David--I know one of the reasons I love your videos so much is because you take such care in creating them, so a release is always a bittersweet thing (in that I wish you published content weekly, but know that what sets your videos apart is the care you put into them). I couldn't help but laugh this morning as I thought, "is Thorpe not the perfect m43 reviewer? His content is exceptional (great production, great commentary, thoughtful) but with a few tradeoffs (frequency)." Exceptional, but with a few tradeoffs--the m43 mantra. These reviews are such a wonderful antidote to the "Photography TH-cam" universe of endless spec readers, pornographic product shots, "top 5 reasons to buy...", and obnoxious personalities. Keep up the fantastic work.
Great rundown as always. The way you write your reviews makes for an interesting watch, because they're quite comprehensive and cover a good range of use cases. Honestly if you ever wanted to do a sidestep from reviews every once in awhile and talk about your career and experience in photography I'd be all for it. I seem to recall you mentioning at one point that you did journalistic and war photography, but I might be remembering it wrong. I'd certainly be interested in hearing about your experience.
Thanks! I will try to do something along the lines you mention but my problem is having so few examples of my work available to me. So much is for other people and magazines and record companies they own the copyrights :-(
I couldn't find any details on this offer so I've emailed Panasonic. Apparently, the offer is no longer available, but if anyone has no need for the donkey or the hay, please let me know as I'm looking for one at a good price :)
Great Vids. Just a hint: The Peak Design anchors you are using on your G9 are called back and replaced by Peak Design because the might break. Only the thin ones that fit through the eye lids of the camera. Check their site to get replacements. Looking forward to your next video
Some might recall that Panasonic did indeed showcase a 150 mm f2.8 prototype or "mock up" both in the lens road map and at various photo shows long before this 200 mm was announced. However it disappeared without a trace form the lens road map and was replaced with this 200 mm instead.
Have missed you badly, have been watching all your other stuff the last ween a days, bitting at the bit waiting on the new review. Thank God it's here. Cheers David.
I was blown away by some of those photos! They look comparable to any full frame camera. I'm not sure when or how I would use that lens, but boy do I want one now.
Glad you liked the pix. The reality is that any IQ advantage of a FF camera is theoretical in normal photography for use on screens and prints up to around 3' across. Think on whether you need one or _want_ one, though! Just trying to save you some money :-)
David, great review as always. My one quibble is with your comparison to Nikon, saying that a Nikon owner would have to buy a 400mm f2.8 lens to compare to this is simply not true depending on the Nikon camera you own. A D850 with the under $2,000 300mm F4 can be cropped to close to 600mm and still have more MP total to work with, about 1 stop extra total noise performance and better DoF control.
Agreed! I backpacked a G9 + 200mm f/2.8 into the Yukon wilderness and my buddy backpacked in a Sony A7 ii + Nikkor 300mm f/4. His images of the same subjects were less noisy and could be cropped in further than mine.
Mikey light Incorrect! A m43 f/2.8 lens gathers approximately 1/4 the total amount of light of a f/2.8 full format lens. The reason people are often confused is the assumption of ISO equivalence. ISO 200 on m43 has the same sensitivity as ISO 800 on full format to standardize... compensation of the two stops of light lost. If you don't beleive me, look up ISO equivalence tables and compare the G9 and A7 iii. Turns out that a lens 1/4 the size collects 1/4 the light; who would have guessed! So in reality, an f/2.8 m43 lens is optically equivalent to an f/5.6 full format lens in EVERY respect.
Another excellent review, with the bonus of your working photographer background, for real 'provenance' (how does the G9 compare to your Kent Courier kit...?!). Some very pertinent points made about the pricing, although it's great to have Leica endorsed lenses, the price premium over Olympus is a consideration. I'd be interested in a possible 'long term' review video of the G9, or other m43 kit, as with these complex cameras, useful features can emerge with use, I've found. Just a thought...
Thanks Zane. If any lens maximizes your chances with wildlife, this is it. The Olympus 300mm is excellent by all accounts (not that I have tried one) but an extra stop of speed is arguably more valuable than the extra 100mm in Micro Four Thirds.
David Thorpe agreed! It was a hard choice, but the extra stop won me over, especially since this lens serves as a slightly less sharp 300mm-ish f/4 with the 1.4x
Yes - I was impressed with the converter results. There had to be a loss of sharpness simply because of the laws of optics but it's pretty theoretical in most situations.
the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8 costs 3'000 € and its equivalent is a Canon 400mm f/5.6 which cost 1516 €. Incredibly the weight is the same 1245 grams for the Panasonic lens and 1250 for the Canon one
The best value lens for Micro Four Thirds is the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 PRO. It will have to be pried from my cold, dead hand...along with my MC-14 and (probably soon enough) MC-20 teleconverters.
Yes, it's hard to beat the big (only by Micro Four Thirds standards!) Olympus. The 200mm Panasonic is a lovely lens to use but very specialised whereas the Pro zoom is good for a multitude of purposes. I use mine a lot for close focus work and 'big head' portraits. It's very wieldy for such a lens and I think that 'handiness' is a big part of its charm, along with the integral lens hood and tripod mount. You could go out with a standard zoom and the 40-150mm and cover almost anything. Not so the 200mm. Having said which, if someone gave me one, I wouldn't say no!
Great review as always. Keep up the good work. The lens is superb, but very expensive, and as you have corretly mentioned, the canon 200mm 2.8 costs a third of the price, and when we consider that there are currently many available AF adapters canon-mft, some of them very affordable, and their performance getting better and better, is hard not to consider that as a option. There'll still be some compromises in af speed, but still shows how disproportionate the price of the panasonic is.
I use the Panasonic 2x teleconverter with the Olympus 300/4 and Olympus e-m1ii. They do fit each other and do well optically. The only problem is that image stabilization doesn’t adjust for the additional focal length. Good bird photos can be made with additional shutter speed.
That interesting, Dwight, thanks for the info. Since the 1.4x converters from each maker don't fit the other's, I'd assume they are a bit more tailored to the product and thus can pass on the changed focal length information. I can't test it myself but might it be possible to set the revised focal length manually when using the 2x converter? Or does the camera grey out that possibility since it is getting some information from the lens and assumes no manual adjustment would be needed?
@@dwightjones3305 So the Panasonic 2x has straight pass-through contacts, it seems. Pity but it explains why the 1.4x converters are dedicated to the maker's lenses.
The 200mm f2.8 is an important lens. It was a large factor in me selling my Canon gear and moving to MFT. The G9 plus 200 f2.8 replaces my 1Dx plus 400 2.8 at sports events. The size and weight difference is massive, as is the price difference. The fast f2.8 negates ISO limitations of the MFT sensor since floodlit sports fields rarely require more than ISO 800. As the G9 does great video it is a far more versatile camera for me in a professional shoot. The size and weight means that I can also easily carry the Olympus 100-400 for zoom and reach versatility. I chose the Olympus over the Panasonic 100-400 purely because the Oly works with teleconverters., and because the Panasonic comes with the 1.4x I only needed to buy Olympus telecons. Very happy with the move away from Canon.
You are a great example of a Micro Four Thirds shooter because you know the limitations and the advantages and have considered carefully before shooting. Nothing is for nothing and if you want less weight and bulk you have to sacrifice something. Doing it your way maximises your advantage while minimising the disadvantage. Glad to hear you are happy with the move but considering your thorough approach, it was unlikely you'd make the change unless you were convinced it would be beneficial. Great comment, thanks!
@@DavidThorpeMFT I started taking photographs in 1962, and only used medium format for the first 12 years. Back then there was the ridiculous notion that 35mm was a junk format for amateurs who didn’t know what they were talking about. 4x5 was considered “small” and medium format as the “miniature” limit of acceptable. I learned early that format opinions are worth no more that the beer they are spoken from. I am currently amused by the absurdity of the opinion that MFT is too small to be considered, yet the even smaller format Sony ZV1 is lauded as magical because of its “large” sensor. There is no “best” format - only formats that are best for the job in front of your nose. And that can mean 4x5, 120, 35mm, APS-C, MFT, 1inch, and 1/2.3 with every one of them having the advantage in certain scenarios. And all of them having a list of disadvantages.
@@artistjoh I started out my apprenticeship using a VN 9x12cm plate camera in 1961 when, as you say, a Rollei 6x6 was considered radical. On my second newspaper, our Canterbury guy announced he was going over to 35mm, that would have been 1965/6. The chief photographer was enraged and forbade him to do it. He carried on using 35mm, a Pentax but the chief never regarded it as anything other than a toy. It comes from looking at the theory rather than the results.
