[bob saxton]

Hi All
I know the Olympus 50-200mm zoom, with silent wave motor, is really popular among bird photographers, especially with the 1.4x converter. I have one, with an e620 body. I'm getting great shots at, eg, f8 or wider, but I find I'm disappointed with the resolution at the widest aperture at full zoom (even without the converter). The focusing on both camera and lens has been corrected by Olympus (it was backfocusing initially). But testing after the kit came back from Oly's German repair shop has left me thinking there's a resolution issue (I THINK it's resolution, not focus). I've done tests on newsprint. What I would like to know is, is a little softness at this extreme to be expected? It's on birds too, not just newspapers. I had always understood that at the widest aperture ANY zoom at maximum focal length would be less satisfactory than when the lens is stopped down. Then I started reading satisfied users saying that their 50-200 was sharp at all apertures. I'd be interested to have feedback on this. I'm happy to work around the lens's limitations -- so long as I'm not getting softer results from other copies of the same lens. Since I bought the lens from Argos, there isn't a dealer I can talk to. (I won't bore people with photos of the Independent on Sunday, unless I hear that this is what you'd like to see!) Thank you in advance for your feedback.
Bob

[bob saxton]

Me again -- sorry I meant to say 'so long as OTHERS are not getting ... etc'

Bob

[NoSpringChicken]

Hi Bob.

Good to hear from another Olympus user. I too have a 50-200 SWD (also from Argos!) which I always use with the EC-14 converter on an E-30 camera.

I think the problem here is that we all have our own definition of what constitutes a sharp photo. I see many bird photographs which for my taste look 'over sharp'. The feathers look hard, like scales, and consequently to me it doesn't really look like a bird. I am more impressed by shots which look as if you could reach through the screen and stroke the soft plumage.

I always shoot at maximum aperture to keep the shutter speed fast and to make the DOF as shallow as possible (a problem with the 4/3 format. However, I am sure that for many people my shots are hopelessly 'fuzzy'. I don't know if this comes down to my poor technique (most likely) or the lens or camera. Nearly all the shots in my gallery were taken at maximum zoom and aperture. It's up to you to decide whether they are sharp enough for your taste. Unfortunately Save for Web strips out the exif data but I can always supply it for a photo if you are interested.

If you could upload a few photos of birds which you are not happy with (I am not an avid Independent on Sunday reader) it would give us a better idea of whether your shots are 'normal' or whether you have higher standards than some of us.

Ron

[bob saxton]

Thanks for your response, Ron. I completely see what you mean, and you've got some great shots in your gallery. I especially like the Treecreeper -- impressive, because I know how hard these birds are to capture. I do think that my own taste inclines toward seeing sharp feather filaments on a close-up -- however misguided that might seem to some. But that question of preference aside, what I'm really interested to know is whether there's normally a noticeable fall-off in sharpness at the widest aperture with this lens. In my experience, with my lens, there is, and I don't know whether it's par for the course or whether I have a faulty copy. I haven't worked out how to post an image yet, but after my next photo expedition (probably Santon Downham, on the Norfolk-Suffolk border) I will do try to do some proper comparison shots. Anyway, Ron, thanks so much for your feedback.

Bob

[NoSpringChicken]

Originally Posted by bob saxton

I do think that my own taste inclines toward seeing sharp feather filaments on a close-up -- however misguided that might seem to some.

I don't think it's misguided at all Bob. It's just that I don't know how to achieve it. I can't really comment on the fall off in IQ at full aperture, as I normally only shoot fully open. I will try some experiments later if I get the time.

Good luck with the Lesser Spots and Bramblings at Santon Downham.

Ron

[Cristian Mihai]

Hi Bob,

I also use 50-200 with the 1.4 converter on a E-620. There are a lot of pictures taken with this combo in my gallery (http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/sho...0/ppuser/54311). I'm pretty pleased with the sharpness of my pics at f5 (usually I don't use f.4.9 which is the maximum aperture with the converter attrached). My pics are postprocessed in Photoshop and the EXIF data are available. When the light is good I try to use smaller values for the aperture (f6.3, f.7.1, f8). The pics taken with f8 seem to be sharper, but I don't think that the improvement in quality is a very important one.
Hope that this will help.

[Tord]

Hi Bob

I acquired a 50-200 SWD two weeks ago and have used it at a few occasions, mounted on E-620. So far I have used it without EC-14 so my findings may not be 100% relevant. Anyhow: I experience the lens being sharp even wide open, if not the case then I blame it on the short DOV.

My gallery has a mix of pictures taken at different occasions and with different setups. These ones are taken with 50-200 and only slightly cropped:

Coot (F3.5)
Swan (F6.3)
Tit (F3.5)


/Tord

[bob saxton]

Thank you for your comments and links, Cristian and Tord. Very helpful -- I'm still keen to hear how others feel about this issue, if anyone new chances upon this thread. I'll report back in more detail after my next photo trip, ideally with some pix to illustrate (or, better still, disprove) the point.

