I bought one around 5 years ago, after I purchased an OM-D E-M1. My
50-200mm is the original version (I understand there is a Mk II version)
which works well, focusses quickly (e.g. hopping kangaroos) although I
mainly use it for static subjects like landscapes. I think the relatively
wide aperture (f3.5) at the long end helps the AF.
My main reason for buying the OM-D E-M1 was to use it with my pre-existing
collection of 4/3 lenses, 8mm Fisheye, 50mm Macro, 9-18mm, 12-60mm, etc.
Go for it!
...Wayne
> -----Original Message-----
> From: olympus <olympus-
> bounces+wayne.harridge=structuregraphs.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
> Behalf Of Paul Braun
> Sent: Friday, 16 February 2024 9:18 AM
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] 4/3 50-200 opinions
>
> The 50-200 lens is now in the affordable range, and I now have an E-M1
that
> handles them more better.
>
> Those of you with experience, is it worth picking up?
>
> Paul Braun WD9GCO
> Certified Music Junkie
>
> "It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever." -- David St. Hubbins
>
> "Music washes from the soul the dust of everyday life" - Berthold Auerbach
> --
> __________________________________________________________
> _______
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|