@@DavidThorpeMFT :) It was the era of the Spotmatic. I couldn’t afford one and so my first 35mm camera was a used Exakta Varex VX. That was a terrible camera to use, but I made do until I bought my first brand new camera, the Pentax MX. That was the opposite of the Exakta, a delight to use. But all my best photographs from those earlier days were all taken on a Minolta Autocord TLR. I wore a couple of them out, but still have two of them. The Rollie guys used to look down their nose at us, but that Rokkor lens was better than theirs wide open. In all the years since I have had many much better cameras, yet none have been better at making magical images. Younger photographers think that AF and IBIS are so essential, whereas I grew up thinking that my trusty Weston Master Meter was the only essential I needed :)
@@artistjoh The Weston - yes, a great piece of kit and NO BATTERIES! There has always been a kind of camera snobbery and I recall it over the Rollei and Minolta. But one of our guys back in the 60 used an Autocord and there was no way you could tell the difference between that and Rollei results. The prejudice in the professional sphere was that the Rollei was proven strong and up to the ill treatment inherent in press photography and the Minolta was an unknown. In my area of work, the camera that changed the outlook for 35mm was the Nikon F, nothing to do with its performance but the fact that it and its lenses stood up to the hardest use. I bought a pair of Nikon Fs from a Daily Mirror sports photographer, Monte Fresco just to keep in the boot of the car for a backup-backup and battered as they were, they ware 100% reliable and functional for several years after that.
The video speaks well of continuing to use my 50-200 mm f/2.8-3.5 Olympus four-thirds lens. Not quite the focusing speed or optical quality of the 40-150 mm PRO, but it takes good photos.
I've not used one but I've heard nothing but good of the earlier Olympus 4/3 lenses. If the fastest focusing isn't crucial to what you do - and it isn't to most photographers - there's little point in buying the latest. Taking good photos is the point, after all!
"Not quite" as fast as the 40-150 is still good for surfers and skim boarders. So it comes to a choice of a slightly longer lens with the 50-200 or slightly better focusing with the 40-150 (perhaps using the teleconverter). The older lens, when available used in its SWD version, is a practical alternative to the more expensive newer lens. I have an f/2.0 35-100 mm lens that weighs 4 pounds, meaning other lenses get carried around more, but it's an optical marvel.
@@davidthorpe7732 I hadn't thought about just how unusual the 35-100 mm beast is. It's certainly a virtuoso zoom design. It gave me the incentive to try (and like) Olympus's PRO zooms.
Great review David. I was watching a nature documentary yesterday, the poor photographer was yomping through tropical rainforest with the usual Canon and a huge lens as long as his arm! In his postion I'd have a M43 set-up. But do many wildlife or sports pros actually use this system? The G9 and EM1ii are built to professional standards, but is M43 really making headway amongst pros?
Not a prayer Saurat, if I venture into The Rain Forest I will bring the heavy weapons. For video yes, many pro are using the GH5-5S for their paying jobs.
I absolutely love my Pana-Leica lenses with my GH5 (for stills mostly, surprisingly), and when I looked at this lens I thought "I want this!" However, at a $3K price tag, I'd already be looking at adding a new camera system (say, Sony). Agh, why do awesome things have to be so damn expensive! :'(
Great review. One reason in fact to have the Oly 300 Pro - if you have an Oly body - is that ProCapL is not available with Panasonic lenses. Which is a huge shame, as this lens coupled, with the two teleconvertors gives some flexibility (200-400 covered) compared with the Oly 300.
Great review as always.. it seems to be a specific tool for sports under lights mainly and perhaps lower light wildlife...otherwise the 50-200mm seems to retain pretty much all of the quality with added flexibility? Also as a comparison if you are looking at a comparable focal length.. Canon 400mm f2.8 £9497 and the Sony FE 400mm f2.8 £10500!...
Goo review David; I bet you were eager to get your hands on that lens & use it! With regards to the actual lens though I have mixed feelings about it; the images look sharp, the build quality looks good and it has some nice features, but...it does look big and a bit heavy and is very expensive. IMO, it seems to be geared more towards pro sports shooters; but how many pro sports photographers/agencies are using MFT systems right now? I bet it is still not very many. For now I have ditched all my Pana/Oly MFT gear and gone back to my Nikon DSLR setup. I bought the Nikon D7500 body, which works out cheaper than the Panasonic G9! And the images are great, AF is fast and accurate and for me Nikon have a great selection of lenses (including third party) which suit my needs (and budget).
I have never quite been able to wrap my mind around who Panasonic built this lens for. As it stands in Aug 2018 I’ve settled on it being a lens they built for wildlife pros they hoped to win over with the G9 (but probably haven’t) and ended up selling scarcely to affluent prosumers who are already over invested in MFT, pensioners on eco tours, and weekend freelancers for whom getting a few opportunistic sellable images is a win.
I have no idea who it sells to or why Panasonic made it. The idea of making a lens is to sell it, so I don't imagine Panasonic care who buys it. The colour of their money is the same! You're very down on other photographers. What's wrong with winning a competition with opportunistic pictures? What's wrong with pensioners on eco tours and weekend freelancers? If a pro is worried by competition from weekend freelancers I'd suggest he tries another profession :-)
David Thorpe I sincerely regret if there is a misunderstanding on my post David. I didn’t say anything negative about anyone, never mentioned winning competitions, I’m not a pro(I create documentaries and some freelance)and I’m not down on other photographers? I’m only wondering who Panasonic sees as the primary target market for this lens and if it’s hitting its sales targets. Much like your past musings on lens like the 42.5/1.2 and the 40-150 where you wondered if they were the right direction for MFT (and decided the 40-150 was but the 42.5 wasn’t for you personally). I’m curious because it’s an indication of where the smart money at Panasonic sees the future of MFT going. Lenses cost a lot to develop and it isn’t done unless they think the money will be made back. My point about freelance wildlife photographers is the in contrast of going on an expensive wildlife shoot with a commission. As a freelancer I can come back empty handed (of sellable or printable shots) but if my expenses and travel are being paid I have to bring bigger gear I know can handle a wider set of conditions. I love your reviews. For the record all three of the photographer profiles I mentioned I myself represent because I am each of these.
I seem to have misunderstood - sorry! I seem to be getting into a dual view of Micro Four Thirds these days. There's the side that offers handy size combined with good enough results - the reason I went to it from FF and APS-C. Then there's the side represented by the Olympus Pro lenses and the 200mm f/2.8 and the G9 and E-M1 models. The majority of my output is with the smaller stuff - GX9, 12-32/ 17mm Olympus/ little 35-100 f/4-5.6. But I do find the G9 (as I do the GH series) such an outstanding camera and such a pleasure of use that I find myself using it whenever I can. For myself, if I were working professionally in my field of show business, music and the like, I'd certainly be using FF for some of the stuff, simply because the higher the potential image quality the more markets it can sell to - posters, for example. But when I was shooting live rehearsal stuff for Paul McCartney I'd love to have had my GX9 with the 17mm f/1.8 on it. I have no idea who Panasonic or Olympus expect to sell their big, expensive lenses to. I just feel it is good that they are there. I'd love to see sales figures and details of how the buyers use these lenses, I have no inkling at all and it would be fascinating to know. I would absolutely love to have a 200mm f/2.8 or a 300 f/4 because I like to go out with just one lens and let the lens find pictures for me. I'd never buy one of them, though but what a great present - if I had a family with that kind of money! You've raised an interesting line of thought - if I can get my brain working I think I might do a blog on it.
Nikon have significantly narrowed the weight gap with the new 500mm F5.6 PF lens. The Nikon weighs in at 1460 grams vs 1365 grams for the Panasonic + Teleconverter. Which one needs to include to get a similar reach from this lens. The price gap is also much reduced... in Australia we're looking at AUD 4089 for the Panasonic (including converter) vs 5,699 for the Nikon. Both are obscenely expensive and are definitely specialist lenses!
Yes, all these lenses are expensive. Every newspaper office I've worked in had massive 400mm f/2.8s, 600mms etc in the cupboard and those really did cost money. They did a job that sometimes nothing else would, though. I think with camera systems, you buy in and after that lenses from other systems are irrelevant. Essentially, a Nikon 500 doesn't fit a Panasonic and if what you want is a fast f/2.8 5° AoV, you can pay for that or you can buy one of any number of slower and cheaper ones. The thing about prices is that you are not paying for the glass and metal, you are paying for R&D, marketing and all those other things. There's really no reason that Micro Four Thirds equipment should be cheaper and it was never marketed as a cheap system.
People have to realize that micro four thirds lenses are expensive because of the cost to make one. Those things require a lot of glass and other tweaks to make the pictures as sharp as can be. Micro four thirds lenses can produce some EXTREMELY sharp and detailed pictures.
Thank you again for valuable information on these products. It is my hope that your interests and mine might intersect at a point where you are inclined to review the 100mm Macro Samyang/Rokinon on the G85 body. I was almost to pull the trigger on the Olympus 60mm Macro currently marked on sale, until I stumbled across the more preferred working distance of the 100mm lens. My concerns are the un-stabilized lens' performance on that body. Subscribed today and I'll be staying tuned.
No question, the 100-400. More reach and since there will be plenty of light most of the time, the speed isn't crucial. And with the zoom, much more flexibility. Plus, very close focus at 400mm to keep a distance from tiny things that might bite you!
