. Because I was searching for lenses on a new pdf file from Olympus, I saw the 55-200. It's price, 145 euro, looked very nice. So I began doubting between the 40-150mm kitlens and the 55-200mm Sigma lens. After seeing these replies, I thought about this: Is the 40-150 mm also a Wide-angle lens?
So if someone can give me an answer to this?
With kind regards,
Kevin Knops
__________________ Kevin Knops
Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs.
Ansel Adams
Olympus E-620 - 14-42 mm - 40-150 mm - Lowepro Slingshot 100 AW - Manfrotto 785-SHB
The 40-150 is NOT a wideangle lens - with the 2,0-cropfactor it is equivalent to a 80-300mm lens for fullframe or film camera. It is a telelens, absolutely NOT a wideangle.
Concerning the 55-200 - it is good for the price (it is VERY cheap), but optically the 40-150 (new or old) are better and also more costly.
The 40-150 is NOT a wideangle lens - with the 2,0-cropfactor it is equivalent to a 80-300mm lens for fullframe or film camera. It is a telelens, absolutely NOT a wideangle.
Concerning the 55-200 - it is good for the price (it is VERY cheap), but optically the 40-150 (new or old) are better and also more costly.
Well eventually, the 40-150 mm is cheaper as a kitlens. If you buy it not as kit, it is a lot more expensive. So I doubt between these lenses. I want some wide angle. but also a lens that is good at night, at a good zoom. So I don't know what to get. Those are the first lenses I am going to buy. (Camera also)
Im sure that I will buy the 14-42, but not really sure about the 40-150 or 55-200. Can you say what would be the best choice to me?
So hope somebody can help me further
Kevin Knops
__________________ Kevin Knops
Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs.
Ansel Adams
Olympus E-620 - 14-42 mm - 40-150 mm - Lowepro Slingshot 100 AW - Manfrotto 785-SHB
If you buy as a kit lens, the 40-150 is a steal for the price difference.
If you want real wideangle, the 9-18mm Zuiko is the most affordable with the Sigma 10-20 as the pricewise only competitor.
The Oly 11-22 and especially the eminent 7-14mm wideangle are quite a bit more costly.
Several years ago when I bought my E500, I also bought a Sigma 55-200 with the intent of using it for a year or so until I could buy the Oly 50-200.
Indeed, the Oly lens is a lot better - a brighter view in the viewfinder, and a "crisper" image from the camera; better color and contrast. However, the Sigma 55-200 is very inexpensive and if you plan to use it in bright light, you may get the results you need from it.
One last point - if you do no post-processing in software, thus depending on camera jpegs, the 55-200 isn't for you. But, if you use software to adjust your images, then you'd find that the low contrast and slightly washed-out color (probably due to low contrast) can be "fixed" quite nicely in software. I got quite a few decent bird photos with the 55-200, but the Oly 50-200 is a lot better. Also a lot more money. Good luck. - David
Linear Mode