Bob

[fiolmattias]

I have no problems what so ever with my 50-200swd, even wideopen on either of my cameras (E-500, E-520, E-5)

With the EC14 I can sense a little loss of sharpness, but it is still very sharp wide open. Especially with a tripod

[ammadoux]

Originally Posted by fiolmattias

I but it is still very sharp wide open. Especially with a tripod

i thought the sharpness increase when stopping it down.

[fiolmattias]

Originally Posted by ammadoux

i thought the sharpness increase when stopping it down.

Yes, but it is still sharp without stopping down :)

[NoSpringChicken]

I tried a few comparison shots tonight at maximum aperture and stopped down to f/8. They were taken indoors, using auto flash, so conditions were not ideal but consistent. I used a tripod (for the first time ever with this lens) and with the 2 second self timer. Unfortunately, I forgot to change the ISO from 400 to a lower setting, which doesn't help. I was focusing on the 'feathers' between the top of the beak and the eye in the centre of the frame. They are JPEGs, straight from the camera apart from cropping and resizing for uploading.

I haven't studied them closely but the greater DOF at f/8 makes them appear sharper. I am not sure if there is any more detail at the focusing spot, though. I am surprised at the shift in colour between the two aperture settings (auto white point).

I don't know if they tell you anything useful or not Bob.

From left to right: 100mm f/3.2, 100mm f/8, 200mm f/3.5, 200mm f/8.

Ron

[fiolmattias]

Originally Posted by NoSpringChicken

I haven't studied them closely but the greater DOF at f/8 makes them appear sharper. I am not sure if there is any more detail at the focusing spot, though. I am surprised at the shift in colour between the two aperture settings (auto white point).

Yeah, it mimics my findings, it is very sharp wide open.
The colorshift is probably because of stray light. At f8 the flash is the dominatong light source and the light is white, but on faster apertures you get some light from your room that becomes colorshifted because of the whitebalance in camera is set to "flash".

[bob saxton]

Hi Both,

Thanks, Ron, for going to so much trouble. I agree you seem to have very good sharpness throughout. I'm attaching a heron I photographed today just for experimental purposes: 50-200 with 1.4 converter. I've cropped off the outer 50% of the picture area. All pix 1250 iso. I don't know whether my titles will come out with the attachments, but they are f6.3 at 1/200, f5 at 1/320, f4.9 at 1/320. I know I shouldn't be shooting handheld at these shutter speeds. But the interesting thing is that f6.3, with the slowest speed, gives the sharpest picture. The f4.9 one looks a bit fuzzy to me -- just a little bit. Are my results worse than yours, do you think, Ron? I'm finding f.4.9 pretty much unusable.

Any thoughts welcome.

all best, Bob

[njlarsen]

Not Ron,
but you really should have higher shutter speeds. Even if that means a little noise, that to my mind is preferable to movements.

Secondly, at those kind of shutter speeds with that kind of length of lens, you really need 5 shots at each f# to make sure you are looking at something repeatable. I have in the past gotten acceptable shots at shutter speeds much below what one hopes for, but it might be a 1 in 20 shot; how do we know that the first of your shots is not such a lucky strike?

With digital, it all just takes some space on your Hard-drive, so shoot some more

Niels

[NoSpringChicken]

Hi Bob. Just a thought. Have you checked whether your lens is using the latest firmware? I am pretty sure that mine wasn't up to date when I got it. It probably won't make any difference but the update is meant to improve focusing at full aperture. See here:
http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/ds...re_Updates.htm

Ron

[fiolmattias]

Originally Posted by bob saxton

The f4.9 one looks a bit fuzzy to me -- just a little bit. Are my results worse than yours, do you think

Oh, that looks horrible! My lens is waaay sharper than that, and even more disturbing is the lack of contrast! Either the focus is off, the calibration is off or the lens have been dropped so the glass is unaligned...

But really, I hope that is not what you consistantly get?

I attatch a picture, 100% crop straight from camera, 283mm f4.9 iso 200 form my E-5

[Cristian Mihai]

The pics with the heron from post #14 are taken in a poor light, handheld. This is a good explanation for the IQ.

[Sana2011]

Can some one plz help me with this.

I normally shoot pictures in jpg. Yesterday i attended a fashion show where i took some really good pics.
BUT....i this time i shooted in RAW.
I read many places that RAW images gives more control on the image.
My photoshop cannot open the images. I dont know how i can edit them and ´convert into jpg.
Ofcourse i have to edit them before i can convert it into jpg. Please someone help me with this.

[bob saxton]

Hi

Sorry, but shouldn't this jpeg/raw question be on a thread of its own? Surely: it gets confusing for everyone if a thread is used for off-the-point topics.

Back to the original question of sharpness on the 50-200.

With regard to the heron pictures, all the images I took at f6.3 were sharp -- the heron wasn't moving much, of course. And all the images at f4.9 were soft, despite the faster shutter speeds. I will do further tests with a tripod or in sunlight, if I can try everyone's patience a little longer. The frustrating thing is that an autofocus problem has already been supposedly been fixed by the Olympus lab, which had both the camera and the lens for a couple of weeks (amazingly quick, I thought, given that the lab's in Germany). Before going through the hassle of sending the lens back to Olympus for another look or trying to get it replaced by Argos, I need to be absolutely sure that I'm not being unrealistic in my performance expectations.