Great review from our mft expert as usual! Are you interested in reviewing the Sigma 16mm 1.4 for mft?? Weather sealed and near 35mm with 1.4 and reasonable price, it seems the perfect lens. Will you please tell us your opinion?
David, can you provide a link or info on where I can purchase that Wallace and Gromit "The Wrong Trousers" penguin (7:35)? My sisters are fans of Wallace movies, and that would be the perfect Christmas present for them. By the way, all your sample pics using the 200mm are very light-filled and cheery, and very compelling toward this piece of glass. Thank you.
Thanks, Toby! If you don't need the extra reach, I'd prefer the 200mm with converter. Both lenses are supremely sharp but the 200mm with converter is still quite fast at f/4, where the 300mm's aperture is reduced to f/5.6, a little slow for ,many of the applications that require a long lens. The 300mm without converter would be theoretically sharper than the 20mm with but you'd be pushed to see any difference in normak use.
@@DavidThorpeMFT thanks i have the cheaper 100 300 and want to up graded in the future. I think with G9 i will go for 200mm with converter or maybe save some bucks and get the 100 400 zoom. I like bird photography and want sharper images time to save lol
@@tobywoolgar9517 It's a lot slower, of course but if you can cope with that, the 100-400 has the reach you need for birds. I find them ungrateful wretches, birds. I feed them whenever I can but will they come close to the camera and pose for me? They have no idea of the cost of lenses these days.
@@DavidThorpeMFT absolutely! In my garden they should be use to me by now its like bird paradise! i even protect them from cats like a fool.. The worst offenders are the robins they hate the camera starlings are great posers i must say.. I want a sharp picture of a blue tit by the end of the year i think my lens can do it but i need the right light and patience lol
Love your channel and the videos you produce make me feel more secure about the system I chose for my first steps in "real" photography, even though it's just for a hobby. In one of your videos you state that the Olympus 12-40 Pro is the best standard zoom you've used. May I ask that you consider that lens for your next review? There are quite a few reviews out on it already, but non are in the Thorpe style :) Have a nice day!
Thank you, Lyubomir! I bought the Olympus 12-40 so late on that I thought it was too old for anyone to be interested. Maybe you are right, I should eeview it. I have a couple of toher things to d and then I'll get down to it. That'll be a pleasure, actually.
Comparing both this and the olympus 300mm f4 with or without the tc on my em1.2, the olympus option is a lot more useful for wildlife, birding etc and IQ is indistinguishable between the two. The problem is when people opt for the panasonic G9 the 300mm f4 is not as interesting since you don't get the dual is and extremely fast af speed from the lens. Been able to use the 40-150 pro f2.8 and the 300mm f4 pro with the tc at their best is one of the reason I think the em1.2 is a better choice than the G9. The 300mm f4 with the 1.4 tc with dual IS mean no need for a tripod even for extreme 1/10 shots and the 200mm f2.8 with the G9 can't do that. When I go hiking I bring the 40-150mm, the 300mm f4 and the mc-14 and a small 15mm f1.7. In a relatively small and light bag I then cover 30mm then 80mm to 420mm then 600mm then 840mm equivalent With the combination of the TC. This is an amazing range that changed my life and Those are all pro lenses with real weather sealing. For my use I can't see why a 200mm f2.8 would be more useful than a 300mm f4 on a 2x crop body but I mostly shoot oustide. With the 300mm I can't remember a single time I told myself a 200mm would be better and if needed I can uae my 40-150mm f2.8 that I always bring with me and when inside at concert, the 40-150mm f2.8 would always be my first choice over a fixed 200mm f2.8. Sadly the G9 is too imitative lenses wise due to not having pdaf and using dfd. After renting it and comparing both, the em1.2 is a better camera for stills in my opinion and the behaviour with the whole range of m43 lenses is very important.. I think the hybrid pdaf AF is a most for versatility and I couldn't get the same results with the dfd. Anyway, it's really great to see you back with a review !
Another great review. But the lens is not so great imho. Well of course it is a superb lens but it still is impossible to justify its price tag. You really desperately need those extra 50mm if you choose this over the Olly 40-150mm. Extra reach is always welcome but I'd rather have the flexibility of the Olly. Both lenses are razor sharp wide open at 150 and 200mm respectively so you don't get extra sharpness. IS is lacking on the Olly but with the fabulous IBIS of the G9 or E-M1 II makes up for that. And even with the TC included it is still only roughly half the price of the 200mm 2.8. Jikes. If the Pano came with a 1.4 and 2.0 TC at this price point it would be much more appealing for wildlife and nature photographers and the price also more justifiable.
Gijsbert Peijs I am a backcountry photography hobbyist and pack both the 40-150mm f2.8 and 200mm f/2.8 out on trips. The difference as far as I am concerned is that the 200mm is a wildlife lens and the 40-150mm isn't. The extra 100mm 'equivalent' coverage makes a HUGE difference. The 200mm is also quite a bit sharper from my tests.
Zane Leitch While I do agree with you on it being a superb lens for wildlife, it is a little too expensive. The 40-150 with a teleconverter is a much better buy, but I do agree the 200 is sharper. That is mainly due to it being a prime lens. People on a tighter budget should skip the 200, but it is definitely a good lens to have in your collection.
Hi Tim, no it's the real thing. I got lucky in that it flew over to survey an area where I was standing, waiting, hoping. It was in Hampton Court Park in south West London. The only processing of the RAW image was about +1.5 stops exposure in Lightroom. Other than that, no changes at all, just Lightroom defaults.
@@DavidThorpeMFT - Is the hi-res photo online anywhere? Panasonic should use that in the marketing literature. Quick someone tell me why I shouldn't buy this lens. I have the PL100-400.
@@tim1398 No, I don't put hi-res stuff online, too much nicking goes on these days! Personally, I think it would be madness for you not to buy it....no, no, I didn't say that :-)
@@DavidThorpeMFT - I've been trying to do BIF with the G9/100-400 combo lately and having trouble with the AF. I've tried the recommend settings from Dan Cox etc. I get some keepers but frankly it's very low, so many times I have a fuzzy blob dead set in the center with sharp background. Other times subject is almost in focus. When it is in focus it focuses very fast though. Unless I can find a way to improve the keeper ratio I have concluded I am not spending the $$$ for this lens on a system I may leave.
@@tim1398 I'd suggest using Custom Multi or 1-Area AF mode, switch on AF Area display and, since you will be using a high shutter speed, switch off stabilization to free up computing power. I have a feeling that you are using 225-Area which is not really suited to BIF. The more closely you can tell the camera where you want to focus, the better it will do it. The G9 is well able to cope with BIF but technology can't do it, most success lies with the photographer. Do keep at it.
You can't make a small. light 200mm f/2.8. The laws of optics just don't allow it if you want good image quality. But there are plenty of slower telephotos that are a fraction of the price and size.
Yes, you'd need to really want the extra reach to pay the extra money. It does come with the converter but it might have been better to make that optional and lower the price. Although it was regarded as very expensive when it came out, the Olympus zoom looks good value these days. Glad you liked the review!
For sure a lens I'll never own, David. As you say a little bit too specialist in use and very expensive for what it is whatever you're comparing it to. I take your point that MfT was never billed as a low cost system, but I do think there's been a shift - particular with the lenses - toward a VERY premium price point. I think that's fairly well illustrated if you consider the prices of the Oly 40-150 f2.8 against this optic. I think were Olympus introducing that lens today, it would probably be double the price [at least!] that it's available for now. I would take issue on the comparison you make with Nikon systems [I know it was half jest], but you could of course get something that will do more or less what the subject of this piece will do at a lower cost and not much difference in weight. How? You simply buy a lens with an equivalent 400mm reach that can do so at f5.6 or faster. On a 35mm body you'd get the same level of compression and the same overall amount of light being recorded at any given ISO.You could also fit that Canon 200mm f2.8 you were talking about and with a suitable adapter even retain autofocus. I know you've been doing similar things with old adapted glass. Lens prices for moderately fast glass [and once you factor in equivalence it is only moderately fast] is the thing that was making me consider buying probably one of the A7s as my next camera, but instead I've bought the G9. Why? Because I discovered the Viltrox speedboosters and I've also bought the Sigma 18-35 f1.8. After all the arithmetic, multiplying and dividing, you end up with the equivalent of a short standard zoom for FF that works out at roughly 25.5-50mm and f2.5. It's big, it's heavy, but no more so than most standard f2.8 zooms on the larger format. I can match or exceed the performance of such a pairing for low-light and shallow DoF when I want that; and still stick with one system that's small and light when I don't have such demanding needs. I don't know how much the pre-announced 10-25mm Leica MfT zoom is going to cost [and it will only work out to 20-50 and f3.3], but my gut is telling me it will be more than the G9, battery grip and 18-35 just cost me, combined. The G9 is a fabulous bit of kit btw - I'm going to get your menu guide for it tonight.
