Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just for the record: this discussion is useless. If it is f11 or f16 does not matter that much, since it is in any case much less than any 2.8 or 4.0 optics and that is my point.

Given that I am not a "tele photographer" at all (I would better have kept my Canon system for the shier amount of teles otherwise), I repeat: its for sure a great lens in the right hands and I do not doubt its usefulness.

Its just not for me.

 

By the way: the more expensive 4.8 lens is no alternative for me, since you are right - its just one stop more....

On the other hand I am looking forward to buy a 90, and that is a far as I need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

pretty clear.

 

you never used this lens, have only read something about it , refuse to look at and comment on the pictures shown, and declare that it is not for you ( though saying is a great lens!) but have never used it or can say anything  based on direct experience about its use and qualities.

 

No further questions your honor, I rest my case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am extremely calm, but am an articulated writer who likes explaining his thoughts making them clear. Don’t confuse anger with the full expressing of someone's thoughts, experiences and ideas most of the times based on direct experience.

 

I enjoy life to its fullest.

 

A very good day to you too Sir. Buy your 90mm and be happy. I won’t comment on this lens ( the 90mm) despite having a little experience with it , having shot a few pictures in a shop, but, unlike you with no experience with the 50-230 but holding an opinion about this lesn,  I consider it too little to give an informed opinion on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An occasional shot from that lens.

128mm 1/90sec f/9 iso1600

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the charts of a great many lenses at http://www.photozone/ and a trend emerges. Very fast lenses increase their center sharpness until about f/4.0 with slower lenses hitting their peak in the range of f/5.6 to f/8.0. Almost universally, f/11 shows some drop-off. By f/16-f/22 the drop-off is terrifying. No matter now widely absolute numbers may vary, the charts follow the same pattern.

Oddly, it does not show much difference when actually making photographs—without pixel peeping. Even in the optical lab, the difference between f/8.0 and f/11 tends to be quite minimal. This holds true for pretty much every lens they have tested, no matter the focal length. For your own information, shoot the same shot at f/5.6 and at f/16. Make prints and compare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Just got the 50-230mm OIS when it was on sale the other day for $240.  Actually, I didn't notice that I got the older version until I already paid for the unit.  I tested it at the store vs the 55-200 and surprisingly the 50-230 was sharper.  I tried 2 copies of the 55-200 just to be sure.  Maybe I just got lucky and found a very good copy. 

 

In terms of physical lens quality, the 55-200 wins HAND DOWN.  That lens is a beauty although its much heavier.  So far I am happy with the 50-230 and will try some soccer shots tomorrow :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got the 50-230mm OIS when it was on sale the other day for $240.  Actually, I didn't notice that I got the older version until I already paid for the unit.

By the way, is there a visible exterior sign of which version is on the shelf? I believe both lense and package should be properly labeled for a new version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I came back to my trip to Spain and I'm in the process of selecting and editing the images.  Here are some with the 50-230mm

 

21553461944_299ff48fda_c.jpgAt the park. Parque de la Ciudadela.  Pamplona, Spain by Marcelo Valente, on Flickr

 

230mm f/6.7

 

22163620762_ec1a20b291_c.jpgIndian Sikhs and their wifes at the Parque de la Ciudadela.  Pamplona, Spain by Marcelo Valente, on Flickr

 

171.6mm f/6.7

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also saw the OIS II packaged as a kit lens.  Tested it with the old version and could not feel much difference.  Yes, the only difference in marking is on the face where there is an OIS II marked.  

 

Compared both copies and the older one was tad sharper so I'm happy with my buy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

strange since, optically, the two lenses should be identical the only difference should only concern a slightly extended OIS and a closer up focussing distance.

 

I can’t imagine how this would result in a lower performance of the newer type but there you go

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be the copy of the lens.  Could be I was lucky that i found a really good copy, or by chance the 50-230mm kit lens was a bad copy.  During my test, the older version was a little bit sharper, not by much so it really could just be the same for most samples. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hey, did you happen to go to Piémanson? I read this article and it seemed like a fascinating place, reading your post reminded me again of it (some great photos in the article too, pulled from a photo book)-

 

http://roadsandkingdoms.com/2014/last-days-of-a-wild-beach-qa-with-vasantha-yogananthan/

 

My tribute in Camargue 2014 om X-E2 Jpeg Velvia simulation..

 

28ujv3m.jpg

 

rhiusz.jpg

 

fk4i93.jpg

 

30a8bx1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love my copy of this lens, Bargain!!!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

It never ceases to please me ...

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eilat Mountains.

A kind of remote landscape with compression.

Looks a bit flat though.

Taken from hotelarrow-10x10.png balcony through the small gap between the surrounding buildings. :)

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Posts

    • Thank you. I will research it.
    • Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
    • Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
    • How does one make sure that Fuji's image correction is turned on to correct barrel and pin-cushion distortion on a GFX 100 or GFX100S when using the GF20-35? Is it only applied to the jpegs and not to the raw files? (I was surprised to discover the barrel distortion on the GF 35-70mm lens.) I normally shoot in raw with jpeg back-up and use the raw files, which I convert either in Affinity Photo 2 when editing with that program or in Raw File Converter Ex 3.0 by Silkypix if I wish to process the image in Photoshop CS6. (Adobe DNG is also a possibility.) Thank you for the help. Trevor
×
×
  • Create New...