Is it worth experimenting with the in-camera focus adjustment. Do people think this could be a focus problem, or is it resolution? (Note the faint halo around the heron's body at f.4.9, which might suggest focus.) Your greenfinch makes me think I can't accept this IQ, Fiol (correct name?) -- thanks for attaching it.

Thank you, everyone, for your input. I'm be grateful if you'd keep watching this space, especially Ron, Fiol and Cristian, but also anyone else who has relevant experience.

Best, Bob

[fiolmattias]

Originally Posted by bob saxton

Your greenfinch makes me think I can't accept this IQ, Fiol (correct name?) -- thanks for attaching it.

I would not accept it either Bob! But you need to make controlled tests using a stationary object and a tripod in good light to be certain of what the problem is.

Oh, and my name is Mattias, fiol is the swedish word for violin :)

[bob saxton]

Hello all,

I've taken your advice and done a test with my E620 + Oly 50-200 + 1.4 converter on a tripod at ISO 100 in good light (with remote shutter release, of course). A cooperative cuckoo in the Goyt Valley, Derbyshire, courtesy of the RSPB furry toys franchise.

I'm posting the result at the longest focal length: f4.9. I'm showing two different close-ups at f4.9, plus an image at f6.3 to show the full field of view (with better resolution, since it's at narrower aperture). It isn't so much the detail in the f4.9 shot that bothers me, it's the halo around the bird and the rock. Also, note the white fringing to the lower part of the bill. I get the same result with the same lens on a second-hand E510. Oddly enough there's a little bit of similar fringing (though not so much) when I use the 70-300mm too -- on both bodies.

I guess this is a lens issue, but my question is, what precisely is the problem? Could it be to do with the bright sunlight? If it's definitely a problem with the lens, would you recommend my trying to take it back to Argos for a replacement? -- given that the lens and E620 have already been back to Olympus, who supposedly fixed the wonky autofocus.

Or am I expecting too much? Admittedly I'm asking a lot here, but the halo really bothers me.

Any comments much appreciated.

Incidentally, with the E620 I tried out a legacy lens this weekend as well: the Pentax 200mm manual with the built-in lens hood, f4. Absolutely fabulous colour and sharpness at f4. I didn't use the converter, though. I can post the results (the cuckoo again, but in a different location) if anyone is interested.

Best, Bob

[ammadoux]

Originally Posted by bob saxton

Hello all,


Incidentally, with the E620 I tried out a legacy lens this weekend as well: the Pentax 200mm manual with the built-in lens hood, f4. Absolutely fabulous colour and sharpness at f4. I didn't use the converter, though. I can post the results (the cuckoo again, but in a different location) if anyone is interested.

Best, Bob

thanks Bob, i will be very much interested.

you know i got the super fast 1.2 manual focus Zuiko and was wondering what result i will get if i use it with my E 620 or the EPL1.

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by bob saxton

Hello all,

I've taken your advice and done a test with my E620 + Oly 50-200 + 1.4 converter on a tripod at ISO 100 in good light (with remote shutter release, of course). A cooperative cuckoo in the Goyt Valley, Derbyshire, courtesy of the RSPB furry toys franchise.

I'm posting the result at the longest focal length: f4.9. I'm showing two different close-ups at f4.9, plus an image at f6.3 to show the full field of view (with better resolution, since it's at narrower aperture). It isn't so much the detail in the f4.9 shot that bothers me, it's the halo around the bird and the rock. Also, note the white fringing to the lower part of the bill. I get the same result with the same lens on a second-hand E510. Oddly enough there's a little bit of similar fringing (though not so much) when I use the 70-300mm too -- on both bodies.

I guess this is a lens issue, but my question is, what precisely is the problem? Could it be to do with the bright sunlight? If it's definitely a problem with the lens, would you recommend my trying to take it back to Argos for a replacement? -- given that the lens and E620 have already been back to Olympus, who supposedly fixed the wonky autofocus.

Or am I expecting too much? Admittedly I'm asking a lot here, but the halo really bothers me.

Any comments much appreciated.

Incidentally, with the E620 I tried out a legacy lens this weekend as well: the Pentax 200mm manual with the built-in lens hood, f4. Absolutely fabulous colour and sharpness at f4. I didn't use the converter, though. I can post the results (the cuckoo again, but in a different location) if anyone is interested.

Best, Bob

I think that looks off!

Niels

[NoSpringChicken]

Well, I don't know what is happening but something is definitely not right with those images. It's a bit of a pain but it might be worth phoning the Olympus help line. You might be able to email the photos to them to show the problem.

According to the Argos Terms and Conditions, I believe they will repair or, if that is not possible, replace a product up to one year old if it is faulty. The problem you have is to establish that there is a fault, although it definitely appears that there is. I don't know if there is an Olympus dealer near you, who could try out your equipment and give his opinion. You would be dependent on their good will though as they didn't sell you the lens.

It's not a good situation and I am sorry that I can't be more helpful.

Ron