The G9 is lovely, I agree totally. Where I don't agree is over the FF lenses. Your argument really just says, buy a FF camera. If you want FF quality and the various advantages that it brings, just buy a FF camera. With lenses like the 200mm f/2.8, as with the Olympus f/1.2 primes, the makers are trying to emulate some of the IQ advantages of FF, in the sense that f/2.8 means you can use ISO 200 instead of 800, say. The point to me about Micro Four Thirds is that it is _not_ FF and has other merits. Take a combination like a Panasonic GX9 and Olympus 17mm f/1.7, No-one could argue that such a combination of IQ, weight and size could be reproduced with FF. I regularly advise people to buy full frame cameras if technical excellence is their main concern. You can approach the same IQ by using ultra high speed lenses in Micro Four Thirds but making a system do something it was never intended to do can (as you point out) cost more and be less convenient than just buying the alternative system. I make no secret of the fact that if someone produces a FF camera with the same costs, body and lens sizes as Micro Four Thirds, I'll buy it. Until they do, Micro Four Thirds floats my boat! The 10-25mm will, I am sure be a fabulous lens but the truth is that given the choice between that and the 12-32mm, I'd take the little one. If I was happy to use lenses the size that will be, I'd buy a Nikon F7.
David Thorpe I think it’s a bit of a stretch to infer that from my comment, David. Rather I’m saying it is possible to at least come close to that ‘full frame’ look with an MfT body, IF you’re prepared to sacrifice the clear size and weight advantage. Conversely you can never match something like the GM5 (even with a versatile fairly long zoom like the 14-140, let alone the tiny 12-32), no matter which pairing of an A7 (say) and the smallest prime you can attach to that. So you can have one system and if not the best of both worlds, at least a very sizeable portion of each.
@@ChrisWilliams-nf8kl I'd see it differently. If I was prepared to sacrifice the size and weight advantage of Micro Four Thirds, I'd buy FF equipment in the first place. I sold DSLR equipment purely for that size and weight advantage, though, so I'm not likely to! In terms of image quality, in a web browser, on a tablet or even up pretty large prints the IQ advantage of FF is theoretical so a full frame look is a bit of a will o' the wisp to me.
David Thorpe Actually I’m saying I’m prepared to sacrifice portability in certain circumstances- and that when those demands aren’t there, I can still have small and light. I’ll give you a very recent example. Yesterday I was photographing a small group of people doing a health test in a smallish office. With the 5dii I could get some subject isolation to alleviate clutter in a relatively tight environment. I was able to match that by having the Sigma 18-35 (with speedbooster) on the G9. I stick with one system I’m now more familiar with - and I personally find the G9 ergonomically superior to the Canon. On the day I saved no weight. At the end of the month I’m going away for a few days. I’ll take the G9, but leave the portrait grip and take my trusty 14-140 and a couple of primes. It’s a strategy which means I can stick with one system which covers all my needs.
@@ChrisWilliams-nf8kl I can't argue with that, Chris. I'm more talking about photographers who look at Micro Four Thirds and, seeing the inherent theoretical disadvantages, try to compensate for them. They'd be better off and possibly even save money by just buying an FF camera. You're exploiting the sheer versatility afforded by the system. I'd be the last one to decry all the big high speed lenses both native and adaptable that can be put to good use for defined purposes in the way you're doing. It illustrates the gulf in approach between photographers who see their camera as an image making tool and those who see it as a thing in itself.
Pls never compare directly FF lenses to M4/3. If you want to compare the size/weight/cost of the lenses - buy Canon 200/2.8 + EF-m4/3 adapter and use it with the same +/- result.
Or I could just get the canon version of this lens for literally 1/4 the price and it weighs less too... Slap it on a apsc body, crop a little and u have the same equivalent. Seriously what is the point of mft if u r shooting stills?
Bob Woodward I own a micro four thirds camera and have been questioning that too. I seriously want to jump to Sony, but they haven't fulfilled the wish list of mine like panasonic has.
Samual Williams I use a canon mirrorless so I can use any canon lens they make which works out just great. Too many ppl focus on the camera features, it's the lens that makes the picture.
There was no claim that it would be cheap when the Micro Four Thirds standard was unveiled. If you were shooting in low light, the extra 2 stops of the Panasonic would be a game changer. A 400mm f/2.8 for Nikon is multiples of the price of the Panasonic f/2.8 and does the same job within that system. If you are happy with 200mm at f/5.6 aperture, you can get it for £350 from Panasonic or Olympus. When I buy equipment I see it as buying the ability to do something more than anything else, in which case the 200mm f/2.8 doesn't look so expensive (don't forget it has the converter with it). With non general purpose, mass market lenses the price is determined by the numbers sold more than anything else. So, like anyone else, I'd prefer the Panasonic was £1000 cheaper. But if I were a Nikon user, I'd prefer the 400mm f/2.8 was a quarter the price and the 500mm f/5.6 £1500 cheaper too.
I don't know, I would like to see a low light "stress" test to see if the AF and the picture quality are really good enough in that situation, I think these really high-end bodies and specialised lenses where the m43 starts too look expensive for what it offers and reaches its limitations. But that's might just be me. Comparison is certainly not easy. They are advantages as well for sure, for instance, if one wants the closer focus with a narrow FOV, it is certainly more useful than FF, I am sure it is tack sharp there as well.
Basically, the main comparison between the FF and Micro Four Thirds system is 1. Is the Micro Four Thirds IQ good enough? 2. Do I mind hiking big lenses around with me? For me, the answers are 1. Yes, more than good enough. 2. Yes, I do. I am in the lucky position of having used the very best cameras and lenses available for many, many years. The exotic stuff, like 400mm f/2.8s, I haven't had to buy because my office(s) bought them. A 400mm f/2.8 on a FF body is going to be useless to me unless I go back to my working life and hire an assistant. Or go everywhere by car rather than bicycle, walk or public transport. If I go back to using my car, I don't want to take pictures any more since it becomes a chore. Micro Four Thirds has given me back my pleasure in photography but also increased my earnings since I now have cameras capable of quality good enough for any magazine or publication or use - and always with me. I'm in no way dissing FF cameras or photographers who use them. How could I, I've used them and bigger cameras and lenses all my life. But technology and times have moved on and I begin to see FF cameras in the same way I used to see the Cadillacs and Chryslers when VW and Fiat came along in the USA. In the end, the Nikon lens you mention still costs much more than the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8 so as an FF camera user, even if the value is better, the pocket must still be much bigger.
Still the first video I'll click when I need to know about a lens ❤
David--I know one of the reasons I love your videos so much is because you take such care in creating them, so a release is always a bittersweet thing (in that I wish you published content weekly, but know that what sets your videos apart is the care you put into them). I couldn't help but laugh this morning as I thought, "is Thorpe not the perfect m43 reviewer? His content is exceptional (great production, great commentary, thoughtful) but with a few tradeoffs (frequency)." Exceptional, but with a few tradeoffs--the m43 mantra. These reviews are such a wonderful antidote to the "Photography TH-cam" universe of endless spec readers, pornographic product shots, "top 5 reasons to buy...", and obnoxious personalities. Keep up the fantastic work.
Great rundown as always. The way you write your reviews makes for an interesting watch, because they're quite comprehensive and cover a good range of use cases.
Honestly if you ever wanted to do a sidestep from reviews every once in awhile and talk about your career and experience in photography I'd be all for it. I seem to recall you mentioning at one point that you did journalistic and war photography, but I might be remembering it wrong. I'd certainly be interested in hearing about your experience.
Thanks! I will try to do something along the lines you mention but my problem is having so few examples of my work available to me. So much is for other people and magazines and record companies they own the copyrights :-(
" . . . does come with a donkey and a complementary bale of hay." Laughed out loud. Thanks for your continuing reviews.
So did I!
Me too!
I couldn't find any details on this offer so I've emailed Panasonic. Apparently, the offer is no longer available, but if anyone has no need for the donkey or the hay, please let me know as I'm looking for one at a good price :)
Nice to see you still doing vids for us all. Thanks
Your reviews are always so easy and enjoyable to watch/listen to. Great video, as always. Very informative.
Good review - this is by far my favorite lens. The 42.5 is my second fav.
Great Vids. Just a hint: The Peak Design anchors you are using on your G9 are called back and replaced by Peak Design because the might break. Only the thin ones that fit through the eye lids of the camera. Check their site to get replacements.
Looking forward to your next video
Some might recall that Panasonic did indeed showcase a 150 mm f2.8 prototype or "mock up" both in the lens road map and at various photo shows long before this 200 mm was announced. However it disappeared without a trace form the lens road map and was replaced with this 200 mm instead.
Have missed you badly, have been watching all your other stuff the last ween a days, bitting at the bit waiting on the new review. Thank God it's here. Cheers David.
I was blown away by some of those photos! They look comparable to any full frame camera. I'm not sure when or how I would use that lens, but boy do I want one now.
Glad you liked the pix. The reality is that any IQ advantage of a FF camera is theoretical in normal photography for use on screens and prints up to around 3' across. Think on whether you need one or _want_ one, though! Just trying to save you some money :-)
Best reviewer on TH-cam.
Wow! Thank you, Abdul.
Mr. Thorpe is the most underrated photography youtuber
Yes.
And one of the best.
5:09 5:13 those bird shots might just be enough to convince the ornophotographers to grab this lens, STUNNING!
gorgeous review as always ♥
David, great review as always. My one quibble is with your comparison to Nikon, saying that a Nikon owner would have to buy a 400mm f2.8 lens to compare to this is simply not true depending on the Nikon camera you own. A D850 with the under $2,000 300mm F4 can be cropped to close to 600mm and still have more MP total to work with, about 1 stop extra total noise performance and better DoF control.
Paul Fortunato Don’t forget that the M43 lens is equivalent to f/5.6, which can be had on the much cheaper and lighter zoom lenses.
Agreed! I backpacked a G9 + 200mm f/2.8 into the Yukon wilderness and my buddy backpacked in a Sony A7 ii + Nikkor 300mm f/4. His images of the same subjects were less noisy and could be cropped in further than mine.
And then there's the Nikkor 200-500mm f5.6, although it weighs 2kg (vs 1.2kg for the 200/2.8)
Equivalent as in depth of field effect, not light gathering. An F2.8 is a 2.8 regardless of sensor size.
Mikey light Incorrect! A m43 f/2.8 lens gathers approximately 1/4 the total amount of light of a f/2.8 full format lens. The reason people are often confused is the assumption of ISO equivalence. ISO 200 on m43 has the same sensitivity as ISO 800 on full format to standardize... compensation of the two stops of light lost. If you don't beleive me, look up ISO equivalence tables and compare the G9 and A7 iii. Turns out that a lens 1/4 the size collects 1/4 the light; who would have guessed! So in reality, an f/2.8 m43 lens is optically equivalent to an f/5.6 full format lens in EVERY respect.
Been looking forward to this review, but the seat on the bike you sold wasn't flat. Cheers
very nice video David, thanks, Jérôme from france
what a great review as always, thank you so much David!
Thank you David!
My pleasure, Rick
We miss you, David
Another excellent review, with the bonus of your working photographer background, for real 'provenance' (how does the G9 compare to your Kent Courier kit...?!).
Some very pertinent points made about the pricing, although it's great to have Leica endorsed lenses, the price premium over Olympus is a consideration.
I'd be interested in a possible 'long term' review video of the G9, or other m43 kit, as with these complex cameras, useful features can emerge with use, I've found. Just a thought...
Great review David! I've been using one for about two months for backcountry wildlife photography and love it!
Thanks Zane. If any lens maximizes your chances with wildlife, this is it. The Olympus 300mm is excellent by all accounts (not that I have tried one) but an extra stop of speed is arguably more valuable than the extra 100mm in Micro Four Thirds.
David Thorpe agreed! It was a hard choice, but the extra stop won me over, especially since this lens serves as a slightly less sharp 300mm-ish f/4 with the 1.4x
Yes - I was impressed with the converter results. There had to be a loss of sharpness simply because of the laws of optics but it's pretty theoretical in most situations.
Again, another fantastic video and I agree with you on all counts. Thank you 🙏🏻
Great review! I'll stick with my Canon 200 2.8L. Manual focus with MFT & an adaptor, have to shoot it wide open, but it's paid for! : )
Just WOW! As always!
the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8 costs 3'000 € and its equivalent is a Canon 400mm f/5.6 which cost 1516 €. Incredibly the weight is the same 1245 grams for the Panasonic lens and 1250 for the Canon one
2:07 the magpie does a happy dance when it realises it's getting photographed by David Thorpe himself
If only! It wanted to charge me a model fee 🙄
David Thorpe Haha, well they don't get their reputation for nothing
The best value lens for Micro Four Thirds is the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 PRO. It will have to be pried from my cold, dead hand...along with my MC-14 and (probably soon enough) MC-20 teleconverters.
Yes, it's hard to beat the big (only by Micro Four Thirds standards!) Olympus. The 200mm Panasonic is a lovely lens to use but very specialised whereas the Pro zoom is good for a multitude of purposes. I use mine a lot for close focus work and 'big head' portraits. It's very wieldy for such a lens and I think that 'handiness' is a big part of its charm, along with the integral lens hood and tripod mount. You could go out with a standard zoom and the 40-150mm and cover almost anything. Not so the 200mm. Having said which, if someone gave me one, I wouldn't say no!
Love your reviews. I think you are u discovered. Your channel deserve a million subs. No bs just honest to God reviews.
Thanks - straightforward is exactly what I mean my reviews to be,
Great review as always. Keep up the good work. The lens is superb, but very expensive, and as you have corretly mentioned, the canon 200mm 2.8 costs a third of the price, and when we consider that there are currently many available AF adapters canon-mft, some of them very affordable, and their performance getting better and better, is hard not to consider that as a option. There'll still be some compromises in af speed, but still shows how disproportionate the price of the panasonic is.
I use the Panasonic 2x teleconverter with the Olympus 300/4 and Olympus e-m1ii. They do fit each other and do well optically. The only problem is that image stabilization doesn’t adjust for the additional focal length. Good bird photos can be made with additional shutter speed.
That interesting, Dwight, thanks for the info. Since the 1.4x converters from each maker don't fit the other's, I'd assume they are a bit more tailored to the product and thus can pass on the changed focal length information. I can't test it myself but might it be possible to set the revised focal length manually when using the 2x converter? Or does the camera grey out that possibility since it is getting some information from the lens and assumes no manual adjustment would be needed?
That option is grayed out.
@@dwightjones3305 So the Panasonic 2x has straight pass-through contacts, it seems. Pity but it explains why the 1.4x converters are dedicated to the maker's lenses.
The 200mm f2.8 is an important lens. It was a large factor in me selling my Canon gear and moving to MFT. The G9 plus 200 f2.8 replaces my 1Dx plus 400 2.8 at sports events. The size and weight difference is massive, as is the price difference. The fast f2.8 negates ISO limitations of the MFT sensor since floodlit sports fields rarely require more than ISO 800. As the G9 does great video it is a far more versatile camera for me in a professional shoot. The size and weight means that I can also easily carry the Olympus 100-400 for zoom and reach versatility. I chose the Olympus over the Panasonic 100-400 purely because the Oly works with teleconverters., and because the Panasonic comes with the 1.4x I only needed to buy Olympus telecons. Very happy with the move away from Canon.
You are a great example of a Micro Four Thirds shooter because you know the limitations and the advantages and have considered carefully before shooting. Nothing is for nothing and if you want less weight and bulk you have to sacrifice something. Doing it your way maximises your advantage while minimising the disadvantage. Glad to hear you are happy with the move but considering your thorough approach, it was unlikely you'd make the change unless you were convinced it would be beneficial. Great comment, thanks!
@@DavidThorpeMFT I started taking photographs in 1962, and only used medium format for the first 12 years. Back then there was the ridiculous notion that 35mm was a junk format for amateurs who didn’t know what they were talking about. 4x5 was considered “small” and medium format as the “miniature” limit of acceptable. I learned early that format opinions are worth no more that the beer they are spoken from. I am currently amused by the absurdity of the opinion that MFT is too small to be considered, yet the even smaller format Sony ZV1 is lauded as magical because of its “large” sensor. There is no “best” format - only formats that are best for the job in front of your nose. And that can mean 4x5, 120, 35mm, APS-C, MFT, 1inch, and 1/2.3 with every one of them having the advantage in certain scenarios. And all of them having a list of disadvantages.
@@artistjoh I started out my apprenticeship using a VN 9x12cm plate camera in 1961 when, as you say, a Rollei 6x6 was considered radical. On my second newspaper, our Canterbury guy announced he was going over to 35mm, that would have been 1965/6. The chief photographer was enraged and forbade him to do it. He carried on using 35mm, a Pentax but the chief never regarded it as anything other than a toy. It comes from looking at the theory rather than the results.
@@DavidThorpeMFT :) It was the era of the Spotmatic. I couldn’t afford one and so my first 35mm camera was a used Exakta Varex VX. That was a terrible camera to use, but I made do until I bought my first brand new camera, the Pentax MX. That was the opposite of the Exakta, a delight to use. But all my best photographs from those earlier days were all taken on a Minolta Autocord TLR. I wore a couple of them out, but still have two of them. The Rollie guys used to look down their nose at us, but that Rokkor lens was better than theirs wide open. In all the years since I have had many much better cameras, yet none have been better at making magical images. Younger photographers think that AF and IBIS are so essential, whereas I grew up thinking that my trusty Weston Master Meter was the only essential I needed :)
@@artistjoh The Weston - yes, a great piece of kit and NO BATTERIES! There has always been a kind of camera snobbery and I recall it over the Rollei and Minolta. But one of our guys back in the 60 used an Autocord and there was no way you could tell the difference between that and Rollei results. The prejudice in the professional sphere was that the Rollei was proven strong and up to the ill treatment inherent in press photography and the Minolta was an unknown. In my area of work, the camera that changed the outlook for 35mm was the Nikon F, nothing to do with its performance but the fact that it and its lenses stood up to the hardest use. I bought a pair of Nikon Fs from a Daily Mirror sports photographer, Monte Fresco just to keep in the boot of the car for a backup-backup and battered as they were, they ware 100% reliable and functional for several years after that.
As ever, an excellent review.
The video speaks well of continuing to use my 50-200 mm f/2.8-3.5 Olympus four-thirds lens. Not quite the focusing speed or optical quality of the 40-150 mm PRO, but it takes good photos.
I've not used one but I've heard nothing but good of the earlier Olympus 4/3 lenses. If the fastest focusing isn't crucial to what you do - and it isn't to most photographers - there's little point in buying the latest. Taking good photos is the point, after all!
"Not quite" as fast as the 40-150 is still good for surfers and skim boarders. So it comes to a choice of a slightly longer lens with the 50-200 or slightly better focusing with the 40-150 (perhaps using the teleconverter). The older lens, when available used in its SWD version, is a practical alternative to the more expensive newer lens. I have an f/2.0 35-100 mm lens that weighs 4 pounds, meaning other lenses get carried around more, but it's an optical marvel.
@@BlueRusso That f/2 35-100 is a bit of an exotic beast and very good quality by all accounts. Nothing like it in any other format as far as I know.
@@davidthorpe7732 I hadn't thought about just how unusual the 35-100 mm beast is. It's certainly a virtuoso zoom design. It gave me the incentive to try (and like) Olympus's PRO zooms.
Great review David. I was watching a nature documentary yesterday, the poor photographer was yomping through tropical rainforest with the usual Canon and a huge lens as long as his arm! In his postion I'd have a M43 set-up. But do many wildlife or sports pros actually use this system? The G9 and EM1ii are built to professional standards, but is M43 really making headway amongst pros?
Not a prayer Saurat, if I venture into The Rain Forest I will bring the heavy weapons. For video yes, many pro are using the GH5-5S for their paying jobs.
I use the G9 + 200mm f/2.8 and noise certainly is a problem as well as the broader DoF for images with a busy background.
Good point. This lens seems to be aimed more at pro sports photographers; but how many press agencies are using the MFT system? -not many I reckon.
“I can’t work out whether I’m a Luddite if I don’t use the ring or a Luddite if I do” - love it!
:-)
I absolutely love my Pana-Leica lenses with my GH5 (for stills mostly, surprisingly), and when I looked at this lens I thought "I want this!" However, at a $3K price tag, I'd already be looking at adding a new camera system (say, Sony). Agh, why do awesome things have to be so damn expensive! :'(
Great review. One reason in fact to have the Oly 300 Pro - if you have an Oly body - is that ProCapL is not available with Panasonic lenses. Which is a huge shame, as this lens coupled, with the two teleconvertors gives some flexibility (200-400 covered) compared with the Oly 300.
Thanks Steve. And yes, shame about the lack of ProCap L with Panasonic lenses on Olympus bodies.
Great review as always.. it seems to be a specific tool for sports under lights mainly and perhaps lower light wildlife...otherwise the 50-200mm seems to retain pretty much all of the quality with added flexibility? Also as a comparison if you are looking at a comparable focal length.. Canon 400mm f2.8 £9497 and the Sony FE 400mm f2.8 £10500!...
Goo review David; I bet you were eager to get your hands on that lens & use it! With regards to the actual lens though I have mixed feelings about it; the images look sharp, the build quality looks good and it has some nice features, but...it does look big and a bit heavy and is very expensive. IMO, it seems to be geared more towards pro sports shooters; but how many pro sports photographers/agencies are using MFT systems right now? I bet it is still not very many. For now I have ditched all my Pana/Oly MFT gear and gone back to my Nikon DSLR setup. I bought the Nikon D7500 body, which works out cheaper than the Panasonic G9! And the images are great, AF is fast and accurate and for me Nikon have a great selection of lenses (including third party) which suit my needs (and budget).
I have never quite been able to wrap my mind around who Panasonic built this lens for. As it stands in Aug 2018 I’ve settled on it being a lens they built for wildlife pros they hoped to win over with the G9 (but probably haven’t) and ended up selling scarcely to affluent prosumers who are already over invested in MFT, pensioners on eco tours, and weekend freelancers for whom getting a few opportunistic sellable images is a win.
I have no idea who it sells to or why Panasonic made it. The idea of making a lens is to sell it, so I don't imagine Panasonic care who buys it. The colour of their money is the same! You're very down on other photographers. What's wrong with winning a competition with opportunistic pictures? What's wrong with pensioners on eco tours and weekend freelancers? If a pro is worried by competition from weekend freelancers I'd suggest he tries another profession :-)
David Thorpe I sincerely regret if there is a misunderstanding on my post David. I didn’t say anything negative about anyone, never mentioned winning competitions, I’m not a pro(I create documentaries and some freelance)and I’m not down on other photographers? I’m only wondering who Panasonic sees as the primary target market for this lens and if it’s hitting its sales targets. Much like your past musings on lens like the 42.5/1.2 and the 40-150 where you wondered if they were the right direction for MFT (and decided the 40-150 was but the 42.5 wasn’t for you personally). I’m curious because it’s an indication of where the smart money at Panasonic sees the future of MFT going. Lenses cost a lot to develop and it isn’t done unless they think the money will be made back. My point about freelance wildlife photographers is the in contrast of going on an expensive wildlife shoot with a commission. As a freelancer I can come back empty handed (of sellable or printable shots) but if my expenses and travel are being paid I have to bring bigger gear I know can handle a wider set of conditions. I love your reviews. For the record all three of the photographer profiles I mentioned I myself represent because I am each of these.
I seem to have misunderstood - sorry! I seem to be getting into a dual view of Micro Four Thirds these days. There's the side that offers handy size combined with good enough results - the reason I went to it from FF and APS-C. Then there's the side represented by the Olympus Pro lenses and the 200mm f/2.8 and the G9 and E-M1 models. The majority of my output is with the smaller stuff - GX9, 12-32/ 17mm Olympus/ little 35-100 f/4-5.6. But I do find the G9 (as I do the GH series) such an outstanding camera and such a pleasure of use that I find myself using it whenever I can.
For myself, if I were working professionally in my field of show business, music and the like, I'd certainly be using FF for some of the stuff, simply because the higher the potential image quality the more markets it can sell to - posters, for example. But when I was shooting live rehearsal stuff for Paul McCartney I'd love to have had my GX9 with the 17mm f/1.8 on it.
I have no idea who Panasonic or Olympus expect to sell their big, expensive lenses to. I just feel it is good that they are there. I'd love to see sales figures and details of how the buyers use these lenses, I have no inkling at all and it would be fascinating to know. I would absolutely love to have a 200mm f/2.8 or a 300 f/4 because I like to go out with just one lens and let the lens find pictures for me. I'd never buy one of them, though but what a great present - if I had a family with that kind of money! You've raised an interesting line of thought - if I can get my brain working I think I might do a blog on it.
Excellent as usual!!!
Hi great video! Will the preset focus button work on my Olympus Em1x? Thanks x
+David Thorpe ...So this is only like a monthly gig now?
great video as always thanks.
Great review! I liked the video very much, thank you!
Love your videos!
Wonderful review! David, did it find a place in your bag???
Nikon have significantly narrowed the weight gap with the new 500mm F5.6 PF lens. The Nikon weighs in at 1460 grams vs 1365 grams for the Panasonic + Teleconverter. Which one needs to include to get a similar reach from this lens. The price gap is also much reduced... in Australia we're looking at AUD 4089 for the Panasonic (including converter) vs 5,699 for the Nikon. Both are obscenely expensive and are definitely specialist lenses!
Yes, all these lenses are expensive. Every newspaper office I've worked in had massive 400mm f/2.8s, 600mms etc in the cupboard and those really did cost money. They did a job that sometimes nothing else would, though. I think with camera systems, you buy in and after that lenses from other systems are irrelevant. Essentially, a Nikon 500 doesn't fit a Panasonic and if what you want is a fast f/2.8 5° AoV, you can pay for that or you can buy one of any number of slower and cheaper ones. The thing about prices is that you are not paying for the glass and metal, you are paying for R&D, marketing and all those other things. There's really no reason that Micro Four Thirds equipment should be cheaper and it was never marketed as a cheap system.
People have to realize that micro four thirds lenses are expensive because of the cost to make one. Those things require a lot of glass and other tweaks to make the pictures as sharp as can be. Micro four thirds lenses can produce some EXTREMELY sharp and detailed pictures.
Thank you again for valuable information on these products. It is my hope that your interests and mine might intersect at a point
where you are inclined to review the 100mm Macro Samyang/Rokinon on the G85 body. I was almost to pull the trigger
on the Olympus 60mm Macro currently marked on sale, until I stumbled across the more preferred working distance of the 100mm lens. My concerns are the un-stabilized lens' performance on that body. Subscribed today and I'll be staying tuned.
Thanks David. I'll see if I can get hold of the macro lens.
If you were on a safari in the Massai Mara would you prefer the Panasonic 100-400 or the 200 2.8 ( I already own the 35-100 2.8)
No question, the 100-400. More reach and since there will be plenty of light most of the time, the speed isn't crucial. And with the zoom, much more flexibility. Plus, very close focus at 400mm to keep a distance from tiny things that might bite you!
@@DavidThorpeMFT Thanks so much! That is very helpful!
Great review from our mft expert as usual!
Are you interested in reviewing the Sigma 16mm 1.4 for mft?? Weather sealed and near 35mm with 1.4 and reasonable price, it seems the perfect lens. Will you please tell us your opinion?
David, can you provide a link or info on where I can purchase that Wallace and Gromit "The Wrong Trousers" penguin (7:35)? My sisters are fans of Wallace movies, and that would be the perfect Christmas present for them. By the way, all your sample pics using the 200mm are very light-filled and cheery, and very compelling toward this piece of glass. Thank you.
stan Try the Wallace and Gromit shop in the Cribbs Causeway Mall, near Bristol gromitunleashedshop.org.uk
Hi in uour opinion what is best the 200mm with converter or the 300mm with converter?.. great videos 👍👍👍👍
Thanks, Toby! If you don't need the extra reach, I'd prefer the 200mm with converter. Both lenses are supremely sharp but the 200mm with converter is still quite fast at f/4, where the 300mm's aperture is reduced to f/5.6, a little slow for ,many of the applications that require a long lens. The 300mm without converter would be theoretically sharper than the 20mm with but you'd be pushed to see any difference in normak use.
@@DavidThorpeMFT thanks i have the cheaper 100 300 and want to up graded in the future. I think with G9 i will go for 200mm with converter or maybe save some bucks and get the 100 400 zoom.
I like bird photography and want sharper images time to save lol
@@tobywoolgar9517 It's a lot slower, of course but if you can cope with that, the 100-400 has the reach you need for birds. I find them ungrateful wretches, birds. I feed them whenever I can but will they come close to the camera and pose for me? They have no idea of the cost of lenses these days.
@@DavidThorpeMFT absolutely! In my garden they should be use to me by now its like bird paradise! i even protect them from cats like a fool.. The worst offenders are the robins they hate the camera starlings are great posers i must say.. I want a sharp picture of a blue tit by the end of the year i think my lens can do it but i need the right light and patience lol
Love your channel and the videos you produce make me feel more secure about the system I chose for my first steps in "real" photography, even though it's just for a hobby. In one of your videos you state that the Olympus 12-40 Pro is the best standard zoom you've used. May I ask that you consider that lens for your next review? There are quite a few reviews out on it already, but non are in the Thorpe style :)
Have a nice day!
Thank you, Lyubomir! I bought the Olympus 12-40 so late on that I thought it was too old for anyone to be interested. Maybe you are right, I should eeview it. I have a couple of toher things to d and then I'll get down to it. That'll be a pleasure, actually.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Thank you! Looking forward to more great content.
Comparing both this and the olympus 300mm f4 with or without the tc on my em1.2, the olympus option is a lot more useful for wildlife, birding etc and IQ is indistinguishable between the two. The problem is when people opt for the panasonic G9 the 300mm f4 is not as interesting since you don't get the dual is and extremely fast af speed from the lens. Been able to use the 40-150 pro f2.8 and the 300mm f4 pro with the tc at their best is one of the reason I think the em1.2 is a better choice than the G9. The 300mm f4 with the 1.4 tc with dual IS mean no need for a tripod even for extreme 1/10 shots and the 200mm f2.8 with the G9 can't do that. When I go hiking I bring the 40-150mm, the 300mm f4 and the mc-14 and a small 15mm f1.7. In a relatively small and light bag I then cover 30mm then 80mm to 420mm then 600mm then 840mm equivalent With the combination of the TC. This is an amazing range that changed my life and Those are all pro lenses with real weather sealing.
For my use I can't see why a 200mm f2.8 would be more useful than a 300mm f4 on a 2x crop body but I mostly shoot oustide. With the 300mm I can't remember a single time I told myself a 200mm would be better and if needed I can uae my 40-150mm f2.8 that I always bring with me and when inside at concert, the 40-150mm f2.8 would always be my first choice over a fixed 200mm f2.8.
Sadly the G9 is too imitative lenses wise due to not having pdaf and using dfd. After renting it and comparing both, the em1.2 is a better camera for stills in my opinion and the behaviour with the whole range of m43 lenses is very important.. I think the hybrid pdaf AF is a most for versatility and I couldn't get the same results with the dfd.
Anyway, it's really great to see you back with a review !
what an interesting lens!
leica does some great lenses for panasonic :D
thanks for sharing this with us :)
You are welcome - glad you enjoyed it.
great lens of you've the need, now around £800 used
In near new condition too!
At 7:59 is that a GX9 or older model? :-)
That'll be the GX9.
@@DavidThorpeMFT I've been loving mine, it's a great compromise between GM1 and GH5 :-) Each has their place, that's for sure.
Another great review. But the lens is not so great imho. Well of course it is a superb lens but it still is impossible to justify its price tag. You really desperately need those extra 50mm if you choose this over the Olly 40-150mm. Extra reach is always welcome but I'd rather have the flexibility of the Olly.
Both lenses are razor sharp wide open at 150 and 200mm respectively so you don't get extra sharpness. IS is lacking on the Olly but with the fabulous IBIS of the G9 or E-M1 II makes up for that. And even with the TC included it is still only roughly half the price of the 200mm 2.8. Jikes.
If the Pano came with a 1.4 and 2.0 TC at this price point it would be much more appealing for wildlife and nature photographers and the price also more justifiable.
Gijsbert Peijs I am a backcountry photography hobbyist and pack both the 40-150mm f2.8 and 200mm f/2.8 out on trips. The difference as far as I am concerned is that the 200mm is a wildlife lens and the 40-150mm isn't. The extra 100mm 'equivalent' coverage makes a HUGE difference. The 200mm is also quite a bit sharper from my tests.
Zane Leitch While I do agree with you on it being a superb lens for wildlife, it is a little too expensive. The 40-150 with a teleconverter is a much better buy, but I do agree the 200 is sharper. That is mainly due to it being a prime lens. People on a tighter budget should skip the 200, but it is definitely a good lens to have in your collection.
Zane Leitch, on what camera are you using these lens on?
Was that a real hawk in flight? It seemed so sharp I was thinking it was fake.
Hi Tim, no it's the real thing. I got lucky in that it flew over to survey an area where I was standing, waiting, hoping. It was in Hampton Court Park in south West London. The only processing of the RAW image was about +1.5 stops exposure in Lightroom. Other than that, no changes at all, just Lightroom defaults.
@@DavidThorpeMFT - Is the hi-res photo online anywhere? Panasonic should use that in the marketing literature. Quick someone tell me why I shouldn't buy this lens. I have the PL100-400.
@@tim1398 No, I don't put hi-res stuff online, too much nicking goes on these days! Personally, I think it would be madness for you not to buy it....no, no, I didn't say that :-)
@@DavidThorpeMFT - I've been trying to do BIF with the G9/100-400 combo lately and having trouble with the AF. I've tried the recommend settings from Dan Cox etc. I get some keepers but frankly it's very low, so many times I have a fuzzy blob dead set in the center with sharp background. Other times subject is almost in focus. When it is in focus it focuses very fast though. Unless I can find a way to improve the keeper ratio I have concluded I am not spending the $$$ for this lens on a system I may leave.
@@tim1398 I'd suggest using Custom Multi or 1-Area AF mode, switch on AF Area display and, since you will be using a high shutter speed, switch off stabilization to free up computing power. I have a feeling that you are using 225-Area which is not really suited to BIF. The more closely you can tell the camera where you want to focus, the better it will do it. The G9 is well able to cope with BIF but technology can't do it, most success lies with the photographer. Do keep at it.
RIP David. 😢
Lumix lenses are catching up BUT for MFT too big & heavy! Why?
You can't make a small. light 200mm f/2.8. The laws of optics just don't allow it if you want good image quality. But there are plenty of slower telephotos that are a fraction of the price and size.
Love the review.. yikes on the price!! Surely the outstanding Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 could scratch the itch for less than half the price!
Yes, you'd need to really want the extra reach to pay the extra money. It does come with the converter but it might have been better to make that optional and lower the price. Although it was regarded as very expensive when it came out, the Olympus zoom looks good value these days. Glad you liked the review!
For sure a lens I'll never own, David. As you say a little bit too specialist in use and very expensive for what it is whatever you're comparing it to. I take your point that MfT was never billed as a low cost system, but I do think there's been a shift - particular with the lenses - toward a VERY premium price point. I think that's fairly well illustrated if you consider the prices of the Oly 40-150 f2.8 against this optic. I think were Olympus introducing that lens today, it would probably be double the price [at least!] that it's available for now.
I would take issue on the comparison you make with Nikon systems [I know it was half jest], but you could of course get something that will do more or less what the subject of this piece will do at a lower cost and not much difference in weight. How? You simply buy a lens with an equivalent 400mm reach that can do so at f5.6 or faster. On a 35mm body you'd get the same level of compression and the same overall amount of light being recorded at any given ISO.You could also fit that Canon 200mm f2.8 you were talking about and with a suitable adapter even retain autofocus. I know you've been doing similar things with old adapted glass.
Lens prices for moderately fast glass [and once you factor in equivalence it is only moderately fast] is the thing that was making me consider buying probably one of the A7s as my next camera, but instead I've bought the G9. Why? Because I discovered the Viltrox speedboosters and I've also bought the Sigma 18-35 f1.8. After all the arithmetic, multiplying and dividing, you end up with the equivalent of a short standard zoom for FF that works out at roughly 25.5-50mm and f2.5. It's big, it's heavy, but no more so than most standard f2.8 zooms on the larger format. I can match or exceed the performance of such a pairing for low-light and shallow DoF when I want that; and still stick with one system that's small and light when I don't have such demanding needs.
I don't know how much the pre-announced 10-25mm Leica MfT zoom is going to cost [and it will only work out to 20-50 and f3.3], but my gut is telling me it will be more than the G9, battery grip and 18-35 just cost me, combined.
The G9 is a fabulous bit of kit btw - I'm going to get your menu guide for it tonight.
The G9 is lovely, I agree totally. Where I don't agree is over the FF lenses. Your argument really just says, buy a FF camera. If you want FF quality and the various advantages that it brings, just buy a FF camera. With lenses like the 200mm f/2.8, as with the Olympus f/1.2 primes, the makers are trying to emulate some of the IQ advantages of FF, in the sense that f/2.8 means you can use ISO 200 instead of 800, say. The point to me about Micro Four Thirds is that it is _not_ FF and has other merits. Take a combination like a Panasonic GX9 and Olympus 17mm f/1.7, No-one could argue that such a combination of IQ, weight and size could be reproduced with FF.
I regularly advise people to buy full frame cameras if technical excellence is their main concern. You can approach the same IQ by using ultra high speed lenses in Micro Four Thirds but making a system do something it was never intended to do can (as you point out) cost more and be less convenient than just buying the alternative system. I make no secret of the fact that if someone produces a FF camera with the same costs, body and lens sizes as Micro Four Thirds, I'll buy it. Until they do, Micro Four Thirds floats my boat!
The 10-25mm will, I am sure be a fabulous lens but the truth is that given the choice between that and the 12-32mm, I'd take the little one. If I was happy to use lenses the size that will be, I'd buy a Nikon F7.
David Thorpe
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to infer that from my comment, David. Rather I’m saying it is possible to at least come close to that ‘full frame’ look with an MfT body, IF you’re prepared to sacrifice the clear size and weight advantage.
Conversely you can never match something like the GM5 (even with a versatile fairly long zoom like the 14-140, let alone the tiny 12-32), no matter which pairing of an A7 (say) and the smallest prime you can attach to that.
So you can have one system and if not the best of both worlds, at least a very sizeable portion of each.
@@ChrisWilliams-nf8kl I'd see it differently. If I was prepared to sacrifice the size and weight advantage of Micro Four Thirds, I'd buy FF equipment in the first place. I sold DSLR equipment purely for that size and weight advantage, though, so I'm not likely to!
In terms of image quality, in a web browser, on a tablet or even up pretty large prints the IQ advantage of FF is theoretical so a full frame look is a bit of a will o' the wisp to me.
David Thorpe
Actually I’m saying I’m prepared to sacrifice portability in certain circumstances- and that when those demands aren’t there, I can still have small and light.
I’ll give you a very recent example. Yesterday I was photographing a small group of people doing a health test in a smallish office. With the 5dii I could get some subject isolation to alleviate clutter in a relatively tight environment.
I was able to match that by having the Sigma 18-35 (with speedbooster) on the G9. I stick with one system I’m now more familiar with - and I personally find the G9 ergonomically superior to the Canon.
On the day I saved no weight. At the end of the month I’m going away for a few days. I’ll take the G9, but leave the portrait grip and take my trusty 14-140 and a couple of primes.
It’s a strategy which means I can stick with one system which covers all my needs.
@@ChrisWilliams-nf8kl I can't argue with that, Chris. I'm more talking about photographers who look at Micro Four Thirds and, seeing the inherent theoretical disadvantages, try to compensate for them. They'd be better off and possibly even save money by just buying an FF camera.
You're exploiting the sheer versatility afforded by the system. I'd be the last one to decry all the big high speed lenses both native and adaptable that can be put to good use for defined purposes in the way you're doing. It illustrates the gulf in approach between photographers who see their camera as an image making tool and those who see it as a thing in itself.
wow I need Leica 200mm, now i used Leica 12-60
It's a great lens but very specialist so you need to be certain you'll use it before lashing out its kind of money!
@@DavidThorpeMFT Maybe expensive
Thanks David - if Only!!!!!!!!!!!
The stuff of dreams!
Nikon 200-500 zoom completely destroys this lens at half the price.
It doesn't fit Micro Four Thirds bodies as far as I know.
Pls never compare directly FF lenses to M4/3. If you want to compare the size/weight/cost of the lenses - buy Canon 200/2.8 + EF-m4/3 adapter and use it with the same +/- result.
Or I could just get the canon version of this lens for literally 1/4 the price and it weighs less too... Slap it on a apsc body, crop a little and u have the same equivalent. Seriously what is the point of mft if u r shooting stills?
Bob Woodward I own a micro four thirds camera and have been questioning that too. I seriously want to jump to Sony, but they haven't fulfilled the wish list of mine like panasonic has.
Samual Williams I use a canon mirrorless so I can use any canon lens they make which works out just great. Too many ppl focus on the camera features, it's the lens that makes the picture.
I must admit it's the price that upsets me too - lenses are just so expensive.
While not the same focal length, the Nikon 500/5.6 PF seems cheap in comparison.
There was no claim that it would be cheap when the Micro Four Thirds standard was unveiled. If you were shooting in low light, the extra 2 stops of the Panasonic would be a game changer. A 400mm f/2.8 for Nikon is multiples of the price of the Panasonic f/2.8 and does the same job within that system. If you are happy with 200mm at f/5.6 aperture, you can get it for £350 from Panasonic or Olympus.
When I buy equipment I see it as buying the ability to do something more than anything else, in which case the 200mm f/2.8 doesn't look so expensive (don't forget it has the converter with it). With non general purpose, mass market lenses the price is determined by the numbers sold more than anything else. So, like anyone else, I'd prefer the Panasonic was £1000 cheaper. But if I were a Nikon user, I'd prefer the 400mm f/2.8 was a quarter the price and the 500mm f/5.6 £1500 cheaper too.
I don't know, I would like to see a low light "stress" test to see if the AF and the picture quality are really good enough in that situation, I think these really high-end bodies and
specialised lenses where the m43 starts too look expensive for what it offers and reaches its limitations. But that's might just be me. Comparison is certainly not easy.
They are advantages as well for sure, for instance, if one wants the closer focus with a narrow FOV, it is certainly more useful than FF, I am sure it is tack sharp there as well.
Basically, the main comparison between the FF and Micro Four Thirds system is 1. Is the Micro Four Thirds IQ good enough? 2. Do I mind hiking big lenses around with me? For me, the answers are 1. Yes, more than good enough. 2. Yes, I do.
I am in the lucky position of having used the very best cameras and lenses available for many, many years. The exotic stuff, like 400mm f/2.8s, I haven't had to buy because my office(s) bought them. A 400mm f/2.8 on a FF body is going to be useless to me unless I go back to my working life and hire an assistant. Or go everywhere by car rather than bicycle, walk or public transport. If I go back to using my car, I don't want to take pictures any more since it becomes a chore. Micro Four Thirds has given me back my pleasure in photography but also increased my earnings since I now have cameras capable of quality good enough for any magazine or publication or use - and always with me.
I'm in no way dissing FF cameras or photographers who use them. How could I, I've used them and bigger cameras and lenses all my life. But technology and times have moved on and I begin to see FF cameras in the same way I used to see the Cadillacs and Chryslers when VW and Fiat came along in the USA. In the end, the Nikon lens you mention still costs much more than the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8 so as an FF camera user, even if the value is better, the pocket must still be much bigger.
slow autofocus.
I didn't find it so. It seemed pretty standard Micro Four Thirds performance to me.
its an expensive 200mm f2.8.. it should have fast autofocus